Quote of the Day

"I would have a lot more respect for secularists who heap scorn upon Christians if they also aimed their brave contempt of religion at those who might behead them for it." -- Adapted from Jonah Goldberg

That's a great quote, Randall, thanks for bringing it up. A hideous Avatar that gives me nightmares, but a great quote.

I believe that secularists, in speaking ill of evangelical Christians, are biting the hands that feed them. America is both the most conservatively Christian and among the most religiously tolerant nation on earth.

It goes back to Luther, who knew that someone's heart had to change and that the laws of a nation, even if enforced by the sword, could never make a person right with God. The unique aspect of saving faith in Jesus Christ is precisely that it is individual in nature. I cannot any more make my neighbor a Christian then I can make him a pig, just as a leopard cannot change his own spots.

I can tell you that I find my friends at church far more tolerant of dissent, political and otherwise, then I find among liberal academia. The movie "Expelled" no doubt provides good examples, as can the biology department at the school I teach at.

If the secularists ever do succeed in ridding the US of Christian influence, I can't say that their own doom is not far behind.

Well I guess I am out of the loop again.

Are they coming for our Bibles, too?

Or just our guns?

Yeah Sherm, you're out of the loop.

Being a secular homeschooling family, I'm certainly exposed to both sides of this issue. While I have encountered more than enough religious fundamentalists who are unkind, even vicious to people like me, I've encountered just as many atheists who are just as nasty.

I don't know why people can't live and let live. There are members on both sides who could use a good class on tolerance and diversity.

Once again Stephanie, you agree with me.

Stephanie wrote: There are members on both sides who could use a good class on tolerance and diversity.

Wouldn't that be a waste of teaching skills and time?

SheikBen wrote:I cannot any more make my neighbor a Christian then I can make him a pig, just as a leopard cannot change his own spots.

A tolerant person .......................

.

Well Sam I think he was saying that it is always the individual's own personal decision.

"Each man must be fully persuaded in his own mind."

The pig analogy was kinda like Obama has been doing - a poor choice of words.

But his point I am sure was that "Nobody else can walk it for you, you got to walk it by yourself."

He did not mean to imply that if you make the wrong choice you are a pig.

Sherm,

My thoughts and speech are nothing like Obama's. Obama said what he truly felt as did I. Unlike Obama, however, I am not afraid of the thought police. He runs from the crap that spews from his mouth. It is obvious what my point was, and it was obvious what his was as well. I say something silly or stupid a dozen times a day, but I will never pretend to be someone I'm not, which is exactly what this putz is doing in trying to be the President. He is an elitist schmuck.

To put it a different way, Sherm, what really hacks me off is when it is obvious that a candidate is pandering beyond legitimacy. I understand that someone has to win an election. Obama, therefore, might criticize some policies more in some places than others.

But it is patently obvious that Obama does not drink Yuengling (did his minions at least tell him how to say it?), does not go bowling, does not work in a steel mill, and has no idea how middle America comes to it's political conclusions. If he wants to appeal to them, why not try the "noblesse oblige" approach and honestly say that he believes that his programs are best for middle America, as opposed to patently trying to be someone that he is not?

It's the same with "Annie Oakley," (one of Obama's few good ones).

When these people "gaff," it's not because they are misspeaking, but rather because they are speaking from their hearts, but those hearts are corrupted.

Well Yeungling really is good brew.

I don't know why they don't do a better job marketing it.

Maybe they should hook up with Obama's handlers.

It's precisely because it's not marketed that makes it good.

I don't do beer very often, but Yuengling is a fine one.

The closes Barack Obama ever gets to drinking beer is when a homebrewer sneaks something into a White Zin tasting at the "peoples" country club.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Sam I think he was saying that it is always the individual's own personal decision.

"Each man must be fully persuaded in his own mind."

The pig analogy was kinda like Obama has been doing - a poor choice of words.

But his point I am sure was that "Nobody else can walk it for you, you got to walk it by yourself."

He did not mean to imply that if you make the wrong choice you are a pig.

Sherman, thanks much ..... but I got the drift of Mike's point .......... but I don't believe you got mine.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote: There are members on both sides who could use a good class on tolerance and diversity.

Wouldn't that be a waste of teaching skills and time?

SheikBen wrote:I cannot any more make my neighbor a Christian then I can make him a pig, just as a leopard cannot change his own spots.

A tolerant person ........................

UUUHHHH, I'll help ya out .... so try again Sherman ........... with this:

(Mike) I cannot any more make my neighbor (Sam) a tolerant person (Mike) then I can make him a pig ......

Sherman, did that help ya any by putting it all in one sentence?



.

Sam,

I got your point right away, lol.

I'm sure there is some truth to what you say, some people are just unreachable. I don't think they represent the majority, though.

I'm not talking about everybody being all lovey dovey, or ignoring our difference. I'm talking more about just accepting each other for who and what we are.

I mean, I accept that you're a crotchety old hillbilly. I hope you accept this opinionated middle aged yankee.

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

I got your point right away, lol.

I'm sure there is some truth to what you say, some people are just unreachable. I don't think they represent the majority, though.

In West Virginia it does.

Stephanie wrote:I'm not talking about everybody being all lovey dovey, or ignoring our difference. I'm talking more about just accepting each other for who and what we are.

Steph, the population of WV has been stagnant and/or decreasing for the past 50+ years and thus the majority of residents are native bred and born and therefore have never had to "tolerate" very many "outsiders" for who and what they are. And they are not going to "tolerate them" because they have never had to and besides, .......... it "goes against their grain" because they have never been nurtured to do so.

Stephanie wrote:I mean, I accept that you're a crotchety old hillbilly. I hope you accept this opinionated middle aged yankee.

