Wearing Your Religion On Your Car
South Carolina has received enough applications to begin making “I Believe” license plates. As we’ve noted, these plates cost less than the typical vanity plates. The same idea never passed muster in Florida because legislators didn’t want to deal with court challenges.
Some South Carolina politicians just can’t understand why this might be offensive.
Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who helped push the measure through the General Assembly, said: “A lot of people can’t understand what the hype is about. Nobody is mandated to have this tag … it’s an option.”
But Barry Lynn’s group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is spearheading a suit co-sponsored by four South Carolina clergymen who clearly see why this is a Constitutional violation.
The Americans United lawsuit says the Christian license plate violates the separation of church and state as well as freedom of speech. It notes that other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints, nor can a comparable “I Don’t Believe” license plate be issued.
Can you imagine the outcry if there were a license plate with the word “God” and a line through it? Would South Carolina permit a license plate saying “I believe in Allah”?
The only problem I have with this is that other faiths and NON-faiths are not going to be represented. That’s just down right unfair.
Obama’s clearly got much more critical issues to tend to, but wouldn’t it be great if this were brought to his attention? I’d LOVE to hear what he has to say about it.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Alan, calm down! You are getting worked up over nothing.
“it’s an option.”
These plates are not made until you order and pay for them. It goes on the individual’s property.
Let’s chalk it up to Freedom of Speech.
Don’t beat on a dead horse.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Dear “Fair and Balanced”. Please change your username until you decide to visit reality.
Thank You.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
It’s a license plate not billboard. Why do some people have to wear their religion on their sleeves (or license plates)??
November 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
LOL. Cheryl, sorry.
I thought I was on a reality site.
Thank you for letting me know that it’s the twilight zone instead.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I agree with CherylCarroll and Budda.
What is wrong is that you can NOT get other religious symbols.
It is always easy to defend the rights of the majority.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
For the worshippers of celebrities, how about a license plate of Spears’ ^@&^!
November 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Don’t worry….President Soetoro (Obama) will see to it that all plates will somehow praise allah.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I pay $58 for a personalized tag on my classic car—I see tags all over the road with College emblems on them—–We can pick a plain plate here—one with the beach on it—one with the mountains.
Again it’s Freedom of Speach
I don’t like my daughters asking me what that means when they see a “Mean People Suck–Nice People Swallow” bumper sticker—but it Freedom of Speach.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“Don’t worry….President Soetoro (Obama) will see to it that all plates will somehow praise allah.”
See Alan and Cheryl, etc. You don’t have anything to worry about. You will have yours soon enough.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Arkansas has one with the image of the state capitol building and on the bottom of it, it says “In God We Trust,” like on the coins. It all depends on who “God” is.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Don’t worry….President Soetoro (Obama) will see to it that all plates will somehow praise allah.
Posted by wildestcat
…………………….
I thought he was a Marxist. The two are mutually exclusive.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Soetoro is not a marxist—he is a muslim, not an atheist.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Who said he was a Muslim?
November 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“It’s a license plate not billboard. Why do some people have to wear their religion on their sleeves (or license plates)??” posted by Budda
Because they choose to. I don’t remember “pro-choice” being on Alan’s list of words and phrases to be retired.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
But then why won’t they be allowed to put the Dharma wheel or the triple goddess symbol on their plate?
November 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
He was sired by muslim father–THAT in the eyes of islam makes him a muslim–nothing as far as islam is concerned can change it. He is permitted spiritally in islam to lie and deceive in the fight (jihad) to advance the cause of allah. In short, he will not go to Hell where all people according to islam go as long as he somehow causes the death of infidels (non-submitters) to allah. Check out “the religion of peace.com” for further knowledge of islam.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
It only matters if Barack Obama believes it.
Does that mean ,(No offense, it’s just an example),that she once loved a man who was a Muslim, and you were the result, that YOU would now renounce your religion and become a Muslim?
My spouse is from India. None of the Muslims there subscribe to any of this, neither do Pakistanis or Turks that we know, some of which are married to Christians, and bring their children up as Christians.
Obama is no more a Muslim than Rush Limbaugh is.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Wildscat, Why aren’t you in Iraq fighting for your cause?
You are so scared of the brown people. Why not enlist?
November 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Alan:
I’ve got to side with the born agains on this one. You can’t get any old college team plate either. It’s a supply and demand thing.
Personally, I think all religions are a little koo koo for cocoa puffs, but if enough Jewish people are willing to pay extra for the star of david on theirs, it’ll happen.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
P.S. It’s not a free speech issue, either. Very few people understand what that right actually means. It’s sited improperly way too much on this site.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Our constitution states that church and government are seperate!!!!
What is the matter with us……..I believe in God but
I don’t have to openly display it!!
God doesn’t accept one religion over another..that’s man’s quirk….
It’s all for one and one for all!
Dianne
November 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Well, what can you really expect of South Carolina?
Like most “red states,” they have a school system like the La Brea tar pits, and every year they dump more kids into it, destined to become the next generation of fossils. Intellectually they’re probably 30-40 years behind the curve, and can’t see an inch past their own own preconceptions and prejudices, but that’s not really so bad when you consider where they were a century ago.
It’s similar to the distinction between Islamabad and the “tribal areas” of Pakistan, where they can only accommodate so much civilization at any one time.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Alan, aren’t you for capitalism ? Isn’t it the american way to have free enterprise ? I’ve heard you say liberals are just as patriotic and american as conservatives. This is capitalism at work ! There are far more christians in this country than other religions. South Carolina is using good business sense to turn in higher revenue. It takes a closed mind to find offense in that – especially a freakin license plate ! So much for liberals being open minded !
November 9th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“So much for liberals being open minded !”
Dude, I just made your point 3 posts ago.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
If there was REALLY open mindedness, You could get the
the triple goddess symbol on your plate.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Lefties, why not just get the triple goddess bumper sticker and put it alongside or under the plate? You could get whatever color, shape or size you wanted. Nobody is mandating the usage of these tags, it’s an option. Why does it bother you so much? Is it threatening, why?
November 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
How many different variations, in your opinion, are required to establish “fairness”? I think Craig would probably want a tag with a garden gnome because he worships lawn elves, Dawkins of course would require a “flying spaghetti monster” etc… Other states have wildlife on their tags, and someone else mentioned colleges. I guess the only rational thing to do is to make everyone conform with only one “official state” tag, huh? Good evening comrades, it pleases me to perform work for the “official” state party. I think it’s time to start insisting that all government buildings be painted a uniform “industrial Grey”. because next we’ll be offended by a particular color, or wait… Grey is a color, hmmm….
November 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’m a lefty and it doesn’t bother me in the least. In fact, now that I think about it, it’s nice to know who’s driving that car.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Dear Alan
Are you kidding me? We had hard time being dark skin Sicilion Catholic . We are from city. We have no wright. With our last name, look,love for family, food and celibrating Catholic Holitay——–we are automatically related to Tony Soprano and Mafia.
Beside our plate should say “Italion-Catholic——obey Pope.” We have a jock, we should have a woman pope who will marry a gay couple in St Peters Cathidral in Vatican City(Ha!Ha!Ha!). We are Conservative but we sence of humer.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I bet Law Enforcement would be for one “Offical Tag”. I see way too many different types and colors and designs for each state that I’m sure it makes it difficult for the police to quickly identify the state any particular plate may be from. But that aside the free speech/free choice thing isn’t the issue here it’s why in the Hell do these people find it necessary to advertise their beliefs on a license plate? Could it be just that simple people do simple things?
No offense meant to all the good Christians out there.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“it’s why in the Hell do these people find it necessary to advertise their beliefs on a license plate?” buy Budda
What part of “pro-choice” do you not get?
November 9th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
WildestCat, some Muslims somewhere may believe that Obama is a Muslim by birth, sure, and may not leave that religion. The point is, here in the U.S. we have freedom of religion, and he chooses to be a Christian. By the laws of our country he can choose that, or any other religion, or none, and not be bound by his birth or ancestry. So WHY are so many non-Muslim people so eager to act as though Muslim custom somehow has the force of law, just for Barack Obama?
As for the plates–there are plenty of cool Christian bumper stickers. (I am partial to “Warning: In the event of the Rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned.” Have as many of those as you like, or whatever kind of bumper stickers make you happy, but I’m not confortable with this kind of image being released by a state.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Hey Fair and Balanced. I’m not against them doing it. I’m all for choice. It’s just that some people make fools of themselves with there joices.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Thats ‘Choices”
November 9th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“It’s just that some people make fools of themselves with there joices.” “Thats ‘Choices’”
Why do you want to deny them that choice then? If they want to make fools of themselves, then so be it.
I’m sure that your choice on something has made you look foolish, as well as my choices have for me.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I think the point is just that this is a government agency, choosing to make plates representing ONE religion.
It’s not like we are talking about bumperstickers or the frames that go around plates that you can buy anywhere.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
The agency makes the plates anyway. The people had to send in enough applications and money to get them done.
