His site, The Blaze, has an article about these crazy conservative Christians who disagree with the mainstream view that there were precisely two people, Adam and Eve, who founded the whole human race. And it has a poll which is going in a predictable direction for wacky Beck.
God created man in present form, as per the Genesis story 75.16%
God created man and the universe, but scientific evolution occurred 17.52%
Man evolved without God’s creation or intervention 4.88%
I’m unsure 2.44%
Maybe we can change some of those numbers around.
Barbara, allow me to repost part of a comment I left you yesterday:*
Seriously, the men who founded this nation were a mixed bag of various believers and non-believers. But the big names, the ones we think of when the term “Founding Father” is used, were most certainly NOT anything you’d accept as Christian and were determined to separate church and state in order to prevent the oppression of any belief or non-belief.
And really, we know that there’s tons of Chrisitans and other believers. We’re not asking you for evidence of them, we’re asking you for evidence that there A) is any “Supreme Being”, creator of the universe, and then B) that said being, shown to exist, in any way resembles YHWH as described in Abrahamic tradition.
*I have little faith that you read it yesterday, or that you’re interested now, but here is the link to my comment in it’s entirety. It’s rude not to respond to those who take the time to directly address your posts.
Quodlibet, Thanks for the kind words. I don’t respond to the smirks because they already told me who and what I was. So why bother engaging further.
Have a nice evening.
So, Barbie Teacake wants to do the “a child shall lead us” crap, eh? Let’s take a look at those good ol’ famblee values in the bible (just some, don’t have room for all the cruelty and perversions):
Just this bit from Genesis, ’cause not caring if your daughters are raped to death is just so special:
Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two “virgin daughters” instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to “do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes.” This is the same man that is called “just” and “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:8
Exodus:
After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished “there was not a house where there was not one dead.” 12:29
God says it’s okay for slave owners to split up slave families. 21:4
How to sell your daughter — and what to do if she fails to please her new master. 21:7-8
A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15, 17
Leviticus:
“For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” 20:9
Numbers:
For impaling the interracial couple, God rewards Phinehas and his sons with the everlasting priesthood. 25:10-13
Under God’s direction, Moses’ army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: “Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins — Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty — including the virgins.) 31:1-54
Deuteronomy:
At God’s instructions, the Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones” leaving “none to remain.” 2:33-36
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, “thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death.” 13:6-10
In the cities that god “delivers into thine hands” you must kill all the males (including old men, boys, and babies) with “the edge of the sword …. But the women … shalt thou take unto yourself.” 20:13
Rules for those who have two wives: “one beloved, and another hated.” 21:15-17
How to treat your hated children. 21:15-17
If you have a “stubborn and rebellious son,” then you and the other men in your neighborhood “shall stone him with stones that he die.” 21:18-21
If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn’t a virgin when they were married. If her father can’t produce the “tokens of her virginity” (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father’s doorstep. 22:13-21
If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn’t cry out loud enough, then “the men of the city shall stone her to death.” 22:23-24
Joshua:
Caleb offers to give his daughter to whoever conquers the city of Debir. Caleb’s nephew wins the contest and is given his cousin for a prize. 15:16-17
Geez, this is already long, and we haven’t gotten too far yet!
Let’s skip to a couple of gems from Psalms:
If you make God angry, he’ll burn you and your children to death. 21:9-10
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” 137:9
And of course, Proverbs:
Beating your children with a rod is a sure sign of parental love. 13:24
Beat your children and don’t stop just because they cry. 19:18
Beating your children will make them less foolish. 22:15
Beat your children hard and often. Don’t worry about hurting them. You may break a few bones and cause some brain damage, but it isn’t going to kill them. And even if they do die, they’ll be better off. They’ll thank you in heaven for beating the hell out of them. 23:13-14
Beating your children will make them wise. 29:15
If you mock your father or disobey your mother, the ravens will pick out your eyeballs and the eagles will eat them. 30:17
That’s enough for now, I’m sure. From SAB, of course.
Barbara, your comment at #199, if sincere, was extremely sweet. More.
Well I certainly am. Just got my new black, chrome and rubber 1200cc vibrator delivered today.
Barbara,
Thank you for replying, but you still didn’t respond. It’s as if I asked you what time it is, and you told me that you don’t like pickles.
And how can a smirk tell you who and what you are?
Babs,
*Nephew
When your nephew starts “whining” that he wants equals rights (if he hasn’t brought it up already) and wants to live in a safe and free society, are you going to tell him to “chill”?
Barbie Teacake:
Excuse me, Barb, but I wrote a nice, thoughtful, long response to you in comment #550. I have asked you numerous times to respond in kind.
You are a lying hypocrite, Barb. Who’s having a little bout of selective memory here?
I don’t have time tonight to post an answer to the link but I will soon. We do have very different views on Israel though and I had my same views before Beck. So you can drop that argument.
Promise I will get back to you.
Patricia:
Jealous!
Is it shaped like Jesus? Or Joseph Smith? (Just think, the Joe Smith model could have a little hat over his face! I need to market this idea.)
It’s not as good a writer as Pilty. The style is more like help ma boab or Lyin’ Irk but, again they were decent writers, plus hmb was British. 1prophet bragged about how she had thrown a demon out of her body, thereby curing her herpes, which doesn’t strike me as something Teabagger Barbie would brag about. Looking at the old dungeon, I don’t see any good matches.
