Posted 3 months, 21 days ago in 
Loading ...
It is unfortunate that Brad Wright has dusted off his long-dormant law degree to add to the continuing community confusion regarding the constitutional propriety of invocations at City Council and/or county commissioners’ public meetings (“Landman inconsistent in approach to prayer issue,” Aug. 13).
First, because religion is inherently a highly personal and emotional inalienable right, our Supreme Court has long recognized that “non-economic” and/or “intangible injuries” can suffice to create “standing” for an Establishment Clause claim. Compare, e.g. Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) and Allegheny County (1989), to Hein (2007)(mere “taxpayer” status insufficient) and now-Justice Alito’s opinion in ACLU v. Wall Township (3d. Cir 2001) (Establishment Clause “standing” cannot be manufactured, stipulated, or implied).
Therefore, Landman is not being inconsistent when she alludes to feeling “excluded” or made “uncomfortable” – but rather is stating a judicially recognized legal claim. Indeed, the very purpose of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was to protect the inalienable religious rights of minorities – including atheists – from violations by Brad’s more orthodox majorities wielding democratically conveyed governmental powers.
Second, while there is indisputably a huge “difference between public prayer (which is constitutional) and government-mandated prayer (which is not)”, Brad makes a false and intellectually dishonest distinction by ignoring where our Courts have “drawn the line” within that spectrum. Thus, not only can government not “mandate” prayer, it also cannot “promote”, “advance”, “aid”, or “affiliate itself with” religion using government-sponsored prayer. This general rule of Lemon is subject only to the “legislative prayer” exception first announced in Marsh and explained in Allegheny County as precluding sectarian references (i.e., to saints, the Virgin Mary, or Jesus) in invocations. Thus, only Mr. Wright – and not Anne Landman – is being “inconsistent” in his rendition of the law.
Fortunately for our community, John Shaver (and not Wright) is our city attorney.
BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction
74 Responses to “Establishment Clause protects rights of minorities, atheists included”
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have yet to see a lawyer that represented both the prosecution and the defense at the same time. So we must assume that there is another side to the case presented by Hugenberg. Although it is always enlightening if not pleasurable to see two attorneys bash each other about in the court of public opinion, it should be noted that their arguments would be more appropriately placed in a court of law. Mr. Hugenberg has repeatedly and flagrantly intruded into this peoples forum for the purpose of advocating for the atheist agenda. His assertions, no doubt are in keeping with his gadfly reputation and his choice of this forum exempts him from the rules of procedure that he would be subject to in a court of law, and begs the question; is he acting as an attorney or as a propagandist for the atheist agenda. In his zealousness to promote their cause, it would seems that we can expect from Mr. Hugengerg no boundaries except for perhaps his own sense of self restraint, and that does not appear very promising at this time.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
yer right bill, ” Therefore, Landman is not being inconsistent when she alludes to feeling “excluded” or made “uncomfortable” ”
Just childish, immature and mad about not being the center of attention.
And yo this point you are correct, ” Indeed, the very purpose of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was to protect the inalienable religious rights..”
But no further. At no point in the Constitution are minorities mentioned as having any special status other than the same rights as every other Citizen.
On this subject, ” Second, while there is indisputably a huge “difference between public prayer (which is constitutional) and government-mandated prayer”
There is no “GOVERNMENT MANDATED PRAYER” only prayers offered with no government enforcement of compliance either in fact, or implied.
It’s all about how the whiners ‘feel’ when in the presence of a prayer.
WAH!!!!
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If the local ambulance chaser would care to provide some details, I may change my tune here.
“GOVERNMENT MANDATED PRAYER”, precisely where is it written in LAW that the invocation is MANDATED in any way?
Chapter and verse, so to speak, bill.
Show us where the law states all must obey, bow their heads and join in.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P, Mr. Hugenberg writes letters to the editor that are printed in this space. Sometimes the same ones are printed in the paper as well. I realize this a foreign concept to you. He is willing to put it out there for all to see rather than hiding behind an anonymous screen name. I don’t recall him ever joining a thread. In fact, he thinks this a dumb way to waste his time. He would rather continue to gain knowledge and try to do something positive for the community. The fact that you might disagree is irrelevant. You are not a real player in anything that counts. Your silly stuff circulates in this small space and you never have to answer for it except in cyberspace. Just once, I’d like to see you put it all out there for the actual public to see just how juvenile and deranged your nonsense is. But that’ll never happen because your “courage” is safe babbling to maybe twenty people who don’t know who you are. This “peoples forum” is where all letters to the editor are displayed because they won’t all fit in the paper. This was not meant to be a chat room. Aren’t you so brave taking shots at letters people intended to be seen by all the readers of the Sentinel. Most of those letter writers either don’t know about this spot or choose not to come here because of the anonymous abuse theymay receive. They are willing to discuss, face to face, with people who may have an issue with their letter. In other words, not cowards like you and your fool friend who have made this space the laughing stock of most people who have sampled it. Pathetic!
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, tell us oh wisest of all jonhb, why is you hangin’ out here then?
Don’t you have a life somewhere else?
Is you the loser and the rest of us are here to keep you occupied while you mess yourself?
Why for you is here little johnnie?
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, now that’s nice of John B. Drops by to let us all know that we are just a bunch of idiots for not understand that Mr. Hugenberg is just ” trying to do something positive for the community”. Sob… I feel so badly now because all this time I thought the man was just looking for his cut of any lawsuits he might get ANYBODY else to want to file against ANY GOVERNMENT because he knows from past experience that governments have a tendency to cave in and settle out of court. That way he gets his percentage with little effort on his part.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
In your previous statement Scott, you answered a question but failed to answer the question: Your statement was “ Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return.” The subject under discussion was if Mr. Hugenberg working for/on behalf of the atheist group.
You seemed to be indicating that Mr. Hugenberg was an altruistic atheist, but later you denied that Mr. Hugenberg was an atheist. What I am asking you to do is explain this statement: “ Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return.” in context to mean anything but that you were indicating that Mr. Hugenberg was an atheist.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Mr. Hugenberg has repeatedly and flagrantly intruded into this peoples forum for the purpose of advocating for the atheist agenda.”
