Atheism Gets Equal Time, O'Reilly Preaches Intolerance

To protesters who assembled outside the capitol in Washington state, freedom of religion apparently does not include freedom to hold beliefs that differ from the protesters' Christian viewpoint. They are "outraged" that a display promoting atheism stands next to a nativity scene in the state capitol.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the state from endorsing any particular religious viewpoint. Making the capitol available to competing ideas promotes the free exercise of religion without violating the Establishment Clause. Why do the protesters hate the concept of religious freedom?

The most interesting protest sign features a picture of Bill O’Reilly punching Gov. Christine Gregoire. Why O'Reilly, you ask? [more ...]

When asked what the poster was supposed to mean, the protester carrying it said Jesus Christ was “spiritually” knocking the sense of God into the governor.

Bill O'Reilly as a boxing Jesus? As if his ego were not large enough already.

For his part, O'Reilly claims that constitutionally mandated religious neutrality is "political correctness gone mad." O'Reilly is including Washington state on his list of places that aren't really part of America -- a list that includes San Francisco and Madison, Wisconsin (a city whose residents "commune with Satan").

“Washington state is ground zero for just about every nutty secular cause on Earth,” O’Reilly said. “She is a weak and confused leader who allows a fanatical group parody in Christmas displays. I mean, how crazy is this?”

How crazy is it to obey the Constitution and to respect the beliefs of all Washington residents concerning religious matters, rather than the beliefs of vocal protesters who are certain that their take on religion is the only one that matters?

< Report: Obama May Keep Hayden as CIA Chief | 9/11 Detainees to Plead Guilty in Military Commission Trials >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Christians being persecuted! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    What's Christianity without martyrdom? It was ever thus.

    It never gets old... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by OldCity on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:13:50 PM EST
    reading/hearing about perceived religious bias.  

    I find it funny that all reigions preach intolerance for those persons or acts that are "sinful", yet demand "tolerance" for their views.  

    "Faith" is what you get when intellectual curiosity goes out the window.

    i agree (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by trickydix2000 on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    Agreed, the world would be a better place without religion of any kind.  Religion divides man always has and it always will.

    Do they divide man more than borders? (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    Skin color? Natural resources? Language? Culture? etc.

    Actually, for many, (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:24:22 PM EST
    I think "faith" is what you get when you've accepted that you can't find all the answers via intellectual curiosity.

    More likely that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:41:46 PM EST
    "faith" is what you get when fear fills the knowledge void.

    There are some who are fearful (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    of accepting that knowledge can't answer all the questions.

    or maybe (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by OldCity on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    they're just not ready to give up trying to find answers.  

    The Christian religions have a long, and in my opinion, sordid history of depressing scientific inquiry.  Worse, there's a routine disregard for fact.  

    You want to believe in God?  Fine.  But if you want to claim that he's all powerful, the creator of all, then claim that the world was created 6000 years ago, when the science bequeathed us by the same entity proves that the earth is much older, well...

    I take no comfort in abandonment of reason.  


    Best, then, they don't become (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:14:09 PM EST

    Probably so. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    I don't know about all this, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by addy on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    I'm just happy to see a Festivus pole up there, too. It makes my holiday season.

    Now for the "Feats of Strength..." (none / 0) (#67)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    and the "Airing of Grievances."

    Thanks to one Lois Walker (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST
    One of my dearest friends, Alan Walker, is visiting me from Seattle.  His mother, Lois Walker, requested this action in early fall from the state honoring her "religious" beliefs. Lois Walker, who died November 6th, had her request granted.  She worked with the Freedom From Religion Foundation to have the plaque installed adjacent to the nativity scene.

    Alan is flying to Florida this week and was kind enough to lay over here in Dallas/Fort Worth and told me all about it when he arrived.  His mother was a very progressive woman who worked hard for progressive causes.  Separation of church and state was important to Lois.  We lost a feisty voice in the progressive battle when she passed last month.

    hang on (none / 0) (#2)
    by Nasarius on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    We've got two wars, massive global recession, an ongoing environmental crisis, terrorism, etc etc...and they're spending their time whining about atheists being allowed a display on public property?

    Though as an atheist/agnostic, I find this particular case of activism, well, unproductive. How does this:

    a sign that says "there are no Gods" and that "religion is but a myth and superstition."

    do anything but annoy people? Waste of time all around.

    As an atheist too, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    I think it's ok.  It is probably helpful for those who are scared to "come out" as atheist/agnostic to know that there are others who feel as they do.  I would imagine there is a lot of pressure for people to be "Christian" at this time of year, so it's probably good to have some reminders that not everyone is that way.  And it's harmless enough.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    It takes a lot of courage, actually, to be an out-of-the-closet, unapologetic atheist in this very religious society we live in. I hope more atheists take part in activism.

    When my kids were in elementary and junior high school (both public), there was constant religious pressure and intimidation, both from students and teachers - what they put up on the walls, the activities, the constant attempts to put school prayer into the curriculum, etc. It got a little better in high school, but it's still hard to be part of such a minority.

