Posted 3 months, 24 days ago in 
Loading ...
The most worrisome thing about the atheist flap is their tactics to accomplish their goal. I would wager a guess that their recent involvement in seeking to remove or modify prayer in the city council did not bring in a lot of converts to atheism. And there’s the problem.
Are the beliefs of the atheists and “free thinkers” so weak that they cannot convince the public to give up its belief in deity through sound reason? Would a well-reasoned presentation of their beliefs, with sound sources and logic, have convinced the council to abandon prayer of its own free will? No? Then what good are their beliefs?
This is an equal-opportunity idea, too, that applies to other religions, including Christianity.
Any religion or religion or philosophy that has to used sword, bomb, state or lawyer to evangelize has lost its (or never had a) soul.
TIMOTHY KING
Grand Junction
41 Responses to “How much success has the freethinkers achieved?”
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. King has greatly misunderstood the goal of the atheists.
The city council invocation issue was never intended to convince anyone that “atheism is the way to go.” It was simply an attempt to bring the city council’s invocation policy in line with the guidelines established by the US Supreme Court. It succeeded in doing that.
The public’s belief or lack thereof in any deity was never an issue. The First Amendment does not operate by “majority rules”. The public does not have to accept atheism in order for the invocation to change any more than the atheists have to accept Christianity in order for the invocations to stay. They are simply not related subjects.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have never had an atheist come to my front door to attempt to convert me to his ideas. On the other hand the Mormons and the Baptists have both sent people around trying to instill their religious cult in my home. On the street I have never been approached by an atheist passing out tracts or seeking to evangelize. But the Christians proselytise shamelessly at every opportunity, shouting at me on the street during the farmer’s market for example.
The atheists appear to practice a live and let live philosophy while the Christians want to shove their cult beliefs down our throats (and I am not an atheist).
So King has got it exactly backwards.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. King apparently cannot distinguish between ‘belief’ and ‘non-belief’, that is what is fundamentally flawed in his opinion. ‘Non-belief’ cannot be fostered, proseletyzed, or promoted in any way as their is nothing there to work with. Attempting to do so would be like a person without hands to attempt clapping their hands. It is an impossibility.
The first sentence of the second paragraph of Mr. King’s letter is quite telling, making it clear that Mr. King believes, quite erroneously, that others are trying to convert him to atheism. He should ask himself if perhaps his own ‘faith’ is so weak that he perceives a danger where none exists.
Perhpaps Mr. King needs to go back and re-evaluate his position, this time asking himself some very serious questions prior to presenting another ‘opinion’.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think the atheists are going to have a very difficult job trying to convince the voters of Mesa County that the Christians are the ones that started this whole debacle, or that an invocation at the beginning of a meeting is establishing a religion. And I would suggest anyone with a question about who is shoving what down who’s throat, talk to your elected officials and ask them, do they feel the atheists demands are an infringement on their right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Also I would encourage the people to read the constitution. I can guarantee they will not find separation of church and state in that document. There is just no substitute for finding out the truth for yourself.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“I think the atheists are going to have a very difficult job trying to convince the voters of Mesa County that the Christians are the ones that started this whole debacle,”
I ask again: which came first: the letter to the city council or the predominantly Christian invocation at city council meetings?
“…or that an invocation at the beginning of a meeting is establishing a religion.”
It is according to established case law. The city council apparently agrees. What the general public thinks has very little to do with the issue.
“And I would suggest anyone with a question about who is shoving what down who’s throat, talk to your elected officials and ask them, do they feel the atheists demands are an infringement on their right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.”
If they say yes, then they are demonstrating their lack of knowledge about what the rights and responsibilities are as elected officials. They do not have the same freedoms when acting as an elected government official as they do when acting as a private citizen.
“Also I would encourage the people to read the constitution. I can guarantee they will not find separation of church and state in that document.”
Completely irrelevant. The fact that those exact words do not appear in the Constitution does not change the fact that the US Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that the phrase accurately describes the effect of the First Amendment.
“There is just no substitute for finding out the truth for yourself.”