Are you out of your freaking mind? He wrote a letter to the editor. Had nothing to do with this forum except that we had an opportunity to comment on it before it was published. As far as I am aware Mr. Hugenberg has never addressed this forum directly. And what “atheist agenda” are you talking about? You are suffering from permant paranoia, AP. And now you try to twist words around to indicate that Scott was calling Hugenberg an atheist as though that was supposed to prove something. Pathetic.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B,
For your information, opinions about the letters to the editor are exactly the purpose of this forum. I know that for months you used it for your own personal political propaganda machine in your daily advertisements for Dave Kearsley, ex candidate for Mesa County Commission. That is until I shut you down. It does not surprise me that you pick me out as a target for your rant against using screen names. Apparently you were unable to recall when you were doing exactly that. You are apparently unable to recall that I am the one who exposed your real identity or maybe you are remembering that. I am sure there are numerous people on this post who could tell you why it is much smarter to use a screen name. It is not my fault that you exposed your true identity by using the same language and phrases in letters to the editor that you do in your posts. You were perfectly happy using the screen name JohnB and concealing your last name before I exposed you as John Borgen. And if you were not, why did you ask that my post be taken down? It must be quite frustrating for you, for me to know exactly who you are and you to have no idea who I am. And that is reason enough for me to continue to use a screen name.
You have exhibited a pattern of behavior of making statements or asking questions such as “Why do you play with these Jackasses”, and less than five minutes later, we find you deep in discussion with exactly the same persons you were indicating were jackasses. This indicates to me that I am dealing with an impulsive individual. Someone who does not have the discipline to practice what he preaches. And that is the main difference between you and I. These perceptions are how you told me who you were. As you can see, you should be frustrated at yourself for putting your business on the street. But self examination is another weak point that I have recognized in you, so I doubt that will happen.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
c’mon a_p. That is the rational of a stalker.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“It must be quite frustrating for you, for me to know exactly who you are and you to have no idea who I am. And that is reason enough for me to continue to use a screen name”.
This is the quote I should have inserted above.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
What does forum mean? Definition: “place to express yourself”.
Gee Class, would that include letters to the editor? You keep grasping at straws. What atheist agenda am I talking about? Definition: Agenda, “matters needing attention”. If the atheist do not have an agenda, why did they write the letter to the city council, and why is Mr. Hugenberg before the County Commission discussing the invocation? Was this not matters they felt needed attention and if not, why are they doing it? And of course, we must also include the public display of the Ten Commandments, the words In God We Trust on our currency and the words “One Nation Under God in our Pledge of Allegiance. To you deny that atheists have tried to put an end to all these things? Atheists continue to bandy words and install plausible deniability in their statements, and at the same time proclaim to the world the rightness of their cause. If that were true, there would be no need for the atheists to hide their hands and swear to God that they didn’t do it. To the average person, these type of nefarious and deceptive actions indicate that we are dealing with people who do not want the full truth to be known.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
Gee, dc, are saying that the thirteen anonymous atheists are stalking the Christian community? Is there a double standard at play here? Or can we expect them to put their name in the paper soon? How many of us are holding our breath? But it was nice of it to bring it up, as it did provide an opportunity.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Talking about you, a_p, not anyone else. That wasn’t even a nice try.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
So it is a double standard. It only applies to me. Amazing that you didn’t see that question coming. I certainly did.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: You were perfectly happy using the screen name JohnB and concealing your last name before I exposed you as John Borgen.”
Snicker! Oh yes, that required a great leap of intellect to expose JohnB as John Borgen. What a great brain you have AP. How can you live with yourself being so smart? Don’t you imagine that if JohnB really were trying to conceal his identity he might have chosen a somewhat more deceptive screen name like the one you use to hide in the shadows?
And speaking of brains, I did not see any answers to my quiz of your knowledge of modern agriculture (which does not have anything to do with turning on old John Deere tractors).
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You keep talking about an “atheist agenda,” but what about a “Christian agenda?”
I think we could all benefit from finding out where are coming from, and the kind of agenda you are likely to promote, if you would answer the following question:
“Can anyone who has NOT accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior pass through the gates into heaven?” YES or NO?
It’s a simple question that can be easily answered with one of two words, and with no hesitation or equivocation.
Although it’s a simple question, I find that many “so-called” Christians, especially conservative Christians, do in fact try to equivocate, for several reasons:
1) If they answer YES, they are admitting there are possibly paths to the afterlife (if it exists at all) which may not include Jesus Christ. To moderate Christians, this is not necessarily a “faith-killer,” but to a evangelical or Pentecostal, it’s a spiritual crisis.
2) If they answer NO, they are asserting that Christianity is the ONLY path to the afterlife and that all other religions and faith traditions are not only patently false, but doom their adherents to perpetual damnation.
So AP, are you willing to tell us where you’re coming from and what type of agenda you represent?
So there is no possibility of confusion, let me repeat the question:
“”Can anyone who has NOT accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior pass through the gates into heaven?” YES or NO?
We await your response.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-p, you are truly the center of the universe and have accomplished so much, NOT. Your delusional grandiosity knows no bounds. Someone should collect your posts in this forum and show them to a psychiatrist who could have a field day with them. You are truly a source of amazement and would make for a classic study for a PhD thesis for someone who doesn’t already have one. Just so you know, you haven’t affected me in any way whatsoever other than utter amazement in the lengths someone would go to try to bolster his self esteem which seems to be so unbelievably low that it has to need an anonymous outlet to berate others with wild schemes and conspiracies and delusions that you are in control, of who knows what. It certainly is not others who happen on your rants. Get help before you go postal. Have a nice day!
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“In your previous statement Scott, you answered a question but failed to answer the question: Your statement was “ Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return.”
Not exactly. My full statement was: “As I have stated all along, yes. GJBubba has already pointed out that “working with” doesn’t mean “hired by.” Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return. That doesn’t seem likely.”
You’re quote-mining again.
