In response to met00...Christians are being charitable. They are sharing what Jesus Christ can do for their lives. He offers forgiveness, peace, and the the hope of spending eternity with Him. People have free will and can choose to believe or not. Christians are not hurting anybody by doing this. Nobody is putting a gun to someone's head. God gives us free choice. What if there is no God? But what if there is? I would much rather error on the side that God exists. There is nothing to lose in that situation. As far as the government spending tax dollars and funding for a Chaplain's office...couldn't we say the same thing about the government funding abortion and homosexual agenda as well. As far as I can see, these are personal choices that people choose to make and I don't believe the government should be spending tax dollars to pay for abortions or the homosexual community to push their agenda on my children or me. I love everyone whether they believe my way or not. And I don't want to attack anyone in this comment, but if our country is going to omit God from everything because they don't want tax dollars paying for religious agenda, than I believe we must be fair all the way around. WAKE UP AMERICA...don't forsake the God who forgives and loves you so much! The atheists of this world are under the protective covering of God because of the Christians of this world. When we are all raptured maybe then you will believe. God Bless America.

@met00: I think the reporter only meant "anti-God" as a synonym for atheistic. Atheism is anti-God, at least in some sense of the definition.

So, jaa88, if I were to get my personal faith from Odin and I was to share what Odin did for my life, that wouldn't be a case of me pushing my mythology on you, but just being charitable by correcting your false belief system with my one true faith?

My Odin! What a bunch of conceited fanglebangers these claimants of the one correct faith are.

Oh, I just read further and see that you get your faith from a book written by people that thought the earth was flat, and get your current events from Faux News. I hate to surprise you with silly little things like facts, but the government doesn't "pay for abortions" In fact it does a great job of regulating a woman's reproductive rights, while it has no problem paying for men to procreate. (Mar 15, 2011 – A report from the HHS's Office of Inspector General finds that Medicare shelled out more than $3.1 million for erectile-dysfunction drugs.)

And the last time I checked, no one was attempting you to give up heterosexuality and replace it with flaming homosexuality. No one was insisting that you dump your wife for a pair of kneepads. Although it does seem like acceptance, from a persons sexual identity to their chosen faith seems to be a bit beyond your capability.

May Odin bless you and the rest of the infidels. In his name we so pray.

You are right on point......... love you! Some people have a hard time with facts. Fairy tales are much easier. I watch those science shows like "how the universe was made" and you really have to pay attention and I can see how a lot of people would turn to the good book for answers. It's just easier and it makes them feel safe. I have always been more afraid of the people who are afraid...and are susceptible to fear mongoring politicians like Perry and Bachman. Don't know why the right wing has adopted god as their running mate and why a lot of Americans buy into it. I just hope that some common sense will overcome fear at some point and we can try to actually become the country the FF s envisioned.

G. Smith,

Not gonna happen. Whenever we have had "troubled times" in this country we have had a revival of faith-based bullcrap. In G-d We Trust was added to our currency during the Civil War. One Nation Under G-d? WW-II, The Depression and the cold war.

When things get bad, and logic shows no way out, people turn to faith for answers. In order to feel better about what they have done, they then attempt to enforce their faith through legislation.

As for you question about right-wing adoption of "G-d", the issue is not one of adoption of "G-d" but ownership of the frame of "God is on our side.". If you look at the values promoted by Christ from the myth-based documents, well, they generally are "liberal" not "conservative". From helping the poor, to kicking the moneychangers out, there is NOTHING right leaning in the core philosophy. Most right-leaning adoption of the New Testament is self-serving re-writing and selective picking and choosing along the edges of the core.

It's actually kind of sad that these evangelical types have taken this myth-based religion of peace and care for your fellow man and turned it into such a hate-filled and judgmental system used to beat your fellow man down.

Chris Muir,

That was beautifully stated and completely logical.

I checked out that website, and it's clear you don't understand Athiests. "Creation" doesn't prove God exists, it merely proves the Universe exists. "My Conscience" proves that I exist (I think therefore I am) but doesn't prove God exists. Finally, "Christ, the Word of God" proves that scripture exists, but since writing can be fictional, it doesn't actually prove God exists. But you did get one thing right: "It’s not your responsibility to prove the existence of God. It’s God’s responsibility." If any all-powerful all-knowing God wanted me to worship It, then It could talk to me directly and would know just what to say. I'm wide open. Since that isn't happening, I can only conclude that there is no God insisting that I worship It.

Tell that to all the victims of religious wars.

somehow "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition" keeps coming to mind.

Look like you are as angry as you are misinformed. But please carry on, you are justifying their efforts

Amen to that! Well said Cheryl. At the name of Jesus every (including atheists) knee will bow.

Wow. So many fictional statements presented as factual in just on short paragraph. You most likely were singing Onward Christian Soldiers while watching the news of the US attacks on Baghdad.

Sorry, but you are incorrect about the Founding Fathers. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin and Washington were Deists, not Christians. This country was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment, a period in which religious dogma was rejected in favor of rationality. In a free country, it's a bit absurd to tell someone that if they don't agree with you, they should "shut the hell up" or move elsewhere. By the way, nice "Christian" dialogue.

Tanya, I am an atheist, but I would correct your statement to be about as incorrect as Cheryl's.

The founding fathers were not all Christian, nor all deists as each of you respectively claims.

Some were deists, many were Christians, and some were of slightly different faiths. If anyone was really interested, I could present citations.

One thing though is clear. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does show that the founding fathers (at least those who were still alive in 1797) categorically affirmed that the US was not founded *in any sense" on Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Signing_and_ratification

But that is a diversion. I am amused at the furore being raised over the fact that some atheists have decided to announce that they exist, and want others who may want to know that they are not alone.

Wow! Sounds like someone forgot what words like "land of the free" and "liberty" stand for. Many of our founding fathers are quoted as saying quite the contrary to what you have stated. Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible but took out all the hocus pocus miracle stuff and fairy tales and called it the "moral teachings of Jesus Christ". I think that freedom of religion and seperation of church and state were some of the best ideas the founding fathers came up with and that means in a free country we should have the right to believe or not to believe in whatever we choose to as long as we respect other people and their rights, even if we dont agree with them. So as far as giving credit to Jesus for creating our horribly corrupt political system..well, ok..If God and Jesus(one in the same) are devine and without fault, how did we get here? Answer: you who attack others for believing in ideas in which you do not and not respecting those opinions and having an intellegent conversation about them. Religion has nothing to do with Democracy! It's sad that you don't see the irony of your imflammatory words. As a person who likes to keep my beliefs personal I get tired of having christians and other religious groups impart their ideas upon me. Now, the politicians have somehow circumvented our seperation of church and state in hopes of luring potential voters into their corners. I applaud backyard skeptics for having the courage that only true Americans possess

Wow, Cheryl, how Christian of you....
I thought the bible told us to love everyone, pray for the non-believer.

The bible says many things Shelly. It is a veritable buffet for people to pick and choose as one likes. Even for atheists. Cheryl just picked from the spicier sections.

Like Leviticus 24:16
"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."

She probably thought, and perhaps she is right that the sign *could* be taken as blasphemy. Maybe you have to see it from her Christian viewpoint.

You probably picked from the Ephesians section:

4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

But hey I am supposedly going to hell, so maybe both of you are right.

what's funny about Cheryl's statements is that most of her grievances about the atheist based faith is more reflective of Christian, and most other religions.
1. solicit financial support=Christians all they do is want money for their churches.
2.promote their unbeliefs: Christians will go half way around the world to "save people."
3.Operating a non-profit, tax exempt capacity= exactly what all churches and places of worship do.

I think everyone can see my point. that's just ironic.

@GA, welcome to the warped view of belief.

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is the disbelief in a supreme being. Now, the sad fact is that there are other so-called "faiths" that express a disbelief in a supreme being who controls everything. Buddhism doesn't have an "almighty" and does not follow "prayer" rituals. Yet in modern society, it is called a religion and a faith rather than what it is, a life philosophy. Secular humanism falls into the same basic category of being referred to as a faith, even though it's adherents are anything but faithful, much less organized around tenants of faith.

Both these groups ascribe to a series of beliefs that clearly reject a supreme being mythology, but remain agnostic rather than confrontational and accept a philosophical base that is more the subject of internal enlightenment. It follows that the "leaders" of both of these groups (if secular humanism even has them) are considered more along the lines of teachers, not proselytizers. They don't claim to "know" the answers, but seek them and want to help others seek them. Both also have a clear set of moral codes that are not based on mythology, but more along the lines of study of the works and understanding of others. In both you also see an absence of a central authority.

Since Atheists actually take a stand on a supreme being (even if that stand is the non-existence) it is more akin to a religious viewpoint than either of the other two which are more agnostic in that regard.

Cheryl, I'm sorry to hear that you're stuck in a theocratic nation that limits your choices. Where I live, there is religious freedom, allowing anyone to choose any religion or none at all, that is only possible because it is NOT a "Christ-founded nation". As George Washington and John Adams stated in the Treaty of Tripoli: "The United States is in no wise founded on the Christian religion". You might consider moving here, if you ever want to change your religion.

Do not confuse anger with facts. A minority of atheists do not have a right to demand the majority abandon traditional Christian values. If they don't like living in a faith-based nation, they should remove themselves to an atheist nation.

