• Pingback: Kim Davis emerges as lightning rod for religious freedom among some Republicans - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • K in CA

    The decision to jail Kim Davis is not a victory for anyone! The Supreme Court is outside of its boundries when it removes freedom from one citizen/group as a means to provide freedom for another. Hypothetically, those who believe in same sex marriage could be similarly arrested, as Kim Davis was, for upholding their religious freedoms by refusing to sign legal documents contrary to their beliefs. What if same sex married couples, who had jobs clerking, were required by law to sign documents that nullified same sex marriages? According to the standard set by the federal judge, they too should be jailed for refusal to sign a legal document that disagrees with their moral choices/values. The ability to perform an action, whether dictated by a government or not, should never supercede our religious beliefs or values, the true determiners of our choices, lest we “all” loose our freedoms and have to repeat the battles of 1775-83 to regain them and become America again.

  • bqrq

    May God Bless Kim Davis and all those who stand with her.

  • Greg1

    K in CA you are very accurate in your statement. The only missing point, though, is that if same sex married couples refused to sign nullification declarations, then they would not have the same protection that Kim Davis has in her position. In Kim’s case, she has the First Amendment religious protection to fall back on. The other way around does not. The issue at hand is how to interpret the Constitution. And we can see clearly in the bigamy decisions of the Supreme Court, that it was clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, but restricted to one man or one woman. The problem we have here, though, is whether the Court truly had the right to decide the case when at least two of the Justices were involved in gay activities, rendering the decision one of activism. It would be the equivalent of the Supreme Court deciding a divorce case when the two people in court, were one of the Justice’s mother & father. In those cases, recusal is required, as it should have been here.

  • Anton

    The minute Mrs. Davis refused the religious accommodation offered her by the judge, it became even more obvious that she is not fighting for her religious freedom, but for the right to force her religious beliefs on others.

    She should have resigned to show the depth of her convictions. But she chose to stay, to glorify herself. And now the likes of Huckabee are trying to glorify themselves by glorifying her. And none of it glorifies God, that is for sure.

  • Richard Rush

    God has already blessed Kim Davis by allowing her to be thrown in jail. And then God blessed same-sex couples by allowing them to receive marriage licenses.

  • Randy in CA

    I agree with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. Speaking on CNN. “I think what’s going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business.” This is what I have proposed for many years. Religion is the entity that will issue marriage license/permits. Government issues the legal document that provides specific contractual rights and obligations between two individuals. Each church is free to marry persons in accordance with the church’s beliefs and doctrine. This relives the responsibility and obligation of a government office/officer from being involved in a religious decision. It would accommodate both sides. People will understand that they have the choice to marry, enter a contractual agreement or do both.

  • In this case, Kim Davis *is* the government. Davis is interfering with the free exercise of religion of the couples who are trying to get married; Davis is attempting to establish her own narrow view of religion as the standard for her county. She fails on both religion clauses in the first amendment.

    Her lawyers are trying to paint her as a modern Rosa Parks, but the reality of that comparison is that Davis is not Parks–rather, Davis is the bus driver, telling same-sex couples to stick to the back of the bus.

    It should be shameful that any presidential candidate would not know the law on this topic. In reality, though, it simply indicates which ones are sufficiently desperate that they are willing to court the bigot vote.

  • Dan

    Kim Davis is an instrument of Kentucky – she is in a position where she is bound to uphold the laws of the commonwealth as they are written, not as she up interprets them. If she is unwilling to uphold those laws and abide by her oath of office, she should be removed by the state legislature.

    Huckabee and the right speak of “judicial tyranny” and believes that our nation should follow God’s laws instead of the laws of men. Sounds just like a certain caliphate that emerged in Syria to me…

  • Ed

    The bible says she should have been stoned, not jailed.

  • Ed

    Exactly the same, Dan. Sadly true. Here again, religion is a central part of the problem, just as with ISIS.

  • Ed

    Yeah, how insulting to the memory and bravery of Rosa Parks.

  • Ed

    Just follow biblical law instead: stone Kim Davis.

  • Doc Anthony

    I don’t think it was God who blessed the latter “by allowing them to receive marriage licenses”, Richard.

    Try the fellow “Down Below” instead. I am sure that HE approves of it !

  • Doc Anthony

    No, if she had voluntarily resigned, that would be the same as surrendering to the Gay Marriage Cult, and that’s what the Cultists want.

    What the Cultists don’t like, are Christians (or any other religionists) who actually BELIEVE what they say they believe, and are willing to pay a high cost (like jail time) to peacefully stand up for their beliefs and NOT bend over for the Gay Goliath.

    Kim Davis is exactly such a Christian. The brave, courageous New Testament kind. The kind who still believes their Bibles. She stood her Christian ground for as long as she could, then when it was time to obey the judge and go to Jail, she went on to Jail without a fuss.

    Huckabee has no chance of becoming President, but unlike Trump and other coward chump politicians, he at least got it right. Kim Davis is a genuine Christian who stood up righteously and peacefully for what she believed. She doesn’t deserve jail.

  • KIM DAVIS insists she is following the Bible’s instructions.
    For that reason, it important to examine those instructions:

    “Execute them”- JESUS (Luke 19:27)
    “Hate Them” – JESUS (Luke 14:26)
    “Avoid Them” – ROMANS (16:17)
    “Do not associate with the GUILTY..” (1 Corinthians 5:11)
    “Bad company….” (1 Corinthians 15:33)
    “Do not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Corinthians 5:11)
    “Do not receive him…or greet him..” (2 John 1:10)
    “tell him his fault.” (Matthew 18:15)
    “Have nothing to do with him!” (Titus 3:9-11)
    “LET HIM BE REMOVED” (1 Corinthians 1:13)
    “In the name of Jesus..keep away from him!” (2 Thess 3:6)
    “CURSE HIM” – (1 Cor. 16:22)
    “Deem them unworthy” – JESUS (Matt 10:13)

    Religion is bent on uncivilized behavior.
    People have a right to believe as they wish – but it should be treated like booze. Nothing to be proud of.

  • Tony Lock

    Davis is deliberately and stubbornly seeking to violate the 1st amendment.

    She is the one openly using her role and authority in a government office to “establish” a specific religious perspective and impose it onto the public via her office – and is willing to go to jail over her need to do so..

    So, why are these candidates so enthusiastically supporting someone who so blatantly violates the 1st amendment?

  • MACFreelance

    Christianity is the basis for all constititional laws. Only with Jesus Christ our Lord who is risen frim the dead will we have a chance to heal the wounds of disparity in this country. Kim Davis is a woman with more courage than most male and all the female presidential candidates. Jesus Christ then, now, and forever!