“The subject under discussion was if Mr. Hugenberg working for/on behalf of the atheist group.”
Which I have answered several times. Somehow, you seem to keep missing each one.
“You seemed to be indicating that Mr. Hugenberg was an altruistic atheist, but later you denied that Mr. Hugenberg was an atheist. What I am asking you to do is explain this statement: “ Of course, you have to accept that atheists can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return.” in context to mean anything but that you were indicating that Mr. Hugenberg was an atheist.”
Sorry. What I should have said was “Of course, you have to accept that NON-CHRISTIANS can be altruistic and will actually do something without getting something in return.”
I still don’t think that’s likely to happen. Are you done nit-picking this irrelevant point yet?
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Why are you still referring to “the anonymous thirteen”? You said you were going to rush down to City Hall the week after news about the letter broke and get a copy and post the names right here. Surely you know who they are by now, since their names are a matter of public record. Last I heard, that wasn’t exactly anonymous.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
Why did you ignore my farming questions? I thought that you indicated that you worked on a farm as a boy? How long ago would that have been? You never miss an opportunity to present your scientific knowledge. That may make you a scientist, but it does not make you a farmer, especially as it relates to the time slot of when you were a boy. I on the other hand, lay no claim to scientific applications in farming as my experience was back in the days when the corn plant that you grew could be used the next year for seed. Farmers have been growing plants long before the discovery of hormones and chromosomes, and have been doing so successfully. I’m afraid if we depended on scientists, throughout the first three quarters of the development of farming techniques, mankind would not be here. Everybody knows that they don’t get their hands dirty. I placed my questions in a time slot that you should be familiar with, if you truly had the experience that you claim. But I am sure you would rather discuss science rather than farming. That fact is very evident.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GjBubba,
Ask a theologian. I do not pretend to speak for all denominations of the Christian faith, I speak only for myself. And I have an agenda. My agenda is to oppose the atheist agenda. I hope that helps.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So you’re opposing a group trying to uphold the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the US Constitution. No matter if they’re right or not, but just because they’re atheists.
You know, the KKK believe they’re patriots too.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 5:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JohnB,
I am so glad that I entertain you. I find you quite entertaining too. As for my posts, they are public property, do as you will. I know I forward many of the posts that are written on this site to individuals I think might have an interest. I would only expect you to do the same. The fact that I am engaged by three to four people with opposing point of views, I would say indicates that you all have a interest in what I say. Otherwise, in your words, why are you ” playing with these jackasses”. I do believe that you can go bye bye at any time your temperament will allow it. It works for me.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Are you now indicating that Mr. Hugenberg is a non-Christian, but not an atheist?
And neither am I anonymous. I am known by name to the very same City Council members, but I am unknown on this forum, and so are the atheists. And Oh, by the way, I am not the one that started the conversation about anonymity. I just mentioned the anonymous atheists to point out dc and Johnb’s double standard. I noticed that you don’t post your last name and you have explained that and I agree with your explanation and your decision, however there are some on this site who apparently do not. Although they use a screen name also, and do not post their last name. But then you and I both recognize that they can’t counter my arguments, so they feel it necessary to try to change the subject. This results in their constant search for new subjects.
It is your interpretation that the atheists are trying to uphold the Constitution. I do not agree. I believe they are trying to destroy, systematically, our free expression of religion. And it would appear that the public is in agreement with me. Scott, have you ever heard the expression three hundred million flies can’t be wrong. I have heard all of your arguments and I understand your position, and I think you understand mine, so rather than play the question and answer game, why don’t you just do your thing and I will do mine. Sort of a live and let live philosophy. That is unless my being offends you. I know that is a big thing with atheists.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: ” But I am sure you would rather discuss science rather than farming. That fact is very evident.”
I was discussing farming. Farming as it is practiced by the farmer of the 21st century. Farming as it is practiced by those who farm on the scale which produces the bulk of the food in this country. Those folks are quite conversant with the questions I posed and they factor in those and similar questions such as: what does it take to create a “roundup ready crop”? in every decision they make. Ask any agricultural graduate of Colorado State University or my 85 year old uncle who along with his sons farms hundreds of acres in central Indiana and you will find this knowledge is crucial to modern farming.
How do I know this? During the 1980s I ran a genetic engineering company of more than 100 Ph.D.s and M.D.s plus many technicians near San Francisco . Although our emphasis was on human health, we turned a lot of our people loose on plant genetic engineering since that was more advanced at the time and closer to useful products. We even bought one of the largest seed companies in California as an outlet for our products. We had many meetings of the largest growers of the major crop plants all across the country and I personally along with our ag engineers spent many weeks in the field with these folks working with new crops. We engineered plants now being used every day in modern agriculture. So I suggest your knowledge of agriculture as it is practiced today is irrelevant-much like the 10 acres of alfalfa I have been growing for fun for the last 10 years on my property here in Colorado.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 7:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
Was the experience you cited in the 21st century? Is that when you were a boy and worked on a farm? What kind of farmer is it that can’t start a John Deere tractor, or knows nothing about standard farm equipment used to move dirt? Heck, you didn’t even know that the first thing you do when you go to milk a cow is get a bucket, filled with warm water. But this is the kind of nonsense I have come to expect. You invent a history to try to give yourself credibility, like being a horse expert, but you didn’t even know which side you mount from and that is why these things come back to bite you, because it becomes obvious that you don’t know the first thing you are talking about. You can’t answer the question as asked, so you try to change the questions. Why don’t you stick with the things you really know or can look up online, before opening your mouth and removing all doubt. I would defer to you in things of science. Why do you have such a problem in deferring to me in things that I know about? Do you have some kind of a unquenchable thirst to appear smarter than others or more experienced? Haven’t you ever considered that people are not looking for a Jack of all trades? They are simply looking for someone who can speak credibly to the things they say that they have experience in. Try to ease back on your all-knowing, all-seeing persona. You will get a much more harmonious outcome, and might even pick up a little respect along the way.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A_P - “It is your interpretation that the atheists are trying to uphold the Constitution. I do not agree. I believe they are trying to destroy, systematically, our free expression of religion.”