Cheryl, I wasn't aware that majority rule extended to personal faith now. If they don't believe maybe we should vanquish them with the sword (Crusades again!) or torture them until they see the light (Inquisition time!).

Cheryl, who suggested that the minority are telling the majority what to believe? Where is this demand that you mention? The billboard expresses the view of atheists. I've seen other billboards that give the views of Christians. So what? Do you have a problem with freedom of expression?

How is this a "faith-based nation?" We have no state religion, no religious tests for elected officials and there is nothing in our Constitution that suggests that there is anything "faith-based" in the structure of the nation.

"Do not confuse anger with facts. A minority of atheists do not have a right to demand the majority abandon traditional Christian values."

Actually they do. The First Amendment allows both freedom of religion and speech.

It is the speech part, in case you are still confused.

Cheryl, Athiests are not "demanding" that anyone abandon their values, Christian or otherwise. They are merely stating their position and promoting their views on religion, something everyone is allowed to do in a religiously free nation - and you are free to disagree, if you wish. But you don't have a right to silence them or expel them.

Shripathi Kamath
I chose to read this article for several reasons. I am also tired of fundemental christians forcing their views on me. Though I prefer to be called a deist, most likely I am an Agnostic. What bothers me though, is as much as I detest Christians forcing their views on Me, I am equally opposed to people like Jim Corbett who believe they have the right to make disparging comments on other peoples' belief. It is very hyprocritical! Would you not agree?

Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift.

How about...

The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their creations. Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans

maybe...

At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully.

Well you got me... but can you tell me with facts why the three creation myths above are wrong and your selected creation myth is right?

I believe what you said is not coherent.

(You said ten words or less)

Big bang.

I said it in two.

The fact that the Bible can say something wrong in only 10 words is not impressive. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it isn't evidence of truth.
Try this: Tell me everything that God is in 10 words or fewer. I'll go first.
"Nonexistent"
That's one word!
Your turn.

Science. (I win with one word; or for you Christians...One Word.)

That is simple.
Answer: "Not You".

Wow, someone sought and found personal faith (and based on your comment, your approved version of personal faith) without the benefit of state sponsored instruction in it. And from your tone, let me guess that you want to see state sponsored instruction because you can't live with the thought that someone may NOT choose your supported personal faith decisions. Would you be as supportive if once a day your child were forced to get on a prayer rug, face Mecca and pray to Allah? No, I doubt it. The only state sponsored prayer you want is prayer to YOUR mythical beliefs.

May I suggest a re-reading of Matthew 7:12 and Luke both 6:31 and 10:25-28 (and follow that up with a re-reading of the Good Samaritan parable that follows so you understand just whom your "neighbor" is).

...and having Michael Behe as his father did not prevent his son from abandoning his ways.

Now what?

Actually, hemp is illegal in this country due to the massive influence of Mr. Hearst. It wasn't the "drug" aspects he objected to, it was the fact that it was cheaper to grow and to harvest than trees. See, Mr. Hearst invested a great deal in forests to support an end-to-end manufacturing process for his newspapers and hemp was much cheaper than trees to make paper, so he fought to maintain his control on the substance for his product through his control of trees.

Actually, it's all a very interesting study of a corporate entity manufacturing false outrage and working the legal and political system for it's own profit through a massive PR campaign as well as leveraged payoffs to the right people. Hearst got exactly what he wanted. And by forcing the sale to "dark sales channels" (pushers) he gave them a tool to allow them to more easily sell their harder and dangerous products through a simple process of proving that MJ was NOT harmful and addictive like kids were told, "so if they lied to you there, why trust them when they said cocaine was harmful?" to upsell the real money makers - addictive harmful products.

It's not based on mythology, and is a real interesting factual account of corporate greed gone wild.

May Odin.. no,today it's not Odin any more, It's Zeus, protect and keep you. Hail Zeus.

Um, hemp is not marijuana and we would be smart to legalize hemp because it's a great sustainable resource. Hemp is not a drug, it can be used as fuel, paper, rope, you name it.

Capo Parent Too, there are entries in George Washington's diaries about getting some "hemp" seeds from Jefferson. He was quite excited about these seeds since Jefferson was, among other things, a botanist. Washington writes in anticipation about the product of these seeds.

Then one day Washington makes an entry where he is clearly distraught. The plants had cross-pollunated. The only reason you don't want it to cross-pollunate is that causes it to become "hemp." It's no longer fun to smoke it.

If Washington's goal had been to grow hemp to make a variety of products like paper, rope, and cloth, he wouldn't have cared about the seeds. Hemp is a weed that grows almost anywhere you toss the seeds.

And we should legalize it because it's a vastly renewable resource. And it also has practical medical benefits which could be distilled and turned into a pill form rather easily I should imagine. Then we'd remove the unhealthy aspect of smoking it.

Chris,. belief or non-belief in any one mythology does not make one a "moral" person. Morality is defined outside of mythology as mans inter-relationship to his fellow man (and extended to his environment). It is why almost every religion from Christianity to Buddhism to Wicca has it's own code that includes "the golden rule".

"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts. " - Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)

On the non-secular side it has been addressed by everyone from Plato to Kant. Shaw actually further refined the Golden Rule when he said "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same" bringing in the philosophical concepts of respect to reciprocity.

Again, the concept that morality derives from faith is a fiction that as long as we hold it will continue to do greater harm than good (Christianity's Crusades and Inquisition come to mind as the most obvious examples of the failure of faith to lead to morality)

@Shri, you beat me to the treaty of trip... it's one of the facts that myth-breathers seem to want to overlook when they wish to assign their myth to the US's creation.

I concur on the universal definition of morality across religions and cultures, but I was talking about the Source of morality when I referred to a moral center and atheists lacking one. If you don't sense God in the world and think DNA developed over time by completely random chemical reactions, where do you get a sense of right and wrong from??
To me, the only kind of person with less of a moral compass than an atheist is a Born-Again Christian who thinks they can do any wrong they want and it's okay because they're 'saved' and Jesus still loves them no matter what...

Chris, I appreciate the sentiment for atheists, but strictly speaking, morality is orthogonal to whether one is an atheist or a Christian. Why not evaluate people on the basis of how they actually behave?

I'm pretty sure you can have a moral center without the belief in God. The writings of Hemingway are all about the development of a personal morality. Hemingway was reacting to World War I when all forms of authority failed including religion and we had years to total carnage.

"Athiesm v Religion; usless discussion. "

Only for those who do not want to learn or believe that they know it all. It is useful for me.

"Neither side should cheapen it by making it controversial."

Stop preaching or advertising religion to others, and I bet atheists will find no reason to respond in kind. Note that atheists ads are orders of magnitude fewer in numbers to theist ones. So few that when one appears, it prompts discussions like this.

Controversial it has to be, since they are polar opposites. What you are really suggesting, without realizing it, or maybe you do, is that atheists should shut up to avoid the controversy.

You see, if you were well-meaning about this, you'd be posting such sentiments in the periodic announcements by one Ms. Maria McNeill on this very site. She regularly advertisements religious events, and you certainly haven't commented on it. I did, once.

That's why the atheist ad actually serves a purpose. And I was wrong to assume that it was pointless. It provokes, and gets people to discuss things.

Our constitution allows one to follow a religion (or not) as one wishes to; or to speak for (or against) it as one wishes to.

The only way to avoid controversy is to either submit to the other or to silence.

That, is unAmerican.

I choose to exercise my First Amendment right -- the greatest right, and encourage everyone else to do so. Even if it offends me or is controversial.

Thanks in advance, Cat V.

Damn you Shripathi~your intention is obviously clear, you are a cyberspace bully who chooses to create opposition where there is none. From my words you imagine that I profess to know it all, that I preach religion, that I advocate the silencing of athiests, and that I am aware of the periodic announcements of someone named Ms. Maria McNeill on this site. My apologies to Ms. McNeill, I am fairly new to Patch and have not noticed those announcements as yet. She can thank you for making me aware, and I will be sure to comment if I have something to say. You won't see many comments from me about religion or athiesm Shripathi because my truth has been told here~I believe faith, or purposeful lack of, is an individual knowing and certainly can not be proven or disproven. You fancy yourself a scientific thinker; reflect on what Albert Einstein 'refused' to say in regards to a higher power. In his refusal, I believe he said it all. I also have a right to comment on the belittling and immature nature of inciting doubt towards anothers beliefs, whether it be of a religious nature or scientific nature. Try giving me the respect that you quite readily give others who placate your argumentative babble....
There ya go! Will I get a clap clap for my emotion? That is what you seek to invoke isn't it? (eyes are rolling....)

"From my words you imagine that I profess to know it all, that I preach religion, that I advocate the silencing of athiests, and that I am aware of the periodic announcements of someone named Ms. Maria McNeill on this site."

Gee, that is some mind reading gift you have there. If only that were a reading gift instead. Like I did to conclude that you find the discussion useless because you, and I quote did say "Athiesm v Religion; usless discussion."

" You fancy yourself a scientific thinker; reflect on what Albert Einstein 'refused' to say in regards to a higher power."

Reflecting on what Einstein said or not above a higher power is independent of anything that you fancy me to fancy through proxy. But perhaps it is worth repeating:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Or not. Since we are not discussing it. But just so that it is clear, I am the one asking for a discussion to continue, and you are the one calling it useless, and me a cyberspace bully (same thing as a cyber-bully?) .