“South Carolina has received enough applications to begin making…” posted by Alan.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Old Lefty:
I think you make a compelling point. But it really wasn’t the state government that made the decision, it was the state residents through their applications.
Sounds like a good way to raise revenue to me. The born agains have those fish on their cars anyway. Is your concern because it comes across as a state endorsed religion?
November 9th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Hey Alan, since you posted this could you please explain just how this offends you? I mean seriously, explain how it’s offensive. I don’t get offended by other religions, I scratch my head because I don’t understand why they choose to believe what their religion teaches, but I’m not offended. CAN ANYONE explain the offensive nature of that plate, please. I’m listening
November 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
A plate is issued by the State. A cross endorsing a religion on said plate is a blatant merger of government and religion. Even I can figure that out.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Hey Fair and Balanced, Its me again. I never said I don’t want to deny them that choice. You read more into this whole thing then is necessary. Yeah, I was young and foolish along time ago, and still haven’t quite out lived it. I just don’t take too much seriously anymore. These posts probably prove that.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
A license plate that goes on someone’s personal property somehow offends you? Really? And because you think it’s a state endorsement? Our currency says “in God we trust” on it. I guess your’e just incredibly offended every payday? What an offense it would be if you ever won the lottery. I guess we should remove all the letter t’s off the plate numbers, you know just so we don’t offend somebody accidently.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I guess we need to remove all those chaplains who serve in the military too, you’re absolutely right!
November 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
To Budda,
Then why even bother posting your viewpoint. Do you really think we want to read your rhetoric? I’m not being mean just trying to save Alan some bandwidth.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Is your concern because it comes across as a state endorsed religion?
Posted by Mark
………………………
That IS my concern, as I have no problem with bumperstickers or Jesus fish.
Also, as Alan said above, if a state heavily populated with Muslims, made the plate with the The Islamic star and crescent, and the words, Allahu Akbar, I think many defenders of the South Carolina plates would have a problem with it, which is why I feel…just keep government out of religion.
Oh well, I’ll check back tomorrow, I’m off to sleepy slumberland…Good Night all.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“What an offense it would be if you ever won the lottery.”
Great point, Trees.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
And now that you mention it, we probably should look into these police departments playing Amazing Grace at police funerals. And make sure there’s no mention of God during the fallen officer’s service. We wouldn’t want anyone to be offended you know…….
November 9th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Good night lefty, i’m gonna hang it up in a little bit here myself.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Good night fair and balanced, I’m gone, your brother trees
November 9th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Peace out, Trees.
Goodnight to you Alan, as well. We don’t want to leave you out.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Old Lefty:
You’re right.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I mean correct.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Fair and Balanced; then don’t read them! Simple solution for simple people.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Ya, the burka’s and vails the musloms wear are offensive to me. What the difference they wear that crap or I have a cross diplayed?
CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER !!!!!!!!!!!
November 9th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Trees said “A license plate that goes on someone’s personal property somehow offends you? Really? And because you think it’s a state endorsement?” I KNOW it’s a State endorsement. If you don’t, you are being intellectually dishonest. And one thing I don’t like is Dishonest Punks. You are coming close.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:19 am
JEFFRO—You do realize the cross will not be on all plates don’t you? It will cost extra for a person to get one and it is not a vanity plate as Alan calls it—Vanity plates are personalized–where the “SAMPLE” is on the plate pictured above—so Alan saying this plate will not cost as much as other vanity plates is untrue.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:53 am
“He was sired by muslim father–THAT in the eyes of islam makes him a muslim”
If someone’s mother is Jewish even with a non-Jewish father – then in the eyes of Jewish law that child is jewish.
So if the father is a muslim and the mother is Jewish – what is the child?
Answer – an atheist like every single child born from the beginning of time. Religion is driven into innocent children by mentally deranged parents who believe in space-men, re-incarnation and angel dust. And you wonder why the world is in such a mess?
November 10th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Yes I do realize it is by choice. Can I have one made to advertise MY religion if it’s not Christian?
November 10th, 2008 at 2:19 am
You didn’t address the issue of State endorsement that I raised.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:21 am
JEFFRO—My state OFFERS a tag with the Wright Brothers plane on it.So using your arguement–they are endorsing that a canvas and stick airplane is the safest way to fly? Weak JEFFRO Weak—come on—think—you can do better than that.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Jeffro, it’s not endorsing religion, its acknowledging cultural heritage. There is a difference. You may not like it but the people who established this government were theists. And the context is therefore historical.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The courts uphold this as traditional.
People are not required to use those plates on their vehicles, just like you are not required to say Merry Christmas, while you’re celebrating your winter holiday. The holiday is officially known as Christmas.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:55 am
I live in SC…Those plates are offered at the DVM you can get them or the regular State plates..
ALLAH..Folks,,In SC they still fly the Confederate flag over our state house!(sad but very true) I don’t think our state would offer ALLAH plates..
They would let you order them though your car might get vandilized…
Welcome to the world of “loving” Christians!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:56 am
The plates themselves will be made by one of the most ‘Christian’ organizations in that state-the South Carolina Prison System.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Trees–JEFFRO gets a bit hypocritical at times—he’ll fuss about the SC tag that is “offered”.But he says nothing about the DC tag which reads “Taxation without Representation” that is on their tags without choice—yet they have no Congreessemn or Senators from DC.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:02 am
And so what do purpose Jake, driving your anti God views into everyone instead?
What religion would this be Jake, cause I’ve never heard of it. I think you might be confused with Richard Dawkins, “Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster”.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Jake, please explain for me how if everyone is born an Atheist why we have religion? Where did the knowledge of it come from in the first place?
That’s right, God actually spoke. Quite a bit too, judging by the size of His book.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:17 am
My mother was born into Judaism, but later became Christian, going to various denominations thereof. At the time of my birth, my parent’s were Mormon.
Under Jewish law, would I be considered Jewish? Does it matter that my mother converted?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:25 am
WFG, you bring up a great point. I can’t speak for the government of Israel, as to what they consider you, but in my opinion you’re born a human. One of the hurdles Jewish people have is known as legalism. They believe in pleasing God through strict obedience to Jewish religious law. You can convert to Judaism. You don’t have to be born Jewish. Ultimately each of us decides, for ourselves, what we will be. It all depends on you. In my opinion you are free to be whatever it is you choose, and that includes atheism.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:48 am
But whatever someone chooses should be based on information, all that you can gather. It should be sensible, practical, a reasoned faith. If you look for the truth you will find it, of that I am certain. If you’re interested at all in what I believe and why, then I’ll share my views. If not, I completely understand. I don’t make things up of my own accord, I practice exegetical biblical interpretation. I hope all is well with you, trees
November 10th, 2008 at 3:56 am
WFG, if your mother was born a Jew than you are indeed considered Jewish even if she never practiced Judaism or converted to another religion. Judaism is kind of like a nationality or heritage I guess you could say.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Hi, kuvas.
I was just looking around and found this website that has some really interesting info on the ethnicity question. Seems the Jewish government feels you can lose your Jewish designation/identity and citizenship.
Click on, articles and scroll to the bottom if the page doesn’t load you at the “who is a Jew” location. Actual Jewish court case documentation. Very interesting
http://www.realmessiah.com/jew.htm
November 10th, 2008 at 5:21 am
I have looked at the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, the first amendment and I cannot, for the life of me, find the phrase “seperation of church and state”.
Barry Lynn’s organization is no better than the ACLU.
Why is it the only freedom of speech a person has is if it is approved by liberals?
November 10th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Well, you wouldn’t want me to miss what you really had to say, would you? Simple solutions to simple problems.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:04 am
“Fair and Balanced; then don’t read them! Simple solution for simple people.” by Budda
Well, you wouldn’t want me to miss what you really had to say, would you? Simple solutions to simple problems.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:06 am
That,s why i won,t vote for someone in THE GOP. I don,t want a commander and cheif that will have a faith base church shoved down my throat. I belived in GOD and GOD comes before country not hand in hand. You pray for for people who have different view points. You don,t enact laws on them is my point.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:18 am
It’s not a matter of “Separation of church and state”.
It’s a matter of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”
Barry Lynn’s organization is as necessary as the ACLU.
The “free speech” aspect that I think that you are missing here is that NO ONE is saying you can’t put ANYTHING on your car, just that the government should not do it, exclusivly for one religion.
Why is it the conservatives who hate the government ALWAYS seek government sanction of their religious beliefs?
November 10th, 2008 at 8:18 am
“I have looked at the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, the first amendment and I cannot, for the life of me, find the phrase “seperation of church and state”. posted by Willy
“separation of Church and state” is not there. Obviously, a lot of people are not convince of it. Some people would use anything to make their case.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:19 am
“Why is it the conservatives who hate the government ALWAYS seek government sanction of their religious beliefs?” posted by Oldlefty
Maybe because the conservatives (Church) give so much for the people as far as clothing, water, food, etc. in times of relief. We do so much alongside of the government, and yet don’t get any credit. Can we please have our license plate? Please!
