Posted 3 months, 14 days ago in 
Loading ...
I refer to the question of religious invocations on public property. It is disturbing to live in a community where some apparently religious people express themselves in unhelpful and hurtful terms.
For example the Aug. 3 “You Said It” column contained four opinions that included such words as disgusting, manipulative, whining, ridiculous, spineless jellyfish, losers, close-minded and disrespectful. The authors seem to represent faiths whose tenets do not, on this evidence, include any reference to love of neighbor or even a sanction against anonymous name-calling.
I can only hope leaders of spiritual communities will encourage prayers that include forgiveness of those they think may have trespassed against their faith.
DAVID COOK
Grand Junction
72 Responses to “Regarding prayer dispute, why must people be so hurtful?”
Posted August 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Amen!
Posted August 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We have a special breed of Christians-in-name-only locally. The basic Christian principles you mentioned are not universally operative here. Arrogance, selfishness, tribalism and hubris are rampant. The whole flap about prayers in both the council and commissioner’s meetings were cases in point. Any discussion of what is or isn’t the law need not have been part of the situation. Common courtesy and respecting the feelings and beliefs of others, regardless of the size of the minority, would have made the whole discussion moot. The last time I checked, those qualities were very important to real Christians. Majority rule should not even have entered into the equation. Nor should “we’ve always done it this way” or “bring it on” from supposedly the most devout of the group. I think that is called wearing ones religion on his or her sleeve. Christianity is supposed to be something of the heart, I always thought, but I guess I could have been wrong. And was Republican solidarity appropriate in a matter of Christian charity, or at least what should have been?
Posted August 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Cook - It’s a virtual sure bet that the people you refer to from the “You Said It” column are from the lunatic fringe of fire-breathing evangelicals or Pentecostals; not anyone from a legitimate, mainstream Protestant church or denomination.
Posted August 8th, 2008 at 1:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s the “unhelpful and hurtful” phrase that gets to me.
I nearly broke out in tears upon reading those words.
sob.. sniffle…
Where is there a guarantee that nobody will ever feel bad?
That phrase goes way past stupid and moronic to a whole new, as yet unnamed, level of ignorance.
Posted August 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - Sounds as if “we” are a little grumpy this Friday afternoon. How about turning your concentrator up to about 6liters/min. constant flow and clear your muddled brain.
Posted August 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not me little buddy, I’m just as happy as if you had good sense.
I swapped out the O2 bottle from some mainlined freon gas with a little helium to take off the jitters.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 12:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why does this happen? The answer is really quite simple if one has at all studied Christianity, whether one believes in it or not. That religion in its purest form has no room for the worst sin of all, pride. In fact one is anathema to the others. Some not so well versed in that religion, conveniently forget that.
I don’t know how others judge whether others are ‘Christian’ or not but, if someone has to tell me that they are in order for me to know, they cannot possibly be any type of Christian, at least not according to any type of Christianity I learned, nor do they in any way resemble and real Christians I have met.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 6:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres: “That religion in its purest form has no room for the worst sin of all, pride.”
Wrong.
Matthew 12:31
31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mark 3:28-29
28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.
29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 7:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, are we to understand that any behavior of any kind by supposed-Christians is forgiveable other than blasphemes, whatever that is, against the Holy Spirit–the Trinity? How then should Christians interact with fellow human beings? What, exactly, is the Christian spirit relative to living ones life in harmony with others, including non-Christians? Or is behavior in this life unimportant, it’s the afterlife(?) that’s important?
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 9:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here is an application of Sue’s philosophy: Adolf Hitler never renounced Christianity and always considered himself a Christian. He did not commit the “eternal sin” of blasphemy as far as we know. Thus in the last few seconds before he committed suicide if he asked for forgiveness for all of his sins he would now be in heaven. Sue’s religious philosophy permits the arch criminal Hitler a place in heaven while consigning to Hell such non-Christians as Ghandi. This may be acceptable to Christians like Sue (and I will not denigrate her right to believe anything she wishes) but to me…Well better left unsaid exactly how I regard such a religious belief.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 1:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue posted the following as well as quotations from the bible to back up her point.
RLaitres: “That religion in its purest form has no room for the worst sin of all, pride.”
Wrong.
If the lady were to read the new testament as some of us do, she would note that my original statment is correct. And, that the judgment she would seek to over others, are not hers to make, but are reserved for the deity itself. She might wish to reconsider the admonition “Judge not, lest you be judged” and “Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord”. There is nothing in either statement that says “Those who believe in me, or who believe I have the right to exercise judgment, can exercise judgment in my name”. The latter IS an incidence of pride, for those who subscribe to that view.
The lady may wish to consider the possibility of that being the case. Something which many of us take the time to do prior to engaging in condemnation of another, as we do not consider ourselves anywhere close to being ‘deities’, or knowing what a deity believes, thinks, or would do.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 2:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And Mr. Cook’s original question / assertion remains, sadly point proven.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Johnb asks the question: “Or is behavior in this life unimportant, it’s the afterlife(?) that’s important?”