Thank you again. That was a generous gift.

I still say it Shripathi~
call in your most devout and have a discussion with their most devout.
You will not solve anything.
It will not come to a conclusion.
You will spark fire where there is meant to be peace. Isn't that the stated mission of both sides? Agghh, oops, I almost forgot...one side clearly states the need for controversy. Where's the guy that quotes Mr. Lennon?

"call in your most devout and have a discussion with their most devout.
You will not solve anything. "

Well that would be my problem, not yours. Yes it'd be difficult, but not discussing is guaranteed not to solve it. Discussing it has a chance.

I'll take the chance, at least till I get bored or something

Actually Einstein said "God does not roll dice with the Universe" about quantum physics and he was dead wrong.

Well said Cat. Religion, beliefs, thoughts, personal conflicts, are ALL PERSONAL. To make it an instigating, spiteful, inciting, personal attack, or fight--adds a sickening and upset dimension to an already out-of-control world where people have too much on their plates to worry about. BE HUMANS FIRST who give a damn about others instead of pushing their instigating agendas. You are supposed to care about the world and the people in it, not going around seeing how many buttons you can push and hurt people with. I see and hear a lot of personal sarcasm, personal hippocracy, personal digs and insults, and very in-your-face kind of dialoguing here. Nothing to feel a personal accomplishment about. Shameful and immature.

"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."
Now, I understand Dan, that this doesn't mean he was religious so please don't go off on one of your soliloquies.

"Now, I understand Dan, that this doesn't mean he was religious so please don't go off on one of your soliloquies."

Co-signed by Shripathi.

Yes Dan, SHUT UP!

" I see and hear a lot of personal sarcasm, personal hippocracy, personal digs and insults, and very in-your-face kind of dialoguing here. Nothing to feel a personal accomplishment about. Shameful and immature."

Yes. But to be fair there has been some well-reasoned, reflective, inclusive thought-provoking pieces, too.

http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/atheism-billboard-goes-up-on-55-freeway#comment_1274492

http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/atheism-billboard-goes-up-on-55-freeway#comment_1274389

To be sure, this comment of mine, i.e., the one I am writing falls under personal "hippocracy".

We cannot get along because one side insists on demanding unearned respect for superstition, and the other does not wish to comply. As imiscible as oil and water, even if both are fluids. I mean, look how much heartburn an ad is causing some.

"However, who am I to judge those who believe differently from myself."
You are a human with cognitive capabilities and a brain capable of reasoning. Use them, and find that you are the one to judge different beliefs.

I am not religious and I don't have a problem with anyone who is, until they start telling others how to live. And, unfortunately, they often do.

For example, Prop 8. Why do people care that gay people want to get married? They are not asking you to move in with them or go to their wedding, so why do you care?

If you think gay marriage is immoral or offends your senses, then don't marry someone of the same sex. But the money and effort spent to infringe on the rights of others in the name of one's particular faith is what I find offensive.

Churches don't want to pay taxes but they want to have a say in how taxes are spent. They make a lot of noise about not spending federal money on abortions because it offends their religious beliefs.

They is a pretty sweeping and broad statement Julie. Some evangelicals may, but "they" as a statement is just false, because it makes one assume you mean Christians or religious people as a whole try to wave their beliefs in all others faces, and it is simply not that way.

Julie, if I could -1 or "like" your commet I would do so many many times. :-)

Allowing a homosexualt equal rights does not cheapen the rights of hetrosexuals.It does not "indoctronate" children. What it does is ensure that the rights extended by the State to contractual relationships between cohabitating couples of different gender are equally applied to those adults of the same gender that wish to entr into an equal contractual relationship.

One has to ask why those that oppose such a simple case of equal ights remain so opposed. No one is forcing them into a contractual relationship with someone of the same gender.

What I really get a kick of is Christians who use Liviticus to justify their hate. Seems they forgot that eating shellfish is an abomination, cutting your pay'es is an abomonation, mixing wool and cotton is an abomination, etc. They also forgot that "the New Covenant" eliminated the 800+ rules and regulations of Liviticus.

But, hate is easy to fuel, and it always helps hold a group together when you can give them a nice scapegoat to hate together.

Julie, equating faith to superstition and mythology is not a recommendation of how to live? (that was the dumbed down version, so let's not quibble over intent)

" Why do people care that gay people want to get married?"

I care because they are people who love each other and want to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual people do; some 1138 of them, and there are many who oppose this mainly because of myth and superstition. (Julie, that was the abbreviated version, so let's not quibble over intent)

Shripathi; allow your loyal damsel to answer for herself next time. So predictable men are. Prop 8? wasn't just the result of religious fervor; cultural differences weighed down it's flight. In social issues, the minority vote sits with both legs swinging over the fundamentalist side of the fence... Our half white President isn't even on the side of gay marriage. Or was that the influence of the good Reverend Wright? But I have to confess I'm with you and your loyal flock on this one. I don't care what Athiests do, or who gay people screw.

My loyal damsel does not post here, or at least has not in a long while.

But in case you are confused, and you clearly are, Julie asked a question

"Why do people care that gay people want to get married?"

You see that squiggly mark at the end there? That should have been the first hint.

Secondly, she made her response directly below my post, and didn't address anyone specific, so you see it was fair game to answer it. Yes, I know that you rather shut people up when they say things you do not like, but I'm not that scared of you. (hides)

"Our half white President isn't even on the side of gay marriage"

Neither is our half black President. But then you are given to leaping to conclusions, making judgments about what someone else's position is even when they have not stated it or you bothered to ask. And then being all hypocritical and persecuted about it.

But that's you.

"Or was that the influence of the good Reverend Wright? "
Perhaps, or even that of Ricky Warren, the other reverend at his invocation. But I hold *him* responsible for his views. I don't care *how* he got 'em.

In case you wanted to know my position on the half-black, half-white hypocrite on the issue, all you had to do was ask. Heck, I even authored a post on it a while back.

http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/2011/06/obama-opportunistic-weasel.html

(Yes, it is a shocker that not all I blog appears on Patch.com, and your mind-reading skills failed you. Again.)

And as you ignore everything that was said above and jump to a new accusation while acting persecuted Cat V by, I forget, warpspace bully, here are the rest of my thoughts on the issue.

http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/search/label/gay%20marriage

I trust your mind-reading skills, but today it appears to be really off.

holy milagro whattaya know ~there are not many proponents of gay rights who will admit to Obama throwing them under the bus. I just figured no one bothers to listen to him or his senile old sidekick that has a permanent foot in his mouth.
You ignore the observations on cultural influence. And you continue to throw your coat over puddles in lieu of admiration. Should I chalk that up to ego or good old fashioned chivalry?

metOO - thanks!

cat - you appear to be confused, as I did not equate faith to superstition and mythology.

RG - I did not single out evangelicals. I did not say every religious person infringes on the rights of others. If you agree that gay people should live the lives they see fit you should speak to that.

Julie, the confusion is in your lap. I was asking you that question, not accusing you of making the statement.

Before you criticize someone else, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you are a mile away and they cannot chase you because you have their shoes.

(with apologies to Jack Handey)

That's a funny one.

Rebecca, You can be as offended as you want by the billboard. Just like others are offended by those "Got God" billboards. Heck,some people are offended by Calvin Kline billboards. Being offended is just fine. It's your right. Enjoy it.

That wouldn't make sense Rebecca. One thing cannot exist without the other. You see the rage here don't you? The defensiveness? Some are not capable of building their own foundation unless they are tearing someone else's down. That's why I cannot stomach 'compassionate' liberals. The very thing they hate is the very thing they do.

Cat V I was just thinking the same thing. They rip apart christians but yet, they are against discrimination. Its only what is comfortable for them. Why do they celebrate Christmas anyway?

"Ripping Christians apart" is a holdover from the Tertullian era. No one rips apart Christians today, except perhaps on the North-South Sudanese border, and parts of Muslim-Christian strife laden countries.

Funny story really about Tertullian, he was quite a humorous writer, an early Christian writer. For example, he noted this in Apologeticum 40.

"If the Tiber rises so high it floods the walls, or the Nile so low it doesn't flood the fields, if the earth opens, or the heavens don't, if there is famine, if there is plague, instantly the howl goes up, "The Christians to the lion!" What, all of them? to a single lion?"

I mean c'mon, you have to admit that to be funny even in your country, Jackie. All Christians to *one* lion. I laughed hard that he could do a sitcomish joke some 1800 years ago.

"Why do they celebrate Christmas anyway?"

Because Jesus clearly told us that the spirit of Christmas was to buy ourselves the latest iPad that has an HDMI connection to the thinnest wall-mounted LED TV.

Plus, they had a sale at Walmart.

Which one did you get?

probably neither; the Jews always snag the best Christmas deals.

Hey folks, please remember to show respect to our fellow commenters. Let's make sure we stick to issues and avoid ad hominems. Remember--personal attacks don't have to be directed at a specific person, they can involve groups, too. And either way, personal attacks are not OK at MV Patch.

