If it’s not protesting memorial crosses on the sides of the highway, Christmas displays, or twisted pieces of metal that resemble a cross, they’re whining that some pol said a religious thing.
FFRF —
“I can do all things through Christ” sounds like a threat to them? Hearing a bible quote is disturbing?
Atheists are some of the thinnest-skinned activists I’ve ever encountered. If just hearing the bible quoted makes you feel like you’re an outsider, you’re the one with the problem. But that’s the thing. They don’t feel this way, they’re just bullies — and not very good bullies since they come across as crybabies. It’s almost like they won’t be happy until everyone hates them.
Sifting Reality 
Nothing but a bunch of whining babies. But it would never have happened if the liberal courts didn’t twist the meaning of the 1st Amendment.
Glenn
It happened when SCOTUS coupled the 1st with the 14th, almost as a two part single amendment. It changed the definition of “congress” to any governmental agency or agent, and “make no law” to any perception of even veiled preference.
Yeah, I know when and how it happened, but, as I said, they twisted the meaning of the 1st Amendment – as well as the 14th!
I wonder why your god allowed the SCOTUS to interpret the amendments in this way.
Seems mysterious.
I wonder why you would spend so much time whining and being little crybabies about your gods intentional plans and actions.
John, has it occurred to you at all that your premise comes off as being a whiny crybaby? Would Jesus generalize these people into whiny crybabies?
Your capable of a higher art form that would certainly instigate a more relevant and constructive response beyond Glenn’s best attempt at being a cheerleader.
Nash
Im just pointing out the people who claim the intellectual highground acting like school children.
That and given the attention a couple other posts were getting, I didnt want to put up somethkng of more substance to get overlooked. I was surprised I got nothing on the coat hanger post, for example. Tomorrow I’ll have a more substantive post.
Well, maybe monday.
I’m on the fence about this. Was the bible verse quoted on Scott Walker’s personal twitter feed, and his personal Facebook page? By that I mean- were they “Scott Walker, Governor of Minnesota” pages or “Office of the Governor of Minnesota” pages?
I think there is a difference.
George,
No such pages exist. Scott Walker is the Governor of Wisconsin, not Minnesota.
It was on his governor twitter feed. However I dont think tjat matters. Not even for a jewish or muslim governor imo
It only matters if he is seeking to alter policy because of his religious views or is attempting to institutionalize any religious view through his office either through legislation or any other medium that he has access to to via his position.
The FFRF is wrong on this as far as I’m concerned.
Any employee anywhere has a right to express their religiosity, they don’t have a right to use their religious views to control others or manipulate policy, and I am no fan of Walker.
Dammit Richard this is twice in a row you’ve made sense
Sorry John,
I have burned all of my right and left wing bridges and lost more friends than I can count for occupying a common sense position in the middle with regards to the Bill of Rights/Constitution.
On that note, I was surprised when SCOTUS allowed for the type of speech that the WBC was using. I felt that the quality of their speech was “hate” speech and that it sought to, and was capable of bringing others to anger and therefore not protected.
If it had been the Klan or the NSA and they inserted the word nigger as opposed to faggot, it would have deemed illegal. Both are inciting in my opinion. But in recent years I have been ever less impressed with the decisions coming from that court.
I dont object to the WBC words, as a free speech issue. But I was surprised when they were permitted to do it at funerals.
Why would the location of their “language/free speech” change anything?
Hahahaha.
Sorry. I got the wrong State.
Regardless, I think there is a difference between a FB or Twitter profile that is for a personality who happens to be a Governor and one that serves as the Governor’s Office official account.
How many people are engaging the State Governors Office on Twitter and Facebook anyhow?
Anyhow, if the account is tied to Walker directly, then he has a right to his opinion.
Nash,
The intention of the Constitution was to limit what the federal government can do. A funeral is a private affair, even if the deceased is a former government official. To suggest that WBC’s free speech rights are denied them by prohibiting their picketing and demonstrating at anyone’s funeral is an incredible bastardization of the concept of free speech.
George,
How is a governor, even if he were to print on official letterhead, “I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me” be in breech of the prohibition against government establishment of religion by expressing his own personal feeling in this way?
It seems obvious to me that these objections are stupid. Since the founding of this nation government officials have, while in official capacity, spoke of God, quoted the Bible, and prayed. Even our Founders, who – and I can’t stress this enough – WROTE THE DAMN AMENDMENT!!!!!