A question that merits consideration as, if one looks at the history of the inquisition, we note that such was lay at justifying and rationalizing the atrocities committed in the name of ‘god’. It was the individuals’ soul that was all-important In that scenario and mind-set, the individuals body and humanity were of absolutely no value. Give me his soul, and I don’t care what violence has to be perpetrated upon the body in order to get it.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 - One of the things which bothers me the most about evangelical Protestants is their rigid belief that only persons who have accepted Jesus Christ as their “personal” savior and have received salvation from him are eligible to enter the afterlife. They believe that “their” way is the “only” way, to the exclusion of all other denominations and religious belief systems. I find that attitude arrogant and intolerant, especially as their belief system, like all religious belief systems, is base solely on faith, not proven fact.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 4:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This lady was not judging anyone. The lady was simply pointing out an error by pasting in the scripture that states what Jesus says the “worst sin” is.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Johnb: Sue, are we to understand that any behavior of any kind by supposed-Christians is forgiveable other than blasphemes, whatever that is, against the Holy Spirit–the Trinity?
Yes.
dictionary.com’s definition of blaspheme:
1. to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things).
2. to speak evil of; slander; abuse.
How then should Christians interact with fellow human beings?
To love one another as thy self.
What, exactly, is the Christian spirit relative to living ones life in harmony with others, including non-Christians?
Same answer.
Or is behavior in this life unimportant, it’s the afterlife(?) that’s important?
Yes, it is important. I will be judged for all sins I committed in this life when I bow before Jesus. I am acutely aware of each and every one of them and it breaks my heart to know that my Lord will be sorrowful when He judges me on that day. I don’t know what my punishment will be, but I know I will deserve whatever it is.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class: I have stated many times what I believe, I believe that anyone who asks for forgiveness, God will forgive. I believe that He wants none of us to suffer the fires of Hell and He gives us all many opportunities to repent. Right up to the last breath we take, He waits patiently for us to simply ask for forgiveness.
Using Hitler to describe my “religious philosophy” was childish at best. You knew already (because this was a subject already discussed in a previous thread) that I believe that if Hitler truly repented and asked for forgiveness before he drew his last breath, he is sitting in Heaven. Using him as an example did not make me look or feel foolish, nor did it make you look better.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue posts: “This lady was not judging anyone. The lady was simply pointing out an error by pasting in the scripture that states what Jesus says the “worst sin” is.”
Sue may have a different view as to what is the ‘worst sin’ but, would she also agree that judgment, if it is to be renderd, is to be rendered by the deity and not by anyone else, not even his most devout followers? Ignoring the limitations of our humanity, would that not require an individual, no matter how exalted in this world, to be placing him/herself in the position of the deity? Would that not constitute, not only pride, but an almost unbelievable arrogance on the part of the individual? Some of us believe that it not only would, but actually does.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My opinion was not what I stated. The “worst sin” is stated in scripture, it is not my opinion.
“would she also agree that judgment, if it is to be renderd, is to be rendered by the deity”
Yes, I believe many of my previous answers have stated just that. Again, I was not judging you or anyone else. Judgment is solely the Lord’s.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 5:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue: “Using him as an example did not make me look or feel foolish, nor did it make you look better.”
I was trying to do neither. Mine was simply a comment on the nature of a religion which could put Hitler in Heaven and Ghandi in Hell. In my personal opinion this ranks right up there with the Muslim belief that Martyrs enjoy the ministrations of 74 virgins in their version of paradise.
Posted August 9th, 2008 at 6:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, we understand your position on judgement but the question is “how does the response to the atheists request for a moment of silence or a non-sectarian prayer square with the response from many on this thread who are self-styled to be good Christans?” It seems to me that the response was “we don’t give a damn what those terrible atheists are suggesting. We are in the majority here and their concerns are none of ours” Is that a good Christian response? Are the “Christian” desires the only ones that count?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Johnb - this is a new question not previously asked by you but I believe I answered on a different thread - “how does the response to the atheists request for a moment of silence or a non-sectarian prayer square with the response from many on this thread who are self-styled to be good Christans?”
I can only respond for myself - I myself would have been fine with either decision, be it a moment of silence in which the council could silently pray or a non-sectarian prayer in which a spiritual leader leads the prayer. Other Christians will have to answer your question regarding their opinion.
“We are in the majority here and their concerns are none of ours”
Not how I strive to live my life.
“Is that a good Christian response?”
No.
“Are the “Christian” desires the only ones that count?”