@catV

Rage? Now that's silly. I think being "offended" is every ones right. As is being offensive. It's what a person does about the perceived offense that is the issue. I am mildly offended by Christmas carols. So when someone comes caroling, I don't open my door. On the other hand when I was an employee of a large aerospace company I would eat in the cafeteria and during Christmas the carolers would come out. I ignored them until they sang one song; "Oh come all ye faithful" I complained to the lead caroler and the next day they came around during lunch, and specifically stood next to my table and sung it. That afternoon I went to HR and complained. The following day they announced that the carolers wouldn't be caroling any more.

If something offends you in public, you ignore it.If you are a captive and something offends you, speak up and ask the offender to stop. If they don't then take positive action to stop it.

[oh, as to why that one piece offended me, look at the words and then consider how a person who is faithful, but not to Christ The Lord, might find it offensive.]

Had the carolers followed the golden rule, they could have continued caroling about white Christmas' and Santa Clause to wild abandon. Alas, their faith seemed to be warped in that the Golden Rule didn't exist, and the end result of their actions was to lose all their celebratory activities.

So, be offended by the billboard, look the other way, ignore it.

No Cat, but we do get seats at the finest Chinese restaurants on Christmas eve.

Since when did Christmas become a Christian holiday? I've been assured by the Mission Viejo Activities Committee Chairperson that it is NOT a christian holiday. Unless I was being lied to...

"The Jews," Cat. How very enlightened and non divisive of you to tell a tasteless anti-Semitic joke.

Geeze Dan, It's not like she said we have big noses because air is free or something. You are being way too sensitive here. They see these as attacks on them and they are willing to strike out at all who are non-believers in their one true myth. If you havn't gotten used to it by now, then you had better start developing a thicker skin. It comes with being "wrong" about the supreme being from their myth.

Now, go away and let them pray over you until they fix it and you see the light and agree that the earth is flat, just like they say it is.

and here we go, the elite semi moderate white boy gang. Shri made a joke about how Jesus said to buy stuff at walmart. Attack him Dan, if you're brave enough......

and @ met... don't change your tune because Danny boy was singing it. I'm not religious. Read through and figure it out.

I'm offended by the seriously poor English used in "Got God." I'm also deeply saddened the the local Ralph's spent millions to remodel the local store and left the glaringly grammatical garbage "15 items or less" signs.

Excuse me Cat V, I was not making a joke about what Jesus said about TVs. I was deadly serious.

Christmas is about buying cool, expensive electronic gadgets for me because jackie wanted to know why "they" celebrate Christmas; Avery just wants to buy a $300 sweater, and if you saw his fashion sense, you'd agree with me that he need to spend more.

The joke I made was about Tertullian with his witty, contemporary "The Christians to the lion!"

Do you really want "elite semi moderate white boy gang" to attack me? Someone with lower back problems?

C'mon, where's your compassion thingy? I am already suffering from depression because you told me yesterday that people have been lying to me all these years.

Sorry you perceived my comments as an attack, Cat. I was merely pointing out your anti-semtic remark. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure " the elite semi moderate white boy gang" is a personal attack by definition.

That you would consider me a "semi-moderate" or a "white boy" is very telling since I'm neither. You only think you understand me, Cat. But you constantly mislabel me in your personal attacks. That must be an age thing. Perhaps younger people lack wisdom when they label or something.

met00 I stand corrected, Sir. When I studied history I saw a point where non-Jews remained silent and I vowed never to become one of those people. I probably jump the gun, as you say, and I appreciate the corrective lesson. :)

@cat,

hey, don't take it so personally. If you spend time reading the Old Testament, you really can understand why going out and getting people to become Jewish isn't a real big thing. The supreme being in that book is really all the worst aspects of man rolled into one big omnipresent ball. At least in the New Testament they finally got around to the whole forgiveness and love thing. The real problem is that then they felt a need to get everyone to agree with them that they were the "one true path". It wasn't enough that they had "found it", but now you had to either agree with it or die (again, see Crusades and Inquisition for the more graphic examples). The "true believers" (read Fundie) tend to forget all the forgiveness and love stuff and push the parts that relate most to the Old Testament mentality.

@Dan,

sorry to have offended, but it's one of my favorite bumper stickers. I like to see how many of them are on "fish cars". When I used to do stand up a long time ago I used to do some schtict out at "fish cars" pointing out that they didn't need to use turn signals since they already knew that if they died cutting you off at 80 miles per hour they had the next stop all figured out.

My current favorite is "I was born right the first time." although I do have a big fat Buddha-fish on my putt-putt and am thinking of getting the one that shows a bow-and-arrow and says "SBD" since my kid does archery.

@dan...

After 5,000+ years of being the "chosen people" and the crap that they had to go through (from slavery, to wandering the desert, to over 6 million killed) one would hope that the supreme being would choose another group to be at the receiving end of it for a while. In either case, you develop a thick skin and learn to laugh through the pain (which is why so many of our greatest comedians were... Jewish - comedy is about laughing through the pain).

@met00

Wow you did standup? That takes real courage. My hat is off to you! And I hear you on the fish on the car thing. I thought Pride was a deadly sin. :)

You must know the Supreme Being better than he'd let up on you of the Jewish faith simply because you've had a few bad years. :)

Comedy is also about pointing out the most painful truths in a way that makes people laugh because then they might be able to look at the truth.

@dan, of the seven deadly sins, most fundies (and for those that sssume I mean Christian fundies, please, every mythology base has their fundies, stop taking it so personally) tend to get at least four of them regularly as part of their diet. The four may change, but they are always good for a majority

Yes, I did standup. I was good, not great. Only the great can make a real living off it (well, the great and the lucky... it's sort of like singing and acting:-) ) and I wasn't in the "lucky" category. My style was similar of that of Harry Anderson (who did get lucky as he was good, but not great). It was a fun time (the early 80's) and I worked with some very fun people (including Harry).

As for the SB and I, we get along real well together. She really does know how to P.A.R.T.Y! My wife asked me to stop having her over so often as she really likes to wipe out my stash of Cuban Rum. Oh, did you know she also loves to smoke cigars? SB is really quite nice, I just have never been able to get her to explain just what she has chosen the Jewish people for other than to see just how much crap one group can take before they get fed up and find some other SB who treats them better.

Anyway, have a happy Hephaestus day and enjoy the crosstalk.

met00 you have my undying respect. The early 80's were tough for standup what with Richard and Robin around. And Rodney of course. Then there was Billie and Whoopie and, gosh, a lot of really funny people. Harry Anderson I always liked because he did magic and was funny. But he wasn't great. It's hard to be great. And the great pay an amazing price that gets them there. Plus they have to die in the bathroom.

The bathroom has to be the loneliest room in the house in which to die. All that tile. That sad little roll of Charmin...I'd rather choke on a ham sandwich in the family room myself.

One of my favorite stand ups was Woody. He had amazing timing. As did Benny.

Was Dick Shawn still around in the 80's? He was marvelous.

Never had a chance to meet or work with Dick, but I did have a chance to meet with and discuss comedy with Mort Sahl. Now there was a guy ho could take a newspaper raw and find the humor off the front page. Amazing mind.

When I was coming up the common style was more wrapped around the Carson 1/2/3 delivery.There were also a bunch of TV comics who were making a comeback on the stages/clubs. My last night of standup I had to follow some of the best "black schtick" by Jimmy JJ Walker (this was after he had left Good Times). As I sat there listening to him work the crowd I turned to Harry and said, "I'm good, He's great. This is my final show." and that was the end,

Sometimes I still miss the rush, working the audience, doing my magic/comedy and delivering the 1/2/3 - but the upside is that I have two great kids, a loving wife (I hope) and a life I am proud of.

Final note, better to die in the bathroom than live with shame in the bedroom. :-)

[and last time I checked, Mort is still, alive, kicking and funny at 81 or 82]

@met00

Wow I haven't thought about Mort Saul in years. You are right he was brilliant. One of a kind actually. Good to know he's still out there like Shelley Berman. I hope Berman is still out there.

Not sure if you're hip to this guy Marc Maron but he did a great interview with Winters. I have always loved Winters. You can find it here: http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_173_-_jonathan_winters

@Dan, a certain amount of digression within a thread is allowed. I think this discussion about my former career over 30 years ago is most likely passing that acceptability point. :-)

@met00

Here's what I learned after 7 years of studying writing and 18 years teaching it. The digressions are usually far more interesting than what you started out to say. It's why they have a way of popping up in a draft. The mind makes a more interesting and rich connection while you're thinking about something else.

Dan, when I wrote my book for Prentice Hall my editor used to complain that he would have to sit there with a red pen removing 70% of the parenthetical stuff I added. I know from whence you speak (and the worst part was the book was a tech boon on programming for the Web).

@met00 programming for the web? what like...oh no you don't I see it now...you're just trying to make me go all off-topic again...I fell for that once but that's it...June Avery didn't raise any fools...well, at least not any that lived...

Thank you, but I would still say that even the limited set is not quite correct. Washington was not quite the deist most atheists claim that he was. But Cheryl's point is irrelevant. That our founding fathers were Christian does not matter.

Here, if her implication is that because our founding fathers were Christian we should all be Christian, then the same implication can be used to say that all of our founders were "fathers", i.e., male, and therefore women should leave the country if they do not like male-only government.

I don't want that to happen even if they do not like Obama.

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War.

Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received an appeal from a parson, urging that the United States give recognition to God on coins. The Rev. Mark Richards Watkinson (1824-1877), pastor of "The Old Ridley Baptist Meeting House" suggest it "One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form in our coins."... "This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the divine protection we have personally claimed. From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters."