I’m suggesting that a Governments official site or resources are an inappropriate place to air personal religious convictions, not that I feel that this might necessarily be (but hypothetically could be) illegal.
I don’t agree that politicians ought to avoid religious statements, especially if they are expressly tied to the individual as opposed to the office.
But George, what about those like myself who see strong Christian character as a plus in our government officials? They are citizens, too, and their influence on the culture is as important as yours or mine, and perhaps more so. If a government official, in the course of his official duties, openly speaks of the importance of faith in God, that can only be a good thing. Or do you find some problem with a growing belief in God? I can’t see how we’ve benefited by suppressing such expressions in public, removing all traces of Christianity from the public square, the schools, public lands…we’ve pretty much developed into a deeper crap hole as far as I can tell. Every elected and appointed government worker could pray openly during working hours and by doing so still not be doing anything akin to establishing any other than the fact that each and every one of them are people of faith. The complaint is a baseless whine unless one of them is actively trying to establish a state religion.
Atheists are objecting to the expression of religious views while in “official capacity.” But this objection is asinine on its face – since our politicians are always in official capacity, or at least treated as such. They aren’t machines; they’re flesh and blood human beings with their own proclivities and shouldn’t be expected to give them up or moderate them just to suit those who disagree with them.
Now, if Walker forced his beliefs on other people by passing some sort of religious observance law, then obviously a violation of the First Amendment would exist. But simply expressing his personal views? I don’t think so.
What is interesting is that atheists and other non-Christians speak their worldview on a daily basis. It is THEIR religion/philosophy, but just because it doesn’t have a label on it, they get by with spewing their propaganda.
Would this cacophony of support for Walker’s blabbering on about his god be supported by his cheerleaders on this thread if we inserted Allah in place of God?
Would you all be in support of his freedom to express his non-belief or belief in any other god?
Try yo be honest.
It would bother me on a personal level knowing what I know about islam. But I wouldn’t oppose him tweeting somethkng similar but Islamic themed.
I don’t believe any opinion should be censored or off-limits as long as it is clearly understood as the opinion of the person and not the opinion of the government. In this case it is clear that Walker is expressing a personal sentiment- and I therefor think it is perfectly reasonable for him to do so.
The original caveat I offered was merely to point out that I had insufficient information to conclude that it was entirely benign as opposed to possibly inappropriate.
Glenn, in what way do government representatives who are atheists or non-Christian theists “speak their worldview on a daily basis” that is treated differently than it is for Christians? Do you have examples? Could you explain? I’m not aware of any examples of this.
If an atheist or other non-Christian speaks of evolution in an official capacity, that is a philosophical belief which is accepted. If they speak about homosexuality as being right and proper, that is a moral belief which is permitted, but if a Christian says it is wrong in an official capacity, they are railed against. If they even mention their atheism in an official capacity, nothing is said.
Nash,
I would indeed have a personal problem with a muslim in American government, and have stated as much when Keith Ellison was elected. However, if all they are doing is expressing their personal beliefs in the manner Walker did, only the belief would bother me. Not the expression of it.
What about Christians who speak about evolution in an official capacity?
What of the Christians who speak about homosexuality as being right and proper?
I’m just wondering why those views are “any-group-but-Christian” views and not just “political views”. If you are just going to call “political views” “worldviews”, then Christians speak their “worldviews” all the time to little or no pushback.
Evolution is a fact.
Homosexuality is about as dangerous and moral as drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Non-Christians complain when your religious iconography, traditions, and practices are given special status or thrust upon them in an arena where they cannot easily choose not to participate. That is why I don’t have a problem with Walker’s public quoting of the Bible. I don’t have to engage it. It doesn’t have a status that would not be reasonably afforded to another religious sentiment by another official.
The analogy I was looking for was if you could show me where they open a City Council meeting with a pledge that God doesn’t exist, or a school that opened assemblies with prayers to Allah, or a public building with a Sikh icon on the front steps where no Christian iconography was permitted, or maybe a government funded Inter-Faith Prayer Breakfast that included people from every sect of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism but expressly forbade Christians from attending in an official capacity.
Do you have some example like that?
George,
I’m really surprised that you are so ignorant as to call evolution a fact. And that you are also so ignorant to make such an asinine statement about homosexuality. But then, in your worldview with no moral standards but your own opinion, anything goes.