November 10th, 2008 at 8:24 am
” You pray for for people who have different view points.” posted by Steve
I agree. But wouldn’t your answers come quicker if you pray for someone who shares your viewpoints and beliefs.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:29 am
The ACLU is out of control when they see a cross on a particular community’s crest or shield or a book replica of the bible on that shield which has been there for decades upon decades and all of a sudden it is offensive to a particular individual. They take that community to court and sue them under the so called “seperation” clause in the constitution, which I cannot find in the constitution.
Under the ACLU charter one of their goals is the eradication of all religious organizations and symbols. They are an anti-christian organization.
The government is not telling anyone to put a religious phrase on your car. Putting “I Believe” on your plates does not cater to any one religion. People that are getting their knickers tied up in a knot over this need to take a deep breath and just relax a little. You’re a little too uptight.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Conservatives don’t trust government because government is inherently evil. An unchecked government is a government that will assume control over its people. Just look at Hugo Chavez and what he has done thus far to his people and country. Just one example.
What say you Old Lefty?
November 10th, 2008 at 8:41 am
The ACLU defended Jeffery Pyle’s right to pass out candy canes with religious messages, in Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee in 1996.
They defended the guy with the “repent” sign on the street.
They went to bat for Limbaugh AND Sean Hannity.
Again, I say, as Alan said above, if a state heavily populated with Muslims, made the plate with the The Islamic star and crescent, and the words, Allahu Akbar, I think many defenders of the South Carolina plates would have a problem with it, which is why I feel…just keep government out of religion.
Don’t forget, that MANY hold the SAME opinion of the NRA, that you hold of the ACLU.
The main difference is EVERY card carrying member of the ACLU HATES!!! SOMEONE that they go to bat for.
Point is, if we don’t defend the legal rights of the dregs, then the semi dregs will be open to persecution, then the rest of of, when we challenge the majority.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:03 am
“Alan, aren’t you for capitalism ? Isn’t it the american way to have free enterprise?”
Where in the Constitution do you see the words “capitalism” and “free enterprise”?
“Barry Lynn’s organization is no better than the ACLU.”
If you have a problem with the ACLU then you don’t know what country you’re living in.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:09 am
“They went to bat for Limbaugh AND Sean Hannity.” posted
“They defended the guy with the “repent” sign on the street.” by Oldlefty
Oldlefty, I could do my own research on this, but could you save me some time and point me to some facts on this? Thanks!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Fair and Balanced,
Of course, I can’t find the repent guy, here’s a few to google: (I too often get caught in the spam filter with links).
Backing Limbaugh, ACLU goes to court : Boston Globe
By Jill Barton, Associated Press | January 13, 2004
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Rush Limbaugh and the American Civil Liberties Union do not agree about much, but they are in accord that the conservative radio commentator’s medical records should be off-limits to prosecutors.
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (8/11/2004)
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (6/3/2004)
For example, the ACLU has represented many religious believers – including many Christians – in helping them to exercise their rights to manifest their religion in the public square. A list of cases include:
the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event;
the right of high-school athletes not to violate their Sabbath by playing sports;
the right of an elementary-school student to sing Awesome God in a school talent show;
the right of a Christian to condemn homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store;
the right of churches to obtain a zoning permit that had been denied;
the right of Evangelical Christians to preach in public;
the right of public school students to express religious messages to other students;
the right of a Christian to erect a cross on public property that was an ‘open forum.’
1993
A suit was filed to enjoin the religious exercises scheduled for graduation of Mandarin Senior High School after the Duval County School Board voted to permit “student initiated” prayer during the ceremony.
As for WILLY,
“Conservatives don’t trust government because government is inherently evil. ”
……………
That’s what Liberals said about the Pinochet, The Shaw of Iran, (with his Savak),Sadaam, (who the right loved when they were making money with him) AND the Bush administration when they were overturning Habeus, spying on Americans, plundering the military and treasury and putting all the foxes in charge of the chicken coops.
Well, I can’t spend another day at this desk…so I will bid you mooks and mookettes out there in cyber space… adieu.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“so I will bid you mooks and mookettes out there in cyber space…” by Oldlefty
Since your post was directed to me, I somehow don’t take offense with that. Should I?
Thanks again for the info.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I already consider myself non religious, but if I’m ethnically Jewish to some, that doesn’t bother me in the least. So it’s all good.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I see no problems with this, though that presumes an Islamic or Jewish license plate (or a Sierra Club plate, or whatever)could be made available w/ the same level of effort it took to get this one made.
I do think a plate with GOD crossed out on it is something different, that obviously would be something created to offend – however if some Atheist group wanted to get an Atheist plate made, that too would need to be allowed (and done through the same process the creation of this one, no easier and no more difficult)
November 10th, 2008 at 10:40 am
So, how ’bout them Panthers?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
How about the TN Titans?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
This debate could could go on for yesrs. I should pray for the right for being on the left.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I am a bengals fan! Oh LORD i asked for this.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Courts will settle this one. It is a state issued plate….State funded manufacture of the plate. Benefits of the sale go to the state….
Time for the cross bearers to either shoulder the responsibility for their beliefs, or get out of the car and walk the talk.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It seems to me that the main question isn’t whether it’s Constitutional, but, since that question might not be readily resolvable before the fact, why allow any religious symbolism in the first place? Related: Why risk opening the door to the burden of having to produce more plates for more groups?
November 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Well said, WFG.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“And so what do purpose Jake, driving your anti God views into everyone instead?”
How can I be anti something which doesn’t exist? I only propose that you think instead of parroting something someone else told you.
“Jake, please explain for me how if everyone is born an Atheist why we have religion?”
You have religion because you were told to have it by your parents, peers or guardians.
” Where did the knowledge of it come from in the first place?”
Unsubstantiated fairy tales do not constitute knowledge.
“That’s right, God actually spoke. Quite a bit too, judging by the size of His book.”
Sheeesh! Thats right, this great god spoke – once and then never spoke again – what happened – laryngitis? And which book did he write – the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, The Talmud, Dianetics, the Bagwan Gita? And make sure you pick the correct book because there are people all over the world whose parents told them to kill you if you follow the wrong one.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“.State funded manufacture of the plate. Benefits of the sale go to the state….
Time for the cross bearers to either shoulder the responsibility for their beliefs, or get out of the car and walk the talk.” posted by Robert Blair
“South Carolina has received enough applications to begin making..” posted by Alan of LiberALANd
The people are bearing the cost that the State requires. The State got enough applications and money for them upfront. So the cross bearers are shouldering their responsibilities even as so much before the State hands the plates over.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Dismantle the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives NOW.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“Dismantle the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives NOW.”
I would hope that you never ever be in dire need of anything for the rest of your life.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Fair and Balanced,
I’m going out for a while, but I hope you don’t take offense at my calling you all mooks.
When I was a kid we always referred to each other as “ya mooks..”
Coitenly, no offence meant.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
WFG, if you don’t ever risk opening the door you’ll forever remain “shut in”.
Is producing plates really such a burden? Has any other group actually been denied anything? A lot people attempt to practice addition thru subtraction.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Since your post was directed to me, I somehow don’t take offense with that.” posted by Fair and Balanced
Oldlefty,
I posted this about 16 messages ago, you mook.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hi, Trees!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
BTW, Oldlefty. How far old and left are you?
I couldn’t find mook in the dictionary. A practice Alan taught me.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
If they make even one Christian themed license plate, then to be “Fair and Balanced” and in line with the country’s constitutional intent of separation of church and state, then they must make plates with Islamic themes, Jewish themes, Hindi themes, Taoist themes, Buddhist themes (though the Buddhists won’t want them – ha-ha), Wiccan themes, Athiest themes, and Spaghetti Monster themes. Failure to do so would be un-American.
I have no problem with the state making them as long as they make one design for each religion on the face of the planet, and give them equal advertising, and so forth.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“I have no problem with the state making them as long as they make one design for each religion on the face of the planet, and give them equal advertising, and so forth.” posted by Jim
Do you know if any of those groups ask SC for their own plate?
“separation of church and state”
Do you see that phrase written in the Constitution?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Well, this should be your first clue, if they preach a doctrine of murder, then it’s probably not Godly. Exodus; 20:13 “You shall not murder.”
Have I EVER advocated killing someone who didn’t share my beliefs Jake?
Can you disprove God, Jake?
Exactly, you can neither prove, nor disprove Him. You are a living testament to your faith. You exist. You have a view that can neither be proven or disproven. Your view is based completely on faith.
Jake, can you see love? Can you hold it and measure it? Can you put it in a box? How do you know it even exits? You can feel love and react to it, but you can’t prove it, can you?
God describes Himself as a God of love, if you’re worshiping a God that doesn’t love, then it’s pretty safe to say you’ve got the wrong God, in my opinion.
God loves you Jake, it’s why He gave you life. Does this offend you?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Who, told them to have it? Is yours the theory of infinite regression? There have always been parents, who have always told their children?
God describes Himself as our Heavenly Father, the eternal, “I AM”. The creator of human life. The first Parent. Hmmmm…….