    I also recall two kids who were brothers in the junior high school attacked in gym class by other kids throwing basketballs at their heads repeatedly and telling them they were going to go to hell because they were saying they didn't believe in god. Well, they were just kids but the bad part was that the principal shrugged it off when the parents complained and blamed the brothers because "they were provoking the others by saying there was no god."

    A good friend of mine is a teacher in a public elementary school, and is completely shunned by the other teachers because she is an atheist. They don't think she is fit to be a teacher. She is a great teacher and a great advocate for children.


    Unproductive? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    A waste of time all around?

    I don't think Christians would agree with you...or they wouldn't insist that their religious displays/beliefs be promoted on public property...city hall, the capitol, parks, schools, the courthouse(!)...

    Who's to say which is proselytizing propaganda and which educational information?

    I am.  I am 'to say' when religious folks insist on taking their displays off their own (untaxable) churh property and putting it on mine...the common public property we all own.

    One might be more sympathetic to the 'mean-spirited' charge if the atheist sign were erected at churches/cathedrals.  No cases of that - that I know of.

    If Christians can't handle a sign in a public place challenging their view, they're going to have a really hard time in Hell...or even in limbo...if they exist other than in myth.


    Hell wrath no fury... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    like the superstitious when their superstitions are questioned or ridiculed.

    From what I understand of this whole brew-ha-ha, the state house is a public forum where anybody can put up just about any kind of display...so what's the problem again?

    I tend to agree with Nasarius. (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    There are many things we have a constitutional "right" to do. But, forget freedom of/from religion for a minute. How about just plain decency and common sense? , When attending a church function, don't we atheists/agnostics stand up at the appropriate time? Don't we bow our heads, as a gesture of respect when called for? That doesn't make us hypocrites; it makes us socially conscious fellow humans.

    I just don't understood, especially at a time when atheists are just beginning to gain some acceptability, the purpose of taking provocative actions such as the sign in question.    
    There can be no question that the sign was meant to anger, and hurt, the believers. They could have said something like, "there is another way," or "why not think about this?" But they chose to assault the beliefs of Christians....at Christmas time. Why would we want to provide solace for such mean spiritedness?

    I understand the arguments on both sides, completely. I know that anti-war groups have a "right" to picket a funeral where the bereaved family is burying their soldier husband/wife/parent/child. I understand gays have a "right" to march in parades half naked, "sticking it" to straight society with obscene and vulgar acts. I also understand there's a time and a place for everything.

    One also has a right to stick one's hand into a thriving, active hornet's nest. The question is, why would one choose to do so?


    Personally I thought the sign was pretty stupid (none / 0) (#5)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    on a tactical level (in terms of its content) but I certainly think they had the right to post it and it's pretty funny that it got stolen and recovered.

    Intolerance? (none / 0) (#6)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    As an evangelical Christian, I take great offense at the sign.  I'm all for freedom of speech, as is every Christian I know.  

    This is not intolerance on the part of the Christian community.  We celebrate the birth of Christ this time of year.  For an atheist organization to place a sign so hateful during this blessed time of year, that is what the problem is, not intolerance.  They could put up any sign, but to lacerate Christian's in such a way is just downright mean.

    As for Christians being martyred, do you know what more Christians are being murdered today that at any time in history for their faith than any other religion.

    I just want someone to explain to me why it seems to be okay to attack Christian(ity) and if they protest we are called intolerant.  

    Thank you!

    Like I always say Deb... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    If you aren't getting offended often, you probably don't live in a free society.  Freedom isn't free...it means we must all put up with sh*t we personally find offensive.

    Chritians have every right to protest the message of the display, just as the atheists have every right to put up a display.  And vice versa.  And we're all free to call each other names...intolerant, superstitous, godless heathens, arseholes...whatever.  And I wouldn't have it any other way...let freedom ring.

    What we can't do is attempt to silence one another by banning or prohibiting speech we personally find offensive.


    I Totally Agree (none / 0) (#12)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    I totally agree with you, but it seems that the only religion that seems to get attacked is Christianity.  

    Our freedom of speech is very important to this country & also to myself and every U.S. citizen.  



    Has it occurred to you that perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM EST
    other religions (and non-religions) are subject to criticism and, in some cases, attacks, as well, but since you are Christian you may tend not to see that as much as you see what you perceive to be attacks on Christians?  

    i'm sorry dear, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    but who, exactly, is "attacking" christianity here?

    but it seems that the only religion that seems to get attacked is Christianity.  

    if you're referring to the signs, that's hardly an "attack", in the commonly accepted definition of the word. they are professions of belief, on the part of the makers and posters of them.

    if that's all it takes for you to feel put upon, as a christian, then i submit the problem is yours. perhaps your faith isn't strong enough, that it requires so little in the way of questioning it, for you to go off the deep end, and accuse others, who don't hold to your beliefs, and have the audacity to say so in public, of attacking you.

    sorry, i just don't buy into the whole "christianity as victim" theory that you, and mr. o'reilly, are attempting to promote.


    Of course Christianity... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    will be ridiculed (I prefer ridiculed to attacked) more than other religions, it is the most popular religion in America.

    Nobody said being number 1 didn't have its drawbacks, the top dog always has the most critics.  


    Ding ding ding! (none / 0) (#20)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    We have a winner.