  • Mac freelance,

    Keep your rising jeebus to yourself. Your superstitions have never had any place in American law.

    Your right to Religion is like your right to drink booze. You have every right to it. But it’s nothing to be proud of. And you may not force it on others – or you’ll be arrested and go to jail!

  • Ben in oakland

    Nonsense. This is simply a transparent attempt to claim the institution of civil marriage as strictly the provenance of religion. if these states wish to get out of the marriage business, I guess they will be doing their part to destroy marriage as we know it. Of course, they will continue to blame gay people for the destruction of marriage. But then, they have been blaming us for everything else in every case. So nothing changes there,

    If you need something special for you and your religion, I would suggest you claim holy matrimony, and stop insisting on the dominion over people who don’t share your beliefs. Marriage is acknowledged throughout the world as a civil institution not a religious one.

    Oh, wait. there are plenty of churches and whole denominations who want their gay parishioners to have HOLY MATRIMONY.

    Maybe you can find something else. I would suggest Mytzlplk. Just don’t say it backwards,

  • Larry

    And atheists or people who can’t afford attorneys for this stuff are sc3wed. Rand Paul’s ideas seldom hold up to serious thought. There is no need to change a system that works well because some bigots can’t play by the same rules as everyone else. Churches have no say as to the civil marriage process. Kim Davis is an example of what religious freedom does not look like

  • Ben in oakland

    By the, those specific contractual rights will still be enforced by the government, which means that marriage will STILL be a legal institution. So NOTHING is gained except the refining of marriage into a religious institution

  • Ben in oakland

    The constitution is the basis for constitutional laws, if the nonsense you just spoutted were true, we’d have a mention of Christianity in the constitution.

    But we don’t.

  • Greg1

    No, Kim is being told to deny her religion, and marry gay people, which clearly violates her First Amendment right. When she took the job, she was agreeable, but now she is no longer agreeable, and must be afforded her First Amendment rights.

  • Tony Lock

    bqrq….

    I guess insults are all you have left to use as your argument at this point, since logic and American ideals stand against you as much as they stand against the clerk. Good luck with that.

  • bqrq

    Tony Lock said:
    “….logic and American ideals stand against you…..”

    Dear Tony,
    Here is some logic for you – if it is morally righteous for my son to practice sodomy then it is also righteous for your mother to do likewise.
    Meditate on that.

  • Larry

    Only if her religious belief means imposing on all others in a malicious and harmful fashion. Much like claiming burning a cross on your lawn or human sacrifice would be.

    You know nothing of the first amendment if you think a public official can justify illegal and discriminatory actions as free exercise of religion. You crap on its principles.

  • Larry

    Bqrq, stop sodomizing your son!

  • Larry

    Your a legal scholar now? LMAO! Your spiel was complete garbage. A gish gallop of fictions so off the mark that I would have to point out what is correct since it is buried in a sea of wrong info.

    If you anti gay bigots could cough up a valid rational and secular reason for banning gay marriage you would not have lost the SCOTUS case. But you couldn’t. You still can’t.

  • Ben in oakland

    Absolutely not true. She is not being required to marry anyone. She is being required to certify that they meet the legal requirements for marriage. But the truth has never been one of your strong points

  • Larry

    “I agree with Rand Paul”.. There is your problem right there. Rand Paul spouts complete garbage when it comes to civil liberties. The man opposes anything which interferes with majority discriminatory practices.

  • bqrq

    Dear Tony,
    If we could agree that it is morally wrong for both your mother and my son, then I believe that we could have a reasonable conversation. The problem has always been the wicked tendency to favor this evil practice for young men but not necessarily young ladies (so as not to offend mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, aunts and other women).

    If we could agree that it is wrong in both cases, then hopefully we may move forward towards a resolution to this intractable moral conflict.

  • Shawnie5

    “This is simply a transparent attempt to claim the institution of civil marriage as strictly the provenance of religion.” No, it isn’t. It’s a way to keep people from having to be involved in it if they don’t wish to. It changes nothing about civil marriage except the document that is used to record it, and who is required to sign it.

    Those who claim that such a change would “destroy marriage” simply don’t know what they’re talking about.

  • Larry

    It is changing a system that works to accommodate people who don’t want to work. The need for fundies bigots to act badly to gays is not a compelling reason to change our laws.

    If they don’t want to follow the laws, they can resign their positions in protest. Nobody has to suffer the personal prejudices of self important civil servants.

  • Shawnie5

    It’s up to the people of a state to decide what is a compelling reason for legislation. Not you.

  • Ben in oakland

    If they don’t wish to get involved in it, then they should avoid legal marriage all together. They can have a church wedding only, and a church marriage. But they won’t, because they get all those nice benefits.

    There is absolutely no reason to change the institution of civil marriage to accommodate the religious people who cannot except gay people as their moral, religious, social, legal, and cultural equals.

  • Ben in oakland

    The conflict is neither more nor intractable. Simply learn to mind your own business, and stop trying to have dominion over the lives of people who don’t share your religious beliefs.

  • Jon Trouten

    Or, as Kim Davis calls her, “Rose Parks.”

  • Be Brave

    I’ve noticed that these articles that are written by fanatical pro-homosexuality authors here at RNS, have not even attempted to justify their affirming positions via anything from scripture. Now, we can all laugh at the hapless atheists/liberals that spew their idiocy ad infinitum (ad nauseum), but the authors of articles here on this site want to pervert Christianity and force it to its knees in homage to the rainbow idol. And that is sickening and dangerous to honest, decent, Bible-believing Christians that can’t sellout the Gospels for political correctness and a paycheck.

    Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks. And the authors here at RNS are no honest theologians either . . . as they try to warp Christianity into just another float in a gay pride parade. It needs to repeated, gay pride came into prominence on the rise of a completely anti-Christian movement of society. No amount of leftist subterfuge can change that reality.

  • Dominic

    Stone the sodomites would be more biblical.

  • Dominic

    God has not, nor could, bless any deviant corruption of His Created nature of mankind. Sorry, they are on that “wide road” so talked about by Jesus.

  • Richard Rush

    Dominic, thanks for confirming that, in your heart, you are no better than ISIS.

  • Dominic

    Marriage is not a provenance of Religion, but society. Marriage in all societies, throughout all times was deemed naturally beneficial for society, and that the union of male/female would produce children who knew both of their parents and lived in a healthy home environment. Gay marriage is a legal blessing of a misguided society’s new idea of family. The future ramifications will prove this true someday.

  • Ben in oakland

    So,if RNS is so anti Christian, and so anti your personal vision of Christianity, then why are you here? Whom do you expect to convince of anything?