In response to this directive Director Pollock came up with various wordings such as "Our Trust Is In God," "Our Trust in God," "Our God and Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." In December 1863, designs were submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. Secretary Chase stated: "it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST." The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864.

Bad times increase religious fervor. Remember, we really need to know that when we kill other people that "God is on our side." not theirs. It helps to justify the inhumanity of taking someone else's life. When things get bad, reality doesn't provide solace, mythology and blind faith does.

What does Dick Enberg say?

[ding]

I'll take famous sports broadcaster for $300, Alex.

now that get's an oh my! You're not a good model for the cause you believe in, you do realize that?

Come to the USA then.

well, I would say look back up the thread at some of my posts, but since someone is deleting my posts, why bother. Shri put up a great post on the Treaty of Tripoli, may I suggest you take a read. The treaty was negotiated by Washington, signed by Adams and approved by 100% of the Senate, which at the time was mostly Founding Fathers.

Hi Jackie, you're welcome to join the conversation, and thanks for doing so. But we have some rules at MV Patch, and one is not to attack one another. Please refrain from personal attacks on these boards.

Peter how is this attacking anyone?

Jackie, your comment suggests that people who disagree with Christianity don't belong in America. It is exclusionary and offensive to people who do not share Christianity as their world view. Feel free to debate the relative merits/demerits of Christianity or atheism here, but once you start telling either group where they should or shouldn't live, you've crossed the line.

"Anyone care to ask why?"

Yes, as long as we can discuss it. I am most interested in knowing why people have been lying to me all these years.

"No, maybe I'll blog about it."

Hey wait, I said YES.

I think the subject would be of great interest,,..we'll see if Peter would find it acceptable Patch material.

Peter owes me BIG favors, so consider it acceptable.

you betcha

I only hope it is not some synopsis of some study that shows Group X is happy, Group Y is not, and no access to the studies behind it. That would only depress me further. I am still reeling from the bombshell that people have been lying to me all these Years.

Sounds very interesting, Cat... but it would have to be written cleverly, obviously without any naughty words or anything overtly graphic.

Drats

What problem?

Diane , LOL! Good one!It will be a non believer who does it too!

LOL, Jackie? At the thought of vandals committing a crime and destroying property, and then being delusional enough in thinking that it'd one who put up the message in the first place?

Say, are you a Christian who is offended that people do not believe what you say to them? Perhaps you should change your message.

Your opinion is that "this sign will be full of graffiti before the night is over" will end the bickering?

au contraire, madamoiselle Diane, it will spark more useless bickering.

(Hmm, useless bickering, useless discussion, grafitti to stifle entitled speech, 63 comments.. where does it all end?)

You are not so special, met00. That has happened to me a few times over the weekend. Some glitch. On a couple of occasions, they have reappeared

why is my mind flashing back to 1987 --- Michael J Fox and the orchestrated orgasm from The Secret of My Succe$s? (okay,I'm an old fart)

Jon, very good. I was afraid to get bleeped. heehee

Would you like it if someone prayed to Satan in your name or over you for for you?

Didn't think so.

Sort of like the LDS Church baptizing the dead, from other faiths, without the consent of the living (the LDS Church promised to stop doing it to Jews, but was caught doing it again after making the promise to stop).

Somehow the righteous always have no problem justifying their inability to stay the heck out of everyone else's life.

You really want to do that? Why burden him with one more thing? Look, he is busy addressing prayers from Texans for rain, and from people the world over for kids dying of starvation in Sudan.

Maybe this is not the best time to burden him with requests to spare us atheists. Hell is where we are supposedly destined, so at least on the behalf of one, pray for those kids harder. They are still dying. Or for rains to fall in Texas. There is still a massive drought, and the leader there has bailed for, pardon the pun, greener pastures.

Actually met00, you are taking a narrow viewpoint on this. I use it to advance a rational discussion.

Here's my challenge (and so far two have taken me up on this) to Christians and other theists.

I ask them to pray to whoever they want. As long as it is not a human. I ask them to pray that I become a Christian (or a Muslim) just like them or an even better one. That I repeatedly announce, under no duress that I too am just a believer as them.

One catch. Every day they pray, and I remain an atheist, it is simply mounting evidence that their prayer is not working, or at least has not till that point. That in turn convinces me that I should not be like them, because they have no success, their prayers are not working, and they are not to be trusted in this matter.

Yes, I understand that God sometimes says "No", and sometimes takes a mysteriously long time for mysteriously unknown reasons, but hey, they are the ones who want to waste their time. So they should already know that the prayer is not going to work.

C'mon, please do not discourage what people are volunteering to do. Instead, use the opportunity to advance rational experiments.

Nice Wiki Quotes Mr Salty. Now try using your own mind.

Well he used his mind to get those quotes. How about you, Jackie? Hate some founding fathers now?

Will this be enough to get the "America is a Christian country"? No. It will be enough to piss them off and attack the messenger though. That seems to be the real problem with fundie's. When they lose on points, they think kicking you in the balls is part of a wining strategy when all it really does is show how desperate they are to hold onto their mythology in the face of facts that show it to be as real as "the flat earth".

met...c'mon now. We haven't proven that the angriest ball kickers here are fundies. I bet you they're not. Care to make a wager?

I'd but after we determine the following terms:

1. How do we determine who is a fundie?
2. How do we measure 'angriest', by Idol-style celebrity judges?

Care to make a wager that Jackie's comments here are helping me make my case? Five dollars to a charity of your choice, check to be sent to Peter.

You can even pick a Christian one.

Well, you cared enough to comment. On a few words that are on a billboard.

Speaking of gays and keeping it to yourself, you really need not have validated their intent. You just did.

Yes, and not collecting stamps is therefore a hobby.

By the way, this comment is coming from a US citizen.

Actually, I stated that atheism is more akin to a religious belief as there is a mention of a supreme being than that of Buddhism, which is commonly referred to as a religious belief (although there is no supreme being and no concept of prayer) or secular humanism in that both the later are agnostic rather than actively antagonistic to the belief in a supreme being.

In other words, I was attempting to explain why myth-believers find atheism such a big problem while being far less antagonistic to those that follow paths that don't have at their core the complete resistance to the central theme of the myth-believers. But it's clear that you missed the subtle points.

Mr. Salty,
I tend to think that the lessons of history interfere with the application of reason and personal experience. Do you know where I'm going with this?

"Anyone who has to tell people what his IQ is , has a low IQ. Sounds like you have some self confidence issues. Maybe you should pray about it."

This should be enshrined in the HOF for Patch.com. Better yet, go on a billboard.

Dear Odin, give my sword the strength to kill the infidels.

Yo, Shri, that was totally unfair and you owe Mr. Salty an apology. I don't want to enter into a debate on what an I.Q. actually proves, but your claim that anyone who says what his is has a low one just isn't logical.

Personally I have found Mr. Salty's comments to be quiet enlightened and entertaining.

Opps Sorry Shri. I re-read your comment. You were quoting someone. I apologize.

The upside? I am apparently brave enough to attack your ideas. :)

Here's the thing with science, Dan. Ideas are wrong until proven right. Contrast that with innocent until proven guilty, and you'll see the significantly higher bar that science has to jump over to make its case. And it does. Consistently.

(Lest someone be confused, "proven" as used above is unscientific)

So being proven wrong more often than they are should be what everyone should strive to be. Otherwise, if you are already always right, that means there is nothing for you to improve. It is easier to convince yourself that you are doing everything right. It is a lot easier to make improvements if you find out what you have been wrong about.

And Lord (Voldemort) knows, that I do indeed need a new tennis racquet to improve my serving speed. Or my IQ.

Ah but they are; they are just here in a different form. They could be the bird that perches on the billboard in the bright of the sun,or the cockroach that looks up at it in the dark of the night. Tis a large circle of life and when we next take our turn on the wheel our place is within it defined by our enlightenment achieved from the last.

Or maybe they are partying in Valhalla in Asgard.

You never know, do you?

You think they would have been glad to see your comments?

Laurie, you post an extremely offensive remark and then profess your belief in god and then you want others to keep their thoughts to themselves.

Is this how your faith fulfills and sustains you?

Yes, and it is your comments that are being deleted.

Camel jockey, Mecca/Muslim insults, 7-eleven references -- all because I told you that your language would not be deemed acceptable on a private website?

Cat V, can you see how much slack you cut such intolerant people, and how much I do? If it was "my loyal damsel" you would have hurled several invective by now. but Jackie or Laurie, you are a lot more restrained.

LOL.

Laurie please continue, but use appropriate language so that the editors do not delete your posts, but your bigotry is somehow retained. You see you "going on the attack" helps my case much more than what I can do with my "moronic stuff".

Please. I beg you.

I was restrained Shripathi because I too am trying to build a case. I don't see any point in scaring some away, and leaving others who also make culturally insensitive remarks, but who do it in such a long winded fashion as to make others give up before the point sinks in.

"I was restrained Shripathi because I too am trying to build a case."

Ah, so in those other cases like when you jumped on "Obama is against gay marriage" you were... doing what?

LOL "Miss Kitty". Too purfect...

Shripathi that was another case in point.

Opps I forgot...There is a terrific discussion on the history of "In God We Trust" on our money provided by M and met00.