    I can't even respond to this statment (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:53:57 PM EST
    but it seems that the only religion that seems to get attacked is Christianity.

    As it is so obviously false that you might as well have said "the earth is flat."

    We just got through a campaign where the fact that Obama was supposedly a muslim was supposed to disqualify him from being President and you want to tell me that Christianity is the only religion that gets attacked? Please.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Joe Max on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    @STLDeb: "I totally agree with you, but it seems that the only religion that seems to get attacked is Christianity."  

    How can you actually believe that? How often is Islam attacked, even by representatives of the US government (remember the Air Force general how said in effect that "our God is real, theirs is false"?)

    US Representative Bob Barr (and recent Libertarian presidential candidate) once attacked Wiccans in the military for practicing their religion on their Army base in Texas. Said they should be banned. It took Wiccans ten years of fighting and two court cases to get the right to display the Pentagram (their sacred symbol) on military headstones of Wiccan vets who died serving their country, after George Bush said he didn't think Wicca was a "real religion." That was the president of the US who said that. Has any elected official ever said the same about Christianity?

    Meanwhile I see no lack of Christian churches here in the SF Bay Area where I live, that pit of "secular humanism" and gay marriage. There is a Lutheran church across the street from where I live. Their doors are open and they have services each Sunday. They're nice folks who don't try to push their religion in people's faces. I, a non-Christian, often shop at their flea market sales and car washes. How do you think they are being "attacked"?

    The television broadcasts are replete with Christians saying flat-out, "Become a Christian or you will go to Hell." Can you claim that is not a basic Christian belief? At least the evangelicals are honest about it and don't try to hide it behind fake "tolerance".

    It's very simple: if Christians would stop trying to get the government to support and endorse their religion and beliefs (i.e. nativity displays on public property, public school prayer, Prop. 8) they would not be "attacked" by people who want them to simply stay out of everyone else's lives.


    Classic. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    And if non-believers would stop "attacking" Muslims/Muslimism anywhere/everywhere, then AQ will stop their jihad.

    And if gays would stop "attacking" the definition of marriage, then those others would stop voting for Prop 8s.

    And if people would stop "attacking" unborn children, then those others would stop protesting outside abortion clinics.



    Christianity Under Attack (none / 0) (#28)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    I'm only going to say that more Christians are being murdered in the world today than any other religious group and at any other time in history.

    Christianity IS under attack.  More than 55,000 Christians a year are murdered as they will not renounce their faith.

    The basic tenet of Christianity is to love your neighbor.  Jesus said of the 10 commandments the most important is:

    Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.


    please provide (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:25:21 PM EST
    confirmable documentation for this claim:

    Christianity IS under attack.  More than 55,000 Christians a year are murdered as they will not renounce their faith.

    if this were true, you'd think the MSM would be all over it. and yet, they aren't. i think you just got this made up number from some right-wingnut web site.

    prove me wrong.

    this is analogous to the guy that claimed 2,000,000 incidents a year of people using guns in self defense. just made up out of whole cloth.


    my mistake, (none / 0) (#35)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:27:39 PM EST
    that should have read: 1,000,000 not 2.

    I could find no support for 55K/year. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    There are some, though:
    Oct 6th, 2008 2:57 AM

    At least two killed today, another succumbed to axe injuries Wednesday; 400 houses burned.

    NEW DELHI (Compass Direct News) -- At least two more Christians were killed today in Orissa state's Kandhamal district after Hindu extremists this week set fire to nearly 400 homes there and in Boudh district. A third man succumbed to axe injuries on Wednesday (Oct. 1).

    In the attacks, an 8-year-old boy miraculously survived after being hit by an axe in the middle of his skull.

    KADUNA, Nigeria, October 22 (Compass Direct News) - One man has been killed with a sword and another bludgeoned to death in this city in central northern Nigeria following Muslim leaders' appeal to wage violent jihad against youthful Christians.
    Two Turkish Christians and a German guest were found dead yesterday in what seems to have all the hallmarks of a Islamist ritual murder.

    The three, who ran a publishing house that printed Bibles, were found bound hand and foot to chairs with their throats slit. Another man was severely injured in the attack, and a fifth is in a critical condition after he jumped from a window in an attempt to escape the killers.

    Authorities in the conservative eastern region are said to be looking into an Islamist link: The murders appear to

    Might want to talk to the (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    Shi'ia and Sunni about lives lost due to religio-political conflicts.  (What's the death toll in Iraq alone?)

    It's not usually about religion.  It's usually about political power.  The Old Testament is full of the superiority of the Chosen Ones and righteous conquest & destruction of the inferior heathen tribes.

    It's not really about people being Christians.  It's about people who have a minority status being targeted by the Powers That Be.  And that tale is as old as humanity itself.


    Well I understand your sentiment (none / 0) (#7)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    which is why in my comment above I note that the sign's content was fairly stupid.

    However, stealing the sign and dumping it in a ditch wasn't exactly a Christian thing to do.

    The sign is pretty hostile though, no questions about that.

    Of course some people feel that being told they will burn in everlasting hell for ever and ever and ever and ever is pretty hostile as well. Hence the in your face posture that some anti-religionists chose to take.