    As for attacking Christianity and attacking Christians, isn’t that what you do every time you attack more liberal denominations? Isn’t that what you do every single time you denounce Mormons and Jw’s and liberal Christians as not being true Christians?

    Oh, wait. I see that I just answered my own question. that’s why you’re here.

  • Richard Rush

    If a god created mankind, it is reasonable to conclude that he created gay people who are born in every culture in every geographic location on earth. But it’s not at all reasonable to conclude that your religious beliefs, which rose out of a small ancient tribe of so-called chosen people, are true, and that all others are false.

    PS: When I finished typing the above comment, the number of remaining characters available was 666. That must mean something!

  • Shawnie5

    Why should anyone forego any benefits whatsoever when a much simpler solution exists?

    Like I said to Larry, a state may very well decide that avoiding a religious freedom difficulty for some of its citizens is an excellent reason to make a very minor procedural change, and that is their call to make, not yours. Not a court in the entire nation would attempt to invalidate such a change where no “discrimination” result from it.

  • Shawnie5

    Of course he can speak for himself, but I would guess he’s here because he cares about what is happening with, and being said by, those who share his faith or profess to. And of course that makes perfect sense. The real question is why are YOU here? To demonstrate how unimportant our “ilk” is to you by haunting the comment threads daily and jumping in at every opportunity?

    There are many atheist forums, you know, where atheist talk and trade rather lame one-liners without any interference from believers who demonstrate their non-interest in a far more obvious and credible manner — BY NOT BEING THERE. You might want to check out one of those instead of ordering others away from here.

  • defiant

    since when did sexuality become a moral/value? they way we are born has no bearing on this matter at all. neither is it anyone’s bushiness where i park my penis a night. as a strait man i find your line of thinking disturbing.

  • Ed

    Psssst. Shawnie, Larry is a person. You I’m not so certain about.

  • Ed

    Nice attempt at dodging criticism Shawnie5, not that it’s likely to have any effect. More like the opposite. You get a big fail whale for that effort.

    FAIL WHALE for Shawnie5!

  • Shawnie5

    He’s only one, and not a particularly informed one, and in no position to decide what an entire state does or doesn’t need to do.

  • Shawnie5

    Oh, it’s only you. I won’t bother to respond after all.

  • rick

    I once worked for Aerovironment Inc. They are a military contractor. I am morally disgusted that they make products that spy on people and kill people. EVEN THE “Enemy”. Its wrong to kill. I believe christians call it THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT. I ended up getting very physically ill and while I was on disability, they “Asked me to leave or come back to work immediately” even against doctors orders. I made a choice. I could have gone back… but I left. I dont have the money for fancy lawyers such as the object of our discussion. And I did not make a big ta-do about it. And not once did I try to make them stop killing people because it is against my own moral code. I ended up working for a company that makes oncology capital equipment. “CyberKnife” if any of you are unfortunate to have cancer or know someone that does. My dad passed away from brain cancer while I worked there. I have since met many people who have been treated with a product that I contributed to, and they thanked me…

  • Ben in oakland

    Why, Shawnie, of course I’m here just to bedevil you.

    No, that’s too easy.

    I’m here because it’s a religious forum, and I find religion, and the social psychology of religion, fascinating. I always have. I starting reading books of mythology when I was a small child.

    However, in not interested in flinging theological poo, which you defend. I’m here because I stand against exactly what you somewhat, and BB, Greg, sodomy obsessed B, and Doc greatly, all endorse: theocracy, dominionism, religious bigotry, antigay bigotry, historical revisionism, and anti-freedom-of-religion. I’m here because I can debate religious issues, and atheism is certainly a religious issue. Just Becuase you don’t accept me, doesn’t mean others don’t.

    But I find one thing interesting, and most revealing. I didn’t order him away. THAT’S ALL YOU. In asked him why he was here, as I have asked you repeatedly why you defend reviling and slander he flings. Sorry it bothers you.

    No I’m not.

  • Ben in oakland

    I have repeatedly said I have no issue with religion, though I have my opinions about it. If it makes your life better and you a better person, I’m all for it.

    But the people under discussion? No, it doesn’t make them better people, and it doesn’t make the lives of any of their potential victims better. It just causes harm.

    They are not living their lives and their faith, they are using their faith as a weapon against the people they don’t approve of– and I
    By that, I mean the people they hate and despise.

    And just because they are not flying airplanes into buildings, burning witches, or vilifying Jews, doesn’t mean anything other than that their offenses against humanity are different except in degree.

  • Ben in oakland

    And as the sodomy obsessed husband of a wife, you are at risk for diseases as well if your wife decides to cheat on you. So what’s your point?

    Oh yes, you don’t have one.

    But there you go again, projecting your own life onto the lives of innocent others, slandering and reviling, parading your despite for everyone to see, and for other so called good Christians to simply ignore, Becuase they agree with you, but are just too polite to say so where they can get called on it.

    You just hope I’ll die young. But I’m 65, have no diseases, have a wonderful relationship with my husband, wonderful, kind, decent family and friends, and a complete absence of bigots in my life, except when I choose to engage with them.

    I have nothing to repent of, not in the sense that you mean it. And if going to heaven means having to spend an eternity with bible believing Christians, I think I would prefer oblivion.

    Becuase if THAT’s not hell, I don’t know what is.

  • Ben in oakland

    I doubt tony obsesses over the sex life his mother, or anyone else.

    We will leave that to you in particular, and to bible believing Christians in general. You really seem to get off on it.

  • Richard Rush

    “Jesus described it [Hell] as the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

    That’s interesting, because I’ve been to a number of church services (and watched some on TV) where there was more weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth than I’ve seen anywhere else.

  • Richard Rush

    bqrq,

    On behalf of the Post-Christian movement I want to thank you for your glaringly obvious delusions, hatefulness, and lies which make fence-sitters wonder why they should believe you when you talk about your religion as if it were true.

  • Larry

    Shawnie, there is no reason to change anything. Your interests in changing it are not worth considering. Kim Davis was acting badly. We do not need to waste resources to appeal to people like her. Especially when her and your motivation is really to deny civil liberties to gays.

    You can’t tell me this is a good faith answer looking for a fair and equitable solution. Nobody needs to be fair to bigots intent on discriminating.

  • Shawnie5

    Well of course it’s not in good faith or “worth considering” to someone who places no value on the religious freedom of anyone but themselves, but again, you are only one highly bigoted and unknowledgeable person and it is not your call.

    “We do not need to waste resources to appeal to people like her.” Are you a Texan? A Michiganian? A citizen of any state considering this procedural change? No? Then don’t worry your pretty little head about the “waste of resources.” Not that I believe that’s your beef. All your comments are showing is rage that an opportunity to bully people you hate might be lost. People whose aim is actual “equality” wouldn’t really care how that equality is achieved as long as they get their certification and benefits. Amusing how you guys give yourselves away at every turn.