Audley, I certainly will if he sounds like you.
Gee thanks for correcting me on nephew. I have always thought of him as my neice. Any other corrections you want to fling out there?
Dang, you just know the Pullet Patrol™ will have to emulate their Princess.
*goes to order some battery powered pullet sized motorcycles*
‘Tis:
Any possibility it’s the old Barb back? Janine posted a link back to sciblogs and the previous Barb, I’ll see if I can locate it.
From what I remember though, that Barb could spell…
Sorry, Audley. You’re apparently a little late to the Jesus Dildo party.
http://www.blowfish.com/catalog/toys/symbolic_dildos.html
Quod, I have had umpteen question coming at me from every where. When I get to it I get to it. So Chill.
Another smirk from Caine. O perfect one?
Babs,
“Smirks” is not the word that you’re looking for.
And considering that you asked Caine if she was going senile, I don’t think you have any claim to the high road. You go on being a hypocrite, Babs! It’s so endearing.
Every time a thing like Barbara wish someone “contentment and happiness” I want to say “Bless your heart.”
and bathe in bleach
Barb:
There’s that Christian compassion! Don’t worry, Babs, I’m sure you’ll be the last person a young transgendered man will turn to for help.
You’re welcome! It’s about time you took notice of your errors. (Which are many.)
So the fuck what? He isn’t your niece and it’s rude (at best) to refer to him using incorrect gender.
*Niece
I’ve been correcting your errors for two days now– everything from your shaky grasp of American history, to your spelling and grammar, to your reaction to your nephew. How the hell have you not noticed this yet?
Caine – Please add a blue ribbion to your holy babble quotin’ awards wall. Well done. But you must also remember the dragon and unicorns if you expect a purple rosette.
Tis – We’re you here during Pete Rooke? It seemed like it took forever to out him.
To Barb, being assertive about one’s ideas are to be condemn unless it supports her religion and historical revisionism.
No, Audley doesn’t need to chill nor does Caine, Quodlibet or any other person on this blog, for that matter. If you have the ability to brazenly impose your religion and historical revision on them, they have every reason and rights to be bold as they want to be. You (and your precious Tea-party) cannot demand anyone here to be obsequious to you, especially since it is your political views that have maltreated many of the people here.
Jesus Christ. It makes me so mad that Barbra acts like such an asshole and actively goes out and hurts people and then refuses to talk to people who are mad at her.
Did you ever think that the people you’re pissing off may be the ones you need to listen to if you’re actually doing wrong!?
Barbie Teacake:
It’s not a smirk*, Barbie. You have refused to respond to me whenever I have taken the time to be nice and give you long, thoughtful responses. Why in the hell should I bother with your brand of nasty crap?
*This is the internet, Barbie. There’s all kinds of info out there, there are even dictionaries and thesauruses. Try using them, as you can rarely seem to find the words you’re looking for.
Here’s one: http://dictionary.reference.com/
What is it that you think you’re asking here? Seriously, I’d like to know.
I’m also curious about what your level of education happens to be, and if you did graduate from High School, who in the hell let you graduate, as you don’t even understand basic punctuation?
Oooh. Hmmm. Well, I’ll just let that last bit of rudeness go. But I recommend that you not try it out on some of the other regulars here; you may end up on the receiving end of some beautifully precise and stimulating invective.
But Barbara, one simple request: Please address me by my Proper Nym, which is Quodlibet. Thank you. We don’t know each other well enough for the sort of intimacy you implied.
As to your having had “umpteen questions coming at you from everywhere” — well, if you are honest with yourself (something you seem to be struggling with) you’ll admit that the questions and exchanges have emerged over the course of a lengthy thread that has been going on for more than a day, and that you’ve had ample opportunity to acknowledge the intercourse and even to respond. Several questions over a 24-hour period is not exactly a fusillade, is it? If you are having a hard time keeping up here, then perhaps this is not the sort of place where you should hang out. This thread has actually been moving at a rather leisurely pace, though it is stretching to a delightful length, thanks to your occasional ejaculations.
If by saying “When I get to it I get to it” you’re implying that you will be returning for more, um, discussion, then I will check my popcorn supplies. Thanks for the heads up.
Patricia:
Thank you, Ms. Patricia. :)
Yes, Ma’am.
Randide*,
Yeah, I figured. But I don’t see any Joseph Smith dildos! Quick, who wants to invest in my new Mormon-themed sex toy business?
Picture this: An eight inch long representation of good ol’ Joey Smith, in pearl white, with his face stuck in a hat (for extra stimulation). This could be a gold mine, people!
*I am laughing so hard that I’m dying! I ♥ your ‘nym!
Randide – Holy shite, I think Audley and I have been beat to the punch in the dildo market.
If those were cheaper I’d buy a Holy Diving Nun and a Jackhammer Jesus to strap on the forks and sissy bar of my new vibrator. 11ty 1 for cracking me up!
Well, now that you mention it…
Good that you’re trying and you’ve got the pronouns right, but by calling him your niece you’re disrespecting his own assessment of his gender, so the right thing to do is to knock it off.
Not that I think you care about the right thing to do, given that you apparently believe there’s something wrong with people being open about the fact that they’re LGBT, and that saying it is poor form even when it’s directly relevant to the conversation. In short, you’re a bloody bigoted buffoon.
