8/23/2005 12:45:00 PM|W|P|Rudicus|W|P|My friend Deke says that the worst advertisement for Christianity is Christians.
Well nowhere is that so eloquently proven than by our pal Pat Robertson.
That's right, the leader of the Christian Coalition and the 700 Club has decided to take a stand against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Robertson's Christian Message? Take him out.
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
What the crap?!!
Is this the Christian thing to do? Is that how Jesus handled his problems? I love the fact that this guy is supposed to represent the moral majority and he's out there advocating the assassination of a world leader. Also, and this may not matter, but Chavez is not a strong-arm dictator, he's the legal democratically elected President of Venezuela. What's his crime? He's got a lot of oil, he's friends with Castro and he doesn't like America or George Bush. If that's all it takes there should be a lot more people on the hit list.
I guess the love thy neighbor as thyself and thou shalt not kill are pretty much optional in Christianity then.
He's an interesting connection - Robertson's comments appeared on his 700 Club show, broadcast on ABC. Just yesterday, the ABC affiliate in Salt Lake City, refused to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan, while the rest of the major networks did not. Hmmm... ABC the pro-war, anti-freedom, pro-assassination network - sounds good to me. I can't imagine why anyone would dislike America.
So is Robertson a nutcase or is he simply willing to say what other CC's are thinking? Is this the kind of foreign policy we can look forward to? Well I guess illegal wars to oust regime's we don't like, who also have a lot of oil, certainly falls in line with our existing tactics.
This of course is beyond stupid and idiotic, but it speaks to the larger issue of bad Christian marketing. So here we have a religious/political leader advocating assassination as foreign policy, add that to national leaders trying to pass of religious versions of life on earth as science as well as open discrimination toward homosexuals, bombing of abortion clinics, character assassination of anyone who disagrees with the church or the government and intentionally polarizing the nation along religious lines(terri schaivo, ten commandments etc.). This doesn't even include things like priest sex abuse.
So all told, these guys have not done a very good job of promoting the principles of life that Jesus advocated. In fact, they sound more and more like a hate group. So I guess it should surprise no one that there is a bill being presented in Canada that would list the Bible as hate literature and those who use it to discriminate or threaten homosexuals would be open to criminal prosecution. Read about it here. Frankly if you've read the Koran, you could probably throw that one in here right along with the Bible.
In Leviticus, it DOES say that men who lie with mankind as with womankind are an abomination and should be put to death - sounds pretty hateful to me. Which brings us to another point - if this is something the Christians feel they need to embrace as a policy why are they not doing as God commands and killing these people outright? Doesn't that show a supreme lack of faith and conviction? Shouldn't all Christians be willing to suffer death or life imprisonment for following the teachings of their scriptures? No? Then we're right back where we started with cherry picking your beliefs and rampant hypocrisy.
Riddle me this? If Christians are at liberty to interpret or adhere to what scriptures they choose based on the convenience of it, then where the hell do they get off claiming ANYTHING must be done because God or the Bible commands it. ?
I've got three words for you HYPOCRITE, HYPOCRITE, HYPOCRITE.
In all fairness, Christianity as a philosophy has many wonderful elements that would make the world a wonderful place if any of them were actually followed. But as it stands the only thing followed is intolerance and hate. When you have religious leaders calling for assassination we can pretty much assume the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. So the teachings of Jesus seem to be further and further away from the role that many Christians actually practice.
So it looks to me like Deke was right. Christians are their own worst advertisement. I think I'll stick with my current beliefs. Freethinkers only hate stupidity, but certainly not enough to kill anyone over.
|W|P|112481120789790606|W|P|Who Would Jesus Assassinate?|W|P|8/23/2005 1:52 PM|W|P| QOB|W|P|Who Would Jesus Assasinate? Jesus would assassinate...
...oh, wait. That was rhetorical, right?
I like your friend Deke's saying. I visited your site early this morning, didn't see a new post, browsed the Net for awhile, saw this news on CNN.com, and immediately returned to your site, knowing full well you'd be using this one.
Can you please tell me where I can move, outside of the U.S.? Who'll take me when I say, "Yeah, I'm from the United States, but I want to change citizenship." It's funny that so many Americans have been concerned with immigrants...I think other countries will begin to concern themselves with U.S. citizens immigrating to their countries. We are so elitist here.
Rudicus, I still say we can get married and run off to Italy together. We can own a farm, with a small vineyard, and Coldplay heard faintly from the outdoor speakers on the veranda. As long as Sade's set up as #2 on the CD changer. (Scoffs. CD changer?! I'm so 20th century. Who needs a CD changer when you have ITunes!)8/23/2005 1:54 PM|W|P| QOB|W|P|I just re-read my comment. I (obviously) got off-topic very quickly. I'm desperate...it comes out in my words. I'm not discussing this post or its merits because I'm preoccupied with racing thoughts of moving AS FAR AWAY AS I CAN GET FROM THIS GOD-FORSAKEN COUNTRY AND ITS "LEADERS".