  • Shawnie5

    Right, Ben. You’re here at a very minor news site with one of the most awkward comments systems in existence and some of the most ignorant anti-religious trolls I’ve ever seen dominating the comment threads…to study religion.

    Were you “studying religion” at HuffPo too?

    “I’m here because I can debate religious issues”

    Pardon my frankness, but you haven’t debated them very well. You display not a bit more scriptural or doctrinal knowledge than Max or Larry, and you demonstrate the same apparently irresistable tendency to tell us all what we “really” think and feel. You’re only a bit more polite and polished about it all–which around here is at least something, I guess.

    But you’ll never convince anyone of how “unimportant” it all is to you by loitering on religious forums attacking the “unimportant” believers’ positions day and night. Yet don’t worry about “bothering” me. It’s actually entertainment comparable to Netflix.

  • @Brbq

    “we are compelled to fight back against those who seek to harm…”

    Why don’t you just admit you are an Atheist?
    You have hereby rejected the fundamental immorality of Jesus and YOU EVEN INSINUATE that God’s two-faced recommendations ARE COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE AND WICKED:

    “Turn the other cheek” – JESUS

    Yes – this is immoral!
    When confronted with evil we must rise up and do what we can to stop it – NOT SURRENDER!

    “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.” – JESUS (Matthew 5:39)

    So Jesus says let the serial killer attack all of your children.
    It is madness – it can’t lead to anything good – and it is immoral.

    The only healthy thing to do is to abandon such depraved commands and to think for yourself. Which you appear to be doing – so why not admit you do not believe this nonsense!?

  • Shawnie5

    “And if going to heaven means having to spend an eternity with bible believing Christians, I think I would prefer oblivion…Becuase if THAT’s not hell, I don’t know what is.”

    Well, that is why God will ulitmately give you that option. John the Evangelist tells us the the LIght came into the world, and men loved the darkness more than the LIght. So God will give everyone what they love, even though He’d rather they love Him instead and spend eternity with Him.

  • Ben in oakland

    @shawnie.

    Whatever you say, dear. As usual, your attitude always shines through. And as usual, you refuse to address the actual issue– bb’s flinging of them-poo at Ch Russians who are his type of Christian.

    It just proves my point about the nature of bigotry. Not all of it is hate. But you know that.

  • Larry

    Shawnie, I value religious freedom. That is why I oppose the ridiculous argument that it involves letting Christians (or any other faith) discriminate in public office and public accommodations. t

    Given your complete lack of awareness of religious freedom, your snide response is of no value. Religious freedom does not mean Christians can do whatever to whomever they want if they can quote Scripture. Supporting actions like Davis’s is to attack the intent and purpose of our 1st Amendment.

    Why do you hate religious freedom so much?

    You support legalized discrimination against gays in public settings Not an interest worth bending over backwards for. There is no religious freedom issue here.

    Of course I don’t take discrimination lightly. Its called having moral standards. Not some arbitrary outsourced excuse for sociopathy that passes for a religious code of conduct.

  • Shawnie5

    “Religious freedom does not mean Christians can do whatever to whomever they want if they can quote Scripture”

    That, as usual, is a misstatement of the nature of the issue. Quite to be expected among those with no appreciation for religious freedom– of others, that is.

  • Ben In Oakland

    Here ha go, Greg. Revised Kentucky statutes regarding official misconduct.

    A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, he knowingly:
    (a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or
    (b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office; or
    (c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.

    522.030 Official misconduct in the second degree.
    (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the second degree when he knowingly:
    (a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or
    (b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office;

  • Ed

    Thank you for acknowledging that Larry is a person. You’re starting to catch on Shawnie, but not very quickly. You sure aren’t very bright.

  • Ed

    What is “expected” from you and your lot, and is as usual, Shawnie, is your twisted interpretation, your stu​pidity, and your bald-faced bigotry.

  • Ed

    Again, Shawnie, nice dodge, but you’ve been caught in your deceit and cowar​dice as usual.

  • Ed

    At least I won’t have to spend eternity with a bigot such as you Shawnie.

  • Shawnie5

    Ben, I’m sorry but it’s impossible to take your accusations of slander and “poo-flinging” seriously, considering the ill-bred company you keep, as well as the goodly amount of it you yourself have “flung,” your 4:32 post being a prime example — so full of strawmen it’s a cyber-fire hazard.

  • Shawnie5

    The constitution did not spring out of nowhere, Ben, except in the imaginations of the unlearned. It is the direct product of the influence of the English jurist William Blackstone, whose Commentaries (the legal Bible of the 18th and 19th centuries) every one of the founders had studied, and who reasoned quite explicitly that all legitimate law flows from the laws of nature and Nature’s God. The roots of every one of our most fundamental constitutional principles — the separation of powers, checks and balances, the right to self-defense and to bear arms, representative taxation, freedom of press/petition, judicial power over both law and equity cases, rights to trial by impartial jury, and others, are found in Blackstone. The SCOTUS still cites it routinely, in about 1 out of every 13 cases, in questions of constitutional interpretation. The influence is unmistakable as well in the Federalist Papers, which, unfortunately, few have read today.

  • Jeff B.

    A Supreme Court ruling, or opinion, is not a law–it is the supposed Constitutional viewpoint of unelected “officials” on matters of controversy. Citizens are obligated to follow laws, not opinions, therefore, Kim Davis is being unlawfully imprisoned by ignorant politicians. THEY are the ones who are violating the law, not her.

  • Be Brave

    Ben,

    I believe you to be lying in what you wrote. I assert that you may have purchased some books in your life, or may have been required to read a few pages from some in school, but you are here to bash Christians. There isn’t one shred of reality in engaging in or promoting anti-natural sexuality, but people such as you must drag others into their sick world. That is an age-old behavior of the immoral. As can be seen easily, the “bad kids” do not ask the “good kids” how to become good, they try to get them to become bad.

    Christians, on the other hand, do want to leave their bad behavior and follow a different path in their lives. People like you resent that, hate that and oppose that. And your happiness comes from people joining the immorality camp and not by leaving it. Atheists are even worse at this.

  • Be Brave

    Ben,

    L esbian = same gender sexual behavior between females.

    G ay = same gender sexual behavior between males.

    B i-sexual = promiscuity with any gender.

    It seems that the sexual behavior obsessed live exclusively in your camp. In fact, they self-identify by their sexual behavior.

    T = Whackadoodle

  • Billysees

    ” …she is not fighting for her religious freedom, but for the right to force her religious beliefs on others….to glorify herself. And none of it glorifies God, that is for sure. ”

    Nicely said.