November 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Jake, have you ever read the Bible to see if it has substance? Or are you just parroting what you’ve heard someone else say?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
No but those groups probably actually respect America’s ideals of the freedom to practice any religion while being forced to follow none.
The first Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. in regards to religion. A license plate is a legal document, and if only one plate it available it implies preference for that religion over others, which violates this amendment. It also serves as an intimidation factor for members of other religions, being shown these religious images on official documents while driving or at the DMV.
It’s blatantly illegal. If you want to believe in God, that’s fine, but that’s not something you can get state backing for.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Good afternoon time to you, “fair and balanced” ! Good to see you ! how ya doin?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Trees, I love reading the Bible. It’s the best evidence against organized religion in the world.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Good morning Jim,
I think you need to read this again, Jim. If a group of people went through proper government protocol, then your seeking to deprive them is prohibitive.
how are you? It’s good to see you
November 10th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Well, Book of Mormon might be slightly more contradiction prone than the Bible… The Quran’s not too messed up, but still more messed up than is warranted for something that’s supposedly divine.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Ok, let’s hear some evidence
November 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Who said I was seeking to deprive them? I just want to make sure EVERYONE gets a fair chance at getting a vanity plate of their choice. They went through the motions, but they neglected the rights of other religious parties. As such, the protocol they followed was illegal; or at the least unConstitutional.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
What do you want, it’s contradictory nature?
Simple one – Is God omniscient?
Answer the question before reaching for your books.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Also, good to see you Trees, and I really hope you don’t make me do this.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“It’s blatantly illegal. If you want to believe in God, that’s fine, but that’s not something you can get state backing for.” posted by Jim
My God says: Seek and you shall find. Ask and it shall be given. Knock and the door shall be opened.
The people sought, then asked, and now they will find their license plate on their car.
Same opportunities are opened to others.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
yes, God is omniscient
November 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
The answer is in my book, I don’t make it up as I go along
November 10th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Is your conscience at work here?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
These verses are in your book, you can check them. All of them to one degree or another imply God is not omniscient;
Genesis 3:8
And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord, amongst the trees of the garden.
Genesis 4:14
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid.
Genesis 4:16
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Genesis 11:5
And the Lord came down to see the city and the town.
Genesis 18:9
And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
Genesis 18:17
And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?
Genesis 18:20-21
And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and, if not, I will know.
Genesis 22:12
For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Genesis 32:27
And he [God] said unto him [Jacob], What is thy name?
Numbers 22:9
And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee?
Deuteronomy 8:2
God led thee these forty years in the wilderness … to know what what in thine heart.
Deuteronomy 13:3
The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God.
2 Chronicles 32:31
God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.
Job 1:7, 2:2
And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Hosea 8:4
They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.
Jonah 1:3, 10
But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD … For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.
I submit that any omniscient God would not need to test people (he would already know the result) nor would people be able to hide from him so easily as ducking behind a bush or closing the flap on a tent. But that’s just me.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I believe in people’s right to religion, and to do it in the way they wish. I do not like pointing out the flaws in their belief structure, nor do I like offending people who are generally decent.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Gee, Jim, do you have that written as a ready “copy and paste”?
If I can jump right in, I would like to say that the testing afford the people the ability to know the result for themselves.
God enjoys having conversation with anyone who wishes to converse back. He asked satan whence comest thou and satan said from going to and fro, from up and down. He just admitted to himself and God that he was wondering around being useless.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I should have said “wandering” too.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
F&B, hi – how are you?
And therin lies the rub. You can interpret any number of vague descriptions any number of ways. A perfect book should not leave room for debate or interpretation. The “Word of God” should be infallible and direct and absolute, yet clearly it is not.
And actually I have a lot of this stuff on my computer in .odt files. I’ve done extensive religious research in the past 7 or 8 years and it’s easier to do some of that research with more portable versions of various religious texts.
I also have databases with such contradictions, or seeming ones, ready as you say to be cut and pasted quickly.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
And on that note, I go to my paying job in about an hour, so I’ll talk with everyone late tonight or tomorrow…
November 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Fair and Balanced: “I would hope that you never ever be in dire need of anything for the rest of your life.”
If I was, I probably wouldn’t get it from the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, which gives our tax money to religious entities and allows them to discriminate or favor only those American citizens who subscribe to the entities’ religious doctrines.
Decidedly NOT a good use of our taxes, especially since the billions are not being accounted for.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“Decidedly NOT a good use of our taxes, especially since the billions are not being accounted for.” from Sarah
Neither is it for abortions. But I leave this up to God to let us know if we are right or not. Whether you believe or not, one day we will all know for sure.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Jesus has ALWAYS existed. John;
1:1 In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was with God,2 and the Word was fully God.3 1:2 The Word4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created6 that has been created.7 1:4 In him was life,8 and the life was the light of mankind.
Jesus has always come to seek and save the lost and fallen race of humanity. God is seeking all of us Jim, including you. Including Adam, including Abraham, including Ishmael. Ishmael was born of disobedience but God blessed him also, knowing his people would become enemies of Israel, “for what men intended for evil, God intended for Good.” Because God is all knowing, omniscient, his plan of salvation cannot be thwarted.
1:5 And the light shines on10 in the darkness,11 but12 the darkness has not mastered it.
His hope is you would see His beacon and be drawn to it, He will not force Himself on you. He’s written His Laws on your heart, (conscience) so that you can understand your dilemma.
All throughout human history the fallen race of men have suffered the consequence of spiritual separation; they have lived in darkness because of the disobedience of one man. We inherit our nature, our sinful characteristics from our parents.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Hebrews 4
God’s Promised Rest
4:1 Therefore we must be wary1 that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it. 4:2 For we had good news proclaimed to us just as they did. But the message they heard did them no good, since they did not join in2 with those who heard it in faith.3 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my anger, ‘They will never enter my rest!’”4 And yet God’s works5 were accomplished from the foundation of the world. 4:4 For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,”6 4:5 but to repeat the text cited earlier:7 “They will never enter my rest!” 4:6 Therefore it remains for some to enter it, yet those to whom it was previously proclaimed did not enter because of disobedience. 4:7 So God8 again ordains a certain day, “Today,” speaking through David9 after so long a time, as in the words quoted before,10 “O, that today you would listen as he speaks!11 Do not harden your hearts.” 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God12 would not have spoken afterward about another day. 4:9 Consequently a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. 4:10 For the one who enters God’s13 rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his own works. 4:11 Thus we must make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by following the same pattern of disobedience. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. 4:13 And no creature is hidden from God,14 but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.
Because God is a God of justice, Evil must be punished. If you have broken His Laws then you will appear before Him in His courtroom.
God’s plan was in place before the universe was created. Re; John 1
Jesus Our Compassionate High Priest
4:14 Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. 4:16 Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.15
November 10th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Hebrews 5
5:1 For every high priest is taken from among the people1 and appointed2 to represent them before God,3 to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. 5:2 He is able to deal compassionately with those who are ignorant and erring, since he also is subject to weakness, 5:3 and for this reason he is obligated to make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. 5:4 And no one assumes this honor4 on his own initiative,5 but only when called to it by God,6 as in fact Aaron was. 5:5 So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God,7 who said to him, “You are my Son! Today I have fathered you,”8 5:6 as also in another place God9 says, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”10 5:7 During his earthly life11 Christ12 offered13 both requests and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his devotion. 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things he suffered.14 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 5:10 and he was designated15 by God as high priest in the order of Melchizedek.16
The high priest was the one appointed to slaughter the sacrificial animal whose blood was spilled as an offering of atonement for sin. God shed His blood for you. But like any gift it requires that you accept it. You’ve taken a kitchen sink approach where you’ve lifted verses haphazardly and thrown them against the wall to see if any stick. The challenge for me is to write a manifesto on biblical doctrine it would appear. Do me a favor, present your questions or objections in a manner that can be answered logically. Instead of finding “apparent” contradictions present a rational argument to what I’ve put forth. Present your issues in groups of one or two and we’ll go along with a semblance of order. Ok?
November 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Fair and Balanced: “Neither is it for abortions.”
Ah, it comes around to Abortion.
Riddle me this, please, Riddler:
Only 12 out of the last 40 years have seen a Democrat in the White House.
From 1994-2006, Republicans controlled Congress. The past 2 years have seen record filibusters because Republicans still have the numbers.
In the past 3 years, Bush appointed 2 new conservative members to the Supreme Court.
With the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, a born-again in the White House for the past 8 years, and an overly-vocal Christian-based Republican Party….
Shouldn’t abortion be illegal by now?
November 10th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“A perfect book should not leave room for debate or interpretation.” by Jim
My answers were not up for debate or interpretation, just my personal observation of my own life.
“The “Word of God” should be infallible and direct and absolute, yet clearly it is not.”
To me it is. When He asked me whence I can from, I told Him from my mother’s womb, yet I have no knowledge whatsoever of how I felt there. Yet I’m here now responding to you.
What’s your story?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Shouldn’t abortion be illegal by now?”
Sarah, why don’t we ask the Supreme Court that question?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
F.A.B.: “Sarah, why don’t we ask the Supreme Court that question?”