Absolutely not. However, this “discussion” has dropped to the gutter on both sides. There are Christians who have responded with anger to taunts made by non-Christians and vice versa. Since Christians are human, have the same human emotions and make the same poor choices as non-Christians, it is no surprise to me. “Society” seems to think we feel perfect or superior… not at all. We simply are much more aware of every little screw up we make and the effect those screw ups have on others. Throw in righteous indignation when someone mocks our Lord or slams our belief and non-Christians will get our hackles up
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - How’s your atheist boycott list developing? How many individuals, how many businesses? Do you have surveillance teams in place yet? Which Christian churches are providing “hit” teams?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba - I’m curious… how did post #23 help?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, post 22 - “Absolutely not. However, this “discussion” has dropped to the gutter on both sides. There are Christians who have responded with anger to taunts made by non-Christians and vice versa.”
Yes, you get it - that has been the heart of the problem. Some Christians saw the original concerns posed abut the invocation to be an “attack by atheists,” and then the nastiness just started flying back and forth, getting worse with each volley.
Fortunately we have been a sideshow; it seems the city council and city attorney handled everything like adults from the start.
Now with the county commissioners, it appears to be a different story, as Rowland threw a public tantrum when the issue was calmly brought up.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, I appreciate your answers but, not to be argumentative, part of this thread title is “—-why must people be so hurtful?”. There are others on this thread professing to be good Christians whose words aren’t exactly in what is supposed to be the Christian tradition. The author of the letter also gives examples of things appearing in the You Said It column against the atheists also not in the Christian “tradition”.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B - I think Sue did answer that.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Johnb - I agree that some comments “aren’t exactly in what is supposed to be the Christian tradition”, but I can still only speak to what is in my heart. Other Christians will need to speak to what is in their hearts.
My opinion is that, as humans of any belief or non-belief, be it religious or otherwise, many of the comments aren’t exactly what is supposed to be the human tradition.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Change We Can Believe In
As we approach the eve of the ’08 Democratic Convention to be held in Denver, we are bombarded by television ads touting the democratic mantra; “Change we can believe in”. Alas, the liberal wing of the Democratic party (they prefer to be called progressives) have coined a motto with validity. Truly the Democratic Party has changed, over the past hundred years. One only needs to compare the Democratic Convention held in Denver in 1908, to understand just how radically the Democratic Party has changed. In 1908, the Democratic nominee was the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian, orator, William Jennings Bryan. Compare to the 2008 ultra-liberal candidate, Barack Obama, that’s definitely a change.
The Democratic issue in 1908 was the economy, and their proposal then was to expand the US currency base by replacing the gold standard with the silver standard. Their choice of this issue sought to benefit the big Silver Mining Corporations, and their efforts were applauded by the Silver Mining Industry in Colorado. In contrast, today’s Democratic Party platform is based on opposition to big oil companies and gas and oil resource development. There is a big change there.
In 1908, the conservative Democratic Party was proclaiming their undying loyalty to Christian values and their opposition to the teaching of Darwinism, better known as the theory of evolution. Their candidate, William Jennings Bryan was introduced to the 1908 convention by a man from Oklahoma whose last name just happened to be Gore. I guess some things just never change. William Jennings Bryan later became famous for his defense of the teaching of creationism in public schools, in what is known today as the Scopes, Monkey Trial. He was defeated in the 1908 election by William Howard Taft, the opposition party candidate. Not much change there.
Apparently, the issue of evolution, unlike Mr. William Jennings Bryan, is alive and well and is expected to make an appearance at the 2008 Democratic Convention. But evolution won’t be putting on its show cold turkey. “Western Colorado Atheists and Free Thinkers” have been rehearsing their version of evolution on the public stage in Grand Junction for the past several months. And the review critics are reporting that the atheist’s evolution is performing like a well oiled machine. What began as a request letter by thirteen atheists and/or free thinkers, addressed to the Grand Junction City Council, accompanied by a public explanation and declaration that the atheist’s motive was to request that the City Council “bring its invocation policy into compliance” and that was the opening act, the beginning if you will, of the evolution of an issue. Very rapidly the request was followed by a denial from atheists that they were even contemplating a law suit against the city. Then the evolution progressed with local with local retired Attorney Bill Hugenberg grabbing the limelight with carefully worded hints that if the city council did not comply with the request, there was the possibility that lawsuits could result. The evolution continued with statements by local atheists that they weren’t associated with any national atheist group and had not contacted the ACLU or any other litigation oriented associations. This statement was quickly followed by statements to the effect that several national atheist groups, by name, had taken an interest in Grand Junction’s prayer wars. Then came the capitulation by the Mesa County Fair Board, and their cancellation of a scheduled prayer service at the Fair Grounds. That was followed by the atheist’s denial that they had anything to do with creating the climate that resulted in the Fair Boards decision. Next, the Grand Junction City Council took its turn at caving into the demands of the atheists. It was believed by many that achieving that victory would bring an end to the evolution of atheist demands, but the invocation issue was not to die that easily. Enter, stage left, the editorial by atheist leader Anne Landman in today’s Daily Sentinel, proclaiming new outrage and offense. “Even when the prayers are non-denominational”, also declaring that “there is no conceivable way that a governmental body can conduct the prayers that won’t inevitably exclude, isolate or embarrass various groups of constituents”. And then the atheist evolution continues with renewed demands for their solution of choice, a moment of silence. All of this evolution is accompanied, of course, by the atheists statement that “religion is a personal matter that we feel should not be paraded in front of others”. The Democratic (progressive) adoption of the motto “change we can believe in” appears to be appropriate and applicable to the evolution of that party over the last one hundred years. The only thing I can see that hasn’t changed is the Democrats innate ability to choose issues that enable them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And that is something we can believe in.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
a-p,
Change We Can Believe In…
Is this our Sunday morning sermon?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not a Sunday morning sermon I’ve ever heard the likes of. AP, don’t quit your day job.