Just how did you come up with this conclusion? Your free expression of religion is limited to free personal speech. Even Sandra Day O’Connor, in a recent court decision, affirmed the difference between free personal speech and that which is government. The City Council, or any other government body, when offering an invocation or any other verbal testimony is considered government speech. And that, sir, is not personal and is not protected by the first or any other amendment. You claim to be so well informed in such matters and yet you cannot, or will not, discern the difference between personal and government speech.
If you are going to opine and criticize, at least get you facts straight. Nobody, including the atheists, is trying to limit you right to express your “personal” speech. However, when it is in the realm of government speech, it is, by law, limited and must conform to a limited set of guidelines that seeks only to limit any sort of tyranny by the christians or others that would impose their beliefs upon others through the use of a government forum. If, in fact, you are truly educated, try acting like it and not like someone who would put their personal agenda ahead of the rights of others.
Try being a real American and a true Patriot. So far, you have been neither.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You said, “Ask a theologian.”
Your pathetic equivocation and refusal to answer a question about the central tenant of your supposed Christian belief system speaks volumes about your lack of devotion to the baby Jesus.
As a spirit-filled, bible-believing Christian, you just don’t measure up.
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura once remarked that, “Religion is for losers.” In your case, Jesse was prophetic.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 9:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Are you now indicating that Mr. Hugenberg is a non-Christian, but not an atheist?”
It is my understanding that he considers himself agnostic.
“And neither am I anonymous. I am known by name to the very same City Council members, but I am unknown on this forum, and so are the atheists.”
Then why continue to point out that their names are unknown here?
“And Oh, by the way, I am not the one that started the conversation about anonymity. I just mentioned the anonymous atheists to point out dc and Johnb’s double standard. I noticed that you don’t post your last name and you have explained that and I agree with your explanation and your decision, however there are some on this site who apparently do not.”
You seem to keep mentioning the atheists with the descriptor “anonymous” attached, as if that were important in some way.
“Although they use a screen name also, and do not post their last name. But then you and I both recognize that they can’t counter my arguments, so they feel it necessary to try to change the subject.”
Either they can’t, or they simply don’t bother. Some battle just don’t need to be fought.
“This results in their constant search for new subjects.”
Can’t discuss the same old conspiracies every day, can we?
“It is your interpretation that the atheists are trying to uphold the Constitution. I do not agree. I believe they are trying to destroy, systematically, our free expression of religion.”
You are entitled to your opinion, but bear in mind that I know these people, I have attended their meetings, I am in a position to know first hand what their goals are, and I am telling you that you are wrong.
“And it would appear that the public is in agreement with me.”
So what? The public is not privy to all the information I have. Just because you and the rest of the Christian community want the atheists to have a nefarious motive for everything they do doesn’t mean the atheists actually have one.
“Scott, have you ever heard the expression three hundred million flies can’t be wrong.”
Sure they can. At one time everyone on earth thought it was flat. At one time everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. Just because everyone agrees on something doesn’t mean they’re right.
“I have heard all of your arguments and I understand your position, and I think you understand mine, so rather than play the question and answer game, why don’t you just do your thing and I will do mine. Sort of a live and let live philosophy. That is unless my being offends you. I know that is a big thing with atheists.”
Sounds good to me. Stop saying things about the atheists that you don’t actually know and I won’t have any reason to tell you that you’re wrong. You don’t know any of the atheists as far as I know, and you don’t know their motivation. You have not attended any of the meetings, so everything you say about why they are doing what they’re doing is pure speculation.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 10:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scottie, was there a coherent thought in there somewhere?
You are beginning to look like little bobbie, from delta.
Lots of words with zero intellectual effort behind them.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DaBookie
The invocation problem here will not stop with public officials. It will go on to include public forum, by private individuals and then it will be any public place. It is already not limited to prayer. You will recall the Ten Commandments, and the objection to them being viewable on public property. And In God We Trust. Those words offend atheists, even though they cannot see them on the currency in my pocket, which is in my possession and my property. The fact that they are there is enough. The words One Nation Under God, are offensive to atheists as part of our Pledge of Allegiance, and there are just one or two things more that you seem to have overlooked. Offense would appear to be the basis for the atheists demands, at least that is what they say on this forum, and I would expect that to continue to be the basis for their agenda.
The law is not what motivates them, it is simply a tool that they use to achieve their agenda. And unfortunately, the law is used as a threat of litigation, against our public officials, and as intimidation. The result, as evidenced by the local City Council invocation issue is not a fair hearing in a court of law, but rather an agreement where Christian’s individual right to the free expression can be waved by a third party in the form of a policy. This particular strategy seeks to shift the burden of proof as well as the cause of action to the Christian community.
As evidenced by the much discussed issue of man-camps, it is easily foreseeable by atheists that some future degradation of property owner rights could occur as a result of an agreement between the County Commissioners and an oil company. However, possible degradation of the Constitutionally guaranteed right of free exercise of religious beliefs , by agreement, is not recognized by those same atheists. But it is a clear and present danger due to the ever changing nature, high court makeup and their interpretations, and evidence of that danger presents itself with every new decision of an activist judiciary. The invocation by an individual public official does not create a law. There is no mandatory participation nor is there any penalty prescribed for failure to participate, therefore, notwithstanding interpretation it does not meet the necessary requirements for a violation of the establishment clause to wit; “Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. Rather what is being established by the atheists is a religious test whereby an individual must relinquish their individual right of free exercise in order to hold public office, and such a religious test is expressly prohibited by the Constitution, without need for interpretation.
Interpretation is a necessary part of the atheist theory that an invocation is a violation of the establishment clause. And thus is subject to reconsideration or change, and I believe that the majority view is of right entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of each unique and individual case in a court of law. Agreements by atheists and a third party seek to circumvent that right.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 10:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
I am sorry I don’t live up to your expectations as a Christian. You certainly live up to all I expect from an atheist. And your post validates my expectations.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 10:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Your understanding that Mr. Hugenberg is an agnostic answers my question regarding your statement. Thank you.