    Sorry, I don't think it's hostile. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    I mean, if everytime I saw and heard people talking about God and Jesus at Christmastime I would take that as a personal offense to me (an atheist), I would feel very attacked indeed.  But, rationally, I know that most of those sentiments are not meant as a personal attack of me, they are rather people expressing their opinions.  So, that being the case, why is stating that there is no god or that religion is a myth or supersitician offensive to religious people?

    I mean, can't we just be reasonable and not have silly double standards?  


    Um (none / 0) (#16)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    Sign says:

    "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds"

    This statement is both false (in the sense that it is an insufficiently complex definition of religion--a complex concept) and clearly hostile to religion as such (calling people hard hearted and mind-enslaved is hostile).

    If I called you a hard hearted mindless zombie would you view that as hostile or a friendly pat on the head?

    Honestly I don't understand how anyone can't view this sign as hostile...unless they are hard hearted and have enlaved minds of course.

    I regard the previous sentence as a bit hostile...don't you?  


    Well, first of all, I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    with you that the statement is false.  It is an opinion I personally believe.  Now, you may argue that it is false by framing religion as complex, etc., but those are merely assertions that you claim support your position.  

    Furthermore, the sentence is an opinion about religion, not about religious people.  If you call me, specifically, a mindless zombie, than you are making an assertion about my inherent character.  Making an assertion about religion is, substantively, a different kind of claim.  Or, at least, I think it is different to say that religion enslaves minds than it is to say that people who are religious are somehow inherently bad people.  The former I consider a comment on religion, whereas the latter I would consider a personal insult.


    dk...you expect believerpeople (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    to do nuance re religion?

    Even the Jesuits have trouble with that.


    Haha, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    see, that's how non-hostile and softhearted I am.  I think that religious people are capable of being as capable of nuance as I am.  Call me an optimist.

    You're an optimist. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    Probably gets you through a lot of unpleasant situations when others just throw up their hands.

    Audacity of hope?


    It is clearly false. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST

    Religion hardens hearts.


    My father in-law volunteers at a soup kitchen several times a month. He volunteers his time to help fix up appartments as part of a low income housing program. He is an elder at his church and promotes programs to donate to the needy there. He is what you would call a leftist Christian and does not actively push his religion in a way that is agressive. He does the generous things that he does because of his religion. Is he hard hearted? No.

    That's ONE story. I could bury you with them. Equally if you wanted to come up with stories about how people do absolutely f*cking horrible things in the name of religion you could write till your fingers fell off.

    Religion opens hearts and closes them. It enslaves minds and it frees them (ever met an addict who freed themselves from terrible addiction by finding relgion?) Religion is an enormously complex subject. If you'd like to take a highly simplistic negative view of it you have good company e.g. Dawkins, master of the straw man attack on religion.

    As for your second argument, the distinction between religious people as individuals and the religious system they subscribe to does not fly.

    IF religion makes people hard hearted and enslaves minds THEN people who believe in the tenants of religion believe in hardening hearts and enslaving minds at a minimum and likely have themselves had their hearts hardened and their minds enslaved. I'm not sure how you get around the logic of this.

    Bottom line: the sign makes perjorative statments about religion. When you make perjorative statments about peoples basic belief system, expect them to feel that you are being hostile to them.

    Atheism stunts minds and produces bad argumentation. But don't worry, I'm just making a commentary on Athiesm. Not on Atheists.


    Well, first of all, I have (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    no problem with your last paragraphs.  I'm not insulted because you have a negative opinion of atheism.  I don't consider it mean-spirited or any of those other terms you rattled off.

    Now, to your father.  It's great to hear that he is such a nice person who does nice things for people.  I would argue that it is not religion as such that motivates him, but rather probably some combination of his upbringing (maybe he watched his parents, family, people around him doing such as things when he was a kid), or the notion that it brings him a personal satisfaction seeing other people's lives improve as a result of his actions, or enjoying being part of a group, etc.  In other words, a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with religion per se.  In fact, I think it's just as easy to make an argument that he does wonderful, altruistic things in spite of religion.

    Same goes for the complexity of religion.  I certainly see complexity in human psychology (why some people who believe in religion act certain ways, and why some act in other ways), but that's a different matter.  The leftist versus "rightist" Christian thing is a good example.  The difference is likely much less a matter of religion as a matter of upbringing, geographic location, educational level, race, etc. etc.

    In any event, most of this is rather irrelevant to the sign.  If expression of Christianity is not pejoritive, I hardly see why an expression of Atheism would be.  Unless, of course, double standards are ok.  I happen to think they aren't.


    Well you could speculate about his motives (none / 0) (#81)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    But HE would tell you that he does what he does because of his religion. I suppose you could doubt him if you are so attatched to the idea that no one could ever do anything good because of religion that's up to you. I tend to just take what he says at face value and leave it at that.

    And no none of this is irrelevant to the sign. If all the sign did was "express Atheism" then that would be one thing. But it also expressly attacks religion. Now one could argue that it is inherent to the expression of Atheism that it "attacks" religion in some sense. It is after all A-Theism. But as I said at the beginning my issue with the sign is that it does not merely state the postiion of Atheism (that there is no God and that religions are mythologies) but then goes one step farther and gets in a "dig" at the end by calling religious people hard hearted mind slaves.