Be my guest. Ask all the conservatives why they’ve only paid lip service to their fetus-adoration.
By the way, how many children have YOU adopted?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Here might be a place for common ground. What if we allow people to put whatever they want on their car in the way of bumper stickers? If we just leave the license plates without religious tone, then it doesn’t prevent people from putting crosses all over their car or truck.
The licencse plate is a state issued item that identifies not only the car, but the state of registration.
I would contend that any conservative that wants to stick to the letter of law described in our Constitution would shout the need to separate state identification from religious identification.
Just think, it also could be a way for someone to start sorting out who gets bombed and who doesn’t when those jihadists you guys always seem to fear set up their sleeper cells in your schools. Atheist police could also use the plates to identify who to give traffic tickets to….oh, you don’t think there are atheist cops????….think againk moose stew….LOL
November 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“Shouldn’t abortion be illegal by now?”
Sarah, why don’t we ask the Supreme Court that question?
Posted by Fair and Balanced
November 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm”
We did and the result was that we validated the principle of the right to privacy in their decision.
Are you an anarchist and want to overturn legally determinations by the court????
Next, you’ll be putting butter on your oatmeal…a sure sign of becoming liberal and liberated.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Jim, it’s not vague, you’re random and haphazard presentation was vague. Correct interpretation relies on this principal. Read the verse and understand it within the context of its chapter, read the chapter and understand it within the context of its book, and read the book and understand it within the context of the entire document of books.
If you have read the book, as you claim, then why is it such a mystery to you? Is it incoherent? Quite a few people disagree with you.
And if you really are interested I will do everything I can to provide resources and help in your study. But let’s be honest with each other, is your goal to approach it in an attempt to understand, or are you approaching from a preconceived idea that the book is nonsense, and so rather than attempt to read and comprehend you seek to ridicule and discredit? I’m of the opinion that if you have spent the amount of time reading it that you’ve stated you genuinely seek. But I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader. Whatever the case we can read it together and discuss it.
I’m posting a website that has an expositor, (that’s a pastor who reads a book, chapter by chapter beginning to end in a systemic and rational fashion) and you can listen to him go through an entire book, chapter and verse in order, and provide context by referring to the other books. Fair enough?
www3.calvarychapel.com/escondido/
November 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Sarah, I have adopted one, as a matter of fact. I have children of my own birthing. Not that it is any of your’s or anyone else’s business, but I have had an abortion myself. CHANGE does take place, you know?
You don’t like your money going towards faith-based activities and I don’t like my money going towards abortion.
So what are we going to do about it? Pay taxes.
So the case is closed as far as I am concerned.
Like I said before, God will prove who is right or wrong.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“we validated the principle”
we are not the Supreme Court. If you think we are, think again moose stew.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
It isn’t the faith-based group’s work that is the problem, it is they proselytize and show bias in their hiring practices that makes them a problem.
If they can help people while not refusing to hire people outside their faith, and/or don’t preach to the people they are helping…..well, we could use all the help our country can get….
They can’t do what the Bush administration allowed them to do…that is the only problem.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
LOL I’m glad you got the humor….the point is that the supreme court validated the principle of privacy……
November 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Jim, it will take a couple of days, but I will gather the material and present a doctrine of salvation, it will be easily understood and it will be entirely based on the bible. It will be coherent and truthful in that it will not be a doctrine of my devising. It will be a complete and readily understood doctrine using the book itself. I will challenge you to present a doctrine of you own devising that says what you want it to say. I will expect your source material to be the bible and I will expect your presentation to be contextual and consistent relying only on the scriptures themselves. Sound fair?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
F.A.B., good for you for adopting (and I mean it! Not that you need/want my approval, of course, but three cheers for you!).
Not sure what you mean by “CHANGE does take place, you know,” but I’m wondering if it means, you had legal access to your safe abortion, and now you’ve CHANGED your mind and want to make it illegal again?
Incidentally, taxes don’t pay for women’s abortions. As far as I know, taxes might make the service legal, or accessible, but that’s not the same thing as paying for it.
Religion, on the other hand, is being subsidized of late by taxes, with no accountability for expenditures.
There’s a marked difference between the two.
I don’t expect people to subsidize the way I worship. It’s a completely private, spiritual matter, that should have nothing to do with secular, worldly politics or government.
Render unto Caesar what’s Caesar’s. Render unto God what is God’s.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“the point is that the supreme court validated the principle of privacy”
I will pay my taxes but I know the Supreme Court doesn’t have the LAST word. You’re still moose stew.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Hi, Robert. Does the pregnant woman’s right to privacy include what she put’s into her body? Is she free to smoke crack cocaine, get falling down drunk everyday, and “shoot” heroin?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Sarah, how are you?
Can I provide you with some info?
Margaret Sanger founded “planned parenthood”, have a look…..
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
November 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Incidentally, taxes don’t pay for women’s abortions. As far as I know, taxes might make the service legal, or accessible, but that’s not the same thing as paying for it.”
A play on words that I will not entertain.
I know the consequences of it, and with any one else who has “been there, done that” would eventually change, too. Unless, they are conscience don’t afford them to. God said that would happen, also.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Alan, I may disagree with you but let me just say this. You provide a forum for all to have a say, and freely exchange thoughts and ideas, and that’s kind of remarkable. Everyone gets to express their opinion, and not be rudely interrupted. Very refreshing. I have an enormous amount of respect for you, and I say this with deep sincerity, thank you
November 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Good going, Trees. Not all conservatives are malicious after all.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Sarah, now that you’ve got my mind thinking back on that time, I remember paying my own way to New York because that was the only place you could get it done. You paid your own way back then, if you wanted it done.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“Hi, Robert. Does the pregnant woman’s right to privacy include what she put’s into her body? Is she free to smoke crack cocaine, get falling down drunk everyday, and “shoot” heroin?
Posted by trees are people too!
November 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm”
Like any violation of the law against drug use, a mother’s use of drugs, if detected, will result in prosecution.
However, a mother who drinks alcohol in excess and places the fetus in jeopordy of FAS, is not typically prosecuted. Both situations deal with drugs and their affect on the unborn fetus/child. Neither is considered proper, ethical, or moral.
Trees, we may disagree on whether the rights of the mother are to be guarded, but I will admit that personally, I find abortion repugnant and something I do not support. I am, however, not in a position to rightly judge any woman who must make that tragic decision.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
….Not all conservatives are malicious after all.
Posted by Mark
November 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Thanks for the space! Love you, too!
Posted by Fair and Balanced
November 9th, 2008 at 6:10 am
– you can find it on Welcome Right-Wingers from Alan.
Not that I’m looking for any acknowledgement from you, but just to prove your point.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
F.A.B., no one gets their “way paid” to have it done now. And frankly, no one is a fan of the practice of abortion, but women like my mother and her conservative friends remember what it was like when legal abortions weren’t an option. The butchering, secrecy, infections, and risk, among other things.
I fervently wish that all the energy and emotion that Christians expend on making abortion illegal again, would be spent on PREVENTING abortions from even being a question in the first place.
Access to birth control, more accountability (financially and parentally) among men, easier and cheaper adoptions, and yes, non-shrill, reasonable requests for healthier portrayals of love and sex in the media (go watch MTV for a few hours and see how cheap sex has gotten among today’s teens).
Instead, Christian conservatives come off sounding like the woman has to “pay” for the rest of her life, and the child’s. The supreme insult is when they talk about getting rid of abortion AND welfare at the same time.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Fair enough, Mr. Blair. I enjoy tremendously hearing your unadulterated views, and that’s sincere. Thank you for graciously listening to mine. I mean that, trees
November 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Jim from Jersey, in the meantime, here are some videos that might interest you,
The gentleman who produced them is Jewish; I look forward to seeing you again, thanks for the conversation, with deep sincerity, trees
http://www.inspiration.net/thinkitthru/index.cfm/video/1825615633
November 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Sarah,
If we make robbery legal than there will be no more killings at convenience stores or gas stations.
In the eyes of God, any abortion is a murder. That is what I believe. Who is watching out for the rights of the unborn. They never asked to be conceived. They need someone out there to be a voice for them.
Personal responsibility is the key to NOT getting pregnant. If you don’t want a child then don’t do it.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Hi Sarah, I think maybe I understand you a little better now. I don’t hold your views but that’s fine. We have them and we get to express them. We can’t really ask for more than that can we? I hope the Margret Sanger info didn’t offend you. Personally it’s really difficult for me to read about her, it’s quite an eye opener. Anyway, I hope your doing well, trees
November 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Can I play or am I still grounded?
November 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
To Fair and Balanced,
BTW, Oldlefty. How far old and left are you?
I couldn’t find mook in the dictionary. A practice Alan taught me.
Posted by Fair and Balanced
………………………………..
I know your comment is old, but I’m REALLY trying to take a break fomr this for awhile but anyway:
From RandomHouse:
“The discussion of mook in Mean Streets, in 1973, was one of the earliest examples of the word in its most recent history. The earliest known example comes from S.J. Perelman in 1930, but after that there’s a gap until Mean Streets, with the exception of the adjectival “mooky-lookin’ blond guy” in the musical Hair.