Christians who support homosexuality are CINOs – real Christians don’t call God a liar. Christians who have sucked into the lie of evolution are deceived.
I don’t have any examples you’d like off the top of my head, but I see such atheist views espoused all the time by teachers and professors, who would be severely reprimanded or fired if they tried to espouse Christianity.
Nowhere is “iconography” traditions or practices foisted upon anyone. But you non-Christians sure like to force Christians to accept THEIR behaviors and practices – same-sex fake marriage ring a bell? Either accept it and participate in it or lawsuits will punish you to the uttermost.
George,
I’m sorry. Are you making an actual legal argument. Or, just something along the lines of,”Nu-uh, you wouldn’t like it either!”
Because you’ve not offered a single, solitary reason to charge Walker with violating the First Amendment. Or, are you offering some type of legal argument that the United States, in general, violates the First Amendment? Or, are you just having a philosophical discussion?
Never mind. I see now you’re responding to Glenn.
To support Glenn’s point regarding teachers and professors…
‘Jesus Can’t Be Your Hero!’
There are four other examples in that link, as well. And keep in mind, those are just recent examples!
Glenn, on what grounds do you think I might state that “anything goes”? This is the same red herring I’m discussing with Marshall in a different thread- and it is plainly and demonstrably wrong. Just because you can’t account for moral facts in an atheist worldview doesn’t mean atheists can’t. I can’t be held to the limits of your ability to use reason.
Evolution is a fact- if you choose to believe that biology is a science. If you choose not to believe that then you are in contravention of reality. I don’t begrudge you for that- I understand it is a central part of your personal relationship with Jesus. But it’s not central to everyone’s relationship with Jesus, because some people care about reality as much or more than scriptural literalism. That is your choice, and I respect it.
As to homosexuality, I feel that in and of itself it is amoral- that there is nothing particularly virtuous or contemptible about it. It is a personal preference that affects me about as much as whether you choose to wear paisley or plaid. My marriage is just as meaningful, my life is just as rich, my world is literally not different if gay people have sex or marry or do not. I won’t begrudge the personal happiness of another- and I won’t withhold a fundamental right for those people in our social contract.
Christians who support homosexuality are the majority of people who support homosexuality- if you believe the statistics. Unless half of Americans are closeted atheists- which I don’t really have a problem with either.
As to the rest of your comment- I accept your example of teachers and professors limiting Christian speech in the public school system. That is a legitimate fact.
Given this, could you show me where these same teachers are promoting non-Christian speech? By non-Christian I mean “talking openly about the nonexistence of God” or “allowing a student to do a project on Mohammed as a Hero, but not Jesus”, or “asking students to pledge that God doesn’t exist, or at least sit quietly while others make that pledge”. Something like that.
Examples?
George,
Being an atheist, you have no moral standard other than your own beliefs. Morals which agree with Christian morality must be borrowed from the Judeo-Christian belief system. If you don’t believe “anything goes,” then by what moral standard can you declare anything immoral?
Biology does not prove evolution. Real science has to be observable and testable – something one can’t do with evolutionism. And if evolution is true, then there is no reason behind nature and humans owe their existence to nature alone. So then, how can you trust your reasoning ability to give you an accurate account of nature? Aren’t your thoughts just the results of irrational causes, the effects of Nature’s whims, and therefore sure to be irrational? And if evolution is true, then survival of the fittest rules, so why should we be concerned about providing health care to the less fit?
Reality is that evolutionism is a fraud and has been proven to be so. Those who want to live in a world where they must eliminate God develop evolution. Those claiming to be Christians who accept the lie of evolutionism are just deceived into a fairy-tale land of “just so” stories, because they are afraid of being called “unscientific,” so rather than point out that the emperor is wearing nothing, the will agree that he has new clothes.
Homosexual behavior is destructive to the participants and to society as a whole, as has been aptly proven by more studies than you could shake a stick at. This citation is from an article on the subject:
Is homosexuality safe? No. It’s not. By any objective measure, homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle.
The medical, cultural, and media silence on this point while homosexuality is on the ascendancy is a crime against humanity that should shock the conscience of anyone with a shred of human decency and compassion….
In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States reported that men who have sex with men are more than 40 times as likely to be diagnosed with the HIV virus.
Syphilis rates were 46 times higher than the general male population and 71 times higher than the female population (See *1 below).