    Now you might not understand why so many religious people find this offensive, but it's pretty obvious to me why they find it offensive, and I think the people who made the sign are singing to their own choir and being a bit snotty about it. Now that's their right in my view, but I think it's a bad strategy for building support for their position.

    Our little dialog is actually a mini-debate the mirrors the kind of arguement between Shermer and Dawkins. See here.

    Plenty of good rebuttals to Shermer and back and forth it goes.


    Well, my main response was to (none / 0) (#89)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:51:27 PM EST
    you stating as a 100% certainty that what is on the sign IS false.  I disputed that assertion, and you seem to have enough hedges in your latest comment to be ceding my point.  I don't really care whether or not you would ultimately share my opinions on anything, but when you claim to know what is true and what is false, I point out that this was more about you trying to pass off your opinion as a statement of fact.  And I'm not even getting all relativist.  I mean, for the sake of argument we can probably agree that 2+2 IS 4, right?

    You're also changing your argument in other ways now.  You were originally arguing that the sign is hostile.  Now you seem more focussed on the idea that some people may have taken offense.  Those are two different issues.  There are, of course, people who take offense whenever opinions contrary to theirs are expressed.  I don't dispute anyone's right to be offended at anything, but to say that the sign is hostile is another issue, one which I still don't agree with you about.


    Heh just to be clear. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:02:48 PM EST
    I believe the following statment:

    "Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

    Is woefully incomplete. Which is what I meant by "false" as a qualified in my initial response:

    This statement is both false (in the sense that it is an insufficiently complex definition of religion--a complex concept) and clearly hostile to religion as such (calling people hard hearted and mind-enslaved is hostile).

    I did not really mean that it is false in the same sense that 2+2=5 is false but false in the same sense that the statement "Atheists think that religious people are idiots and fools" is false. Certainly SOME atheists think this (I've met them, perhaps you are one of them), but I doubt ALL atheists think this. It is false (or incompletely true) because it is an overgeneralization. At a minimum there are exceptions to this rule. It certainly is not tautologically true (2+2=4). It could easily be fixed by adding the word "often" to the sentence as in "Religion often hardens hearts and enslaves minds." A defensible position surely. Or even more defensible "Religion sometimes hardens hearts and enslaves minds"  

    I also have not changed my argument as to whether the sign is hostile. But apparently you do not think that making overgeneralized perjorative statments about religions worst abuses and then placing this statment next to a display of that relgions most sacred moment is hostile. You think it is "simply expressing an opinion." So on this we are unlikely to reach agreement. My commentary on that fact that people are offended by it was a commentary on the wisdom of being antagonistic for antagonisms sake.

    Here is Dan Barker, one of the co-founders of the group that put up the sign commenting:

    "When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

    I'm pretty sure this fellow is hostile to Christianity. Which is fine with me. He has good reason to be as he's an ex-evangelical pastor who "woke up" and realized his true calling in pushing atheism. He went from one religion to another imo. But lets call a spade a spade. This is culture war and both sides are hostile. I just prefer that this particular discussion be kept as rational as possible.

    My wish may well be impossible as there is always going to be a lot of hostility that comes out of a culture war.


    Christmas Time (none / 0) (#19)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    I differ with you, yes it is hostile.  I'll stand up for your rights as an american citizen, but as an atheist to attack Christianity during the holiest times of the year (Christmas & Easter), is just downright mean-spirited & ugly.

    If both sides what to have meaninful dialogue, fine, but don't attack our holiest days of the year.  That is all we are saying.


    FYI, SLDeb...atheists (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    do not think there are any 'holy' days, much less 'holiest days of the year.'

    So...you'd be OK with the sign at the capitol except at Christmas and Easter?  It wouldn't be 'mean-spirited and ugly' the rest of the year?

    Having a hard time following your logic.


    At other times of the year (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    the signs would not be next to a nativity scene, for example.

    So, can I pick two days (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    where "under God" is taken out of the pledge of allegiance, and when gay people can have all the rights of citizenship?

    I see a compromise in sight.  :)


    How 'bout we compromise on the (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    "under God" only? Unlike gay marriage it's a purely religious issue.

    Don't tell that to the Christians (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    and the Mormans who voted for Prop 8.

    Don't think that's all who voted for it. (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    Perhaps not, but it's the (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:28:11 PM EST
    reason that it passed.

    Mormons are 1.8% of CA's population. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    In case you hadn't heard, they (none / 0) (#69)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    donated huge amounts of money for the campaign.

    Are you convinced (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    that's the reason the majority of the people voted for it?

    I am convinced of the following: (none / 0) (#73)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    It would never even have been on the ballot were it not for religious organizations.

    The campaign to pass the proposition (which influenced people) would not have been as widespread had it not been for religious organizations.

    The proposition would not have gained 52% of the vote had it not been for people who voted for it based on the influence that religion had on them.


    I would never have been on the ballot (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    if same-sex marriage were not an issue.

    And same-sex marriage would (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    not be an issue if gay people didn't exist.  How dare they exist, right?  They must just have been created as part of a plot by mean-spirited Atheists to attack Christianity and ruin Christmas for everyone.