  • Billysees

    Kim Davis should abide in the following if she really loves the Bible —

    Romans 13:1-5

    1. Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

    2. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.

    3. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.

    4. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.

    5. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

  • Billysees,

    How is she supposed to know what parts of the bible to reject and which to follow? – and why do you think you know better than she does?
    What hidden knowledge are you claiming to have regarding proper biblical interpretation?

  • Ben in oakland

    Too stupid to bother with, except to say it is too stupid to bother with,

  • Ben in oakland

    Well, here indeed is a case of two pots calling the kettle evil and stupid. Sure, why not.

    My statements and your speak for themselves. As I have often said, I don’t write to convince you and your ilk. I don’t think that is possible– certainly not within my powers of persuasion. Nothing but a moral and personal crisis of your own will ever change the mind of those who think like you both do.

    But there are many others who read these things and don’t comment. I suspect they are quite capable of seeing what is what, and will make their decisions accordingly.

  • Ben in oakland

    Always the slight twist of the facts.

    Christianity was one of the contexts within which progress occurred. Christianity was the dominant cultural milieu of Europe. And many progressive people took the progressive part of Christianity for their impetus to progress.

    But to claim that Christianity itself was progressive, as in your ridiculous claim that the 1800 years Christianity took to disavow slavery is somehow proof that Christianity was anti-slavery– I notice you NEVER mention your own denomination in that debate– is just silly.

    Progress has occurred both because of AND despite Christianity. The current struggle in gay rights is the perfect example. Liberal denominations fighting for freedom for all, conservative denominations insisting on theocracy,

    But sure. Believe whatever you like. You already do.

  • Ben in oakland

    As always, your wisdom and compassion are like the proverbial light under a bushel.

    Completely invisible.

  • Ben in oakland

    “As can be seen easily, the “bad kids” do not ask the “good kids” how to become good, they try to get them to become bad.”

    Funny, BB. That’s exactly how I see fundamentalists and theocrats and bigots, whether they be of the religious variety, or of the secular one..

  • Ben in oakland

    And funny, Shawnie, I’m not the one that disrespects other Christians by claiming that only Christians of my sort are the true ones, and the others are fakes,

    But then, in not a Christian. I can respect all of your Christians. I just don’t respect theocrats.

  • Shawnie5

    It did not take 1800 years for Christianity to disavow slavery, Ben. Its crusade for abolition began in the 4th century and led to the disappearance of slavery in Europe during the middle ages. The 19th century was the SECOND act of Christian abolitionism, fighting down slavery’s REVIVAL due to increased contact with the Muslim slave trade during the Age of Exploration. I’m sure I don’t know what you mean by “my denomination’s role,” since I am a member of the United Methodist Church, the heirs of the avowed abolitionist John Wesley who was the inspiration for the 19th century’s greatest abolitionist hero, William Wilberforce–who was initially dismissed in his day for being a “fanatic” trying to force religious zealotry into matters of state and impose “theocracy.”

  • Shawnie5

    You can “respect” all Christians in said manner because you are not one and never received the instructions of Christ to “be not deceived” by those who come in His name and lead other astray. We did, however.

    But while we’re on the subject, have you ever “called out” Max for “disrespecting” other atheists by calling his sort the true ones while others are “fake?” Of course it’s a much more difficult task for him, having no atheist exemplar whatsoever, but I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be inconsistent. 🙂

  • Shawnie5

    So do you think the early Christians should have burned incense to Caesar and proclaimed him to be a god, as the governing authorities ordered them to do?

    Should the disciples have ceased to spread the Gospel as the Sanhedrin ordered them to do?

    Should Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego have worshiped the Nebuchadnezzar’s image as instructed? Or Daniel ceased his daily prayers?

    Do elaborate, please.

  • Ben in oakland

    From the UMC website:

    The slavery issue was generally put aside by The Methodist Episcopal Church until its General Conference in 1844, when the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions clashed. Their most serious conflict concerned one of the church’s five bishops, James O. Andrew, who had acquired slaves through marriage. After acrimonious debate the General Conference voted to suspend Bishop Andrew from the exercise of his episcopal office so long as he could not, or would not, free his slaves. A few days later dissidents drafted a Plan of Separation, which permitted the annual conferences in slaveholding states to separate from The Methodist Episcopal Church in order to organize their own ecclesiastical structure. The Plan of Separation was adopted, and the groundwork was prepared for the creation of The Methodist Episcopal Church, South

  • Ben in oakland

    I rarely read max’s comments.

    But in any case, my failure to do so is no different than your failure to call out BB, BQ, Greg, and doc’s.

  • Bob

    So your god is an excessively vicious and vengeful a-hole and human rights abuser just like your bible says. Thanks for confirming that.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
    Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

  • Bob

    The superstition known as Christianity should instead just decline and fade away. Hopefully it eventually will. Now there’s a happy thought.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
    Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

  • @Shawnie:

    “..have you ever “called out” Max for “disrespecting” other atheists by calling his sort the true ones while others are “fake?”

    ? My ‘sort’?
    I never claimed someone was a fake Atheist. How could I know?

    What I said was, the power vested in an Atheist dictator such as Stalin is given by the religious who have been conditioned to seek “a Messiah”.

    Religion’s big lies are:
    1. A perfect God exists.
    2. Everyone must expect its arrival on earth.

    Atheist dictators routinely use the second lie to their advantage. Stalin’s Czarist Cult of personality and Agrarian Miracles of Lysenko are religion’s contribution.
    It doesn’t matter whether Stalin was Atheist.
    He ruled exactly as the religious leaders do – with RELIGION.

  • Larry

    If you claimed that Kim Davis was exercising religious liberties then I am right on point here.

    The issue being that Christians want to use their religious belief as an excuse to attack the civil liberties of others. Nothing to do with actual religious liberty and everything to do with taking undue license and seeking legal sanction for it.

    This is not a religious freedom issue. Its simply the effort of Christian fundamentalists to claim “might makes right”.

  • Shawnie5

    Try to focus, Larry. I said nothing about Kim Davis specifically. I expressed approval of the very simple plan on the table in several states to remove the potential for difficulty in this matter altogether.

  • Shawnie5

    I do not belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, Ben. I am a United Methodist. This denomination was anti-slavery from the outset.

  • Shawnie5

    “But in any case, my failure to do so is no different than your failure to call out BB, BQ, Greg, and doc’s.”

    OK. So perhaps you’d like to leave off the whining to the teacher and let everyone defend and account for him/herself? With the possible exception of Phil and his various incarnations, I’m sure we are all capable adults here.

  • Shawnie5

    Max, power is invested in every dictator, whether atheist or otherwise, through military force and political intimidation. As has been the case in every culture known to man.