The atheist group being anonymous on this forum, I would assume carries the same importance as me being anonymous, and evidently some of your cohorts believe that their standards should apply to one and not the other. That’s why I mentioned it.
Unfortunately, I do not know these people, and you telling me that I am wrong does not make it so. It is simply your opinion. In day’s past, that would have carried some weight with me, but I am afraid that was in days past.
If public opinion is aligned against you, by virtue of missing information as you claim, and you are in possession of that information, as you claim, why not be forthcoming and enjoy the benefits of public support for your cause.
The earth is flat. Majority view, Scott, is what it is at any given time. But it is perpetually what drives public acceptance, and that is a necessary part of success. Without it, there can be no success.
Stop saying things about the atheists; yes, I am sure you would like that Scott. However, you may recall that it was not me but rather the atheists who said they were offended by the free exercise of religion and contrary to your assertions, in the case of the invocation at the City Council, the atheists have proven nothing. Yet they continue to profess their offense, and make demands. Witness Mr. Hugenbergs appearance before the County Commission, and witness the fact that atheists on this forum continue to try to justify and advance their agenda, and now you would have me be silent. Fairness in your statement is conspicuous by it’s absence. Would you now demand that I relinquish my Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech as well as demanding that I relinquish my right to the free exercise of my religious beliefs? Is this what the atheists believe in?
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 11:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: The earth is flat. Majority view, Scott, is what it is at any given time. But it is perpetually what drives public acceptance, and that is a necessary part of success”
Absolute drivel. The earth was never flat even though the majority believed it so. The principles of evolution are solid even though the majority do not accept them. Success??? Public acceptance?? Only if you define success the way a politician does. Adoption of ignorance was never a “success” (although to be fair it was said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public)
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 11:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: Heck, you didn’t even know that the first thing you do when you go to milk a cow is get a bucket, filled with warm water. But this is the kind of nonsense I have come to expect. You invent a history to try to give yourself credibility, like being a horse expert, but you didn’t even know which side you mount from and that is why these things come back to bite you, because it becomes obvious that you don’t know the first thing you are talking about.
These are all just plain stupid lies. I was milking cows and riding horses before you were born. I invented no history whatsoever. What do you mean that I did not know which side to mount from? You just made that up. You are the one who is inventing things here. You talk about respect. Well you get no respect from me for making up lies to serve as straw men and then knocking them over.
And I point out that you are the one who made the first belittling comments about me being a city boy and not knowing how to interact with tomato farmers. I was forced to point out in defense that it is you who is largely ignorant of agriculture and that know next to nothing about the whole question of farming. I suggest that if you do not want to be exposed like this you not start arguments which you cannot finish and which end up making you look even more ignorant of the world and its operations.
And finally before you start accusing others of inventing history, you may want to look to your own unsupported assertion of Native American heritage.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 6:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You said, “I am sorry I don’t live up to your expectations as a Christian.”
My expectations about your status as a Christian are irrelevant - but if you’re to spearhead an effort against the atheists, you must have credibility, something you’ve yet to establish with your potential followers.
You can immediately ameliorate the situation by answering my simple question:
“Can anyone who has NOT accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior pass through the gates into heaven?” YES or NO?
Unless you publicly declare that your version of Christianity is the only true path to heaven and that all other religious belief systems are false and heretical, how can ever expect to launch a crusade against the unbelievers. YOU need to believe before you can convince others to follow you in cleansing our community of the Godless, heathen Atheists.
The dilemma you face is that, as a Christian fundamentalist, the only answer you can choose is the very one which exposes your version of Christianity as arrogant, intolerant, bigoted and dangerous.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 6:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP/Willis - I would appreciate a “Christian” perspective from both of you regarding the validity of invocations under the expanded policy just adopted by the Grand Junction City Council.
“If a public invocation is given at a City Council meeting which appeals to a deity (Allah, Visnu, Thor, Great Spirit, etc) other than the Christian deity, is that invocation valid?”
Inquiring minds await your answers.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
The ultimate judgement of your fraudulent experience and claims to expertise must be left to those who have witnessed your inability to answer even the most elementary questions that would give credence to your claims. And in the next breath you question my heritage, as if I would seek your validation. I am what I am which makes me no more or no less than any other man. Would you ask a Black man to prove that he is Black to a blind man? The arrogance of your statements borders on megalomania. It is obvious that you are consumed by your inability to rational conversation, but please continue yourself, as you make my point so eloquently in your ramblings.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 9:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
I find it interesting that you would use the word crusade, in application to my resistance to the atheist agenda. Would you equally apply the term jihad to your atheist efforts? Or would you label yourself as an infidel? What is it exactly that invokes such hatred against people of belief? I cannot say that your efforts to your cause are unique. Our country has been witness to just such efforts before, from men wearing white hoods and jackboots.
Your assertions that all Christians are the same is simply nothing if it is not the ramblings of a person filled with hate and rage. You seek not solutions, but confrontation, and your questions betray your intentions. It is not answers that you seek, rather it is ammunition that you desire.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Your understanding that Mr. Hugenberg is an agnostic answers my question regarding your statement. Thank you.”
Your welcome.
“The atheist group being anonymous on this forum, I would assume carries the same importance as me being anonymous, and evidently some of your cohorts believe that their standards should apply to one and not the other. That’s why I mentioned it.”
You are known to the city council, and so are the atheists. They signed the letter that you have apparently not seen. They are not known here, and neither are you. Therefore you are equally as anonymous as the atheists. Yet that seems to be perfectly fine with you. That seems to be a double standard. Didn’t you recently say you hated double standards?
“Unfortunately, I do not know these people, and you telling me that I am wrong does not make it so. It is simply your opinion.”
That is your opinion. Since I do know these people, I am in a position to judge whether what you say about them is correct or not. You don’t have to believe me, but take it from me that they are getting no small amount of amusement at your continual misunderstandings and wild conspiracy theories. And that is not my opinion. It is a fact.
“In day’s past, that would have carried some weight with me, but I am afraid that was in days past.”