Also Barbra does it bother you at all that
A) Glen Beck thought it was funny that someone had a miscarriage and called up their husband to mock them about it?
B) Your God raped a woman?
*looks at the screenshot for the video in #160*
*laughs hysterically*
omfg, it’s mormon jesust the ultimate founding father! ROTFLMAO
what debate? you’ve steadfastly ignored all substantive points to instead complain about language, have incessantly attempted to dehumanize us, and are jumping from topic to topic without contributing anything of substance yourself. You’re not debating, you’re preaching and complaining.
no, it’s not. It’s skilled but uninspired. Better than Kinkade, but that’s not saying much. As an artist, I’m in fact quite insulted to have that be called “inspired”. feh.
it is. it’s directly copypasta’d from the guy who paints those atrocious, treacly and historically inaccurate paintings with the ridiculous scrollover-texts. (anc on that note: One Nation Under Cthulhu is much more awesome)
Barb, plagiarism is a no-no. If you’re going to use someone else’s words to make your argument for you because you can’t do it yourself, at least attribute it correctly.
so you were ignorant before and you are still ignorant, and are happy to watch beck because he deepens your ignorance with misinformation. do you expect us to find that surprising?
and you have the nerve to tell us we’d only support those who are agreeable to us? Hypocrite.
unless you’ve lied to us or left out some important information, Audley is right. You have a nephew who was born with a female body, not a niece.
According to the Bible that is.
For those trying to keep an interest in this thread, I’m finding that a demi-sec Vouvray and classic Rush such as Jacob’s Ladder or Natural Science are a BIG help.
Barb, if you mean me @ #211, I’ll be waiting. But please, do also take the time, when you respond, to include why you’re so eager to absolve Israel’s leadership and military of their sins in the conflict. And FYI, I in no way support Hamas, Hezbollah, or any terrorist (or military, or mercenary) action or organization that injures or kills civilians.
Anyone want to take bets that Barb didn’t give a shit about Trans people before the issue propped up in her family?
Now I am leaning toward the notion that a really old dungeon-dweller has crawled out.
Someone with an existing grudge against Caine.
I’ve been here for less than 2 years.
Are any of them smart enough to pull this off?
Sure Ing. What kind of odds can I get on “She doesn’t really give a shit about Trans people now that the issue has propped up in her family”?
@Chigau
You imply someone would have to be smart to post what Barba does?
I think a better question is “Are any of them actually THAT dumb?”
Well that depends on our definition of care. that she would care to make the world hospitable to trans people is a near certainty based on her bull. The question is does she care about individuals trans people but not enough to actually DO anything about it, just give a pat on the head and not beat the crap out of them in McDonald’s.
Ing, I’m not sure I’d say she gives a shit about trans people now, considering:
She’s capable of understanding what it is to be trans and expressing empathy, but in her head, that doesn’t seem to connect to a need for social justice or a right to assert one’s own identity and respond when people don’t respect it. She has the ability but not the inclination to actually care about trans people. Sad really. Or wait – actually – infuriating.
Patricia and Audley,I still think there is room to capitalize on the market, with the Joey Smith one and probably with a non-crucified Jesus. I’m picturing a Buddy Christ sort of rendering.
I’m in for ten.
Silly Ragutis, it isn’t that they want to slaughter civilian women and children. They have to, God Wills It!
Ing:
No bet. I doubt she gives a shit about her nephew. She used him to try to fit in.
Besides, she thinks he should “chill”. She totally doesn’t care about trans people.
@Classical CIpher
Really she said we don’t care about others save ones like us. She seems to show she can’t even extend the care to her own blood if they diverge from good proper Christian life style.
Like I said, her views are ones that degrade the lives of those who don’t fit in and she sees it and is perfectly fine with it. Oh sure it’s sad that it’s happening to HER nephew, but he’s one of the gooduns!
So Barbra considering your nephew is anatomically female, (unless I swapped it in my mind apologies if so) what’s your view on the legality of his ability to marry? Since you know ONE MAN ONE WOMAN. Which would be better in your view? A trans man marrying another man, or a trans man marrying a woman?
Ing:
She doesn’t give a shit now, and goes out of her way to make her nephew uncomfortable. Barb can go on, pretending to be nice to Kat Lorraine, but won’t recognize her nephew’s gender. Way to go on the compassion front, Barb! (That was sarcasm, by the way.)
Chigau:
Eh, Barb can take a number like everyone else.
Not that she bothers responding to me even after I explained to her WHY people are mad at her, but does it bother you, Barb, that us horrible hateful people care more about your nephew’s rights and liberty than you seem to?
Randide – Yep, I think the Joseph Smith dildo is a go. We should send a proposal to Glen Beck and Mitt Romney to see if they are interested in getting in early, while the project is still so young.
It’s pretty clear that she doesn’t now. Not seriously. Not if she thinks it’s totally okay to refer to her nephew with female labels just because it’s more comfortable to her.
It’s really fucking disrespectful and shows that you don’t actually take his gender seriously.
Hey Barb, you know what sucks worse than being misgendered by strangers? Being misgendered by your family. Because your family’s supposed to be the one thing you can count on.
At least you’re honest enough to state outright that you’d shit all over him the instant he asserts his status as a human being.
she’s a Tea Party Member and claims that the only “problem” with LGBT people is that they flaunt their existence. I doubt she can conceive of what rights and what liberty her nephew might be missing.