More generally, homosexuality has been shown to result in (*2):
***A decreased life expectancy of 25-30 years ***Liver disease which increases the risk of liver cancer ***Fatal immune disease including associated cancers ***Rectal cancer ***Multiple bowel and infectious diseases ***Much higher rates of suicide
The homosexual lifestyle greatly increases suicidal behavior and substance abuse. One study found (*3):
***Homosexuals and lesbians were twice as likely to have attempted suicide in the preceding year. ***Homosexual and bisexual men were four times as likely to attempt suicide during their lifetimes. ***Depression and substance misuse were at least 1.5 times more common in the homosexual community. …
Behind the thin veneer of Hollywood, sugary news reports & op-ed pieces, and sophisticated marriage litigation strategies, lie thousands of broken lives riddled with disease, guilt, isolation, and depression in the homosexual community that far exceed what is found in the general population.
That’s not homophobic.
That’s the truth. …
*1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men,” March 10, 2010; http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressrelease.html; accessed 5/28/13.
*2 Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 51.
*3 “A Systematic Review of Mental Disorder, Suicide, and Deliberate Self-Harm in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People,” BMC Psychiatry. 2008; 8: 70; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533652; accessed 5/28/13.
Your claim that the majority of those who support homosexuality are Christians is nothing but an assertion with no facts. There are those who claim to be Christian but who do not adhere to the non-negotiable doctrines of the faith, and they are the ones who the media accepts as Christians because they are the ones who agree with the world and disagree with God.
Many public schools in the news have forced students to celebrate Islam by dressing up as Muslims, reciting passages from the Qur’an, etc. Islam is promoted heavily in the government school systems (especially in California) as they promote Ramadan while at the same time refusing to allow Christmas or Easter to have even a mention.
Yep, Glenn. My apologies. I forgot this. ‘Muslim Holidays On School Calendar’
Wow.
So much wrong packed into a single comment. Where to start?
Atheists don’t have to “borrow” from Judeo-Christian traditions. Atheists can and do appeal to reality to inform an objective moral framework. The best part with appealing to reality is that it doesn’t change on a whim and it doesn’t become relative in practice, unlike Christian moral theory. Just like I can’t swim in the ocean and call it flying, I can’t just take myself a slave and consider it amoral. That’s the great thing about reality. It doesn’t allow you to “make it up as you go along”, and it doesn’t allow you to fiddle with definitions without contravening it.
Your problem is that you have never bothered to consider moral thought, since you believe you defer all your moral truths to your God. You don’t have to consider “why” things are right or wrong, because God just says it is. Most of the time. The rest of the time you borrow from the Humanist worldview when your moral code fails basic reality tests.
This is also why you and I disagree on homosexuality. I believe that people have a right to consentual sexual self-determination. You believe that a Bronze Age book is more important. I appeal to reality, you appeal to mythology.
George,
Atheists do indeed borrow morality from the Judeo-Christian tradition because atheism has no moral foundations. No standard by which to measure morality against. It is everyone’s opinions which establish your morality. The perfect case being homosexuality. Even without God nature proves homosexual behavior is unnatural and has no function in human society. Following evolutionism, it would die out as being non-sustainable.
Christian morality has never changed, contrary to your claims, and it never will.
You claim to stand on reality, but even reality is a term argued among atheist and skeptic philosophers and those who suck in their false teachings.
And why can’t you take a slave – what makes taking a slave immoral? By whose standards is it immoral and why is it immoral?
I have never considered moral thought?!!? Oh, so now you are a mind-reader? And just what is it that I as a Christian would borrow from a Humanist worldview? Asserting such things doesn’t make them true.
So, you believe people have a “right to consensual sexual self-determination”; by what right do you claim it must be consensual? And what if a 13-year-old wants consensual sex with a 30-year-old? What if they want sex with animals – do you require consent for an animal to be your pet?
I appeal to the truth.
And your reality forms what sort of moral framework? Ya know, in Nazi, Germany, the moral framework of THAT reality was a bit different. So, what reality? Does it just sort of change with the times, or what?
Well, I don’t know about you, Glenn, but I made my goldfish sign a non-disclosure agreement.
I almost spewed my Pepsi on my computer screen!
I can’t decide where this works best, as for two, maybe three posts it might work well. So I’ll put it here, too:
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Guessing the speaker gets you a shiny gold star.