    Just curious, what is your particular attachment to this idea that something “miraculous” was ever claimed about Lysenko? Lysenko certainly never claimed to be religious. He was an evolutionist who unfortunately believed Darwin was wrong and Lamarck was right about the inheritability of acquired traits. Can you not make your arguments without the use of lies?

  • Garson Abuita

    You can call it a law, you can call it an opinion, you can call it dishwashing liquid — it doesn’t really matter. It is a legal opinion of a federal judge with jurisdiction over her. She is obligated to comply with it.

  • Garson Abuita

    Did Rafael Cruz really write that Christians should be able to serve in “pubic office”? Well as a Canadian he must have learned half French, half English in school anyway, so Sarah Palin can’t/won’t blame him for not knowing how to “speak American.”

  • Shawnie:

    Stalin’s Agricultural Director Victor Lysenko claimed a supernatural ability to “go beyond nature” and create miraculous “branched wheat” to enable Russia to could grow vegetables of miraculous sizes and quantities to feed the nation. Lysenko employed Michurinism (Crackpot claims of miraculous biology) as his method.
    It led to mass starvation.

    “In July 1948…Stalin expressed concern about the low output of Soviet agriculture…Lysenko replied Michurinist Biology would improve agriculture dramatically and cited “branched wheat”…as a result… formal genetics and proper agricultural science were banned from the Soviet Union.”
    Science in Russia and the Soviet Union, A Short History, by Loren R. Graham, Cambridge University Press

    Stalin put all his trust in Lysenko’s “super-natural” claims.
    Millions starved to death as a result!

  • LYSENKO CLAIMS HE CAN FORCE SCIENCE
    TO HIS WILL

    “I. V. Michurin’s motto was ‘we must not wait for favors from nature; our task is to wrest them from her’.” He considered ‘it is possible, with man’s intervention, to force any form of animal or plant to change more quickly and in a direction desirable to man’…… “Any character may be transmitted from one strain to another by means of grafting as well as by the sexual method …. Vegetative hybrids do not differ in principle from sexual hybrids”.
    – T. LYSENKO, 1938
    FROM TRANSCRIPTS OF HIS ADDRESS.

    http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/RCCookLysenko/RCCookLysenko.html

  • Shawnie:

    “Max, power is invested in every dictator, whether atheist or otherwise, through military force and political intimidation…”

    Wrong – Power is seized and wielded over an abject population trained to grovel and pray to a benevolent dictator (a god) who will solve all their problems in return for their subservience.

    No dictator can command for long without A ZEALOUS dogma.

    The Constitution with separation of church and state prevents the rise of a dictator. Religions work to abolish such separation FOR THAT VERY REASON – RELIGIONS ENCOURAGE DICTATORS.

  • Shawnie5

    Oops, I meant “anti-segregation.” My bad. But the point is, of course, that we DO hold our brethren accountable for drifting away from scripture and core doctrine to follow worldly cultural trends. We do that by contending earnestly for the faith from scripture. If that doesn’t work, we do it by separating and going down a more narrow path — for as the scripture states, we are to “come out from among them and be separate, and touch not any unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 2 Cor.6:17. This has happened many times, from the earliest days of the church up to the present day. These difficult issues are actually a blessing in disguise, for they are the refining fire that purges away the dross and leaves the gold shining brighter than ever.

  • Larry

    “It’s a way to keep people from having to be involved in it if they don’t wish to.”

    Like what Kim Davis was claiming.

    ” a state may very well decide that avoiding a religious freedom difficulty for some of its citizens is an excellent reason to make a very minor procedural change”

    Kim Davis was claiming “religious freedom difficulty” in following the procedures here.

    Nothing specific about her whatsoever. Only proposing something as a way to sanction her behavior.

    You were trying to pretend she and other people seeking a religious right to discriminate have a legitimate 1st Amendment issue here.

    Whatever. What else is new.

  • Shawnie5

    Max, nothing you cited about Lysenko’s ideas were “religious” in any remote sense. You think “going beyond nature” is a religious claim? What do you think modern-day genetic engineering in agriculture is claimed to be? Are all those experts “religious?” Good grief! You’d be funny if you weren’t so pitiful.

    “Religions encourage dictators.”

    Christianity, however, precludes dictators by holding all earthly rulers responsible to a higher authority. Who was Stalin responsible to?

    “No dictator can command for long without A ZEALOUS dogma.”

    Zeal is not even remotely the exclusive domain of theists. Atheist zeal is everywhere in our pop culture. You’re a prime example of it — it motivates you to lie repeatedly in order to win ignorant converts. (cont.)

  • Shawnie5

    Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, knew all about you guys and your “zeal” five hundred years ago:

    “…atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves?”

  • “Christianity, however, precludes dictators by holding all earthly rulers responsible to a higher authority….”

    Yeah – A HIGHER AUTHORITY – WHICH TURNS OUT TO BE WHATEVER THEY MAKE UP IN THEIR BRAINS!

    “What was Stalin’s Higher Authority?”

    SAME THING YOUR CHRISTIAN EXAMPLE HAD!
    WHATEVER HE MADE UP IN HIS BRAIN!

    CHRIST = “KILL THEM ALL” (Luke 19:27)
    STALIN = “KILL THEM ALL”

    What did you think your point was?
    Christ is far worse than Stalin – because Stalin is dead and there are NO people wishing him to return – unlike your “higher authority.”

    What makes your imaginary god a ‘higher authority’?
    And how dare you claim it?

  • “It isn’t religious”

    Oh, get off it.
    Lysenko was all about his miracles and proclaimed magical ability to force science to do whatever he wanted it to do – same thing Jesus lied about all the time:

    Turning water into wine? Just an ancient Greek traditional myth story. It was around for centuries before Jesus. Zoroaster did it all the time.
    Walking on water?
    Bogus claim common from the era.

    Jesus claimed the power to control nature – same for Lysenko.
    Read the books yourself. Stalin fell for every magic trick Lysenko claimed.

    By the way – none of your arguments is proving a god exists.
    And none of your arguments shows that belief in a God is a good thing.
    And you are not proving that your God is good.
    Nor that Jesus is worth any bother whatsoever.

    You can’t even prove Jesus is better than Stalin!
    Good grief – so much failure!

  • Shawnie:

    “atheists will ever be talking ….and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others….you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects.”

    Bacon was completely delusional and wrong.
    I fail to see the Atheists attacking Zeus anymore. We always stop talking once the world drops the subject. Thor, same thing. I never mention that god either – cuz nobody is shoving it down my throat (ala Kim Davis).