Your loss.
“If public opinion is aligned against you, by virtue of missing information as you claim, and you are in possession of that information, as you claim, why not be forthcoming and enjoy the benefits of public support for your cause.”
Why do you think the public would believe me any more than you do? Because they don’t want to believe what I say is true. It would mean atheists aren’t as bad as they want them to be.
“The earth is flat. Majority view, Scott, is what it is at any given time.”
But that majority view didn’t make the earth flat. It was still round, and the majority was wrong.
“But it is perpetually what drives public acceptance, and that is a necessary part of success. Without it, there can be no success.”
Tell that to the atheists, who got the city council to change without public acceptance.
“Stop saying things about the atheists; yes, I am sure you would like that Scott.”
You’re quote-mining again. I didn’t say stop saying things about the atheists. I said stop saying things about the atheists THAT YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO KNOW. There is a difference.
“However, you may recall that it was not me but rather the atheists who said they were offended by the free exercise of religion and contrary to your assertions, in the case of the invocation at the City Council, the atheists have proven nothing.
Wrong again. The atheists said they were offended at an unlawful religious practice at a government function that does not fall under free practice of religion. And they apparently didn’t have to prove anything, since the council agreed with them.
“Yet they continue to profess their offense, and make demands. Witness Mr. Hugenbergs appearance before the County Commission,”
Perhaps because it is a separate government entity that is doing the same thing?
“…and witness the fact that atheists on this forum continue to try to justify and advance their agenda, and now you would have me be silent.”
No, I would have you stop saying things that you are not in a position to know.
“Fairness in your statement is conspicuous by it’s absence. Would you now demand that I relinquish my Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech as well as demanding that I relinquish my right to the free exercise of my religious beliefs? Is this what the atheists believe in?”
No, simply that you stop saying things that you are not in a position to know. That’s all.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The last rambling is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black is it not?
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 7:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I am not only OK with the atheists being anonymous on this forum, I actually enjoy it. The people that need to know who they are either now know or soon will know. The problem wasn’t with me. It was with members of the group who don’t like me referring to the anonymous atheists. It seems somehow, that they feel that I should refer to them as the group or the group of twelve, thirteen or fourteen according to whom you talk to, so I will just continue referring to them as anonymous atheists, since that is what they are on this forum, there should be no objections, Right?
Of course if you continue to withhold that information, then your prediction that people will not believe you becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. How can they believe information that is not given?
As I said before, without public acceptance, then your agreement with the City Council can be reversed, simply with another vote. You have accomplished nothing but a temporary fix, which I believe was what was intended, because it allows your leadership to revisit the limelight of the agreement, and it becomes more apparent every day that they intend to continue to revisit their agreements until they have everything they want.
What I am in a position to know is their pattern of behavior and I am also in a position to evaluate for myself where I think they are headed with their agenda. It is called an opinion, Scott, and I will post mine when and where I see fit. It belongs wherever I put it, whether you like it or not.
Gee Scott, I thought it was atheists that had the problem with the Ten Commandments, with the words In God We Trust on our currency and with the words One Nation Under God in our pledge. Just who did you think it was, the Baptists? Give me a break. You lump all Christians together as one group. When I do the same for your anonymous atheist friends, suddenly you want to consider them in the singular. Sorry, fella, what goes round, comes round. Your attitude is “they are out little group of atheists and that makes all the difference in the world”. It makes no difference what-so-ever. You see, I remember the threats to bring in the national atheist groups. As I recall, the statement was, in regard to our elected officials, “they are the ones going to jail”. One of the things I discussed with you early on in the invocation issue when you jumped in and answered a question that I asked of Class was ‘did you want to be responsible for what other people said’. Maybe you should try being honest and actually reading some of the hateful things that have been said against Christians on this forum. You want me to be responsible for all things done or said by Christians. The You there is plural, but when I confront you with things other atheists say, you and you cohorts hide your hands, and try to reply with ‘not our little atheist group’. You want to have it both ways. I give back only what I get. And it has been proven to me by you and other atheists that you are not interested in talking to me as an individual, you are only interested in using me as your Christian whipping boy. So be it.
Why would I not be in a position to know. Actions speak louder than words, and political agenda is not rocket science. What you would have or not have is of no consequence to me. Defeating your agenda is, and I shall do everything within my power to accomplish that. What you have never realized Scott, is the importance of public acceptance. You never felt it necessary to include me or the religious community in negotiations for your agreement, and we have no agreement nor are we likely to ever have an agreement. You had every opportunity to include the religious community, but you saw no need to, and that is how you created your own resistance.
Why don’t you practice what you preach?
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“I am not only OK with the atheists being anonymous on this forum, I actually enjoy it.”
Then why have you threatened several times to get the names and post them here?
“The people that need to know who they are either now know or soon will know.”
Everyone who actually needs to know already does.
“The problem wasn’t with me. It was with members of the group who don’t like me referring to the anonymous atheists. It seems somehow, that they feel that I should refer to them as the group or the group of twelve, thirteen or fourteen according to whom you talk to, so I will just continue referring to them as anonymous atheists, since that is what they are on this forum, there should be no objections, Right?”
Except that conveys the impression that they are attempting to hide their identities, when that is far from the case. You are perpetuating a false impression, and you know it. Lying for Jesus once again.
“Of course if you continue to withhold that information, then your prediction that people will not believe you becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
What am I withholding? No one has asked me to post the names, and I don’t know all of them in any case. If someone doesn’t want to believe me because I do not provide information I have not been asked for and do not know, then that is their problem.
“How can they believe information that is not given?”
Why are their names even relevant? Is someone here going to doubt that the names are real? Is someone here going to change their opinion on the subject if they read a list of names? This is a meaningless point, AP. The names mean nothing.
“As I said before, without public acceptance, then your agreement with the City Council can be reversed, simply with another vote.”
Hardly. The City Council would then be subject to a lawsuit, which they are aware of, which is why they changed their policy in the first place. Public opinion does not change the legal situation, no matter how much you want it to.