Mr. Salty had a couple of really great comments.

So in conclusion, In God We Trust, All Others Must Pay Cash.

I am offended that you did not mention my tale of Tertullian's writings. At least it'd have shown that an atheist has bothered to study what he rejects.

Besides, I thought it was great timeless humor for someone who lived that long ago.

[off putting up a billboard that says "Tertullian rulez!"]

Dan, glad to know you liked the piece on our national motto. It's really had to educate people on this when it's limited by the size of the post (I really attempt to stay within Patch's character limits and not do double posts).

I do like your subtle use of sarcasm in the original post as well.:-)

Cat, do you have a specific comment you think should come down here? Flag it and it'll be reviewed.

Well one difference Cat V is that you objected to someone using "Racists Rednecks and Retards", but did not to "camel jockey, Mecca/Muslim insults, and 7 eleven references", at least not in the same way. For example, you are YET to even criticize the latter.

As to "Shripathi and Mr. Salty are big boys who can no doubt take the digs.", a big boy I am not, and I am really hurt that mean things are being said to me, and I am emotionally distraught, might need some therapy, losing what is left of my hair, crying on the inside, crying on the outside... worrying how my skin is going to feel when it is burned and regrown to be burned in hell or jahannum.

Look, the devoutly religious should understand that atheism is the position that their beliefs are founded on myth and superstition. That they are deeply offended by what someone else thinks is their own insecurity. Bear with me just a minute, and I'll explain this without using atheism.

Consider Muslims and Christians. Christians believe that a Jew born of a virgin is the son of God. Muslims finding it insulting that someone says that God has a son. One side is deeply affected by the others' beliefs.

So what? An atheist simply does not believe either of them, because obviously both cannot be right for one, and secondly because there is no evidence that satisfies his or her needs in the slightest.

You want respect for your beliefs? Earn it.

Shri~how can any case be made without access to deleted comments?

You have a point there, Cat V.

So I take it that none of the comments made by Laurie/Jackie that have NOT been deleted are kosher with you?

That Laurie's comments because I gently warned her that s__t is not an acceptable word for the Patch are all fair game where you tread every so gently, carefully, but rarely think twice if it was someone else, oh let's say me, are OK with you?

That Jackie's comments are all A-OK?

Peter, Cat V is probably referring to this post
http://missionviejo.patch.com/blog_posts/politically-incorrect

"The Final Solution For Racists, Rednecks, Retards" is what the insufferable one used in his ode to Jonathan Swift's "A modest proposal".

Right Cat V?

Oh wait, you DID see the deleted comment, because you responded to it Cat V

(See above where your response is "Laurie, are you one of those religious republicans?")

That's one of the places where she used those Mecca/Muslim insults, or at least what she thinks are insults.

So please, plead something else besides not being able to see deleted comments

Actually one of my comments was deleted also. It was about how I find women with filthy mouths to be hot and how atheists would be great at sex because they don't have the concept of sin.

Shripathi I did not object to Racists Rednecks and Retards. I want to know why the post stood while camel jockey was deleted. My position is to take a stand on a level playing field. Either all are deleted or all stand. I prefer they ALL stand, as long as there is no personal threats.

"Shripathi I did not object to Racists Rednecks and Retards."

LOL.
First
http://missionviejo.patch.com/blog_posts/politically-incorrect#comment_1234307
then
http://missionviejo.patch.com/blog_posts/politically-incorrect#comment_1235737

and now here:

http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/atheism-billboard-goes-up-on-55-freeway#comment_1275009

I hate to see what it'd look like if you objected. Perhaps it'd get deleted.

Stopping digging, the hole is deep enough. You also said that you had not seen Laurie's comments because they were deleted, and yet your responses are there to two of them (at least).

Shripathi, how can you profess that I saw a deleted comment? You spoke of being called a camel jockey. Even if I saw it in all it's splendor, I'm not sure I would have said anything. I thought this blog was fair game (Life of Brian, Retards, etc etc) I don't make the rules here Shri~

I'm probably wrong, but when you say "It was an ethnic slur and stereotype. Grouping the three together was an insult to two. Insensitive as hell," about my phrase "Rednecks, Racists, and Retards" how is that not an objection to the phrase?

And why would that be only insulting to two?

I would like to take a moment here and apologize for my insensitivity to the Retarded. The retarded people I've met have never been racist or rednecked. They have been warm and accepting people and I did them a disservice by equating them with Rednecks and Racists. I am truly sorry.

Pete, Cat is referring to a heading in one of my recent posts. And actually, she is the one who brought it up in the comments. And the heading doesn't compare with the ethnic slurs we saw in this comment thread. In fact "Racists, Rednecks, Retards" isn't an ethnic slur or a stereotype. It should be considered pejorative however.

What is interesting is that Cat only objects to the aspersions I cast on the right in that post and not the ones I cast on the left. She doesn't have any problems with me saying mean things against the left.

You're wrong on that one Dan. It was an ethnic slur and stereotype. Grouping the three together was an insult to two. Insensitive as hell. I rarely have to correct you on your insults to the left because you have not made such vile attacks as such.
It's really quite simple and I'll say it again,
"Shripathi (Dan this time) I did not object to Racists Rednecks and Retards. I want to know why the post stood while camel jockey was deleted. My position is to take a stand on a level playing field. Either all are deleted or all stand. I prefer they ALL stand, as long as there is no personal threats."
Ok gang ? it's a chicken and egg thing w/ you boys. Stop urinating in the wind for no-gods sake.

Cat, "It was an ethnic slur and stereotype. Grouping the three together was an insult to two. Insensitive as hell."

You said that about my phrase "Racist, Rednecked, Retards." In what sense are you not objecting to the phrase?

In what sense is that only insulting to "two?" There are three groups represented.

I would like to take this moment to sincerely apologize to retarded people. I have known several retarded people in my life but never one who was racist or rednecked. It was unfair of me to compare them to racists and rednecks. I truly apologize.

Smart. Very smart.

LOL. I almost have to call Poe on this one, Peter.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

I'm just curious, but just what is the "gay agenda"?

The last time I checked with any of my homosexual friends they just wanted equal rights. The right to have a job without discrimination. The right to have the same protections in their cohabitation contract that heterosexuals have. The same rights and responsibilities that every non-gay has, with no special treatment, but for the world to let them live among it as equals, not as lesser people with lesser rights.

Feel free to correct me about that if I missed understanding what the "gay agenda"is.

As for Atheists being persecuted. When the government openly sanctions and approves of monotheism ("In God We Trust") they have every right to state that this flies in the face of the US Constitution. When laws are being legislated from a perspective based on mythology, they have every right to insist that it be stopped. And when they come out and are shouted down, made to feel less than human, etc. Then they have every right to let others know that there are people like them that share their dis-belief so that others do not feel alone when the majority beats them down in their righteous indignation.

can you stop with the "ALL CAPS"? There is a whole set of lowercase letters, and when you mix them with the uppercase ones it makes the text more readable. Thank you.

SELFISH AGENDA'S?

No, SELFISH AGENDAS. The apostrophe is simply wrong. Unless you meant to be formal, and were trying to use the plural form of agendum. Then it'd be AGENDA.

Sorry, you were saying, before I rudely nitpicked...

I could be wrong but it looks like Smart Girl's agenda is: STOP BUGGING ME, SIT DOWN, AND SHUT UP.

here we go...you two boys are urinating in the wind again... perhaps you do have to open your eyes real wide to decipher through the caps, but try, in order to understand her meaning. Shri has already smugly pointed out what seems to be an honest typo, and Dan is once again wearing his personal jesus glasses while he makes pompous assumptions...
and you two are surprised when people lash out? It's perfectly acceptable to have emotional opinions, I know. That's what we're going for here I've been told. Just remember if you give out smug you'll get it back ten fold. No crying, no deleting...take it in like you dish it out.

I never said you were the one deleting them Shripathi...
you (your interests, culture, etc) has been protected by patch.com while others have been (I'm hoping innocently) overlooked.
You know it was a typo, it's a bit prostrating of you to assume otherwise, as you readily admitted to rudely nitpicking,

What are you blabbering about, Cat V?

I usually can separate your beef from the froth, but I am truly lost here.

And accusing Patch.com of "liberal bias" isn't going to help you. You have to make up your mind as to whether you want to "bring it ten-fold" or play "we are victims, the immigrant from what I see is a different culture is getting preferential treatment".

I'd like to be on record that I have often asked Patch.com editors to let comments by everyone stay unaltered, and that I'd only too happy to deal with the dialog as it unfurls.

I understand, much to my disappointment when they moderate. They have a business to run.

And smugly, I'll say one more thing. It is not hypocrisy to point out a typo, and then make one. It is hypocrisy to point out a typo, make one and then complain that your typos are being pointed out. You want to complain about my typos, grammar, whatever? Go ahead, it is not as if you don't do it. It'll make me be more careful. I may even thank you depending on how embarrassed I feel. Lord knows I make a bunch of them. That is how I sometimes show my excitement and emotion. Others use ALL CAPS. To each his own.

Jesus glasses? Pompous assumptions? I was merely stating what I understood after reading her comments. She is pretty clearly saying "stop bugging me...sit down...shut up." The content of Smart Girl's comments is at odds with itself and the entire comment set in Caps deal. She is pushing her idea into our faces in other words. Otherwise her reaction would have been to shrug after reading the post and the thread and walk away.