I agree completely. That’s why I’m no longer a Christian.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The government derives it’s just powers from the conscent of the governed. I would remind everyone that tomorrow is the Republican Primary. That is the time for the majority to express their will. And that my friends is what the majority has to do with it. The atheists have declared on this forum that they wanted to put Christians in the closet, and in their opinion that was the proper place for Christian prayer. Tomorrow the voters of Mesa County have an opportunity to express their feelings about being shoved into a closet. And I am confident that they will. Thank you Commissioner Janet Rowland for standing up for the people who elected you.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As long as they remember that the closet was also Jesus’ opinion on the proper place for prayer. That’s where the atheists got the idea in the first place. For some reason that seems to keep getting forgotten.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord. No Scott, it wasn’t forgotten, it was selected by the atheists, just like your Constitutional interpretations. But look on the bright side. It seems that the invocation issue has resulted in all the atheists, including their attorney reading the bible looking for selected quotes. It seems now that they have developed an acute concern for “what would Jesus do?” to use the words of the atheists, semi-retired attorney Bill Hugenberg. For more information, tune into local news coverage of the Mesa County Commissioners meeting held this morning. It was really too bad that his quotations from the scripture were so long winded. Otherwise, he may have been able to get to the important part of his speech, but sadly time ran out before he could make his point. The only real point in evidence was that the County Commission is the next target of the small, special interest, atheist group of thirteen, just as predicted.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 3:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you atheists are going to preach, maybe you should read it all, not just a couple of verses.
I Thessalonians 5-17 says “Pray without ceasing”. and
I Timothy 2-8 says “I will, therefore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands..
Sorry fellas, there are lots of verses in the bible that support prayer out of the closet.
Vote Tomorrow. Preserve your right to pray.
The atheists seek to PUT you in the closet, by seizing political power.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix,
“Thessalonians 5-17 says “Pray without ceasing”
That’s Paul’s writing not Jesus.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 4:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I’ve already made my feelings known (via mail-in ballot) - I voted for Dave Kearsley. But the best part of the process is that Wednesday morning I will be able to re-register as a Democrat. The time I was forced to spend as a registered Mesa County Republican was the most degrading and embarrassing period (politically) of my life.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm
Yes, and the theory of a doctrine of separation of church and state is an interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s writing. It is not in the Constitution because it is not something the Founding Fathers as a whole wished to put in the Constitution.
If the atheists can use a letter written by one person, not included in the Constitution, then I can use Paul’s words. Unlike their “writing”, Paul’s words are a part of the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. However, separation of church and state is not a part of the original document we call the Constitution.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 4:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
Well, you are not alone, GJBubba, your time as a Republican was pretty embarrassing and degrading for the Republicans. One can only assume that they will go to work right away to raise their standards. After all, you are a known quantity. Witness your multiple and continuing name changes on this forum. We were made aware after you invented a military career to add credibility to your rant against our troops that you would do or say anything that would further your atheist agenda. That is why we recognized you and your atheist candidate of choice, Dave Kearsley as a RINO (Republican in name only). Your ploy to present yourself as a Republican didn’t score very high on the shock meter, and it really wasn’t all that inventive if you consider the fact that many dead Democrats have been voting in our countries elections for years. Now that is a true achievement. No wonder you atheists don’t believe in God, you believe it is the Democrats that have the power to raise the dead and get them to the voting polls.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix,
“However, separation of church and state is not a part of the original document we call the Constitution.”
Neither is God.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
The Founding Fathers prayed before working on the Constitution.
They prayed before each meeting. Congress still prays before each session.
It’s in there, unfortunately, people like you just can’t see it. You can’t see that God loves you or that he guides and protects your children, so I am not surprised that you cannot see him, but he can see you, and someday, you will know that he exists. God Bless You.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, but the Constitution still doesn’t mention God.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Congressional opening prayers are a bit controversial but they continue without much rancor for several reasons. One being tradition but mainly, I believe it is for the fact that these Congressional prayers are far more inclusive and ecumenical, all in all. It is not “Our Lord Jesus Christ” at every single prayer, but usually quite more inclusive prayers to God, and also on occasion religious leaders of many different faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.) are invited to say the prayer.
Ironically I read (haven’t been able to verify if true) that a number of fundamentalist Christians lost it when one such Hindu prayer was spokeen before Congress in 2000. Surprise, surprise.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 9:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said from another thread:.” It was simply an attempt to bring the city council’s invocation policy in line with the guidelines established by the US Supreme Court.
Well then, if that is the case, why is it when the US Supreme Court opens their meetings as follows: A marshal shouts the traditional welcome, which reads in part: “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. GOD save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
Now how is it that the US Supreme Court can use the word God, yet no one else can?
Please explain.
Posted August 11th, 2008 at 10:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I’m waiting for your answer to my ? above.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 6:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, Tasha. I didn’t see that before I went to bed.
First of all, it’s traditional. That is the only reason the Marsh ruling allowed invocations in the first place.
Secondly, it’s not a prayer.
Third, even if it was a prayer, the term “God” is generic enough under the Marsh ruling that it is allowable. It is not considered to be a specific deity since it could refer to anyone’s god.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you for your answer.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha,
You’re welcome. Do you see the difference between what the atheists are actually asking for and what Willis and AP are claiming they want?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Yes I do see the difference, and know the difference.