The origin of mook is uncertain, but it’s probably a variant of the earlier moke. This word is from the nineteenth century, and originally meant ‘a donky or mule’, but its main use in the United States was as a contemptuous term for a black person, a sense very common in the late nineteenth century, but apparently obsolete after the 1910s. Moke was also used to mean ‘a contemptible person’, like mook. Moke is itself of unknown origin, but it seems likely that the later mook is derived from it.”
We used it, like you would say, ‘See you mooks, or See you blockheads later.’
Anyway, I’m 54, and like a Feingold or Boxer left.
I could say that I’m a little to the left of Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhower. (who I maintain were to the left of Obama).
November 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
“all the energy and emotion that Christians expend on making abortion illegal again, would be spent on PREVENTING..” by Sarah.
We try/tried that too, with Abstinence. You probably don’t like that, either, do you?
“way paid”
Yeah, like all the other entitlements the Dems put on us, I have to pay taxes for it.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Oldlefty,
No wonder I didn’t take offense of your name calling. It doesn’t fit me at all.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
You know Jim, I just realized something. The problem isn’t the word of god being imperfect. The problem is imperfect people trying to understand a perfect God. We can apprehend but we cannot comprehend.
Just look at how much difference of opinion is exhibited on this blog site. Would you say based on the evidence presented by liberaland that it’s impossible for humanity to make a “right” decision about anything? If human beings can’t come to a consensual agreement here, how so can they arrive at such a conclusion regarding God?
Is your struggle with the word of God one of genuine inability to comprehend sufficiently, or would it be fair to say yours is a willing inability to accept what He has to say? I wonder? Only you know for sure Jim.
Sincerely, your friend trees
November 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
God made His plan as clear to humanity as is humanly possible; the puzzling thing is why don’t they choose to see it?
Jim there is a parable in the Gospel of John, chapter 9, that addresses this very issue.
It’s worth taking a look at I think, after you read we can discuss it if you like.
Or not, you choose.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Hi, Jersey Jim. I just noticed I forgot a word in my above post, so I thought I’d edit it so you didn’t wrongly interpret it. I know youre a detail oriented guy. Anyway, I hope you had a good day at work. Whereabouts in Jersey do you live? I used to work in the NYC area, a long time ago. I bet your a Giants fan, huh. Alright, i’ll see you later, bye trees
November 10th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“The butchering, secrecy, infections, and risk, among other things.” posted by Sarah
Sarah, I’ve been thinking back on this and those things you listed are still going on, rather you or others believe it or not.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Many who have witnessed/participated/educated about abortions would argue that butchery, risk,secrecy and infections still abound. Not to mention the emotional scars that women and their families must deal with.
Christians do spend a great amount of time and expend a great deal of energy trying to prevent pregnancy via abstinence based programs. And we take a lot of heat about that from the far lefties.
There are also other programs that deal with how to prevent pregnancy. The fact remains that most women don’t think it will happen to them and sometimes choose not to use protection even though it has been made available to them.
The easiest answer is, if you don’t want to potentially have a child, then don’t have sex. That’s the easiest choice to make.
The same people who cry foul when you voice your right to life views are the same ones who bashed Bristol Palin for doing what she CHOSE to do, what was right for her. I guess the only time a woman’s right to choose is the “correct” one, is when she chooses to have an abortion.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Dear Fair and Balanced~
Please tell me who wrote each of the Scriptures you site above, and then tell me WHAT they originally wrote. Don’t tell me what the Bible says currently, but what the ORIGINAL text, or 2nd or 3rd from original test, said.
I’m not being sarcastic. I’m 100% serious.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
The issue comes not from a lack of comprehension, but a lack of faith. My nature, indeed human nature, is to question. Always I look for logic in things. I cannot simply say – the grass is green because God made it green – I learn that the chlorophyll tints the fibrous leaf green as it converts CO2 to O2.
My intent was not malicious in posting those verses, just to illustrate that one can easily have questions when it comes to the Bible. As a book that was supposedly dictated to man and written to be the true word of God, it contains too many mistakes. The Ark of the Covenant to hold the tablets was made two different ways depending on which verse you read – even from different wood. It just strikes me that elementary mistakes aren’t part of God’s bailiwick, and so I choose to believe what logic dictates, that it is simply a book written by people to enforce moral teachings. It does that well, and the people that follow it are usually wonderful, good people. But I should not have to follow their views if I do not choose, nor (to be topical for this blog entry) should I have to see it on official government forms or signage.
I hate working in the afternoon, I missed one heck of a lot of replies earlier, but I will try to get to them as I can.
Now, you referenced the story of Jesus healing the blind man. My take? A story of reward for faith. Nothing more than that I’m afraid. Jesus directly stated that the man bore no sin, nor his parents (perhaps the concept of original sin, or that all men have sin were forgotten for this particular story, but I digress) but that the blind man was put there to illustrate to people that good things happen if you believe in God. It’s negative/positive reinforcement.
I don’t need you to write a doctrine, I believe that you Believe, and that’s great. I wish you the best. But I absolutely do not want you attempting to ‘educate’ me in the ‘truth’. I agree with the Bible’s overall message, just not that it was necessarily divine. I think it was basically a Dick and Jane book written to help people learn respect, morals, and basic laws.
Yes, I know Jesus the Nazarene existed, I’ve seen copies of the records. But… was he the messiah – or was he the Jim Jones or David Koresh of the time? You don’t know for a fact and neither do I, but you have faith, and surely that’s a wonderful thing. These discussions always make me uncomfortable because I really don’t like being on anyone’s bad side, and there are no faster ways to get on someone’s bad side than challenging their politics/religion. At least on this site I have an excuse to challenge your politics.
In any case, my final statement on the matter will be this:
I am pro-freedom of religion. I am pro-secular government. I do not think religion and government should EVER mix, even in the smallest of ways. We have seen the results in other countries, the wars that stem from religion are some of the most vicious in history, when the religion is backed by state the negatives quickly outweigh the positives. Mass genocide of Muslims in the middle ages during the Crusades, genocide of Jews before that by Muslims and after that by Nazis, Genocide of protestants and Jews and more ‘fringe’ type religions during the Inquisition, and other similar fundamentalism are the inevitable product of mixing religion and government.
Please keep your religion in your church and your heart, and keep the country about our freedoms.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Jim from Jersey, I took some time to reply, as follows;
Genesis 3:8
And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord, amongst the trees of the garden.
Genesis 3:9
9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”
Jesus comes seeking to save those who are lost.
Genesis 4:14
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid.
Men suffer from separation from God because of their disobedience. God will not tolerate sin in His presence.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Genesis 4:16
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Because God is a God of Love He allows us to continue living, when what we deserve is death. Because He is kind He extends His mercy so that we might be afforded the opportunity to repent.
Genesis 11:5
And the Lord came down to see the city and the town. (here let me help you with your context)
Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. 3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. 4 And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
The above passage describes the pride of men, and why it is unacceptable to God. The men in this passage were placing themselves above God, refusing to recognize the Author of Life and proclaiming themselves His equals. And so he scatters them, and confuses them, in an attempt to get the rebellious to understand their “problem”. But like most arrogant men they refuse to see this pride as problematic. God doesn’t end it, but allows it to continue. He is exceedingly kind and desires a relationship with men.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Genesis 18:9
and they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
Sometimes in a conversation a person, will sometimes ask something they are already know in an effort to direct the conversation. If I ask you, Jim where is your bible? I’m not asking you if you have one, obviously I know this already you’ve posted these verses, I’m directing the conversation and making you ready, and assuming a position of authority. In other words, “Jim, where is your bible because were about to discuss it and it’s a significant discussion”. I can’t believe I have to explain conversational interpretation, but that’s ok.
Genesis 18:17
And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?
A reflective conversational tone to show that God deeply cares for and considers all of our needs. This is INTENDED to show omniscience, in other words there isn’t anything God hasn’t thought of.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Genesis 18:20-21
And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and, if not, I will know.
Same reflective tone as above
Genesis 18:20-21
And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and, if not, I will know.
This is intended to show that the plan of salvation has always been in existence, God asks Abraham to slay his son as an atoning sacrifice to please God, and then stays Abraham’s hand. It’s a type or shadow of the cross. It was placed here in the text to show the wisdom of God, in that it was mysterious to the Israelites until the day when God sacrificed His own son to punish sin and DID NOT stay His hand. It pleased God to Kill His son, because His Just nature requires that sin be punished. A type of prophecy concerning Golgotha, which in Hebrew means, “the skull”
November 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Genesis 32:27
and He [God] said unto him [Jacob], What is thy name?
Authoritative searching tone, conversational translation of an ancient Semitic language, God is getting ready to announce a major transformational change in the life of Jacob. In other words, “that’s right up until this day you have been called Jacob, today I claim you as My own and you will be from this moment forward be known as ISRAEL, and from this day forward you shall prevail.
I hope by now your beginning to see the picture a little more clearly, Jim.