    I'm merely addressing facts, (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    or at least trying to.

    As I've said many times before on TL, have any opinion on any issue you like but at least accept the facts.


    Ah, so..... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    well then, remove the nativity scene if you don't like 'the neighbors.'

    and/or agreement.

    What? Whose goals are those? (none / 0) (#74)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    No one's, apparently! (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    Cognitive dissonance. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    God is love (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    unless you do any number of innmerable things to bring out his sadistic side. No thanks.

    But of course, your welcome to it. Just quit telling innocent children of other faiths God gonna turn Stalin on 'em.

    And tell O'Reilly to stop pointing and getting all splotchy.


    God IS Love (none / 0) (#22)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    Yes, God is love as He wants everyone to come to his son Jesus.  But people do forget that God is also a righteous God who cannot look upon sin, hence the need for the redemption of Jesus.

    I dont see that things (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    took much a turn for the better since he set that glowing example for the treatment of sons (and daughters).

    At least from where I sit.


    Thank You (none / 0) (#11)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    Thank you for your reply.  Now, if it was a Christian that stole the sign, that is not right.

    As a believer in the gospel of Jesus, Christians are to approach people in love, kindness, friendship.  You don't hit people over the head, tell them to repent or they're going to hell.  It all starts with relationships.  

    I do take issue with just because some people are told they will burn in everlasting hell, they act ugly & hostile?  What I don't get is Christians can be attacked vehemently, they'll protest or whatever but you have another religion where everyone tippy-toes around them as to not to offend but it's okay to offend Christians?  

    I don't mean to be sarcastic, but I have an idea ... how about don't be hostile to any religion, whether is is Christianity, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.  People's religion is very important to them.  To have our faith come under constant attack & we defend our faith, what is wrong with that?


    You still seem to be conflating (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by dk on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    expression of opinion with attack.  I think there is no god.  I think religion is a myth and superstition.  That is my opinion.  That seems to be the opinion of the people who put up the sign.  I think that for you to call that an attack is not accurate.  No one is threatening your right to believe whatever you believe.

    Why do you take issue? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    I do take issue with just because some people are told they will burn in everlasting hell, they act ugly & hostile?

    How are they supposed to respond? It's a threat. It's threatening them with torture.


    I agree Deb... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    we can always be kinder and more tolerant of each other no matter what we believe in...but unfortunately there is no way to force people to be nice and tolerant that doesn't lead to a less free society.  Free speech includes mean-spirited speech...it still beats the alternative.

    I'm Sorry (none / 0) (#34)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    I'm sorry that I posted at all.  I have tried to be kind & thoughtful in my posts but some of answers, for me, are just getting downright mean.  I do not feel I have attacked anyone or their beliefs, if I have I do apologize.  

    I realize  by just my little post I'm not going to change anyone's minds but I was just trying to give a little insight as to where a Christian would be coming from on this issue.

    I don't post often, it's just when I see an item on this blog I do post.  I'm sorry I won't make that mistake again.

    Whatever your preference is ...

    Have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Winter Solistice and a Happy 2009

    I'm not.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    sorry you posted...I, for one, always appreciate another way to look at things.

    This non-believing hedonist wishes you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


    Kind Wishes (none / 0) (#44)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    Thank you for the kind wishes kdog.

    My flaw is I'm an emotional person.  I was starting to tear up reading some of the replies.  I guess I'm just not cut out for these type of emotional battles.


    Best wishes, STL. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    No one ever wins on this website, the best you can hope for is the possibility that you or the person you're conversing with might learn something. Doesn't happen very often...

    But when it does.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    it's a beautiful thing brother.

    Internet discussion.... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    is not for the faint of heart or the thin-skinned...I hear you there.  

    Just don't give up on us sharp-tongued heathens:)...most of our hearts are in the right place...same as most christians, jews, muslims, etc.

    It is good to be emotional, but don't take it personal...anytime I start to take a post or comment personally I try to remind myself that the person who offended me is just a knucklehead on a blog who doesn't know jack...just like me:)


    Don't be sorry. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    And don't let "mean" comments get you down. Jesus didn't.

    By which I meant (none / 0) (#47)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:51:30 PM EST
    De imitatione Christi

    Thanks (none / 0) (#58)
    by STLDeb on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    Thank you Faust.  

    Peace Deb (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    We're just a bunch of wiseacres around here; dont take it to heart.

    Don't be sorry and (none / 0) (#94)
    by denise k on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:44:59 PM EST
    don't assume that you don't change minds just because of a negative reaction (or ten) to your posts.  There are probably 1000 people who read and agree with you or are made to think by your comments but do not reply to them.  I was one of those people earlier today.  I don't agree with you, but you did make me think about the issue from your perspective.  That is a good thing.

    I recall the first time I had my mind changed by a blog comment, in fact.  It was what hooked me on reading and commenting on political blogs.  You need to keep reminding yourself that the people commenting do not know you any more than you know them.  OTOH I also recall the first time I got an implied threat for something I had written.  So I understand the flip side, too.  I have become somewhat philosophical about that because any group that is as open and as large as the blogosphere will have its share of a#$holes.  