HA, ..... I know the people and I know the culture ....... and thus I know how they have to be dealt with .......... if changes are ever going to occur.

I also know that most will not tolerate me because I represent "change" which they want no part of because they see no need for change.

They see no need for change ...... even though they see most all the problems that most West Virginians are faced with each and every day.

aka: They see that the schools are failing to adequately educate the majority of the children ....... but they see no need to change the School System.

They see all the problems that are directly linked to the actions-inactions of our Legislature ........... but they see no need to make changes in the Membership of our Legislature.

And Stephanie, if you continue living in WV and continue to "adamently support change", ......... you will be considered a "crotchety new-old hillbilly" that will mostly be ignored and not be tolerated by the "older natives".

So, ........

.

Well Sam I am not trying to pick an argument but did you ever consider the possibility the crotchety part might have something to do with it moreso than the "change" part?

My frustration with "tolerance" is that it has changed it's meaning. I like it when applied to those of us here who can have a fun disagreement and still be civil. I'd say that's about all of us.

Unfortunately, the word "tolerance" has changed it's meaning from "I disagree with your opinions/actions/whatever but I still will treat you well," into "I accept your opinons/beliefs/practices to be as good as mine." While a prima facie that may seem great, it does two things I find damnable. One is that it takes conviction away from people; in an age of such "tolerance" I find it very unlikely indeed that someone will choose to die for something worth dying for (as it is really no better than the alternative anyway). Second, such "tolerance," in addition to all of its spiritual dangers, can easily facilitate a dictator who will not be stood up to, after all, who are we to say that the dictator's actions are bad?

But as far as tolerance's classical definition, I'd say it's a very good thing. I may not like what my neighbor does or believes, but I am very cordial with him all the same. Such a "skill," however, as Sam as rightly pointed out, isn't going to be taught in a class, and I dare say that those who would purport to teach us "tolerance" or "cultural sensitivity" are indeed the last ones who should be doing so.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Sam I am not trying to pick an argument but did you ever consider the possibility the crotchety part might have something to do with it moreso than the "change" part?

Stephanie, now you can see by the above "what I meant".

Sherman does not see "any need" for change, ........ but only a need to ignore and/or silence those who advocate any change.



.

Sam & Sherm......

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Sammy, you know I luv ya, but you can be abrasive, some might even say caustic. While I find you generally to be hilarious, it is understandable that to others it is a turn-off.

Sherm takes a much more subtle approach. However, he is just as opinionated and every bit as stubborn as you are. IMHO this is the very reason Sam sometimes refers to Sherm as "devious". Sherm likes to point fingers and afix blame. I don't see that as fixing the problems, to do that, we need the "change" Sam is always hollering for.

I'm sure I haven't pleased either of you, but those are my thoughts.

I can tell you that I find my friends at church far more tolerant of dissent, political and otherwise, then I find among liberal academia. The movie "Expelled" no doubt provides good examples, as can the biology department at the school I teach at.

Wasn't Stein Nixon's speech writer?

Lies then, lies now.

This movie is filled with edits, misrepresentation and blatant lies.

I only ask that anyone, particularly from the religious right, view it with as much skepticism as they did with Algore's travesty of a film.

As for the quote that started the thread - in this country, it is christians that are pushing their beliefs on me and my kids. As a result, I push back. If the jews or the muslims or the mormons do the same, they will be treated the same.

It isn't about cowardice or bravery - it is about relevance.

How are christians pushing their beliefs on you TC?

TerryRC wrote:(Mike) I can tell you that I find my friends at church far more tolerant of dissent, political and otherwise, then I find among liberal academia. The movie "Expelled" no doubt provides good examples, as can the biology department at the school I teach at.

Wasn't Stein Nixon's speech writer?

Lies then, lies now.

This movie is filled with edits, misrepresentation and blatant lies.

I only ask that anyone, particularly from the religious right, view it with as much skepticism as they did with Algore's travesty of a film.

The movie "Expelled" will make MILLION$ for Ben Stein.

When I see the ads on TV I said to myself, ........"Frigging beautiful, a gold mine for sure."

GEEEZE, TRC, didja scalp your comments from this MSNBC Opinion commentary?



.

GEEEZE, TRC, didja scalp your comments from this MSNBC Opinion commentary?

I don't watch MSNBC, Sammy. I went and saw the movie.

Did you see the movie, by any chance? You should. If you hate "weaselly girly-men", you will want to throw kegs of nails at Stein.

I also saw a statement by one of the interviewees. He was taken out of context by selective edits and was lied to about what he was even being interviewed about.

I know Stein was Nixon's speech writer because I studied up on him.

When I see the ads on TV I said to myself, ........"Frigging beautiful, a gold mine for sure."

Because making controversy where none exists is a noble thing, I guess. Churches will bus their parishioners in but Stein is doing his best to keep it from the mainstream. It may make less than you think.

How are christians pushing their beliefs on you TC?

By screaming for their religious laws to hang in my courtroom (even if our laws are in no way based upon them), by pushing their prayers in my schools, by pushing their dogmatic beliefs into my laws...

... is that enough for starters, or would you like more?

The jews in Hitler's Germany were oppressed. American christians are most certainly not.

FYI, concerning "Expelled" and how the public looks at evolution:

tiny link

I blame much of this on lying creationists and a very apathetic US population.

At least we beat Turkey!

TerryRC wrote:How are christians pushing their beliefs on you TC?

By screaming for their religious laws to hang in my courtroom (even if our laws are in no way based upon them), by pushing their prayers in my schools, by pushing their dogmatic beliefs into my laws...

... is that enough for starters, or would you like more?

The jews in Hitler's Germany were oppressed. American christians are most certainly not.

Ignore them. You don't have to listen to their screaming do you?