If you’re genuinely interested I’ll make time for you Jim. If you just want to wave a fist at God, I’ve really got better things to do. Sincerely, your friend trees
November 10th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Ah, but Jim. It was written over a vast amount of time by people who claim divine authorship.
What human endeavor can carry such a consistent and accurate message with such a wonderfully kind act of redemption from their Creator? And we haven’t even broached the NT in this conversation. 5000 saw the risen Lord and believed! If Jesus doesn’t rise from the dead then all his apostles died for a lie! Who does those things Jim, if they didn’t truly witness those events?
It reads like a history book, that’s why they listed the genealogies so that you might read this and believe, we the writers of this book bear witness to it.
What does the book say? That by faith you are saved, not by works lest any man should boast.
It doesn’t say be completely obedient and good and you’ll be saved. It says you cant do it. It’s impossible for you to please God by the works of your own hands.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Hollywood can’t even produce one movie that doesn’t have a bunch of flaws that undermine it’s credibility. That book of antiquity has had evil men throughout the ages try to exterminate it. Possession of that book has been a death sentence for the believers all through the ages. Men have died just for translating it.
Show me one other document that can make these claims and has the supporting historical evidence.
Do you know whose portrait or likeness has been painted more than anyone else in the entire history of the world? It’s not even close, Jesus by a landslide.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I wish I could send you a dvd on the shroud of Turin. NASA scientists studied that shroud. You like science right? Do you know what they’ve discovered? Find out, its important. Not for the world, not for me, but for you.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Trees – the geneologies are flawed and contradictory as well, but I’m not going to do this anymore. You seem to be getting quite worked up.
Whether the Shroud of Turin is real or not shouldn’t have anything to do with your faith, or my lack thereof.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Jim, if I knew you had a terrible illness, one that was fatal, and I knew the cure for that illness, would it be kind for me to keep it from you?
Maybe you can see now why I refute evolution. What has been the one scientific theory that has caused men to question the existence of God?
Darwin himself lost his faith when he embraced evolutions views. If you’ve never actually read Darwin’s book I would humbly suggest reading it.
Forever your friend, trees
November 11th, 2008 at 12:25 am
I’m not getting worked up Jim. I enjoy the conversation. If you’re done then I’ll give it a rest. God bless you Jimmy, your brother trees
November 11th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Genesis 22:12
For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
This is intended to show that the plan of salvation has always been in existence, God asks Abraham to slay his son as an atoning sacrifice to please God, and then stays Abraham’s hand. It’s a type or shadow of the cross. It was placed here in the text to show the wisdom of God, in that it was mysterious to the Israelites until the day when God sacrificed His own son to punish sin and DID NOT stay His hand. It pleased God to Kill His son, because His Just nature requires that sin be punished. A type of prophecy concerning Golgotha, which in Hebrew means, “the skull”
sorry, I made a mistake, so I edited and reposted
November 11th, 2008 at 12:34 am
I wouldn’t say it was any one thing. It’s just that science has a habit of giving us fact. Notice the word I use is not ‘truth’ for that is subjective. If science tells me that an apple contains fructose and is therefore sweet, I can take it on faith, or I can eat an apple and find out for sure. If I could see God, or hear him/her, or saw any factual evidence for God himself, and not just references in a religious book to factual events, I could change my mind because it would then have basis in fact.
Tom Clancy writes fiction, but most of his books contain multiple factual references and events. Does that mean in 3000 years our descendants will be members of the Church of Ryan?
November 11th, 2008 at 12:37 am
As always, it’s good to debate with you Trees.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Jim, can you see love? Can you hold it and measure it? Can you put it in a box? How do you know it even exits? You can feel love and react to it, but you can’t prove it, can you? You can’t pour it in a cup, nor can you weigh it on a scale.
God describes Himself as a God of love, if love exists then I submit that God exists.
If God exists outside of this three dimensional universe how would you ever know it. What existed prior to the “big bang” and where did the space for the cosmos come from?
I can answer those questions, can the atheist?
November 11th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Trees, there is a chemical response in the body when our emotions react. Endorphins release, etc. So yes, if you have the proper instruments, you can measure brain activity and chemical reactions and pheromone release and measure excitement, love etc.
I am not a scientist, I do not know if there even WAS a Big Bang, there is a theory on a cyclical universe that expands and contracts along multiple dimensions. But they are called THEORY and not FACT. When one is called FACT by the scientific method, and I see the control and tests for it, I will then believe that. As of now, I believe that I do not know, and that’s fine.
I don’t have a need to explain the unexplainable. If there is a God, cool. If he punishes my ’soul’ for not believing in him, then he’s a dick and I don’t want to spend eternity with him anyway.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:59 am
“The fact remains that most women don’t think it will happen to them and sometimes choose not to use protection even though it has been made available to them.
The easiest answer is, if you don’t want to potentially have a child, then don’t have sex. That’s the easiest choice to make.” posted by T Mason
T,
Overall, I like your message. Tell me, T, or it can come from anyone else here, when does the man’s responsibility begin?
November 11th, 2008 at 1:45 am
From the moment he gets a notion F&B. You either make sure you have protection, or be prepared to man up and take responsibility.
There is no ‘Man’s Responsibility’ or ‘Woman’s Responsibility’ It’s both of their responsibility. And if they get down, then they share responsibility for whatever happens. The life created doesn’t deserve to get erased because mom was loose and dad was a sleaze who ‘forgot’ a condom.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Thanks for posting, Jim.
Great lesson tools.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:21 am
The creation myth is borrowed from other older religions.
It traces back to the Babylonians, who borrowed it from the Sumarians, who likely borrowed it from the Egyptians.
Exactly where, in that list of borrowed ledgends does myth become reality??
November 11th, 2008 at 3:44 am
I dunno Boogieman, but let’s see if this could be a possibility.
All of those early “people” that you mentioned had the same knowledge because it really did happen, and they talked it about it.
If 100 years from now someone writes a book about the events of sept, 11, would you say he was just borrowing from the myth of 9/11?
November 11th, 2008 at 3:59 am
How about a 1000 years from now. Borrowing from a myth, or relating an actual event?
November 11th, 2008 at 4:01 am
There are people who today deny the holocaust. Does that make it a myth?
November 11th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Fair,
In my opinion it should begin at conception just as the mother’s responsibility should begin at that time. Unfortunately that does not always happen.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Jim,
In science, you have ‘theory’ to explain the how of the fact. It doesn’t mean that someday, once there is enough observable evidence a theory will be promoted to a ‘fact’, a ‘theory’ is as good as you get.
The word ‘theory’ is used differently in science than in everyday usage, so there is often confusion on this.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Trees,
It isn’t just athiests who believe the big bang is an explanation for the creation of the universe.
Also, the same problem exists with either explanation for the creation of the universe, i.e. you would ask where the space for the cosmos came from, one could just as logically ask where did God come from?
It’s the same problem. One could look at the big bang as the mechanism God used to create the universe. Big bang theory, like every other scientific theory, in no way conflicts with the existence of God.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Trees,
Folks lose their faith for all kinds of reasons, it isn’t science’s fault.
I don’t think God would have made us curious if he didn’t want us to figure stuff out. And I don’t think he ever meant the Bible to be used as a biology textbook (in the case of evolution) or a physics textbook (in the case of big bang/cosmology).
November 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Um Cara, in science you have theory, which is acceptable and provable hypothesis, but hasn’t been proved beyond all doubt. Then you have Laws, such as Thermodynamics, Inertia and force, etc. The Laws are certain. The theories range from the vague to the nearly perfect.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
This is also true.
Science makes no enemy of religion. Einstein even said the two compliment each other.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Hi, Fair And Balanced:
1) Abstinence teaching would be great, if it worked. But it doesn’t.
2) FAB, I’m glad you brought up the man’s responsibility. Interesting how once a child’s conceived, it’s the MOTHER’S sole responsibility. Granted, that’s true to the biological extent. But it’s absolutely sickening the way women are left holding the bag of responsibility, while the MEN WHO IMPREGNATED THEM are given a free pass. That’s another thing I’d like to see Conservatives address.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
By the way, I and many other women do serious soul-searching about the abortion issue, to a degree that I find myself a little miffed sometimes that men even dare have an opinion on the subject, as if men’s actions don’t create, in LARGE part, the demand for abortion in the first place.
Often, they’re the ones who leave, who refuse to pay child support, who refuse to be an active parent, who commit adultery, and who refuse to take responsibility for birth control in the first place.
Where’s the Norplant for men?
November 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“But it doesn’t.” by Sarah
Hi Sarah,
You may say it doesn’t work for you. But I know for a fact that sexual abstinence works when a person decides it’s their method of choice.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“I and many other women” by Sarah
You can definitely include me here. I totally agree with you.
What CREEPS they can be!
November 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I’m getting censorfied.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
TRYING IT IN PIECES BECAUSE THE SPAM FILTER SUCKS:
Pt. 1
F&B and Sarah agreed on something…and a chill went through the spines of everyone in possession of male parts….