“You have accomplished nothing but a temporary fix, which I believe was what was intended, because it allows your leadership to revisit the limelight of the agreement, and it becomes more apparent every day that they intend to continue to revisit their agreements until they have everything they want.”
Ask the city council if it is temporary. You won’t like the answer.
“What I am in a position to know is their pattern of behavior and I am also in a position to evaluate for myself where I think they are headed with their agenda.”
But your conclusions are only speculations, and they are based on incorrect information. You can think they are headed to Cleveland for all anyone cares. You are wrong, and that is not an opinion.
“It is called an opinion, Scott, and I will post mine when and where I see fit.”
As long as you recognize that that is all it is, and I will continue to point out where your opinions are wrong.
“It belongs wherever I put it, whether you like it or not.”
As do my critiques.
“Gee Scott, I thought it was atheists that had the problem with the Ten Commandments, with the words In God We Trust on our currency and with the words One Nation Under God in our pledge.
We should see some decisions on the last two items by the end of the year. Should be interesting. What will you do if those things are ruled unconstitutional as well? Will that be a plot to take your guns as well?
“Just who did you think it was, the Baptists? Give me a break. You lump all Christians together as one group. When I do the same for your anonymous atheist friends, suddenly you want to consider them in the singular.”
Perhaps because there is no atheist organization that they are all subject to. You are demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding about atheism. I recognize that there are different denominations of Christianity. 30,000 or so the last time I looked. There are as many kinds of atheism as there are atheists. You decry them for their lack of organization, when they have never claimed to have one. If John B or GJBubba want to do something as atheists, that has nothing to do with the WCAF. Pointing out that they aren’t cooperating is simply meaningless.
“Sorry, fella, what goes round, comes round. Your attitude is “they are out little group of atheists and that makes all the difference in the world”. It makes no difference what-so-ever.”
Unless you actually understand what’s going on. Then it actually does make a difference.
“You see, I remember the threats to bring in the national atheist groups. As I recall, the statement was, in regard to our elected officials, “they are the ones going to jail”. One of the things I discussed with you early on in the invocation issue when you jumped in and answered a question that I asked of Class was ‘did you want to be responsible for what other people said’. Maybe you should try being honest and actually reading some of the hateful things that have been said against Christians on this forum. You want me to be responsible for all things done or said by Christians.”
When have I ever said that? I haven’t, so your point is irrelevant.
“The You there is plural, but when I confront you with things other atheists say, you and you cohorts hide your hands, and try to reply with ‘not our little atheist group’.”
Because they aren’t, and we are not responsible for what anyone else says.
“You want to have it both ways. I give back only what I get. And it has been proven to me by you and other atheists that you are not interested in talking to me as an individual, you are only interested in using me as your Christian whipping boy. So be it.”
Funny, I thought I was talking to you as an individual. I don’t recall holding you responsible for anything but your own words. Must be more of that “some atheist did this so all of them are guilty.”
“Why would I not be in a position to know. Actions speak louder than words, and political agenda is not rocket science.”
Of course, actually having read the original letter, being part of the meetings with the city, going to the atheist meetings and so on would help someone understand the actual motivations too. You have apparently done none of these things, and yet claim to know the motivations anyway. Do you diagnose psychological problems over the phone too?
“What you would have or not have is of no consequence to me. Defeating your agenda is, and I shall do everything within my power to accomplish that.”
Have fun tilting at the windmills, Don. You only have your speculation, yet you apparently won’t be convinced it isn’t proven fact. I look forward to your future efforts.
“What you have never realized Scott, is the importance of public acceptance. You never felt it necessary to include me or the religious community in negotiations for your agreement, and we have no agreement nor are we likely to ever have an agreement.”
Which is one reason you weren’t included. The main reason, of course, is because the issue had nothing to do with the public and only involved the city council.
“You had every opportunity to include the religious community, but you saw no need to, and that is how you created your own resistance.”
I still see no need to. You certainly haven’t convinced me that such is necessary. Do you really think its okay to be in violation of the Constitution as long as the majority thinks its okay?
“Why don’t you practice what you preach?”
I do. I just don’t practice what you claim I’m preaching. There’s a big difference.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 10:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, there is a difference between you and I. You can justify anything in your own mind, because you have no need for justification. There is only the need to destroy what is good, in the name of pretend offense. It was never justice you were seeking, only the exercise of power. You deny the existence of God with the ease of a man without a conscience. You have struck a blow to what is good and you are proud and your thirst is unquenchable. You say you were once a Christian, but it is not enough for you to renounce God. The existence of religion is clearly an offense to you. You have entered a world where there is no coexistence with beliefs other than your own. You deny the atheists ongoing agenda, but your groups actions speak otherwise. You have chosen your side and you ride for the brand. You do not fear a reckoning and you see that as power, and that is the thirst that cannot be sated. You are a willing player in the battle between good and evil. What you don’t realize, Scott is that is not me that opposes you, nor you that opposes God.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 9:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
At least I am not so arrogant as to pretend I know what someone else is thinking, what their true motivations are or what they actually believe, especially when I don’t even know the names of the people in question.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And just a short time ago, you were so sure that evangelical Christians were trying to take over, and create a theocracy. What were the names of those evangelical Christians again? And what was it you were saying about arrogance? Perhaps as an atheist you would like to quote from the Bible. You must think you are Rollo Thomasi.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You don’t remember that whole list of Christian groups whose stated purpose was to institute a Christian theocracy in the US?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
scottie, since before this nation was formed there have been Christian groups in charge of the various levels of government.
Which village, town, city, county, State or even the federal government is a theocracy?
Typical, toss out a few lies and see if they get shot down.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
It was the atheist assertion that Christian Evangelists were creating a theocracy. What I asked for was the names of those people. Just as a reminder, of your arrogance, your quote is below.
Scott said “At least I am not so arrogant as to pretend I know what someone else is thinking, what their true motivations are or what they actually believe, especially when I don’t even know the names of the people in question”.
