If Carson says God is talking to him, I wonder what he is telling Huckabee?
Our Government an instigator of terror activities?
- Thread starter skyraider
- Start date
If Carson says God is talking to him, I wonder what he is telling Huckabee?
That's not a lie. It did trickle down, just not to everybody.
Yeah, before it can trickle down to a person, that person first has to do something to EARN what is trickling down.
That's because most atheists are just as annoying as most evangelicals.
Both will get in your face and tell you what you should and should not believe. (And hilariously, both get really mad when the shoe is on the other foot.)
And without any evidence what.so.ever to back it up, both will tell you with an absolute certainty that God does or does not exist, and that their beliefs are absolute truths.
Adults are free to believe whatever they want. I don't care. Just don't try and impose your beliefs on me, and don't substitute evidence-void beliefs for evidence-based science, especially in the classroom. It would also be a good idea to stop saying something is evidence when it's not - a lack of evidence is not evidence any more than believing something is evidence is all it takes to make it evidence.
That's called participating in the economy - trickle down or otherwise. Too many want to sit back and participate in the welfare system and get the govt goodies, ObamaPhones, etc.
Which accounts for 80%, or more, of the problems they have. No output always equals no income.
Maybe on the internet, but every atheist I know does not advertise it publicly. Some believers take that news really, really poorly and exhibit some reactions that make the now public atheist wish he'd kept his trap shut.
Just sayin'.
Maybe we have not had an atheist in the office of president, in the United States, no way to know for sure. There have been many atheists in charge of other countries. Like the Soviet Union, Communist China, etc etc, their record is not any better than what we have here, in fact, their's is much worse.
The "now public atheist" is getting exactly what he deserves, because he was probably telling someone else what to think or how to live their lives.
It is the atheist that wants to squash free speech. They won't let a judge put the Ten Commandments or some other Bible verse on the wall in his own courtroom.
It is the atheist that got team prayer removed from high school football games, even though a bunch of young men huddled up praying doesn't hurt anybody in any way, shape or form. I mean, really, who gives a rat's furry little crack?
I'm a devout agnostic with atheistic tendencies, but I'm nowhere near arrogant enough (despite the public perception of my arrogance level) to state "there is no God. Period." That's almost as arrogant as stating that "there is. Period." I at least allow for the possibility for it being proved one way or the other. The theists and atheists do not.
I've been an agnostic ever since I can remember. Even growing up in Church I never bought into the whole God, Jesus, made-from-dust-and-a-rib thing, where all things, including the impossible, are possible with God. Every religion has its own story of Creation, with only one of them coming even remotely close to what science knows. Yet they all claim to be correct. The most likely thing is that none of them are correct. But in all my years, someone praying, even out loud, even over the intercom in school, or seeing a Nativity scene on city property, or any number of other things that atheists go batctap crazy over, never once insulted and damaged my delicate sensibilities, because I believe far more strongly in freedom of speech and expression than I do in shutting it down.
One thing I do know for a stone-cold fact is, ever since prayer has been removed from schools, ever since the civilian governments comprised of civilian citizens of this country's communities have been prevented from freely speaking and expressing what is important to them, this country has gone to ****. I'm not saying there is necessarily a connection between the two, but if there is, it certainly shouldn't be dismissed because of some political ideology, that in the end is meaningless, anyway.
Yes, it has, and yes, almost assuredly there is.
We've probably already had an atheist elected as President in this country. Except they masqueraded as a Christian, but was really a closet atheist.
Anything is possible. If that is the case, they ain't no better. Ain't been a good president in who knows how long? Nuthin but BS in there for decades.
The atheists I know are agnostic atheists. No positive claims of knowing that God doesn't exist, period. More like, I see no evidence of God, so how can I believe? You're describing Gnostic Atheists, or Anti-theists.
And free speech? The first Amendment says that the GOVERNMENT can't put limits on your freedom of speech. Private citizens can say whatever they want, and you have the right to ignore them, or fire your own retort right back.