    Interesting that there's not one... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:29:15 PM EST
    ...comment about this:

    The most interesting protest sign features a picture of Bill O'Reilly punching Gov. Christine Gregoire. Why O'Reilly, you ask? [more ...]

    When asked what the poster was supposed to mean, the protester carrying it said Jesus Christ was "spiritually" knocking the sense of God into the governor.

    Actually agitating violence against the Governor of Washington doesn't rise to the same level of outrage as a cut-out of Hillary because it doesn't involve Obama's speach writer?

    Or is it because this doesn't involve Hillary?

    While both acts are worthy of scorn and condemnation, to actually portray and advocate violence against women is more offensive--at least to me.  


    Funny... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:35:42 PM EST
    I was going to say something about that - as the violence of that imagery is so outrageous to me - but I was afraid that it would rile up the angry, driveby, sexism-denying commenters! Really, I thought about it for a while.

    Seriously, though, both things are quite bad IMO.


    Actually Mile... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with either one...as long as there is no real unwelcome groping of flesh and blood people, or real punches to a flesh and blood grill...it's just speech, we're all good.

    That being said, everyone else is free to get all offended and criticize it, by all means...they are just not free to stop it by force, only by persuasion if they are persuasive enough to pull it off.


    I know exactly where you are... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:05:55 PM EST
    ...coming from, my friend.  You are always on the side of free, unfettered speech.  But then, we're just "boyz", so what do we know.  

    I guess I just found it interesting that the lack of outrage seems to correlate directly to the lack of a Hillary connection.  

    No calls for BTD to "speak out", no condemnation (i.e., "FU" as someone put it) of the TL community as whole for those who had the nerve not to comment in an approved way on the earlier posting, no "what if you swapped Gregoire out for..." arguments.  

    Wrong is wrong, it shouldn't depend on the players.


    Well once you set (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    a precedent that sexism will only discussed as it relates to the treatment of, or imagined treatment of HRC, its hard to maintain a wider perspective.

    I really disagree with the Hillary connection (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 04:15:52 PM EST
    For example, there was a lot of outrage here about the sexist treatment of Palin (but that was often met with even more disdain than the outrage about Hillary) and, in fact, people were told to STFU about it directly.

    I also recall some pointed commentary recently about Rendell's comments about Napolitano.

    The reason a lot of the outrage has been about Hillary is because that's where so much sexism has been focused in recent months, and I think also because there is a lot of sympathy for her since the sheer quantity of it directed at her has been so overwhelming. Anything goes now in her case, it seems.

    I can't think of any examples of sexism recently towards other political figures where people here have ignored it or said it was OK just because it wasn't Hillary, but maybe I'm wrong.

    The Gregoire/O'Reilly thing is horrible, and I hope BTD does speak out against it. It's outrageous.


    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 05:21:10 PM EST
    don't tell anybody about Napolitano or Palin!  That ruins the whole misperception!

    Palin was but... (none / 0) (#96)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    ...a surrogate for Hillary to the PUMA's, so what you describe was to be expected.  

    Still seems like selective outrage to me.



    Well, it's not surprising (none / 0) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:02:18 PM EST
    but I disagree with everything in your comment!

    I was neither a PUMA, nor a Hillary supporter, nor a Palin supporter, although I was a 'strident' defender of them when they were treated in a sexist manner. I saw many others doing the same. Your claim of Palin being a Hillary surrogate is just an unwarranted assumption.

    And I am also not selective in outrage.


    Yes... (none / 0) (#98)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    ...clearly my "assumption" is refutiated by all of the many, many people speaking out here on this thread.  Oh, wait...

    And yes, I realize that you are pure as the driven snow and absolutely perfect in every regard.  Especially when your lack of selective outrage prompts you to tell the greater TL community "FU".


    LOL (none / 0) (#99)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 07:47:38 PM EST
    You crack me up. So, which is it that you would prefer then? People to post their opinions about sexism - so you can then ridicule them and call them PUMAs, etc.? Or people not to post their opinions about sexism - so you can then ridicule them and call them hypocrits for not posting about it.

    So freaking transparent. You just can't stand the freaking topic and are invested in denying it and will use anything to deny it whether people post about it or not.

    Oh, and I thought you were such a big fan of free speech no matter how offensive - so why would FU offend you then? Or are you just a fan of free speech when it's sexist?

    As far as the bizarre 'pure as the driven and absolute perfect' babble - nice squeaky channeling. pathetic.


    Really? (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    That is not how I remember it:

    i confess you are right (none / 0) (#187)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    obama's campaign strategy and team have been far superior and much more organized. i say that as a clinton supporter. her team has played abysmally.

    Absolutely no idea what this means or (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    how it is relevant.

    Relevance: (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:12:46 PM EST
    I was neither a PUMA, nor a Hillary supporter, nor a Palin supporter,....

    Ah, got it. So silly (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    Or to use your favorite compelling answer:  BS.