    You, I’m sure would have been happier if Osama Bin Laden had been an Atheist – or Torquemada, or Franco, or Hitler, or ISIS, or Pope Pius, or…oh, I don’t know……most dictators who followed whatever imaginary HIGHER POWER THEY DECREED TO BE TRUE at the moment:

    Hummingbird Wizard
    Allah
    Zoroaster
    Neptune
    Xalmoxes
    Ugh!

  • Shawnie5

    “You were trying to pretend she and other people seeking a religious right to discriminate have a legitimate 1st Amendment issue here.”

    They DO have a religious freedom interest in not having to participate in what their faith has deemed immoral for the past four millenia. Sooner or later religious freedom will always collide with someone else’s interests–which is why it had to be protected by amendment, get it? And that is why we have the concept of balancing of civil liberties and placing as little burden as possible upon rights to free exercise. Somewhere along the way you have evidently acquired the notion that “discrimination” is the alpha and omega of civil rights which must trump everything else when it is not. Freedom of religion was of paramount importance to the founders long before “discrimination” was ever a thing on anyone’s radar.

    But the simple solution proposed above bypasses the entire problem. It’s the way to go without a doubt.

  • Shawnie5

    “Stalin fell for every magic trick Lysenko claimed.”

    Except Lysenko didn’t claim any magic tricks, only erroneous Lamarkan evolution.

    Your own “zealotry” is blazing here without your even knowing it…your guru Hitchens made a wildly spurious claim in a heated moment and you feel obligated to stubbornly insist on its truth no matter its absurdity. You’re putting on a better show than any Poe troll could–if we operated that way.

    “Bacon was completely delusional and wrong.”. Oh? Seems to me he portrayed you pretty well.

    “You can’t even prove Jesus is better than Stalin!”

    Jesus gave us the Imago Dei, abolitionism, inherent and fundamental human rights, and what Nietzsche scornfully called “slave morality” and its political manifestation, democracy, the outgrowth of Christendom’s obsession with freedom and equality.

    Stalin gave us…dead bodies and famine. And a reputation which atheists have yet to live down.

    No comparison. Max, you’re a sad case.

  • Jack

    I guess Ed’s interpretation of “stoning” Davis would be to hold her down and put a joint in her mouth.

  • Jack

    Richard Rush, it’s not a great idea to make this your opportunity to mock the Jewish people.

    It is, however, an ideal way to find out whether their God exists.

    Not that I want to spoil the ending or anything, but…..He does.

  • Jack

    ROFLOL….Ed, you’re really in space….Shawnie’s probably brighter than all of us put together.

  • Jack

    Bob, you sound like a first-century Roman.

    But you’re not. It’s now 20 centuries later and you still think the “superstition” will somehow fade away.

    You’re one more example of hard hearts begetting soft heads.

  • Jack,

    Obviously you are the one whose hard heart has ignored Zoroaster – the Holiest god who pre-dated Jesus by 3000 years and who was the inspiration for many of the Jesus myths.

    Zoroaster was the God of the three Magi. You are missing his love!

    Even today Zoroaster is beloved – sorry your hard heart has missed the love of Zoroaster.

    Hard-hearted Jack. You really should soften your heart more – to match your mind.

  • Shawnie5

    Thank you, Jack. But really, Ed/Phil/Laurie/Veronica/etc. is a compliment with many faces. He/she is an expression of the frustrated hatred and rage born of atheist ignorance and helplessness. I rather like it when he/she shows up on display.

  • Garson Abuita

    Max, Zoroaster wasn’t worshipped as a god by magi or anyone else. They were believers in the religion he founded, Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic faith for whom Zoroaster was the prophet.

  • Garson,

    The Magi were Zoroastrians. And isn’t it convenient how they show up at the birth of Jesus to bestow gifts on the “New King”?
    This was a message directed at the millions of Zoroastrians in order to subvert them and convert them to Christianity – it was a way of saying, ‘look, even your Zoroastrian Kings knew that Jesus is the real king – not Zoroaster!”

    The Bible is so embarrassingly, obviously a superstitious scam – the whole thing is a rip off of older myths.

  • Larry

    “They DO have a religious freedom interest in not having to participate in what their faith has deemed immoral for the past four millenia. ”

    NO THEY DON’T.

    What you call, “not participating” amounts to denial of goods, services and access to government resources. Discrimination. Something which is illegal in many places. Intentionally harming the rights of others. Your attempt to claim it is something else is just being dishonest.

    Your religious belief (and only yours since if it was done by someone of another faith, you would be up in arms) is not a privilege to harm others in the name of your faith. Not now, not ever.

    There is certainly no free exercise involved when carrying out one’s duty as an official of government. Attempts to impose one’s religious belief on such actions amounts to violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Since there is no actual religious freedom issue involved, your suggestions are an answer to a question that doesn’t require being…

  • Jack,

    Richard Rush didn’t mock anyone.
    “so called chosen people” is not a mocking tone. It is a factual statement. All religions and sects see themselves as “chosen” for revelation. Including you.

  • Larry

    What has been really funny is how FoxNews has been dead on in criticizing Kim Davis and her wingnut legions

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/09/a-fox-news-anchor-criticized-kim-davis-defenders-as-her-lawyer-spoke-at-her-rally/

    “Haters are going to hate. We thought what this woman wanted was an accommodation, which they’ve granted her, something that worked for everybody. But it’s not what they want.””

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/07/fox-news-panel-agrees-that-kim-davis-is-a-hypocrite-whos-applying-for-the-job-of-a-martyr/

    “Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, was “ridiculously stupid” for suggesting the Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to rule on marriage equality.”

  • Shawnie5

    When there is no duty of this sort for an official of government to perform, there will be no question of “discrimination” in this context. Which is what makes it the perfect plan.

  • Jack

    No, Max, ridiculing a set of beliefs, and then adding that they came from “a small ancient tribe of so-called chosen people” is hardly meant as a compliment to that people — in this case, the Jews.

    But I wouldn’t expect you to disagree with the poster — since you’ve been attacking Judaism and defaming and savaging its forerunners since the first day you stumbled onto these boards.

  • Jack

    Ed cares as much about the memory of Rosa Parks as a wild boar cares about the Mona Lisa or Beethoven’s Fifth.

  • Jack

    Max, Christianity (or Judaism) needs Zoroastrianism like a toothbrush needs a bicycle as an explanation for its origins or beliefs. There is nothing in either religion that came from Zoroastrianism, including the oft-cited belief in the existence of an evil supernatural being like Satan. That was a Jewish belief which predated the Jewish encounter with Persia and hence Zoroastrianism by many centuries.

    Not that you care about pesky little facts that get in the way of your sandwich-board propaganda, but one day you may.