There is not. That would be saying that correlation equals causation. There are many reasons that society has problems, but strengthening the wall separating church from state is not one of them.
I think there is a correlation, but not necessarily a cause and effect. It's more complicated than that. But prayer in school couldn't hurt. It didn't hurt anyone before, and it's not likely to hurt anyone now. It was a problem that wasn't a problem that didn't need fixing so they fixed it anyway, and now we have the veritable and ubiquitous unintended consequences of liberal actions that no one wants to talk about. So what if you don't believe, yet hear the prayer? It certainly didn't hurt or offend me in any way. Hearing a prayer doesn't offend me any more than hearing "this bread is better for you because it's gluten-free."
What's offensive is seeing a package of raisins that has "Gluten Free!" on the label. But that's for another thread.
Last edited:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
1. Schools are not the congress of the United States.
2. Banning prayer in school is in clear violation of the above amendment.
As far as I know the Congress of the United States has yet to attempt to establish a "state" religion, so the "wall" of separation between church and state, which is mentioned no where in our Constitution, is still sound.
1. Schools are not the congress of the United States.
2. Banning prayer in school is in clear violation of the above amendment.
As far as I know the Congress of the United States has yet to attempt to establish a "state" religion, so the "wall" of separation between church and state, which is mentioned no where in our Constitution, is still sound.
I'm going to remove myself from this discussion.
I assure you I am not describing Gnostic Atheists. I know what Gnosticism is, and it's got nothing to do with atheism.
We have theists, atheists, and agnostics, with theists and atheists being the mirror image of each other, and atheists being in the middle. Every other flavor in between are invented philosophical labels to make people feel different or special outside the three main categories, but everybody can be solidly placed into one of three categories.
Theism and atheism deal with belief, straight up and absolute, and agnosticism deals with rational claims to asserting knowledge. Simply put, a theist believes that God does exist, an atheist believes that God does not exist, and an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God.
While I do like the term "agnostic atheist," it implies there can be such a thing as an "agnostic Christian," and isn't that just hilarious.
Most people who call themselves atheists are, in fact, agnostics, because they cannot say with any certainty that there is absolutely and without question no God. An "agnostic atheist" would be someone who says, "I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, therefore there is no God," which doesn't even make sense.
Yes, I am aware of that, thanks. Nevertheless, atheists want to put limits on the free speech of other citizens.
Well, first of all, you don't know there is not, not with any certainty. You may believe with all of your being, in full-on religious fervor, that there is not any connection, but that doesn't mean there is no connection. There may very well be. The possibility certainly exists. And saying there is no connection, without knowing for sure, is not only bad science, but flawed logic.
Second, you don't need to preach to me about illusory corollary. See the Wikipedia page on Illusory Correlation, and the page on Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, both of which which I had a rather heavy hand in editing (although the latter has recently been mucked up a bit). It's a whopper of a logical fallacy and is the bread and butter of junk or pseudo-science, as well as "Creation" science. What I said was, that there isn't necessarily a "connection" between the two. There might be, there might not be. A "connection" between the two doesn't necessarily mean a causation, but it does mean the two are linked in some way, either with each other or with some other distinct causality. However, there is, absolutely, a correlation between the two, as the country has very much gone to **** starting at the time prayer was being removed from school. The Christian right, of course, sees a direct cause and effect, but that's more to do with their own beliefs and agenda than it does with rational, critical thinking.
As I've said many times in these forums, and also right here in a reply to Leo that you hadn't yet seen before you posted this, even if there is a direct connection between the two, it's far more complicated than simply prayer removed from schools causing society's ills. I could go on and on about the causes of today's problems. I've touched on it here a couple of times, and some years ago I posted virtually a publishable book on the subject. I won't go into in depth here, but most of the problems we have today can be traced back directly to the advent of The Pill, actually. It freed women on an unprecedented scale, from men, in society, financially, mentally, emotionally, and physically. It allowed them to concentrate on their own interests rather than that of the traditional, like husband, family, children, morals and values. Because of that, the morals, values and priorities of all of society necessarily changed. Those changes have resulted in many things, including the fervent effort to remove any all all traces of religion from the state. So no, removing prayer from schools hasn't in and of itself caused today's ills, it's just part of the societal mentality that caused it to happen. Putting prayer back in schools won't in and of itself solve any problems, either, not without a fundamental change in societal mentality.