Ing
I meant more like, “Are any of them smart enough to pull-off a stealth reinserting into Pharyngula?”
and having re-read my question I now say,
“Never mind.”
Caine – Is the Mister OK?
If she’s anything like the folks in Texas, the answer is no.
I’m a bit surprised Barbara didn’t cite this masterwork as evidence of divine inspiration. Einstein surely would’ve liked it; and only hardened, atheist p-zombies like yourselves would not be moved to prayer.
Barbara, Here is an advice: Don’t using the wrong pronouns or gender on any person just because it makes you feel comfortable. It’s selfish and insulting. At least, extend that courtesy to your own nephew.
Makyui:
I’ll just bet once her nephew is old enough for surgery, she’ll still call him niece.
Don’t use the wrong pronouns or gender. . .
Shakes fist at Microsoft Words
Patricia:
Yes. He was waylaid by a couple members of the Heart River Brewing Association, they wanted to talk to him about their hops.
Such surgery will still be available in future Tea Party America!??!?!?!?!
Chigau & Ing – Yes, we have had some old trolls come back time after time. Pilty is the best example, but even as stealthy as he is, he still can’t help himself over the long haul if you start filleting the catholic church. Barbs got that musty old troll scent rolling off her.
The one that really pushes my personal buttons is Heddle. He hasn’t been banned (I think), but gawd damn just seeing his name pop up sends me into a shitstorm. Calvinism is an outrage.
I wonder if she gets all haughty and offended if she’s corrected on it, too — oh wait, she does, ’cause that’s what she did.
I also wonder how he feels about it. I hope he’s got more patience with Relatives-Who-Don’t-Get-It than I do.
Based on Heddle’s description this is what Calivinism means to me
Ing:
Fortunately, ‘merica is not the world.
It’ll totally be available to any trans American — if they go to Taiwan! You still won’t be able to change your legal info, though. Shuckie darn.
Patricia,
He isn’t. He flounced, though, because we are too feminist for him. Yeah his ideas . . . well, they cause me to scroll faster.
Not as annoying as Dendy, though, since he stalked our personal blogs and left smug sanctimonious rants from his high horse.
Okay kids, it’s been fun, but I’ve gotta work in the morning.
Leave some for me, okay? :D
Razor – Thanks ever so much! I do enjoy being a hardened atheist p-zombie.
And I pray that sweet buttfucked baby jezus will make you one too, forever and ever, ramen.
G’night, Audley!
Makyui:
So do I. It’s hard enough already and there’s auntie Barbara, being as much of an ass about it as possible.
Oh, and Barb, if you’re reading, yes, I know for a fact that you’re an utter shit to your nephew. How do I know that? Because if you actually cared about him, loved him and bothered to understand what it’s like for a transgender person, let alone a child, you would have never said that you still call him niece and think of him as niece. You’re contemptible.
Good night all!
Nite, nite Audley! Sweet dreams of Jack Hammer jebus.
*le smirk*
Good night to you, too, Quodlibet!
Good night Audley. May you dream of sugar plums, even if it’s still summer.
Good night Quodlibet.
Now if Walton was here, I could pull off a joke about what we’re doing. :P
Gyeong Hwa – I apologize in advance if I fuck up your nym. My brain sees Going hwat, perhaps that’s what it means in Olde Sluttish.
Yea, Heddle has some seriously fucked up ideas. SC,OM used to post a link to a college site that had the Calvinist manifesto up like a mission statement. I completely loose it with Heddle.
My best day with Pilty was when I finally cited him some serious ancient catholic bullshit that he hadn’t read, and he demanded citations & sources. Janine ripped the shit out of him over it. He didn’t win. :)
Weeell… To be fair, she could be more of an ass about it if she wanted to. At least she’s not throwing “shes” and “hers” around and screaming about how he’s confused and perverted and doomed to Hell and disavowing all connections with him. Provided she isn’t lying, anyway.
Her assitude seems a little more sneaky and discreet. I bet that changes the instant her sense of privilege is threatened, though.
G’night Everyone! I’m out too, and I won’t be dreaming of Heddle. *spits*
Sleep sweet, all. :)
Yeah.
I’m for bed.
I leave at 7am for somewhere remote.
I hope I haz interwebs.
sleep well, All
G’night, Caine!
Oh shit, instead of swamping the comments I’ll just say g’night everybody who’s going to sleep!
seriously
this is still alive?
posted from Beck poll page 1
So the consensus is that I’m being naive at attempting to take Babs at her word (#199)?
Damn, and here I thought she might have let slip a redeeming facet of herself. Well, I try to be an optimist (though it never works out).
I have no RL experience with trans peeps, and myself would probably make a few faux-pas, but I do notice that Barb did use the pronoun “he”. That (to me) implies at least a bit of acceptance. From her perspective, there was a change. He asserts what he’s always been, but to her, it’s a change. That she can call the person she knew as “her niece” he has got to be something. Not to say she doesn’t need to do more, but compared to most Christians, I’m amazed she’s calling him anything other than “freak”, “pervert”, or “abomination”.
Sigh. Has it ever occurred to you that it is entirely possible for one to be Christian – or of ANY religion – and at the same time support, much less acknowledge the necessity of separating Church and State in government?