Somebody help me!!!8/23/2005 2:25 PM|W|P| Rudicus|W|P|I hear you, Canada is calling me every week.
I'm amazed that after a year of doing this site, I'm still able to be shocked and awed by people.
I wonder if I'll ever run out of things to write about.
You know, this whole liberal-conservative, republican-democrat thing may just devolve into sane-insane.
If I could legitimately get out of America and still make a living, I would - seriously.8/23/2005 2:26 PM|W|P| Rudicus|W|P|I also had a meeting this morning so I couldn't get my post up right away.8/23/2005 3:18 PM|W|P| Glod|W|P|Christians here don't seem to be too much of a nuiscance, and do things like offer a place of niceness to people wanting to rid themselves of drug habits etc...
Is this just a front or is something just seriously wrong with America?
I liked the title.8/23/2005 3:27 PM|W|P| |W|P|ABC=Assasination Broadcast Corporation. All assasination. All the time.
Um isn't there a christian belief that jesus brought a new covenant and that the whole old testament LAW thingy was no longer valid? So why do Christians keep turning to the Old Testment to find out what to do? And maybe they should stop being so damn selective about it---if there gona use the OT for a guide shouldn't they follow the dietery and dress codes? Now that would be fun...I luv me that old timey religion...animal And human sacrifices. ;)8/23/2005 3:40 PM|W|P| QOB|W|P|Glod, I can't say whether or not it's a front, but my gut says it's not. I'd like to offer an idea: let's compare those U.S. leaders who call themselves Conservative Christians to extremist Muslims, such as al Qaeda. "Those" Christians are not representative of Christ's values or teachings, so please do not look to them for a true understanding of the doctrines of Christianity. Jesus (Christus) had/has meaning to many...those who study and attempt to embody that meaning are Christians. It's true that you can tell a Christian by "the fruit of the[ir] Spirit". Pat Robertson, at least, has been led astray.
I'm not sure why there are so many extremists in the U.S. I think U.S. culture fosters an ideal foundation for this type of person: YOU should be #1, YOU deserve, YOU are right, YOU are allowed, YOU, YOU, YOU. We are very self-serving, which - in my humble opinion - heads the opposite direction of Christ and servanthood. In addition, this self-serving culture at its roots has Christian religion interwoven into its lawmaking. The "Christian" United States is simply a powderkeg with a lit fuse waiting to explode.
I think it was Intelligent Design to write into law the separation of church and state...I just think we need to actually separate church and state.
So I guess, to summarize, the answer is, "Yes, there's just something wrong with America."8/23/2005 3:42 PM|W|P| Phoenix|W|P|yeah, what a crackpot. You have to wonder if the dollars will stop flowing, or if donations will increase because of this.8/23/2005 8:02 PM|W|P| Martian Anthropologist|W|P|That damn book contradicts itself. I mean, even in the new testament, the apostle Paul says some pretty harsh stuff.8/23/2005 11:48 PM|W|P| Tom Harper|W|P|Hey, don't laugh. You said "there should be a lot more people on the hit list." Don't worry, there are. This administration is so secretive, only a tiny bit of their perversity gets out to the public.
If this is what gets out, just imagine what we don't know. Don't even go there.8/24/2005 7:25 AM|W|P| thordora|W|P|Considering the violence inherent in most of the bible, I'm not really that shocked by this.
And considering the source, I'm quite amused.
What bothers me is how the knee jerk reaction in the states when someone doesn't like them, and makes it clear is "punish the heathen". Gee, worked well with Fidel.
Chavez knows he has a card he can play, and frankly, I hope he plays it. Not quite so super when the needed resources are provided.
And send Pat down there to be the assassin. See how far he gets...
ah, I needed the laugh. Come to Canada Rud....we'll stuff you full of poutine...8/24/2005 12:10 PM|W|P| Glod|W|P|There's definatly a bit in the new part of the bible about not having to follow the rules for food (like forbidden pork etc), it happened in someones dream and God told them.
They probably overturned the other stuff seperartly, to spread out the shock of the revelations.
Thanks Qob for your answers.8/29/2005 4:57 PM|W|P| Nathan|W|P|People are told they should believe it and are afraid to stand up for themselves. So secretly they are repulsed by it, but repeat it so many times for appearance they eventually believe it. Then they grow old and senile, and you have Pat Robertson.10/15/2005 8:49 AM|W|P| |W|P|affiliate gambling sports is great
i found here searching for the word affiliate gambling sports and your site was listed high on the word affiliate gambling sports
GOOD JOB
affiliate gambling sports10/15/2005 10:28 PM|W|P| Johnjon|W|P|I discuss this topic daily myself. I also have a website that talks about affiliate affiliate marketing related things. Go check it out if you get a chance.8/22/2005 09:51:00 AM|W|P|Rudicus|W|P|For awhile now we've been seeing a on-going war between scientific thinkers who view natural selection and evolution as the accepted theory of life on earth and the people who favor the ridiculous, yet strongly held belief in creationism - which is basically the literal events of the book of Genesis.