  • Jack

    Max, Garson is correct. Zoroastrianism was (and is) monotheistic. Zoroastrians still exist and would be offended at the notion that they are not monotheistic — although I would add that their dualism sometimes brings them thisclose to believing in two gods. But they’re definitely not polytheists.

    And your theory about the reason for the Magi being in the Gospel story is laughable. There is nothing in the Gospels or in first century history outside of them to show that Jesus or his followers or the early church had any particular interest in reaching Zoroastrians over anybody else. It comes up nowhere in the New Testament or in contemporaneous writings. You might as well believe they were trying to reach penguins or space monkeys from Jupiter.

    As for the Bible being a “scam,” I think you’re projecting, Max. People don’t willingly die (especially when offered life if they recant) for scams, for lies of their own making.

  • Jack

    As the Declaration of Independence notes, our God is the Author of liberty and human rights — while you guys have spent the last century being world-class apologists for human rights abusers, starting with the fundamental human right of religious freedom.

  • Jack

    Richard Rush, that wasn’t a church service where you saw weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

    It was your local Democratic HQ during a midterm blowout.

  • Jack,

    “People don’t willingly die (especially when offered life if they recant) for scams, for lies of their own making.”

    I’m shocked that you think Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 hijackers were right to die for Allah and that it confirms Allah is true!

    I’m also shocked that you think the willing deaths of Kamikazee pilots absolutely proved that Hirohito was actually a true Sun God!

    You are shameless in your lack of intellectual rigor!

  • Jack,

    “you’ve been attacking Judaism….”

    So attacking a religion is the same as defaming the believers?
    Ridiculous!
    So to hate a prison means I must hate the prisoners, too?

    How do you function with such broken thinking skills?

  • Jack,

    How did I become the ‘sandwich board of propaganda’? You plaster your Jeebus and your Gawd relentlessly with every breath.

    Calling me a propagandist is like calling an ANTIBIOTIC a disease.
    Nonsense. I’m responding to your wild, shameless claims.

  • Shawnie5

    LOL! Jack’s point flew right over your head and you never even saw it.

  • Jack

    Max, you’re projecting again. You’re the one with the wild claims, including the one you just posted, asserting that the New Testament’s goal was to convert the Zoroastrians.

    You might as well say its goal was to reach aliens from another galaxy.

    And yes, you are a walking sandwich board. Just look at your posts. Does even one of them look like it was written by a sane and sensible person rather than a bug-eyed bombastic fanatic?

  • Jack

    Right Shawnie. And I absolutely knew he’d reply the way he did.

    That’s because he lacks the mental discipline to engage in linear thought and stay with it.

    Max, let’s review the conversation. You said the Bible was a “scam.” You accused its writers of concocting deliberate falsehoods designed to deceive readers into believing what they knew was a lie of their own creation. I said that scammers don’t die for their scams if offered the chance to recant….and I noted that the writers of the NT were offered just that and refused.

    You replied that people die for all sorts of crazy things — which totally missed the point that people don’t die for things they themselves deliberately invented in order to deceive others.

  • @Jack,

    Your argument is even worse than I first thought it was. Nobody died for anything they saw regarding Jesus. It is all fabricated.

    You keep implying the New Testament is more than it is. But you are wrong – Acts of the Apostles is pretend. it is about as reliable as the story of Davey Crockett. The fact that bears exist in Kentucky along with canoes and rifles does not mean Davey Crockett died a hero.

    Your argument is worse – you are saying “Hobbits actually died for Gandalf because JRR Tolkein says so.” The writers of the New Testament saw none of what they were writing about – it is all hearsay. A handful of Paul’s letters are thought to be authentic but Paul was a delusional epileptic and he mentions no martyrs.

    Nobody “who died for Christ” ever met the guy.
    Just as Mohammed Atta “died for Allah” but never met him. Even now.

  • Jack,

    “You’re the one with the wild claims…New Testament’s goal was to convert the Zoroastrians.”

    Jesus was superimposed – not only on Zoroaster – to co-opt all Pagans and force-fit Jesus onto the culture already in circulation:

    “For the customs of the pagans are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest…with the axe..They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it..” (Jeremiah 10:4)

    PAGANS DECKED THE HALLS WITH SILVER AND GOLD THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE JESUS

    Plagiarisms:

    Water to wine – Greek Gods, Romulus, Remus
    Resurrections – Romulus, Adonis, Oedipus
    Wreaths – Wiccan
    Blood Sacrifice – Pre-historic
    Mistletoe – Druid
    Gifts – Thor, Odin, Zoroaster
    Hooves on the roof – Sleipnir, Odin
    December 25 – Mithras, Druids..
    Yule – Scandinavian Fertility God

    Romulus was resurrected so Jesus had to be resurrected too.
    Resurrection is a prerequisite of any God for Rome.

  • Jack,

    “Why are Jews the very opposite of being barbarians?”

    Jews are exactly like most Muslims and Christians. They don’t follow their religion at all. Your despicable game is to repeatedly conflate “A Religion” with “A People” – and it is sickening. You apparently believe “All Jews” have something in common. And All Muslims have something in common? They don’t. You are the bigot here.

    You want to confine people to their religion as part of their identity. But this is not possible – religions are just ideas which come and go. Besides – every human has barbaric ancestry if you go back far enough.

    You are claiming that to criticize “The Republican Platform” is to criticize “ALL REPUBLICANS.” Nonsense! To “hate bowling” is not to “hate all bowlers”! You have have a thinking problem.

    The hateful bigotry is in these primitive ideas:
    “Kill them” – JESUS (Luke 19:27)

  • P.T. Barnum

    Of course superstition won’t fade away. A Pew study (pew, get it?) estimates there will be 2.76 billion muslims and 2.91 billion christians indoctrinated by 2050. The study did not estimate how many people will believe in the tooth fairy by then.

  • Billysees

    Max,
    ” How is she supposed to know what parts of the bible to reject and which to follow? ”

    That’s a very profound question, and I don’t know how to give a good answer to it.

    In my case, I believe that ‘the spirit’ influences me to make various kinds of decisions and I always hope that I make pretty good ones. So far, so good in my life, for the most part. So I continue to think accordingly.

    ” …and why do you think you know better than she does? ”

    In this particular matter, I sense this woman is acting as an immature ‘attention getter’, and this is NOT a good attitude to have. I remembered those verses from long ago and they fit well as ‘better’ advice for her to follow rather than for her to claim her conscience is offended.

    ” What hidden knowledge are you claiming to have regarding proper biblical interpretation? ”

    Hidden knowledge? I doubt I have any such thing.

  • Mary Larson

    God did not “bless gays with marriage licenses”. He does not “bless” homosexuality. Man has created this situation by redefining marriage and changing laws. It does not alter God’s consideration of true marriage.