My assertion was about a group of atheists. Your assertions was about a group of evangelical Christians. What is the difference? If not naming each individual in a group makes me arrogant, then why doesn’t not naming each individual in a group make you arrogant? Sounds a lot like you are applying the usual atheist double standard. Would you like salt with that crow? Or would you rather add salt to your weasel?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Which village, town, city, county, State or even the federal government is a theocracy?”
Scott noted that the stated purpose of these groups (by their own admission) was to create a theocracy-not that they have done so. So where is the “few lies”? The fact they have so far been unable to do so is a testament to the effectiveness of our Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh classless buffoon, please refer your ignorant comments to post # 50.
We are waiting for the names of the Christian Groups that stated their purpose was to create a theocracy.
Why are we waiting? No names that can be checked out and you are finally getting tired of being proven a liar with nearly every post you put up here?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Regarding theocracy, or attempts at such-
Up until quite recently, it was illegal for liquor stores in Colorado to be open on Sundays.
Where do y’all think that law came from?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DaBookie,
I believe it was you who posted the list of Christian organizations involved in creating theocracies. If you still have that, could you repost it? Apparently a few people didn’t notice it the first time.
Thanks.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
You want some names? How about Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, Alan Sears, Donald Wildmon, Jay Sekulow, and Jerry Falwell. Granted, a couple of these are dead now, but they all have stated a desire for Christianity to be the official religion of the US.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 5:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Those are names of leadership. That would be like me producing the names, Dan Barker, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Heather Weaver, Ellen Johnson or even Anne Landman. These are all atheist leadership names, not specific names of individuals that are not in a leadership position. It looks like you are still arrogant. Since I know that you don’t want your name exposed, I’m going to play nice and just give you the initials of the first five signers of the atheist letter. ABM, JAM, JJ, JMS, MMD. If you wish, I will be happy to produce all of the names as they are a matter of public record. So I think you can knock off your arrogance labeling, unless you can produce the individual names, but if you would rather dance, keep it up.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee, you finally went and got the names. Does that help you know what they’re thinking? I don’t see how. You still don’t know them. You still don’t know anything about this so-called atheist agenda. You still haven’t been to any of the meetings. You still have zero claim on what their motivations are.
And the names I posted are on record as wanting Christianity as the official religion of the United States. That’s all you asked for, that’s what you got. No shifting the goalposts now. You are still assuming something that I am not.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 6:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I’ve had the names for some time now. If you would like them printed, I would be happy to. You are acting like a jerk. But if you want to keep it up, so be it. I am sure that the other individuals won’t mind. What is your pleasure. Do you think I am arrogant, yes or no?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 6:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think you are arrogant is assuming the motivations of people you don’t know. Do you know any of the people on the list personally? If not, how can you say with such certainty why they are doing what they are doing?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: You are acting like a jerk. But if you want to keep it up, so be it. I am sure that the other individuals won’t mind.
i.e. scott refuses to play AP’s little games.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think he’s trying to intimidate me by threatening to post the names of the atheists. I’m not sure why. As he said, they are public record.
How about this. “Back off, AP, or I’ll post the names of the Supreme Court judges!”
Hmm. Somehow it just doesn’t seem too threatening if the names are already in the public domain.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I received your answer and will act accordingly. Question, would you still like to have your name withheld from the list? Please answer immediately.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What makes you think my name is on the list?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sent
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, when referring to one of his critics stated: “I think he’s trying to intimidate me by threatening to post the names of the atheists. I’m not sure why. As he said, they are public record.”
Scott is quite correct. Who cares who these atheists are? Their names are on the public record. Therefore AP’s so-called ‘threat’ is nothing more than ‘threatening’ to lash someone with a wet noodle. Actually, the atheists show much more forthrightness and courage than AP who hides behind anonymity, even on this board.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I believe AP’s last post indicates he sent the names in a letter to the editor. I wonder if he realizes that the Sentinel had a copy of the letter the week is was sent. He’s not exactly telling anyone anything they didn’t already know.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
On the contrary, I am making sure that it gets to all the people who don’t know. I could care less about the Sentinel. But don’t worry, your name is not on it. Do you have any idea how many churches there are in this town?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How are them windmills, Don?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
My problem was, I didn’t want to send both pages of the document and signatures, so I needed to find someone to verify that the atheist signatures were from the document. And you did that for me Scott.
Thanks
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Really? When did I do that? You aren’t assuming again, are you?
I honestly couldn’t put any names with the initials you posted. I couldn’t tell you if they are from the letter or not. I just assumed you knew what you were talking about. That may have been a mistake.
I’ll bet its not one I’ll live to regret, though. How about you?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice try Scott, but I think you are a little bit late. But while we are on the subject of the letter, Maybe you could explain why it doesn’t mention the free thinkers? Has there been some kind of rift between them and the atheists? That’s what I was trying to find out when I was talking to you the other day about no mention of the Free Thinkers.
By the way, maybe you can help me with something else. Maybe you know what happened with GJRedPill? You know, Jacob Richards. The guy who was arrested for laying down in the street when Vice President Cheney came to town. As I recall, Mr. Richards was to appear in Federal Court in Denver on the 12th or the 14th on a copyright infringement lawsuit. He was supposed to recruit for the recreate 68, code pink type demonstration at the DNC.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Keep assuming, AP. You don’t have to believe me. I am, as always, telling the truth. I do not recognize any of the initials you posted. I cannot confirm they are from the letter. I was simply assuming you actually had the letter. I have no reason to doubt that you do, or that the initials are actually from the letter, but if you’re looking for confirmation, you’re looking in the wrong place.
As for the Freethinkers, the group did not add “and Freethinkers” until after the letter was sent to the city council. No rift, just your imagination.
I have no idea about Jacob Richards. I vaguely recall hearing about that incident on the news, but I have no information beyond that. Any particular reason why you’re asking me?
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 8:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee, Scott, how do you think I knew that free thinkers weren’t included in the letter to the City Council? Do you play Chess, Scott, or Poker?
About Red Pill, never mind. That part wasn’t really important.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t really care how you knew, AP. It really isn’t that important to me.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.