But I also agree with AP, Willis and others.
You stated earlier:“However, separation of church and state is not a part of the original document we call the Constitution.”
It was not in the original document as you stated, nor is it in the Constitution as read today.
Separation of church an state is not a law. It is an interpretation of the US Supreme Court of the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. (that has been mentioned in other threads too), The Supreme Court cannot make laws.
No one here has shown any documents, or law numbers to show it is a law. So how can atheists say a law has been broken? (Which several times they have stated.)
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The term “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. Jefferson used that term to describe the effect the First Amendment has. The Supreme Court did not interpret the letter to the Danbury baptists, they interpreted the First Amendment. The decision, which has held up many times since, is that the Constitution does not allow sectarian prayer. The law is the Constitution. The Supreme Court just determines how it is to be interpreted. In this case, government-sponsored sectarian prayer is unlawful, at least until the Supreme Court changes their decision.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How would you know scott?
You have never read the Constitution, by your own admission.
A scholar, you are not!
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I said I didn’t have it memorized. I never said I had never read it. You are the one lying now.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
now scott, you told me in no uncertain terms that you had never read the body of the Constitution. Numerous times.
Either you lied then in an effort to destroy your credibility, or now to bolster your credibility.
You did say that you are a liberal, did you not?
Trying to have it both ways?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Prove it Willis. Back up this claim, or you’re a liar. Show me where I said I had never read the body of the Constitution.
You won’t because you know you can’t. This will just go off as yet another lie by Willis Leon Johnson.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now scott, there seems to be a plethora of charges flying around about me lying.
Why is this?
You said you had never read the Body, only the Amendments you chose to discuss.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“WLJ:Now scott, there seems to be a plethora of charges flying around about me lying.
Why is this?”
Obviously because it is true. Once you get caught many times in a row, the charge begins to stick. The Obama quotation lie pretty well clinched the deal. what is funny is that you thought we were all so stupid we would not catch you in this one.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said: The decision, which has held up many times since, is that the Constitution does not allow sectarian prayer. The law is the Constitution. The Supreme Court just determines how it is to be interpreted. In this case, government-sponsored sectarian prayer is unlawful, at least until the Supreme Court changes their decision.
Show me documents that prove this.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Specify the post where I said I had never read the body of the Constitution. You can’t because I never said that. That was the conclusion you leapt to when I said I didn’t have it memorized, but I never said what you claimed I said.
Of course, all you have to do is provide the post where I said it. It’s easy as pie.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha,
The Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting the US Constitution in the case Marbury vs. Madison (1803).
The Supreme Court decisions where the limitations on government invocations are determined start with Marsh vs. Chambers (1983) and continue with Wynne v. Town of Great Falls (2004); Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. (2002); Coles ex rel. Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. (1999); Rubin v. City of Burbank (2002), Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd. (2006), Hinrichs v. Bosma (2006), Hinrichs v. Speaker of House of Rep’s of Ind. Gen. Assembly (2007), cf. Snyder v. Murray City Corp. (1998).
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 4:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
psssst scottie?
We were discussing one of the Bill of Rights, and specifically NOT the First Amendment.
Now I could actually be nice and give you all the relevant thread and post#, but why?
You made the claim that you only read the parts relevant to the First Amendment.
You did not like my response.
Go look it up yourself.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You made the claim, Willis. Burden of proof is on you.
Your attempts to weasel out of supporting your claim are noticed.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This the same scott that lies to his employers because it would be too hurtful to tell them the truth and lose your job?
This the same scott that needs to lie to keep his job because he thinks he is the only person qualified to do what he does?
This the same scott that considers his lies to be better then the truth?
I have the statement scottie.
Does your employer know how much of their time you spend on the internet bashing their religious beliefs?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Duck! Dodge! Weave!
Anything but support the claim. Keep it up Willis. You wouldn’t want to exceed anyone’s expectations now, would you?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scottie, you have the same problem gene does.
You lie, then try to get out of it by hoping nobody remembers who said what, and when they said it.
Now, about your employer not knowing about your using their internet access to bad mouth their religious beliefs?
Tell us again why it is so important for you to hide the truth from them?
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BTW Scott, Marsh vs Chambers was reference to: “The question presented is whether the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” Not how the prayer is conducted.
Here in it’s entirety
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marsh.html
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You said you could give the thread and the post number Willis. Were you lying then too? Just racking them up, aren’t you?
Duck, dodge, weave.
Posted August 12th, 2008 at 6:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha,
The Marsh ruling is where the invocations were judged to be allowable. One of the reasons for that is the non-sectarian nature of the invocations at the Nebraska legislature. The case Allegheny vs. ACLU (1989) confirmed this.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.