If you read the lady’s comments today, you’ll see what prompted AP’s comments.
Initially, the “official” line was that the invocation using a specific deity was the problem because it was in violation of the Constitution. The council, with advice from the city attorney, determined that a non-sectarian prayer would be appropriate and not in violation of the Constitution. It appears from her comments of today, that the organization has now decided that is not an acceptable solution for her/them. It appears that she/they will not be satisfied until she/they have her/their way.
Stating it has anything to do with Obama/Democratic Party is an interesting connection
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - After reading your post #29, I have an idea, let’s have a boycott against the heathen atheists! It’s obvious these blasphemers are a direct threat to the local Christian community and the 19th century way-of-life so desperately desired by the majority of God-fearing citizens here in Happy Valley. While we’re at it, let’s boycott any individual or group who doesn’t accept the baby Jesus as Lord - as non-believers, these people are all going to Hell anyway, so why not harass them into relocating to someplace like the Peoples Republic of Boulder, where their disgusting beliefs might be more accepted?
Onward, Christian soldiers - boycott all heathens and non-believers - you owe it to the God Jehovah, the community, and most of all - to the children!
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba, you told me to call you on it if need be… please read my post #24 and exchange #32 for #23.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s what I’ve always liked about you Sue, you are so perceptive.:)
Thanks for the additional explanation. Why Sue, do you really believe that there is a connection between liberals (read progressives) and the Democratic party? Who’d a thunk?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I think most liberals or progressives lean more to the Democratic party line. Just as most conservatives lean more to the Republican party line.
The interesting connection was the atheist to Democrat. I’d have to think there are atheists who lean to the Republican party line because I know many Christians who lean to Democratic party line.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue - As usual, you’re right; but the religious arrogance and intolerance as manifested by such things as AP’s boycott thing just drives me over the edge. I’ll try to do better.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
Or on the other hand, we could get all the local atheists to form a group. They could call themselves western Colorado something or others. And then we could hire a semi-retired lawyer with two years experience practicing law in Grand Junction and maybe pay him under the table. That would give our atheist group viable deny-ability for anything he said. Then we could have him threaten law suits against all the local elected officials if they didn’t cave in to our demands, and even if they did, we could just make more demands and more demands. We could demand an end to all public religious displays, heck we could insist that the public use Merry X-mas in place of that highly offensive term, Merry Christmas. We wouldn’t come right out and say it of course, but we could start passing laws that would force Christians to pray in a locked closet. And we could demand that they do it in a whisper. We wouldn’t want any atheist children to accidentally overhear a prayer. That might cause irreparable harm, well at least to our atheist agenda. Then we could work on electing our own atheist candidates to all the public offices. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Then we could put the force of law behind our agenda. And then we could really teach those Christians a thing or two about who really runs this town. We could get started on this right away. Oh my Gosh, why didn’t somebody tell me. We have already started the ball rolling. Super-Keen. After we get rid of all the Christians, which religion are we going after next? We better start thinking about that. It will be here before you know it.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue,
At least on this forum, the preponderance of the evidence is that our atheist progressives wouldn’t think of voting for a Republican. That is unless it was one of their own creation. What was it someone called him in the paper, a “Democrat-lite”. AKA RINO (Republican in name only).
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The City Council decision was a compromise solution that brought them in compliance with the law. The atheists are not completely happy and many Christians are not completely happy. But that is the art of compromise and it would be very healthy for the country if more compromise could be achieved on the many difficult issues that face out country.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 10:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog - Unfortunately, as long as Janet Rowland and Craig Meis are on the County Commission there will be no compromise on this or any other significant issue. They are pure ideologues who, more than anything else, want to be martyrs for their antiquated (some would say) political and religious beliefs.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And there you have it folks. The agenda according to GJ Bubba. Right out front for everyone to see. Sounds kind of political doesn’t it?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think they just want to be re-elected, for various reasons (Rowland’s may actually be out of a true desire to serve, who knows? Meis, obviously so he can continue to rule in his personal best interest).
At any rate, Rowland’s public hissy fit the other day should actually help her win the primary; after all it reflects the majority opinion.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, post 39 - I agree. I have not read Landman’s statement yet, but I do feel the compromise will in effect result in business as usual if not more proselytizing at the government meetings. We shall see how many eager volunteers step up and what faith the vast majority of them will happen to be. I am rather amused more than annoyed with the City Council at this point. The BOCC is a different story.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You said, “And there you have it folks. The agenda according to GJ Bubba. Right out front for everyone to see. Sounds kind of political doesn’t it?”