This isn’t a zero sum game and “secular government” =/= atheist government. Separating Church and State is meant to ensure a government in which everyone, whether holding religious beliefs or none, are treated fairly and equally. The Founding Fathers, coming from a variety of religious backgrounds, including various forms of Christianity – because you do realize that Christians come in more than one flavor, right? – understood this because they were familiar with history and what happens when one form of worship is favored over another in government. They understood that their personal beliefs had no place in government because not everyone shared them.
I am getting really fucking sick and tired of people trying to claim that keeping our government secular in order to treat everyone fairly regardless of religious beliefs = “OMG oppressing Christians! Trying to take away our religion!!”
Ragutis – As a former True Christian, I can tell you that those words are “metaphors” (lying) and have ‘proper’ christian names.
Freak, pervert and abomination inter-change with dear, interesting, and jesus challenged when you are wanting to be “nice” to your own family that you really know is going to burn in hell for not being straight.
I don’t actually know the mormon verses on being gay or trans, or the muslim ones. My Koran is from the 1930’s and has no index.
Good night to this thread. See ya on the TET.
*gawd bless*
Like I said, it’s the sneaky sort. It smells rather like when folks claim they aren’t racist, but then they say stuff like, “I didn’t know you were black! You speak so eloquently!” And instead of being horrified at their mistake when they’re corrected, they get angry at being corrected.
It’s not as overt a bigotry as screaming hellfire at people, but it’s still harmful. I’m glad my parents didn’t kick my ass out, but it still pisses me the fuck off when I tell them not to call me female names and they respond by getting uppity and doing it anyway.
Ahhh… See, I was never a True Christian. I was merely a Devout Catholic. :p
Seriously, the more I see of the rest of Christianity (including Catholicism) the more amazed I am at (despite being more than fucked up enough, thank you very much) how liberal the church I was raised with appears. And the Passionists don’t even seem a particularly liberal order. To this day, I can’t tell if it was actually liberal or if the typical Catholic boilerplate hate just bounced off my naivety and I never noticed because I was checking out the girl a few pews in front of me. Or perhaps, since the parish was in a quite wealthy area, they just kept things as happy lovey as possible to avoid offending any of the deep pockets in the pews.
All I know is that in the 20 years since I last attended a mass or participated in any way there, I have yet to run into any Christian as liberal, open, understanding, and non-judgmental as the church I ultimately rejected. It’s another example of what people like Barbara don’t understand. We simply don’t believe it. A church can match your personal philosophy perfectly, but after a while, you still realize that the whole god thing is just one big delusion. Peel everything else aside, and God’s still a lie.
For those interested in the Glen Beck & David Barton pseudo-history, check this out. Free e-book of Liars For Jesus, detailing all those US history lies – courtesy of another FTBlogger.
Wow, take a little nap and I miss something special. Now I stopped giving Barbie the benefit of the doubt several pages back, and I don’t buy her “I just want to share my beliefs” act. Posting that shit was a nice evangelistic ‘fuck you’ for us. Christian Love as a weapon, who’da thunkit?
“And a child shall lead them”…. Children should be children, not ‘leaders’. It’s very creepy whenever I see a child ‘leading’ church services on youtube. Reminds me of the abortion protest I got roped into when I was a kid- I feel stupid now because I didn’t really understand what I was protesting or why, even though as a kid I was all for it.
make that ‘A page back’… lol, I’m a dumbass.
Separation of Church and State dates back to Friedrich Barbarossa’s Drang nach Südden and his struggles with Pope Alexander III over primacy in Europe. Effectively, the post-Roman collapse Europeans had been trying since Charlemagne to re-establish a Christian empire, Roman-style, in Europe but hadn’t quite gotten it right. One of the biting questions about this empire was who should ultimately be supreme ruler of it, the secular emperor who achieved his position through conquest and blood lines, or the Pope? In other words, should ultimate power rest with the church or the state? Should there be a difference between the two? With Friedrich’s failed attempts to bring Italy under his sway, the two remained separate. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries led to two centuries of warfare between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in the big finale of the Thirty Years War, leaving a lot of people in Europe wondering if religion was all it’s cracked up to be.
This was the mindset of the first English settlers to the Americas. The English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell’s tyranny and the so-called “Bloodless Revolution” of 1688 left a deep impression on English colonists, many of whom embraced Deism. American Deists’ beliefs were simply that though they believed strongly in God, they distrusted religions as imperfect human attempts to define and understand God. They looked at the Catholic Church as a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy that wanted power and wealth. They were committed Protestants who believed Henry VIII’s separation from the Catholic Church was absolutely necessary but they also saw the resulting Church of England as having become just as corrupt as the Catholics. The lesson they drew from the Anglican experience was that when religion is mixed with government, the inevitable result is corruption of both. This is a source of confusion for many modern American religious extremists, who can’t seem to bridge that understanding between the American Founding Fathers being quite devoted to God (except for atheists like Ben Franklin) but yet distrusting religion. Modern American Christian fundamentalists love to quote ad nauseum religious citations from the Founding Fathers without reading the context in which those remarks were made.