Seriously, they tried Abstinence classes in my middle school, East Nashville Jr. High. didn’t last a whole day.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Pt. 2
What happened? (remember – 12 and 13 year olds)
Kids being kids.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Hi um cara. It is really good to see you. I hope your trip was smooth and trouble free. I see you found these postings, and real quickly, I’m going to leave a brief reply. I’ve got a lot to do today, things I’ve put off and so I won’t be around till this evening.
You raise the question, “Who made God”?
That’s the beauty of his word, it’s why I see infallibility in His teachings, God says that he is eternal and describes Himself as always existing.
When Moses asks God, “who shall I tell them sent me”, God replies, “you tell them I AM”. I’d post the whole passage, but I know you would prefer I not. Hey, I just made a mortal statement, “ i not”. If anyone asks who told you this tell them “i not” said it.
Here’s why I think so many people have trouble with the concept of God, we are finite beings, and yet some among us do not feel that way. “You can do anything you want to if you set your mind on it”, I’m sure you’ve heard that before. In fact human nature is prideful and when it is self centered it is extremely prideful. We think we can discover for ourselves all that there is to know, if provided with enough time. We want to leave a lasting indelible mark on history. We want to set a record that will never be broken, or have a street named after us so that our name lives on after we die. We want to be remembered.
God says He created us in His image. How true. We seek to be like Him.
Free will creates rebellion more often than servitude, a quandary indeed.
A finite being by nature struggles to understand infinity.
Why did God create us? So that we might have life, and have it more abundantly.
What was the purpose? So that God could glorify Himself.
Seems pretty proud hunh?
How did He glorify Himself?
By dying on a cross so that men might find salvation.
Everyone is searching for meaning in life; I believe I’ve found it. It’s my sincere wish that others might find it too.
Forever your friend, trees
November 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I HATE THIS SPAM FILTER
Pt.3
The boys want to.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Pt. 4
Convincing the opposite sex is not usually difficult.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Pt. 5
It’s fun. It feels good. It’s emotionally charged and even counts as exercise.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Pt. 6
It’s not enough to say “Don’t have sex” It absolutely does not work. Pregnancy rates go up, etc.
Better to teach a combination – “Please wait until marriage or at least until you’re an adult, but if you absolutely can’t wait, there are methods to protect you from STDs and accidental pregnancies.”
As an example, Abstinence was what Palin’s daughter was taught was it not? Cheap shot maybe, but it’s relevant.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
holy crap that was a chore…
November 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hey Jim
That’s not the way it works. Take gravity. You have the law of gravity, to simplify – when you drop a couple of items of different weight they fall at the same speed.
So the law is the thing you observe.
Einstein’s theory of relativity explains how gravity works.
So the law is the what, and the theory is the how. A scientific theory can not become a law. It seems odd because the word theory is used in a different way in general English. Just think law = what, theory = how.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Sorry, Jimmy, I thought everyone had moved on from this old post. Anyway, It’s good to see you. i gotta run, lots to do, bye
November 11th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Hey Trees,
Yea, uneventful trip – but STILL nobody has given me a peck on the cheek for being an American. I still have a couple weeks though, let’s see.
re: God – I’m just saying that just like you cannot point to something that created God, you cannot point to something that created the vacuum that the universe is expanding into.
But that does not mean that is proof that there is no God, nor does it invalidate big bang theory.
Totally agree w/ you on our inability to conceptualize infinity, you also hit on something earlier re: not being able to conceptualize something existing outside our three dimensions (but that is where all the cool math and physics is heading, multiple dimensions, explains a lot of little things that irritated Einstein so much)
Anyway, have a good one!
November 11th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Einstein’s theory of relativity attempts to explain energy in relation to mass.
Law is not something that is observed, theory can be observed as well. There are many observables that support a big bang theory, cosmic drift, etc. But it’s not a definite. It has to be proven to be unassailable. Meaning there can be no other way to come with the conclusion or the result of the test.
Thermodynamics says that a warmer temperature will expand to remove the colder temperature on a surface. It happens 100% of the time, whether it’s done underwater, in space, or in air. It will never happen in the reverse. It is a law.
Einstein’s relativity is a theory because it’s not provable or really even fully testable. If the HSC works the way it’s supposed to, maybe we can get insight into that, but Law is something that has been completely proven and is without a mathematical margin of error.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Hmmm, funny. I guess it’s all a matter of faith.
Interesting, that’s EXACTLY the point Paul makes in the book of Hebrews.
Ok, I couldn’t resist. But seriously, I’ll see you guys tonight or tomorrow. bye
November 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hey Jim,
You are going to make me dig up my old schoolbooks, aren’t you ; )
The way I described it is the way I learned it, but after doing some web searches I found support for your definition as well.
At any rate, I think it is pretty much historical science to get into ‘laws’ at all – I think scientists are more humble than they used to be. Quantum physics kind of screwed everything up for everybody, I would guess we will never see another ‘law’ written.
I think a modern scientist claiming he has discovered a ‘law’ would be the equivalent of him hanging a kick me sign on his back.
Hey this isn’t a ‘gotcha’ (I hadn’t heard of it before I started noodling around on theory vs. law) – Do a search on ‘Fluctuation Theorem’ – looks like #2 isn’t always true. Interesting stuff (if you are into this kind of thing, which it looks like you might)
November 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
It still looks true, if I interpret it correctly the base is what changes in the theorem, so the equilibrium point is redefined, but not the physical law governing the change in entropy. Situational modifiers if you will.
Still, it’s something to study.
Good catch, and I agree that it will be a long time before science defines another law – but that won’t matter because we’re all going to die in the spring, or really rethink the ideas of creation. Or just laugh at an $8B circular tunnel in the ground.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:47 am
“As an example, Abstinence was what Palin’s daughter was taught was it not? Cheap shot maybe, but it’s relevant.” by Jim from Jersey
If she was taught, then she ignored the teaching and/or didn’t understand its relevance. The failure is not in teaching, but her choice to have sex in spite of, and her lack of understanding of the consequences.
If you taught your child to brush her teeth and then found out she has cavities, it would cost you a lot of money for dental work. Would you say your teaching failed?
Then you decided to have a little boy and not teach him how to brush. Would you let his teeth rot and pay an enormous dental bill, or would you try to teach him at an early age the benefits of brushing?
Which method would have the greatest benefit?
November 13th, 2008 at 12:59 am
f she was taught, then she ignored the teaching and/or didn’t understand its relevance. The failure is not in teaching, but her choice to have sex in spite of, and her lack of understanding of the consequences.
If you taught your child to brush her teeth and then found out she has cavities, it would cost you a lot of money for dental work. Would you say your teaching failed?
Yes, I accept my responsibilities. I failed to instill the importance of dental hygiene in that case. My method was flawed. This is all hypothetical, of course, but you can’t blame the child for not listening, it’s the parents responsibility.
Then you decided to have a little boy and not teach him how to brush. Would you let his teeth rot and pay an enormous dental bill, or would you try to teach him at an early age the benefits of brushing?
Of course I would. But I would also explain that candy is OK if done in moderation, with a consenting confectioner.
Which method would have the greatest benefit?
The method that is relevant to the times and works. The teaching of abstinence doesn’t prepare those who are going to “try a piece of candy” (to use a metaphor from your brushing examples) regardless, which results in more teenage pregnancies, the spread of STDs, and possibly several abortions and potential injuries. Teaching them about protection methods is more responsible and honest, and will go a lot farther to protect our children as they fight through their confusing adolescence.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:11 am
“Teaching them about protection methods is more responsible and honest, and will go a lot farther to protect our children as they fight through their confusing adolescence.” by Jim from Jersey
Oh, I see. It is the way you throw the dice. So, if they can understand the consequences of this method in their confusing state, then I would like to at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they can understand abstinence as well.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
The case for abstinence BASED v abstinence ONLY, I think is the same as teaching about under age drinking:
You may want to teach, never, ever, drink, but will you not impart the fear of the horrific consequences of drunk DRIVING because they just shouldn’t shouldn’t drink, PERIOD!?
It only takes a moment to ruin lives.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
F&B, I’m not against Abstinence teaching if it’s done in conjunction with Safe(r) Sex teaching and so forth.
It’s when people teach Abstinence alone that we screw the pooch.
Teach them abstinence, by all means. It’s the only 100% safe, pregnancy and STD free way to live. However, if one decides to experiment, PLEASE do it with as many precautions as possible. Condoms, Dental Dams, hell, give out latex gloves and Saran™ Wrap.
You have to do both to be thorough.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
From the Americans United web site:
“A federal judge today ruled that the state of South Carolina may not issue a special “Christian” license plate featuring a cross, a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which sponsored the litigation to stop issuance of the plate, hailed the decision.
“The ‘I Believe’ license plate is a clear example of government favoritism toward one religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “The court drove home an important point: South Carolina officials have no business meddling in religious matters.”
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie today issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the state to issue or manufacture the plates. She also ordered the state to inform people who requested the plates that they will not be available and to remove information about the plates from the state Web site. Currie will release a written opinion on Monday.”
December 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pm