You are entirely correct. No quarter is asked for, no quarter will be given. Meis and Rowland are going down!
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, post 31: OK, I read Ms. Landman’s column, especially where she says right off the bat:
“We commend and thank the City Council members for trying to find a way to make people like us, who don’t share their personal beliefs, more comfortable at their meetings.”
Yes, she and many others would have preferred a moment of silence, (and MY take not Ms. Landman’s to my knowledgs — the way the city council has compromised is going too result in MORE “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” type of praying, not less.)
However AP is way over the top and still trying to fan the flames of hatred when he says (among other things) thet Ms. Landman is “proclaiming new outrage and offense.” She has done no such thing!
Shame on you AP. I am absolutely disgusted with the way you carry on lying and intentionally spreading hate and fear around in our community. Do you know what STFU stands for?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash - I would make a pointed comment about AP and his deliberate “spreading of hate and fear around our community,” but doing so would involve certain observations about his religious preferences which I promised Sue I would try to avoid.
But your comment above is totally “right on.”
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
What did you think prompted Ms. Landman to falsely accuse the Daily Sentinel of calling her and her group evil, or to indicate that prayers exclude, isolate and embarrass. Do you think perhaps she was offended or maybe outraged? Ms. Landman accused the local media, not me, of fanning the flames of controversy. You might want to recall that I am not the one who started all of this. But I think what is not recognized is that some of us Christians are outraged and offended by Ms. Landman and her groups continuous demands, and we are also outraged by other atheists statements that we should go into a closet to pray. Or those atheists pretending to speak for Christians as occurred this morning on this very thread. And the hate speech and threats to our elected officials who refuse to give into the atheists demands. I don’t suppose it ever occurred to anyone out there that Christians could be offended too. After all, they have been such an easy mark so far. Well, think again.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJB - this has nothing to do with faith. The guy is acting like a royal jerk. The sad thing is, I like AP (or thought I did). I gave him the benefit of doubt that this paranoia was something that was personal andreal to him; I am just starting to believe it is something more manufactured at this point.
I thought AP was doing a good job making peace on this board a couple weeks ago. If just for that reason, I found it hard to believe he would be an intentional hate monger. However recent posts have spoken for themselves.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks GJ
I went back and read her entire column again because I had come away from it feeling similar to AP, in that she was not going to give up until she gets her way and a moment of silence is observed in lieu of any other option. I have copied and pasted her final paragraph, which I believe set the tone for AP’s comments above. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he and others (Ash? myself?) may be fanning the flames, but by default, discussing this has been controversial from the start.
Her column’s final paragraph:
“Beyond the legalities, citizens of all religions, and those with no religion, are compelled to come before local government bodies on secular civic matters like variances, sewers, building permits, licenses, etc. They should not be subjected to a religious show or test, or be told to bow their heads and demonstrate religious obeisance at a government function. There is absolutely no reason why the council or the county commissioners have to expend excessive time and taxpayer money trying to forge complicated policies and devise tightrope-walking-type procedures that further entangle local government with religion when a moment of silence will solve everything for everyone for all time, and takes 10 seconds to enact.”
It certainly sounds like she will not accept the decision, even though she agreed earlier in her column that they had done what they could to come under current interpretation of the law.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, there is nothing in the paragraph you quoted that indicates to me any level of “non acceptance’ or threat of further action. I read it as just saying (to paraphrase),
“It was not the exact outcome I would have preferred, and it is a time consuming, complicated policy … Not the way I would have done it, but whatever.”
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, this part specifically leads me to believe she may not let it drop.
“when a moment of silence will solve everything for everyone”
Her choice of “will solve” instead of “could have solved”. Obviously her choice of words is open to interpretation. She may let it drop or she may not, none of us know the answer to that question yet.
Please don’t forget, I’m not opposed to a moment of silence. I am opposed to veiled threats, they are not productive on either side of this coin.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Peace cannot be had with those that are never satisfied. I am not the one making demands of atheists. The problem here is that Christians are not seen as human beings. We are simply something to attack. All of the vile and nasty things that have been said about Christians. The repeated statements calling on us to crawl back under our rock, saying that our elected officials who oppose the atheists are going down. It isn’t we who attacked the atheists belief. If you will think back, you probably read that I respected their right to believe as they choose. We have become the atheists target because we dare to oppose their expanding agenda and ever evolving demands. When atheists treat us like dogs, we will bite. The Christian community was not even given the courtesy, by the atheists, to ask for a compromise. What have the atheists done to address our feelings? They transferred their fight with the city council to all Christians. They see us as their tormentors. And it is clear by what they say, that they seek revenge on religion in general. They make fun of our beliefs and irreverently refer to “baby Jesus” in a spiteful way. And now you say we are expected to just take it, and not reply. I realize that you and I have had some really good conversations, and I don’t ever recall saying a vile or hateful thing to you, and now you call me a hate-monger because I dare speak back to the atheists. I wonder what you would do in my place? I wonder what you would do or say if a Christian told you that they were going to put you back under your rock or in a closet or that your beliefs were hogwash, or that you had to be insane to believe as you do, or compared you to Nazis? Or told you that they thought that it was or should be illegal for you to voice your beliefs in public. My God is a forgiving God, and I am trying to be forgiving, but it is hard, real hard. Thank you for your consideration.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue - I would agree with Ash’s comment that, “Sue, there is nothing in the paragraph you quoted that indicates to me any level of “non acceptance’ or threat of further action. I read it as just saying (to paraphrase),
“It was not the exact outcome I would have preferred, and it is a time consuming, complicated policy … Not the way I would have done it, but whatever.”