The American Constitution was framed with a strict division between state and religion. It was not intended to be anti-religious, but it said simply that while religion has its place in society, that place is not in the government. Anyone can practice whatever religion they want but they do not have the right to force anyone else to practice that religion, and especially commensurate with that aspect the government is not allowed to endorse or in any way support any particular religion. This is why, in rather clear form, putting a religious monument on government property in the U.S. is unconstitutional. One can erect a monument to the Ten Commandments on private property, on a church, on a private organization’s property, anywhere (abiding by local building codes) except government property.
American religious zealots have a convoluted logic that says they should be able to promote their religious views anywhere and everywhere they want, disregarding the Constitution and local laws, and if they can’t impose their religious views in this way on others then it is an abridgement of their religious rights. Since their religion says they must proselytize, any attempt to stop them from doing so, all laws be damned, is against their rights.
The aspect of separation of church and state which seems to be missing is that it’s not about majorities, it’s about all of society. Clearly, even if they are a minority, there are some people who don’t want religious symbols on their public property, and it’s their public property as much as it is those who want it there. This would be a clear case of a majority enforcing their religious beliefs on a community against the will of some in that community. The law is universal within the U.S. and is clear: a government cannot support or endorse any religion. Putting a religious monument on government property is a de facto tacit endorsement for that religion. Again, the Constitution is not anti-religion, it simply makes a clear distinction between the public (government) and private (non-government) practice of it.
‘Tis Himself, pour encourager les autres,
Good morning, and thank you for that excellent essay.
I would add to that last sentence “…and shall not base its laws or regulations on the tenets or beliefs of any religion, or any sect thereof; neither shall it draw on the tenets or beliefs of any religion, or sect thereof, deny to any person equal access under the law.” We have people working to prevent marriage equality “because it is against the Bible” or “against God’s law” and those are invalid bases for legislation, regulation, etc.
Nerd,
You know, I’ve been thinking about this and Barb reminds me of someone I know, especially if she is indeed a Mormon.
I’m not saying that I know Barb, just that she’s acting like every other god soaked Glennbot in the US. It’s kind of sad that they’re so predictable.
Teabagger Barbie is a generic, common or garden, conservative godbotherer. She seems familiar because there are lots of others just like her. While she probably hasn’t visited Pharyngula before, many of her sisters and brothers have come here over the years.
Quodlibet
Although to be perfectly fair, there is NOTHING in the constitution or laws of the US that would deny anyone the opportunity to make such an attempt.
It is simply that the use of religion as determinant* is, itself, illegal under our constitution. You need other secular reasons for your proposed law.
*Which is why DOMA [among others] is such a crock of shit, and should be struck down immediately
‘Tis Himself, pour encourager les autres, exactly.
The founding fathers perceived the mixing of religion and government in much the same way we perceive the mixing of alcohol and driving.
Audley, Nerd, et al: Just so the trolls are clear we are not tarring everyone with the same brush* — people of religion [PoR] and religion are not an identity. However, we often see behaviors from PoR’s that are common to their religion: evangelical proselytization, quoting bible verses, and passive-aggressive ‘bless your souls’, for example.
To Trolls:
Such experience tends to bias our perception, and if we see those behaviors, we take it not as confirmation of a stereotype, but as confirmation that we, indeed, truly have another unthinking godbot in our midst.
Most folks get at least three strikes. Initial responses (and that can be seen from this Barbara & Dan thread) are seeking citation and evidence for a particular stance or statement made.
Continued intransigence results in escalation of response, to the point where the godbot either leaves or actually engages in dialog. If the latter happens, it is usually *amazing* to the godbot that these same mean people can be so nice!
It’s amazing what can happen when you actually read for comprehension and respond to the questions posed – in other words, when you have a dialog, instead of making a speech.
I guess the challenge for the godbots here is that they don’t see us in our ‘work clothes’ so all they see are slathering baby-eaters. Pity that they don’t actually read the words.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
[Anecdote]
* One of my good friends is a Mormon Bishop. He tells us (his buddies) about his [horde of] kids, their missions, and so on – but purely in a water-cooler way (J is in [benighted country] doing work on [mission work project X]). And, as friends, we are interested in what his kids are doing (and vice versa – honest!)
I find it refreshing that he has never tried to proselytize, and that he considers my advice worthy (despite being, y’know, a godless baby-eating atheist). Two of his kids are making a success of very different careers as a result of advice from me (and from others). So, Yay talking like adults!
[/Anecdote]
I think I finally remembered who Barbara reminds me of. It may have been 18-24 months ago, but we had a young Mormon woman, MaryBeth or MaryLou(?), post for a week or so. The same naivety, the same ignorance of history, the same acceptance of dubious authority. No, I don’t think they are the same person, just as many have alluded, they just sound the same.
‘Tis Himself, pour encourager les autres, thank you for that excellent post at 291.
And good morning, everyone!
‘Smee,
Quite.
To add to what you said, I have plenty of religious friends and family*, but they do not preach to me (and I don’t try to get them to reject religion). As others have said, if religion stays where it belongs (in the home and in places of worship), it’s not really an issue for me.
The religious trolls tend to have the same MO– whine about how awful we are, preach, create strawmen, then preach some more. Who knows why Pharyngula attracts people like that.
*I attended an unveiling yesterday and exchanged pleasantries with the rabbi afterward. Total shock, right?
Hello, Audley,
Yes. On a similar note, just a few minutes ago, Joshua White, a commenter at “Dispatches from the Creation Wars” left this pithy analysis, in response to similar engaging-avoiding behavior from a a YEC apologist:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/an_interesting_exchange_with_d.php#c4816039
I love that.