Dan, stop picking on the ALL CAPS.

Here's the non-emotional, measured part, since ALL CAPS is considered to be good ole fashioned emotion.

"These idiots want to pose themselves as another group who deserves their air time and constant attention like product placement in a t.v. show just like the gay agenda."

I mean gay rights advocates should be furious with that. I am apparently cutting Obama slack because he is half-white (or is it half-black?), so I don't count.

Furious, I tell ya!

Right, Cat V?

(We'll leave the idiot rights advocates alone)

"The content of Smart Girl's comments is at odds with itself and the entire comment set in Caps deal. She is pushing her idea into our faces in other words. Otherwise her reaction would have been to shrug after reading the post and the thread and walk away."

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN VS. ANY SINGLE PERSON AND MADE MY ARGUMENT PERSONAL. BUT THAT YOU WROTE THIS ABOUT ME SHOWS YOUR OWN NON-UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS BEING WRITTEN OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN THOUGHTS. YOU WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT MY REACTIONS TO ANYTHING WOULD BE SO YOUR COMMENT IS UNREASONABLE AND ILLOGICAL. YOUR GRAMMAR SUGGESTING MY ARGUMENT TO BE AT ODDS WITH ITSELF IS ILLOGICAL AS WELL. THERE IS NOTHING TO POINT FINGERS AT BUT THE FEW WHO CONTINUE FROM BEGINNING TO END WITH THE COMPULSIVE JUMPING ON PEOPLE PERSONALLY WHO CANNOT ENTERTAIN A THOUGHT DIFFERENT FROM THEMSELVES IS TRULY TELLING, AND NOT IN A WAY TO BE PROUD OF. THE "ALL CAPS," "APOSTROPHE," "GRAMMAR" "CATCHES"...? REALLY? THE BREADTH OF COMMENT AND THOUGHT ATTACHED IS COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED IN FAVOR OF SOME PERSONAL "PERSECUTION" OF THOSE WHO MAKE AN ENGLISH PROPER MISTAKE--ILLOGICAL. UNREASONABLE. SENSELESS. EXCEPT TO MAKE THE PERSON POINTING THE FINGER--AND SO QUICKLY TOO--FEEL SOME SORT OF FALSE SUPERIORITY AND HEIGHTENED SENSE OF SELF. WOW--QUITE THE FUSS IN A CLASSROOM OF ONE.

AND THANK YOU CAT FOR THE SUPPORT. ALAS, THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED LOGIC. I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN CYNICISM & ANGER TO FOLLOW SOME SORT OF PAIN & UPSET.

"I HAVE NOT SPOKEN VS. ANY SINGLE PERSON AND MADE MY ARGUMENT PERSONAL."

Yes, you are more resourceful that way. Speak against an entire group of people, and it saves time from addressing individual idiots and gays.

I'll give you that.

"I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN CYNICISM & ANGER TO FOLLOW SOME SORT OF PAIN & UPSET."

Interesting. Do share.

YOU ALREADY ARE.

Hey Shripathi, it's better to be honest and nitpick about idiots rights rather than an apostrophe. I know you could care less about your credibility, but if you can garner more by making some simple changes, then why not?
As far as the editors of Patch.com? My stance is clear~bring it ten-fold!
But that is clearly not going to happen, so in that case be fair about it. Give racists rednecks and retards the same protection you give 7/11 employees. Maybe it is an extreme tip of the scale to make things even in the scheme of things.
And I would really like to post some Larry David links to balance out the Monty Python, but darn it, since Dan butted into this, my Jewish references will likely be painted as more offensive than the Christian references.

No, I would not say that. Pick on whatever you want. Or not.

For example, you picked on me picking on the apostrophe. I picked on it because, well, the CAPS was too obvious, and the entire rant was a little incoherent. I went for easy pickings. Small minds and all...

A gay rights supporter on the other hand might have picked on

"These idiots want to pose themselves as another group who deserves their air time and constant attention like product placement in a t.v. show just like the gay agenda."

Would you have been upset at that? You surely weren't upset enough to at least distance yourself from that.

People are different that way. Let them pick as they may. I like to pick on some people picking on gays, other minorities, and facts. You like to pick on me for picking on an apostrophe.

I would never presume to tell you not to pick on me, or the people who pick on gays. That you choose to do the former, and not the latter is something someone with a megaphone should be telling you.

And that same person should be telling you that my comments get deleted as well. That you do not see deleted comments seems to be acceptable enough in one case and not the other.

contd...

Here, and you can think of this as a prayer answered: I will not make any more posts on this thread. I'd think of it as an opportunity for your to reflect on your stances. And gay rights. Did I mention how gay rights supporters do not stay silent?

Win-win. If we count Rebecca win-win-win.

And look at it this way: you folks can hurl all the insults you want, I won't say a thing.

Win win win win... WIN!!!!

uh oh girls, I think we went and hurt his feelings.
He wiggled and flip flopped like a slimy fish that finally escaped back into the water.
I'm sorry Shripathi, but you really misunderstand a lot of intent.
Saying something is a useless discussion is a far cry from saying to end a discussion.
After all, what did we all get out of this, except hurt feelings, Life of Brian nightmares, and (in your case) surrender? Does everyone feel better? I sure know I do.
Is this the kind of controversy that the backyard idiots or whatever they call themselves wanted? heeheehee

DON'T RESPOND TO ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, ONLY PICK APART THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER. AS FAR AS THE "IDIOTS" TAG--I POSTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS A REACTION/FEELING/DEJA-VU RENDERING TO ME. THE GAY COMMUNITY HAS, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS ON THEIR OWN WEBSITES, HAVE THE GLAAD PEOPLE GOING DOWN THE THROATS OF HOLLYWOOD, TO AS MANY SHOWS AS THEY CAN PROTEST AND PUT PRESSURE ON TO PUT A GAY CHARACTER INTO THEM, AND THAT IS, TO ME, LIKE PRODUCT PLACEMENT. I AM SICK OF THE CONSTANT ATTENTION THAT COMMUNITY PUTS UPON ITSELF, DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING MARTIN LUTHER KING DID FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY, YET THEY CITE EXAMPLES OF TRYING TO PUT THE GAY RIGHTS STRUGGLE AS BEING EXACTLY LIKE WHAT THE BLACK COMMUNITY WENT THROUGH. IN SAYING THAT, THE GAY COMMUNITY SHOWS DISRESPECT AS TO WHAT THE BLACKS WENT THROUGH AND TO PUT THEMSELVES, HISTORICALLY, AS GOING THROUGH WHAT THE BLACK COMMUNITY DID IS AN INSULT TO WHAT THE BLACK COMMUNITY WENT THROUGH TO GET THE RIGHTS THEY DESERVED FROM THE BEGINNING. TO PUT YOUR FINGER IN THE EYE OF PEOPLE IS NOT TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS, BUT TO ONLY INCITE. I BRING THIS UP AND DROP IT HERE BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP A FEW TIMES. TO DISCOUNT THE OPINIONS/BELIEFS/DEEPLY HELD FAITHS AND CONVICTIONS OF THOSE YOU WANT TO PUSH YOUR WAYS OF THINKING TOWARD AND CALL IT "JUST MAKING YOU THINK", SUCH AS W/THE BILLBOARD THAT STARTED THIS DISCUSSION, IS INSENSITIVE & LIKE FLIPPING OFF THOSE WHO THINK DIFFERENT & BEING SO GIGGLY HAPPY ABOUT IT.

Smart Girl just because you say my logic isn't logical doesn't make it so. You are very clearly trying to push your point of view into our faces, otherwise why would you bother to spend the time to write it? Makes no sense otherwise. So you're doing exactly what you accuse others. That is how your argument is at odds with itself.

I sense that it irritates you. So, at least I get something out of it.

SO THE APOSTROPHE S IS WHAT GOT YOU, HUH? CONTINUES WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOURSELF THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD.

No, I also got the ALL CAPS, but that was covered already.

but you said it was idiots rights? right?

Ah, so you hurl diatribes about camel jockeys, Mecca, Muslims, 7 eleven etc. because you are making a point (what point might that be?) and it comes down to whatever you were brought up with?

Sorry, I am not presumptuous enough to blame your upbringing on that bigotry you displayed. I have not met your parents or guardians, and I would like to believe--on faith no less--that you were raised better. Until otherwise shown, I would believe that they were decent folks, and you display bigotry--unapologetically, I note-- on your own.

If I appear to be controversial, then I am succeeding in my attempt to be so, but quite honestly, I have not been controversial at all. I have simply provided a different point of view at times. And if you were not busy hurling insults at random races/cultures, you'd notice that I have engaged both theists and atheists, offering opposing views to both. The only comment I made to you that started you on this slide was a mild warning that you should not use the word s__t. You probably do not even remember what followed after that.

If you want actually want to discuss what you think I said that is controversial, I'd be glad to. I most certainly would learn something.

People are entitled to beliefs, not facts. I'll respect beliefs when they are grounded in facts. For me to respect yours, I'll have to at least ride a camel a few times, and then race one.

Actually everyone is entitled to anything they chose to think. That doesn't mean respect will follow however. And sometimes seriously flawed ideas, like "separate but equal," are respected. So respect ultimately means very little. I have noticed, and it might just be my own warped point of view, that people who hurl racial taunts have very little respect for human beings and life in general.