Ash - I would respectfully disagree with your assessment that,”GJB - this has nothing to do with faith.” I believe that is has a lot to do with a particular kind of faith and religious belief system prevalent here in the valley.
However, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, “The guy (AP) is acting like a royal jerk.”
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, post 52.
Sadly just more of the same. Using half truths and damned lies to get people all riled up against “the atheists.” It seems YOU won’t be satisfied unless people start taking up torches and pitchforks.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Don’t be too hard on yourself. Your reaction was exactly what I expected when I started exposing the atheists evolving agenda. Do you honestly expect people to believe that the next demand is not just around the corner. The atheists have already started condemning Janet Rowland and Craig Meis, but that has nothing to do with their opposition to the agenda, right? We all know what is coming, and now at least, we are going to know who is doing it. Do you honestly believe that the Christians started all of this? I seem to remember day after day the atheists on this forum saying it was between them and the city council. When you push, you shouldn’t be surprised when someone pushes back.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “It isn’t we who attacked the atheists belief. If you will think back, you probably read that I respected their right to believe as they choose.”
Quite untrue. Violation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings with respect to government sponsored prayer is about as clear attack on the atheists, the Jewish Community and every other non-Christian as it is possible to conceive of. So your actions in support of illegal prayer speak a whole lot louder than your words.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP, post 55 - I am not being “hard on myself” in the least. I do feel a twinge of guilt for going off on you so hard, but I also think you did (and continue to) deserve it.
Oh, and if you think Janet Rowland and Craig Meis are being “condemned” because of their Jesus-laden invocations, think again. Instead they are being criticized for the self serving, ineffective, obnoxious ways they have managed their posts.
Where is the Energy Master Plan?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Do you honestly believe that the Christians started all of this?”
Which came first - the Christian invocations or the atheist’s letter to the city council?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52
Look, genius, I’m the one who said take it to court, find out if it is legal or illegal. But you prefer to substitute your interpretation, and then try to convince me you are right. Well I have heard it all before, and I don’t wish to hear it again. As far as I am concerned you are completely wrong, but then that is my interpretation, and I don’t wish to substitute someone elses for mine. And I don’t wish to substitute mine for yours. You just want to argue for the sake of argument and if it weren’t this issue, it would be some other. You get off on it. And besides that furnishes you with an excuse to talk about your education or the land you own. Well, I happen to own a couple of pieces in Mesa County. Big deal. That doesn’t make me any better or smarter than anyone else and that is the difference between us Class. I am not trying to show off. I’m trying to show you, that you are showing off. You act like a rebellious teenager with an attitude. People like you don’t build anything. You put all your efforts into trying to destroy what other people have built. What I said about meeting you half way, I take it back. You are one individual I don’t want to get to know. The only community I think you will ever fit into is one filled with misfits. You keep trying to be self important and you have chosen exactly the wrong approach. You can’t antagonize people into liking you, but I really don’t think you give a damn whether people like you or not, and we have that in common. I don’t care whether people like you or not, either. I know I don’t like you. Did you ever consider that your jousting at windmills? No, I didn’t think so. The things that we have built here in this valley we accomplished because we worked together, and that is an ongoing process. When I came here, where my home is located today, was nothing but sagebrush, rabbit brush and a few weeds. My wife and I and our children made a home of it. Oh there were things we didn’t like, but we changed what we could, we got along with our neighbors one at a time as they moved in, and we helped build a church, several community organizations, two hospitals, and a lifetime of friendships, and we didn’t do that by trying to force others to our will. We did it by reason and persuasion,and working for the common good, and it just makes me sick to see someone like you come along and try to pick it apart. Yeah, I know it is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than it was when I came. And just because you can scratch around and find something wrong, either real or imagined, doesn’t give you the right to try to destroy all of that for your own gratification and self importance. And I am sorry, but that is my opinion, and it will remain my opinion until you do something productive instead of destructive.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
No need to be hard on yourself. I have been criticized by professionals. It is all in a days work. Now perhaps you would like to tell me what you would have done differently if you held the office of County Commissioner and more importantly how you would have done it? And how you would have gained the other two votes necessary to make the changes? What do you envision for the future of Mesa County and what have you done so far to make it a reality? Criticism is easy. Even a cave man can do it. What is hard is putting it all together and making it all work, especially when there is a whole group of people out there who don’t want it to work. And just one last thought. I don’t know what your motives are, but I have been reading posts on this site long enough to know that the County Commission invocations are the main point of contention, and that is why I know what is next on the atheist agenda. Now, criticize away, and see what gets built.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Simple. I would have had them actually CREATE the Energy Master Plan instead of sying they have been “working on it” for two-plus years.