You were polite to a rabbi? Hanging’s too good for you. Bring on the boiling oil.
But did the Rabbi know that all those cuss words were pleasantries?
[/snark]
Audley, you really are a smirk. So insignificant.
Spending so much of your time smirking when you could be doing something more worthwhile.
Good morning, Barbara. It’s so nice of you to drop in again, when I’m sure you have something more worthwhile to do.
Damnit. We TOTALLY missed a chance to call Bush an Insignificant Smirk for the past 10 years.
Hey, you think Babs might be the former Frist Lady/Mother?
Barbara, you have not said one fucking substantial statement. The fart of a gnat has more meaning then anything you have to say.
I smirk because you keep showing off your unearned sense of superiority.
Barbara,
Be a dear. Define smirk, please.
Thanking you in advance for your contribution …
Barbara,
Right. Because you can totally tell that Audley is doing nothing other than commenting on this blog. You’re the one who keeps coming back despite having your proselytizing, judgmental ass handed to you on a platter, so why aren’t you out doing something “more worthwhile” with your time than engaging with ebil atheists?
Sweet Baby Jesus and his cock sucking momma – how did I ever get TWO blockquotes in there.
It musta been a MIRACLE!
Barbara,
If you really think that Audley is “insignificant,” why do you keep addressing your remarks to her? It’s a little confusing. I wonder if her comments and analysis really mean more to you than you might realize? That is, that in your heart of hearts, you know she is right?
Examine your heart and your conscience. (Yes, atheists have a sense of conscience…Religious people don’t have a lock on morality.) Read the thread again, and then read it again. Consider the questions and comments and the whole dialog. Notice how you have avoided answering the questions – what are you afraid of? What do you think will happen to you when you can finally let go of the lies? Be be honest with yourself about what is real and what is imaginary. You can set yourself free from medieval superstitions RIGHT NOW and live a fuller, more self-actuated, more honest life.
All: re SBJ&HCSM. Is that any way to talk about a virgin?
Good afternoon, Quodlibet! I am going to shamelessly steal that quote. It’s the perfect description of the preachy trolls!
To everyone else: I’m hanging my head in shame over my polite conversation with Rabbi Matt. I’ll head over to the spanking couch after lunch, okay?
‘Tis Himself @291, I’ll add my “thanks” to others. That was nice summary of the history of “separation of church and state” concept. I passed it on to my excellent progeny.
I think “ad nauseum” should be “ad nauseam” in your text. I only know this because David M. corrected me on the same point in another thread.
Carry on.
That’s true. When rereading the post, I noticed a couple of grammatical errors and some word choices which could have been better.
Oh, I got a reply!
Okay, Babs, honey. I gave you the definition of “smirk” upthread. I even included a link to a dictionary that you can use! I know, I know, I am super generous, since it’s obvious that I am way more computer “savy” than you.
If you want me to take you seriously, please attempt to choose the proper word in the future. If you continue to mangle the English language, I will continue to think that you’re a dumbass.
Ha! And you aren’t?
I can’t help but notice that you bothered to reply to me, so I must have some significance. Next time, how about you engage the points that I’ve brought up?
Speak for yourself, Babs. You have no clue what I’m actually doing presently. What I will tell you is this: I’m not trolling a blog that I disagree with. *cough cough*
If you decided to do something worthwhile with your time, may I suggest that you invest in some remedial English classes? I bet your local community college offers some.
Audley Z. Darkeart:
Damn! And I just gave up the title “Minister of Spankings.”
Damn my bad timing to hell! To hellllllllllllll!
Babs,
PS: You can’t claim the high road if you’re going to attempt to insult me or anyone else. Food for thought, anyway.
Audley you are such a chortle
Oh and Tis? Total hug.
SGBM is such an abbrasive spock eyebrow raise
And we all know how Rorschach is a big thumbs up.
And of course we don’t need to go into Brownian.
Barbara:
Tell your nephew that there are strangers out here who are impressed with his courage and wish him well.
Ing:
I’ve been trying to do that for two years.
Nigel:
*rimshot!*
Oooooh, unintentional double entendre!
Barb
Until you admit you were wrong about almost everything you have posted so far, the horde will continue to mock and deride you.
It seems you lack the ability to think critically, and are incapable of engaging in an HONEST discussion.
This makes you a hypocrite, just as Beck is a hypocrite.
Although I do take a small amount of pleasure in causing you discomfort, I really would prefer it if you opened your mind just a crack and examined your own biases.
Ask some questions. USE YOUR BRAIN! Don’t drink anymore of Becks poison kool-aid. He is no friend to anyone but his bank account.
Hugs back. And smooches. Wet, sloppy ones.
Oh noes, I think my last post went into moderation.
Don’t hate me, I’m going to re-post it with the urls stripped out:
____
Back on the previous page I mentioned digging up a citation for regressive taxation (PDF link looks something like itepnet dot org slash whopays3.pdf) compared to median household income.
Maryland and New Jersey have the highest MHI.
* Maryland is slightly regressive with the bottom 4 quintiles paying ~10% (middle quintile is highest at 10.7%) in state taxes with the top 95-99th percentiles paying 9.2% and the top 1% paying 7.7%.