My first thought here Dan, was to reply, "who should know better than the great insufferable (yuk) one"?
But upon consideration, I must say forgive him, for he knows not what he does.
You fling poo and aren't even aware of it.
May you find enlightment and awareness dear brotha..

Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.

You're no fun, met00. I bet you have the secret formula for Coca Cola and the secret behind the aging process of a Manischewitz.

As much as I love wasting time here debating the flat-earthers, I have to get my stuff together for the Los Alamitos Planning Commission meeting tonight @ 7 where they are going to discuss stealing the only commercial corner in Rossmoor from the community. Why the county (Moorlach) would give up $500K/yr in income to Los Al is one unanswered question, although I believe it's to bolster Edgar's (his protegee) chance at getting the Supervisor seat he has to give up next year. Well, let the games begin!

I wonder if Patch.com will delete this link? It may not be as offensive as telling someone to go back to work at 7/11 but...........
by the way Pan, thanks a lot, I had to archive my Life of Brian copy because the song sticks in my head for weeks on end. It's in the back of the hall closet w/ my dad's Cheech and Chong movies. :(

What the heck is offensive about that clip Cat? It's very positive and uplifting. It portrays life in a positive light, even when you're getting crucified. Seems to me like you might just need a sense of humor.

Not really I lied about that. Sorry. But it seemed like something Pan would post.

Here's one just for you met00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VH4c0-p-CY&NR=1

Thanks, never heard that interview.

I agree. We can all agree on the economy part. It is really bad, and it is all Obama's or Clinton's fault.

But do we need to do that in a thread regarding eight words on a billboard?

haha Rebecca, I was just thinking that myself. I've spent too much time replying to posts that keep popping up on my email. I've clicked on the STOP FOLLOWING button at least three times and it keeps materializing..even when I make a comment I uncheck the box. I think God is setting me up to be a megaphone.

How's that working out, Cat V? I recall you making the same suggestion to shut down discussion

http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/atheism-billboard-goes-up-on-55-freeway#comment_1269134

And here you are, making posts after posts, offering one conspiracy after another...listening to God's megaphone...

I am saying that is one way we can all agree on that topic. By simply agreeing to what you'd like to be true, and not try to discuss it through.

Just like by all agreeing (or disagreeing) to the eight words on that billboard.

If you feel that a topic where we can't all agree or disagree isn't worth the trouble in its own thread, then the least you could do is stay out of it. Unless you feel that you saying that is going to get everyone who wants to participate to magically agree/disagree.

Otherwise, why do you stop by to comment on what people are agreeing and disagreeing about in a post allocated space and time by Patch.com?

Oh wait, "liberal conspiracy", perhaps?

Please do not leave in a huff of persecution, that's all I ask.

I don't have to stay out of anything, I commented about 215 posts ago, so the emails keep popping up even though I have repeatedly "unfollowed" your running diatribe.

And what I said yesterday is true today. The billboard is free speech, let them have it, and I shouldn't be offended or annoyed. And if a business says Merry Christmas on their sign or someone puts a cross on their property, I hope the backyard - whatever they are have the common decency and sense to leave it alone and not go run and get the first ACLU lawyer they can find to try and sue someone.

But this has definitely made me want to take out a billboard with 6 words on it that I know a lot of people would agree on :O)

Question how can the bad economy be either of their faults? When Clinton left office not only did we have surplus (for those that don't know a surplus is good. It means he had MONEY!!!!) and a balanced budget. Obama took office and inheritted this crap economy, 2 pointless wars, and within 1.5 yrs a stalled Congress that would rather see the nation fail while lining their pockets with lobbyist money. If you want to see real change get rid of the incumbent Congress and elect a party less Congress that still wants to work and instill fresh ideas. Damn, maybe I should run after I finish Law School!!!!! Sorry everyone got off topic:)

Rich, thanks for that link. Niko Theris sounds like a really interesting guy.

Are you sure that he wasn't misquoting Robert Heinlein?

"A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both."

or

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills."

or

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

or

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."

There are many more. Heinlein was very smart.

Wow. I can't believe how awful you all truly ARE. I have never spent any time with people such as Carolyn Fitz-Gibbon or met00 who thought they were so superior to other peoplewhere talking about those they think they are superior to brings such giddy delight.

You TRULY do not know what you are talking about but you sure have a nice time getting together to talk about people en mass behind their backs. Good for you. You blend cult beliefs with your own and come up with some mutilated version of reality. You sound like poor losers at a game who feel sorry for themselves and so revel in gossip trying to make yourselves feel better. Wow. You sure spend a lot of time thinking about what religion is and quantifying it in terms of what it means to the millions and millions of people who are a part of one. You also have pre-judged every one who has any faith in any thing when you can't possibly know what those people think. You can't judge ALL people under one umbrella encompassing all belief of any kind. That is illogical, unreasonable, and a ridiculous waste of time. Any one who thinks SUCH dramatic and negative thoughts so as to have them at the ready to belittle & mock people who are doing nothing to you shows great short-sightedness and bitterness. It's as if you are in a corner gossiping, but not in front of those you are talking about.

I'm with you Carolyn. Hold strong just remember you will never have the same power of coercion as the church. Best to find solace in those who think like us rather than pursue the close minded. Sad but true. My favorite thing to remind myself when feeling the need to refute the obvious falsehoods of religion is that I choose to be good because I know it to be the right thing. I choose to love thy neighbor and my planet because I understand that humanity is the most vital puzzle peace to our survival. I do not need the fear of “God” to tell me what is right and what is wrong. I choose the higher ground because I am intelligent enough and in my own self worth understand the concept of the golden rule.

I will leave you with a quote from my man crush Mr. Carl Sagan

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”

Well Smartgirl06, may I suggest that you should break out of your insulated circle of myth believers and meet people that don't feel stories written by a bunch of people who thought the earth was flat is the Truth (with a capital "T").

You have no idea what I think (other than Heinlein had some really good quotes about religion). You have no idea what my personal faith may be, or if I even have one. And the great part is you never will. It's MY PERSONAL faith and I don't share it.

You, on the other hand, wear your faith as a badge of honor and insist that we all accept it as the ultimate Truth. Well excuse us if we say that your myths don't impress us, that your myths are just that, mythology. And the sad part, it's not even good mythology, there are so many that are so much better.

You on the other hand seem to feel that YOU have the right to judge others. You have judged me, and others here. You make statements of fact, that are nothing but fantasy based on your twisted perceptions of reality. I actually respect your right to believe whatever mythology gives you joy, but I only ask that you do it in private (either your home, or in a building with others who share your myths) and NOT bring it into the public square and NOT attempt to legislate it. So, if you want to think that rubbing green mud into your navel gives you a closer relationship and association to the divine, go for it. Just don't attempt to force it n me or sell me the snake oil. I ain't buying.

met00--Buy what you want, don't buy what you don't want. You know nothing about me except what I point out to you about what YOU are saying--nothing I am making up. And I addressed it to two people, not just yourself. You'd really have to be blind to not see my points. And I've said nothing about what I believe. I am speaking generally the way certain people on here are spouting genuine anger/hurt/fear-driven thoughts. The whole, "I'm with you Carolyn. Hold strong just remember you will never have the same power of coercion as the church. Best to find solace in those who think like us rather than pursue the close minded. Sad but true," written by Lindsey Hanson, speaks volumes to how the thinking of the church being some "powerful" thing one need step lightly around and be overly careful and cautious of in a way to protect sounds bizarre. There is something to be said of people who gain pleasure out of finding solace in putting a group of people down they have no idea of. The only people you can have an idea of are those you've had direct experience with, and even then you have your life outside of anything anyone else believes/thinks. It sounds like some people go out of their way to have something to talk about and feel sorry for themselves about. This is a completely new and confusing experience.

&Re: millions of "religious" people--you can't speak to know all their thoughts and beliefs just because they have any kind "faith."

@smartgirl

1) I didn't say anything. I quoted one of the deans of science fiction.
2) you are passing judgment
3) in case you missed it, the "church" is powerful. Think back to the wonderful times non-believers had during the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. Fun times for all. And no, their mentality hasn't changed all that much.They still think they are just as right now as they were then.
4) what's with all the "feel sorry for themselves"?

@Lindsey

I like tilting at windmills and attempting to wake up other peoples thinking process. Thanks for the compliments. :-)

@smart girl, the last time I looked this was a public website so NO ONE is TALKING behind ANYONE'S back. Maybe it might be better to not respond out of emotion? And this article didn't start out as a poke in the eye of anyone with faith. People who don't believe in God, can't prove God doesn't exist, because all of the "evidence" is a theory. It's never been conclusively proven. It's starting to highly likely, at least to me after I read "The Grand Design" but it's not proven. So it takes faith to not believe in God. If God is really the low-rider the Old Testament suggests, it takes quite a bit of courage because it could end very badly for those who don't believe.

W.C. Fields died on Christmas Eve or Christmas. I forget which. But just a few hours before hand a friend visited. The friend walked in on Fields reading a Bible. The friend said, "Bill, I did not know you were a religious man." Fields looked up and said "I'm merely looking for loopholes."

Gotta wonder why you keep coming back to be annoyed, Jackie.