    Well, you're quite good at your game of searching the archives for comments but if you'd searched more comprehensively, you'd see all the ones that indicated that I voted for Obama in the primary, 'supported' or 'defended' Hillary when things turned ugly, and voted for Obama again in the general. I suppose support is semantic. But it's still pretty irrelevant to this discussion anyway since plenty of people supported Hillary but were not PUMAs - including you for example, unless I want to engage in your favorite tactic and assume that you are a PUMA and resort to name-calling and branding to silence people I disagree with. Or maybe comb through the comments archives in some petty blog argument to score points.

    Now, I broke my own personal rule about not engaging with you and I won't do it again. It's so futile. I just don't understand people who seem to just want to argue, or assume things about people they don't even know (PUMA!), or win some tedious blog war, but never want to listen, potentially change their mind, or actually communicate.

    Have a great evening.


    Molly (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:42:11 PM EST
    I did not have to search the archives to find out that you were a Hillary supporter. I remember when you started here, and read most of what you posted, including that you switched support to Obama.

    Supporting an argument by claiming that you were not a Hillary supporter is what is BS here, not my correcting the record.

    Not good for credibility.


    Outright lie (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    I remember when you started here, and read most of what you posted, including that you switched support to Obama.

    I said exactly the opposite - voted for Obama, sent him lots of money, stopped feeling enthusiastic about him and his campaign the very day JJ, Jr. started the Hillary crying abuse on the teevee. It only got worse. I wrote about that many many times here. And you know it.

    Why am I even saying this? What does it matter to the topic? Nothing at all. This is what you do - deflect and hijack with weird, irrelevant attacks.

    Go play your weird lying games with someone else please.

    Last word - you must be a PUMA! A shill! A troll!

    Does that get you going? Good. I've done my duty for the night then.


    You May Have Supported Obama (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 09:20:27 PM EST
    Before you started commenting here, but not when you started positing here. YOu started posting in Feb, JJ jr's line was in Jan. And you were at that time, for many months an ardent Hillary supporter. Your favorite commenters were Edger08 who was a staunch PUMA.

    And I remember that you eventually voted for Obama, but that was long long after you started commenting here.

    It was dishonest of you to argue above that you were not a Hillary supporter. Not sure why you would say something like that with over 1000 comments supporting Hillary.


    LOL (none / 0) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 07:49:24 AM EST
    Jan 2008 is when 2008 comment archives begin. I was commenting here well before that.

    I guess we can 'willfully stupid' to 'bully', 'coward', and 'liar'.


    Credibility Sinking (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    Not sure why I thought you may be correct with this doozy:

    Jan 2008 is when 2008 comment archives begin. I was commenting here well before that.

    Particularly after this nonsense:

    I was neither a PUMA, nor a Hillary supporter

    Anyway I checked my own archived comments to see if in fact Jeralyn deleted all comments prior to January '08, and as thought, she did not. I only went back to 11/07 but I imagine the archive goes back a few years more.

    Unless you commented here under a different name you started commenting at TL in Feb 08. You arrived with the flock of disaffected Hillary supporters that flooded TL soon to be renamed as PUMAs.

    Any more horse pucky you feel the need to shovel out?


    Yes, (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    I am extremely concerned about my 'credibility' from the likes of you. That is too funny. Your assumptions and timing are untrue, as usual.

    But I do feel really sad for you that your life is so bereft that you spend your time making crap up on blogs, searching blog commenting archives in order to try to harass commenters whom you disagree with or take a dislike to, and generally policing the internet to your liking. I've noticed you doing this a lot around here, and it explains a lot, but none of it happy. OCD? Depression? Try therapy and/or meds and, really, get a life that will make you happier and more productive. I wish that for you.

    TTFE squeaky.


    You Lied (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    In order to bolster your BS claim with MileHi Hawkeye. Not sure why as you wrote over 1000 (1430 +- total) comments supporting Hillary. The Archives go way back to before the site was upgraded to Scoop. Jeralyn keeps the comments for at least 4 years, I cannot remember if it is longer than that.

    There is no commenter on record logged in as Dr Molly prior to Feb 23, 2008, that is a fact.

    The archives go back to before 2002, not January 08 as you absurdly insist.

    It is also a fact that you were an ardent Hillary supporter.

    Attacking me does not help your case it just makes you appear pathetic and desperate. Not to mention this unprovoked swipe while responding to MileHi Hawkeye:

    As far as the bizarre 'pure as the driven and absolute perfect' babble - nice squeaky channeling. pathetic.

    Seems to me making ad hominems attacke to those not even in the conversation is grasping.


    allows a fanatical group parody in Christmas displays. I mean, how crazy is this?
    Does "parity" make more sense in that quote than "parody?"

    Heh (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lora on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 06:33:38 PM EST
    I think you may be right.

    Re: WA Capital Bldg. atheist signage (none / 0) (#92)
    by wurman on Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 06:46:59 PM EST
    Gov. Christine Gregoire was the 3-term Attorney General of Washington before her election as the state's chief executive in 2004 & re-election in 2008.

    Christine O'Grady Gregoire is a Roman Catholic & a graduate of Gonzaga Univ. Law School (after a BA in Speech & Sociology from the Univ. of Washington).

    As an attorney & a Catholic, Gov. Gregoire probably has a very clear understanding of the issues involved with the displays at the Capital Rotunda in Olympia WA.