* New Jersey is a little better, but poor people pay the highest percentage, first four quintiles pay 10.8, 9.7, 9.4, and 9.4% respectively. The 95-99th percentile pay 9.6% and the top 1% pay 9.5%. The gap isn’t as big.
* Compared to say Mississippi: Bottom quintile earns less than $15K — on average $9,100 — and they pay 10.8%. Next three quintiles are 10.7, 10.8, and 9.6%. So Mississppi is largely sticking it to the middle class, 80% of everyone is earning below $70K. The 95-99th percentile pay 7.3% and the top 1% pay 6.3% in state taxes. That’s steeply regressive taxation right there, and clearly worse than NJ or Maryland.
If you check out that PDF, compare Illinios or Florida to e.g. Michigan.
____
Testing out the q tag:
I’m not seeing any blockquote there, but an icon of a pen that fires a bullet just appeared on my desktop.
Wrong Q I guess.
Coffeehound posted:
(a most excellent analogy IMO)
In case you are unaware of who that is Barb, here is a link.
Gordon Gekko
Now Barb, I don’t know what “Christian” sect you are a member of, but greed is generally not considered a virtue.
Rich men, camels, and needles ring any bells for you?
myeck waters,
Well played! ;) There’s probably a joke about a smug man in a mariachi suit flashing into existed behind me as well; maybe something about Farpoint Station.
Er, existence behind me. I guess that’s what preview is for!
Tethys,
Greed as such isn’t generally considered a virtue, but the idea that if you are virtuous, you will be well off financially is well within mainstream Christianity, at least from John Calvin’s Geneva to the current American mega-churches. See Barbara Ehrenreich’s Bright-sided for more on the American history of the related idea that you can become prosperous just by wanting it enough, and that if you aren’t prosperous (and healthy, and any other good thing) it is in some undefined way your own fault.
As a non-Christian, I don’t feel remotely qualified to tell someone else that zie isn’t really Christian, or isn’t a good Christian.
Hi Audley, I see you’ve been honoured with the smirk business too. Hmmm, I think perhaps we should simply consider ourselves Order of the Smirk™. Who cares if it doesn’t make sense?
The food served at the annual meeting is liver with fava beans and a nice chianti.
Hey, Caine!
I like the Order of the Smirk™. It suits us.
At first I thought maybe Barb meant snark, but even if she did, she’s still using it wrong.
I’m not quite sure what I finally said that raised Barb’s ire– oh, how I wish trolls would learn how to blockquote!
‘Tis:
Oh no. No liver. I’m puttin’ my foot down. I’ll bring the lotion, though.
Audley:
Well, I wasn’t here, presenting her fave target…seriously, I don’t know why she has focused so much on you or me, everyone else has been correcting her sorry arse too. Of course, comprehension ain’t exactly Ms. Teacake’s strong suit. So, we’re all in the Order of the Smirk™! Hmmm, do you think an OS tacked to the nym would do?
Caine,
OS is fine by me. I don’t have enough stuff at the end of my name as it is!
Audley:
:D Oh good! I’ll try this out for a while, then…
Barbara, I think that you are making one of the Standard Theist’s Errors; you seem to think that to atheists, Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, et.al., are gods, or at least prophets, and that since in this view we are using Science (definitely with a capital ‘S’) as our religion, we must consider their pronouncements to be inerrant.
This is not true.
Science is an ever-moving target; today’s best-evidence-based theory is tomorrow quaint, but oh-so-risibly-inadequate primitive world-view. The Pillars of the Sky have clocked out, and we know that the world is approximately spherical; Helios’ chariot no longer tows the sun (which we now know to be a star, but ‘way close up) across the sky. Moving forward, writing Paternosters on paper, burning it and drinking the ashes does nothing to cure disease, herbs are not “labelled” for our convenience for medicinal use, phlogiston has been replaced by oxidation (though it has a second life in old-style D&D gaming; I do love me some Spelljammer), aether with the dirty vacuum of space. And these are good changes.
You are fighting a straw atheist.
–
Here we go. Let’s see if my Order of the Smirk™ shows up.
Hey Babs! Look, we’re still mocking you!
Cicely, that was a wonderful post. However, if you’re expecting Barb to read it, let alone comprehend it, well…just don’t hold your breath.
Audley, it’s lovely!
Vicki,
Babs thinks Glenn Beck is a historian.
Thus far her only references have been the bible and Glen.
I’m attempting to use a reference she trusts and is most likely to be familiar with to illustrate the point.
Pointing out that all varieties of christians seem to think of themselves as “true christians” is IMO a bit beyond her at this point.
Sorta like “irony” /smirk
Barbra came back again. She really must be on a mission for gawd.
Caine, I assure you that I’m not holding my breath on Barb’s account (ah, but the audience is listening! (or at least eyeballing)); but the MRSA seems to be dying off nicely, I am afflicted with an excess of exuberant enthusiasm therefore, and I just felt moved to point out what I see as a crucial point that those quoting famous scientists at us with a general implication of “Ha! Take that!! In…your…face!“, consistently miss.
–
I suspect this isn’t what Barbara meant but urban dictionary defines smirk as George W. Bush. I suspect she might mean snark but is using it incorrectly.
Ugh. This Barbara loon is annoying. I’m closing this thread; let’s see if she’s smart enough to find her way to another.
My guess is…no.