This plan would be similar to the one Garfield County managed to create in a matter of months, and it would include real protections of the environment, especially our watershed. It would have had open input from the public and industry also would have been asked to weigh in.
There would be a website where it could be viewed, with summaries as well as the full text and an area for ongoing comments.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
You are always bringing up the Master Energy Plan as a point of contention. Do you realize what a plan like that would include.
First, there is the Forest Service Land, (Fed Gov), then BLM (Fed Gov), city of Fruita, City of Palisade, Clifton and Grand Junction, to name a few. There are different water districts, sewer districts, unincorporated area of Mesa County, drainage, agriculture, Division of Wildlife, State rules, State property, adjoining county lines, just to name a few. All of these different agencies have to agree and sign off on this “master plan” that the county is trying to build. All of the highways, byways, county and city roads, irrigation systems, natural gas and other supply lines, both above and below ground, emergency management services, wetlands, flood tables for 50, 100 and 500 year floods to be considered, winter conditions, summer conditions, existing utility capacity, future growth of all of the above, and probably a few thousand I don’t even know about. How long do you think it would take to get a plan which will satisfy all of the above and then get the agencies to all sign off so you can approve a master plan. If you think of how complicated that could be, I am sure it is worse. Have you ever had to deal with the Feds? I know that the plan is in the works, but it is not as simple as some would think to get done. Are you just complaining, or have you asked your question of anyone with an answer?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash,
Let’s see, similar to Garfield County. Isn’t that where the waste water catch contaminated a water supply, that someone on this forum tried to blame on Mesa County Commissioners? And you just have everybody, BLM, Forest Service, neighboring counties, the public and anybody else that wanted to have input, and of course, all these different groups and people would see the brilliance in your plan, and wouldn’t suggest any changes that you would then have to take to the other people who have input and get approval. And your master plan would be so well written that all the different parties would squat on the ground and join hands in celebration and sing Cum-bi-ya, and that ritual would somehow catharticly dispell any mistakes, errors or omissions disappear from the minds of those communtity, self appointed, saviors of the planet who might seize the opportunity to criticize you. My only suggestion is that you might have a pocket full of pixie dust to sprinkle liberally over the angry crowd that had gathered outside the courthouse. And of course, while you are doing all of this, along would come an election year and all the opportunists would join the parade of perpetual naysayers. Yeah, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK GM6 and AP — It couldn’t be done because it would be “too hard”?
Boo hoo.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
a-p, grandmasix,
I just don’t understand your sandbagging with respect to any reasonable protections for the citizens of Mesa County in regards to establishing standards for the OG industry. This is not about Paulism or Neo-Atheism it is about “we” the citizens of Mesa County wishing to be represented in a fair manner against the “takings” of the O&G industry. Do you guys have stock in Delta, Encana, Haliburton? What is going on?
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Some things never change. A-P, the invocations relatve to the commissioners issue is only recent. The Rowland and Meis Show has been an ongoing farce since Janet took office. She is a rubber stamp to Meis’s massive conflict of interest. The invocation issue only came up after it was raised with the city and then discovered that the commissioners situation was more egregious since they do the invocations themselves. They are personally liable rather than the county itself. It’s just the latest example of them running it as “their” county. Janet put the frosting on the cake with her intemperate comments. Somebody will probably, indeed, “bring it on” to her.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 9:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
As I previously stated today, I have Zero interest, investment or financial concern other than the price of gas at the pump. I am not sandbagging Trog. I am all for getting all the reasonable protection we can get, against contamination or anything else. I am also in favor of the citizens getting a little of the money, like they do in Alaska. I don’t have a problem with any of those things. Here is what I have a problem with. Getting so greedy or so unnecessarily protective that the oil companies pull up their pants and go home. And if they can’t extract the resource, and explore for more profitably that is what they will do. I am with you 100% if we can agree on what is reasonable. I know and I know that you know that there are some people who have an agenda to keep pump prices up by stopping drilling. And I won’t bore you with going into why they want to do that. We both know it is to make alternative energy viable. I just get pretty sick of people saying one thing, and doing another. I get tired of all the hidden agendas and the BS that people use to hide their real intentions. And the reason for that is because I believe that the American people are smart enough to know that we have to go to other energy sources, and I don’t think you have to force them into it, and that is exactly what is being attempted. Besides I don’t think you can force them into it. And trying to do so is an unnecessary crap shoot with the economy. If we can find a way to reasonably and safely keep drilling on the western slope, and I have no doubt that we can, until such time that they start developing oil shale or mining uranium on a large scale for nuclear generation and my estimate is about eight to fourteen years realistically, our families and the communities can escape the economic trials and tribulations that are sure to grip the rest of our nation and the world. There