As far as "strengthening the wall separating church from state," that's a statement of a political agenda used to force other people to think and act a certain way. The Constitution is very clear on the matter, that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. The Founding Fathers knew all too well the Church of England, and they wanted no part of it. That Constitutional Amendment prevents the state from mandating a particular religion, or from even mandating that people be a member of any religion at all. But that doesn't mean the state itself must be devoid of religion and religious references. For most of our history the state has been quite religious, because the participants in government, the citizens, were themselves religious.
There are a lot of people with religious beliefs, and those beliefs are important to them. The beliefs affect many of the aspects of their daily lives. To demand those people not believe or not to exercise their beliefs just because they work at a certain place and that place is in government is an unreasonable restraint on the human mind and on personal freedom. Whether it's a picture of Jesus or Jennifer Aniston, they should be able to put it on their desk if they want, because it's an important part of their lives and they should be able to express that.
After several years of much anticipation, The Pill was unleashed on the world in 1960. The first of many landmark cases to remove prayer from school, to begin building the wall to separate church and state in all forms came in 1962, and the next in 1963. The events of 1960, 1962 and 1963 (in addition to Kennedy's assassination) caused a fundamental change in the mentality of society, which precipitated the whole "the 60s" extravaganza. Over the years, starting with the first two decisions, the Supreme Court has mucked up the meaning and spirit of the Constitution, thanks to a steady stream of church and state challenges brought almost exclusively by atheists who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else to force others how to behave.
It's gotten ridiculous. It's no longer a case of the state promoting, much less establishing a religion, it's about the mere presence of anything religious. You can't bring a Bible to school in some places now, or wear a necklace with a cross on it, because in the eyes of the atheist zealots, that's tantamount to establishment of religion, despite the fact that it's a student exercising their freedom of speech, of expression, and religion.
If a group of football players, or basketball players, or the members of the Chess Club want to huddle up and say a prayer, exercise their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression, they cannot do it on school property because the school, and thus the state, is promoting and establishing a religion. Horse hockey. If members of the Chess Club want to huddle up and pray, or recite G2-F4 and E2-E3, or read the list of ingredients in a can of Coke, I couldn't care less, and neither should anybody else who cares about personal liberty and freedom of speech. If a judge wants to put the Ten Commandment or a Carl Sandburg poem or Black Sabbath lyrics on the wall of his courtroom, I don't care. He's not establishing a religion any more than he is "little cat feet" or Ozzy Osborn. I don't care, and neither does anyone else who doesn't have a belief system they want to impose onto others.
Reading a prayer or the morning announcements over the intercom at school is exactly the same thing. People who are interested in the prayer or the announcements will pay attention and maybe get some good out of it, those who aren't interested in either or both, won't, and nobody is harmed in the process either way.
That doesn't mean it's OK for schools or some other state entity to actively promote a religion, and it's certainly not OK to teach religion in the classroom, especially the science classroom. The only place it's appropriate is in a "Bible as Literature" class or a "Comparative Religions" class. But if a teacher wants to hang a plaque on the wall in her classroom that says, "Remember the Sabbath" or "Thou shall not steal" or "Remember the Alamo" who cares? In the grand scheme of things, it just ain't that big a deal. Except, of course, those with a belief system agenda wanting to impose their beliefs onto others.
Evangelicals want religion to be taught as absolute fact in school, and atheists want all existence of religion scrubbed from school. Both are the opposite sides of the same incredibly annoying coin.
The problem is what the Supreme Court has done over the years with its decisions. As Dave would say, they've complicated the crap out of the simple.
Maybe to the already privileged few.That's not a lie. It did trickle down, just not to everybody.
There was just too many middlemen in the process. By the time it got down to the little people, there was just nothing left. Oh, well.