has been an effort by some who post on this site to paint me as an unreasonable man. That is something that is new to me. I think if you talk to the people who know me, and have known me most of my life, they will tell you the opposite is true. It seems like in this virtual world, people really don’t want to see you for what you are. They want to use you to further their issues or their own sense of grandeur, and I think some people just get a kick out of arguing about anything. I thought when I started posting, that this might be a place to find answers and solutions, but nobody seems to be interested in those. I don’t know, I picture a lot of these people as the kind who like to watch dogs or roosters fight. Sometimes when I find myself under assault from Class, Laitres, John Borgen, GjBubba, aka proteus, and a few others all at the same time, I find myself beginning to think like they do. I do my best to answer them, but I have to admit that I get PO’d because each one thinks his post should be my priority. I know it is not an accident and it goes against the odds that so many people of a single persuasion are present on this site. I don’t mind that. What I mind is them trying to run off other people just because they don’t agree with their point of view. Now I don’t expect anybody to own up to that, publicly, but we all know it is happening and some of us know why. And that is not conducive to exchange of ideas. It is better seen as trying to control the venue. And the reason for that is pretty obvious to me. So I am not very patient with their assertions of how fair they are. It is nice having time to talk to you trog, and I am hopeful it will happen again sometime.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 5:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hah! You think so-called Christians even bother to read their own Bible? Obviously not. Had they done so, there wouldn’t be such a flap about public displays of prayer.
Matthew 6:5-7 (New King James Version)
5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.[a] 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
Check it out here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206:5-7;&version=50;
The Bible contains many interesting things.
From the Book of Malachi:
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: ” I know it is not an accident and it goes against the odds that so many people of a single persuasion are present on this site. I don’t mind that. What I mind is them trying to run off other people just because they don’t agree with their point of view. Now I don’t expect anybody to own up to that, publicly, but we all know it is happening and some of us know why. And that is not conducive to exchange of ideas. It is better seen as trying to control the venue. And the reason for that is pretty obvious to me.”
This man is truly sick. He sees a conspiracy behind every disagreement. Further he personalizes every disagreement and takes each as an assault on his rights. He has absolutely no concept of civilized discourse and disagreement on issues. Instead he uses personal attack (see message 59 for a good example of this) to deflect criticism. He questions the motives of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. Sad case.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 - Sounds as if AP is in a major “whining” mood. I wonder if it’s because he’s beginning to realize that most people on this forum aren’t buying his and WLJ’s arguments any more; just like fewer and fewer of the general public are buying the antiquated, ultra-conservative Republican ideology any more.
AP doesn’t like losing, and I can’t really blame him.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P, you speak of the impossibility of “forcing” change. Read Tom Friedman’s column from yesterday in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html It is about how Denmark became TOTALLY self-sufficient in energy and is atill improving in conservation. Yes, it is a much smaller country, and probably has a more homgegeneous population with which it is easier to make a case for cooperation to achieve a goal. When does price fixing and/or taxation become incentives for change rather than “force”? We still have no rational energy policy. Republicans are using drilling in places previously determined to be environmentally sensitive as a political wedge issue. Playing on peoples complaints of high gas prices and suggesting that drilling in those places will somehow have any impact on prices anytime soon is ridiculous. When a department of the Energy department says the impact the desired drilling will have on both prices and availability will be negligible — ever — underlines the idiocy of the current “debate”. Even Obama has opened to the idea which indicates it is having some political resonance, as opposed to rational understanding. Denmark took the position that the issue was serious and that market forces would not respond quickly enough to alleviate what was becoming a crisis. The tactics they used could be called force but the outcome was an “new” economy much stronger and dynamic than before they began attacking the looming crisis. Thus far in this country the underlying debate about the drilling is that it will improve our economy with lower prices “sometime”, the panderers implying that would be soon, and that other obvious measures will hurt our economy more than the high prices already have. Denmark’s wise use of “force” seems to be an object lesson that there are strong forces in this country that are more concerned about profits today with a staus quo approach than our country’s energy status in the future.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Poor class and blubberboy.
They feel picked on because they have nothing of value to present in a reasonable, civil, HONEST conversation.
All they have is belittlement, derisive remarks, and demeaning attitudes against those who have differing viewpoints.
Now they claim that they are getting tired of trying to force those with other viewpoints to leave, instead of altering their behavior towards the other users on this site.
We keep telling you that in order for there to be civil discourse, you ultra left wacko elitists really need to tone down your irrational attacks and belittling other users.
Or, expect the same treatment bounced back onto your pointy little heads.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.