Well since the creationism idea wasn't taking hold, despite years of politicking and sneaking like putting disclaimer stickers on textbooks and such, the creationist minded folks came up with a new cause de celebre - intelligent design.
In a nutshell, Intelligent Design postulates that aspects of life are too complex to have come about by natural selection or evolutionary science or biology and thus must have an intelligent design source. ID supporter are quick to say (in an effort to deflect creationism in sheeps clothing attacks) that ID does not specify what the intelligence is. (Let's come back to that)
So basically, these folks cannot believe that life evolved from a complex interaction between natural forces, but have no problem believing that some guy went "abracadabra" and made everything.
The concept of ID requires some form of "higher" intelligence to have designed life on earth. So who or what is the intelligence? By their own assertions, it could be God, Zeus, Hera, Klingons, pink unicorns or blue monkeys. But somewhere along the line some form of intelligence must have designed everything because we can't currently answer every minute question. Well part of that is true, but part of it isn't.
Natural Selection is a theory that has massive support and mountains of observable data that support it. ID does not - all it has is some unanswered questions that some folks have decided requires an intelligent designer vs. just questions we have as yet been unable to answer.
Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that people widely believed that illness was based on an imbalance of humors and that bleeding was the way to fix it. Of course this was before bacteria and germs were discovered so it seemed like a good idea at the time. Today of course we know differently, but only after time and science caught up enough to answer the question.
So back to the concept of ID. Do we really believe that ID supporters would be just as happy to have aliens be the intelligent designers as God? If the idea of being descended from a monkey is such a huge affront, how are they going to feel about being cooked up in a Petri dish in some alien lab on Helion Prime?
If ID we're merely proposing an intelligent designer and not leaning toward anyone in particular, why do you suppose that the vast majority of ID supporters are all Christian Conservatives that would gleefully support creationism being taught in schools if they hadn't ruled against it?
ID recently got a boost when a pillar of the science community George W. Bush came out in support of it. This is of course the same guy who doesn't believe we have a global warming problem or any environmental issues that need addressing.
What kind of message does this send to kids who look at the president who tells them to ignore science and rationality in favor of a cockamamie scheme?
Now we've got our pal Bill Frist jumping into the mix with his own support for teaching ID in schools. This is a Harvard educated medical doctor we're talking about now. Of course this same renowned physician also testified that Terri Schaivo (a blind woman with severe brain damage) interacted with people in a meaningful way and responded to visual stimuli.
Now didn't Frist just buck the president by supporting stem cell research because it was a "matter of science" guess what bro, so is this! You can't support science one day and then scoff at it the next - this is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of this entire debate. All of the these ID supporters have absolutely no trouble taking medicine, listening to weather reports, getting surgery or launching missiles all based on the exact same science that yielded evolution.
So what's the problem? The problem is that ID is simply bad science used to counter evolution, a theory which explains life without giving credit to God. So we're going to happily call the ID supporters on their claim that their idea is even worthy of the title of theory, much less be a competitive theory for natural selection worthy of being taught in schools. ID supporters themselves concede that "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment". How convenient. But here again, that very idea means that ID is not science at all, so holding it up against a real scientific theory is like comparing the bible to actual archaeological evidence...hmmm.
It's complete crap people. I'll be the first one to go on record and admit I was wrong if they ever succeed in offering a shred of proof for this hogwash. As for Frist, I'm sure this was simply a political tactic to make up for the stem cell thing - at best he's pandering to the Christian Right in the hopes of saving his 2008 presidential bid or at worst to keep Bush from sending Karl Rove after him.
So to sum up, ID is complete malarky, but I assume they will succeed in getting it into classrooms as an alternative theory, which will only succeeding making children in those states even dumber that they already are and increase our status as most hated nation as well as educational laughingstock of the first world. Nice work.|W|P|112472245446213574|W|P|Intelligent Design Evolves!|W|P|8/22/2005 2:18 PM|W|P| Ken Grandlund|W|P|I agree that ID is just religion in scientific clothing, and go a step further and say that it's just Christian religion in scientific clothing.
And while I have no problem with comparative religion classes in general, confusing the ideas with science seem to be quite absurd.
Teach ID alongside other religious dogma and teach science alongside other science.
I think that people will be able to draw their own conclusions about how life got here without having to teach science and religion side by side as if they were intellectual equals.
Good post.8/22/2005 2:50 PM|W|P| QOB|W|P|Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is there any scientific evidence that ID is NOT a possibility? Not arguing, just wondering. I've been raised to believe creationism is valid as a theory, so this entire post has my mind racing. I want to know more.8/22/2005 2:50 PM|W|P| Rudicus|W|P|Thanks, and I agree with you - I have no problem teaching this stuff as part of a philosophy sections of a class or some kind of comparitive religion elective - that way you could include stories of Osiris, Coyote and many others.8/22/2005 3:02 PM|W|P| Rudicus|W|P|QOB,
Absolutely not - ID is an absolute possibility, but God as the intelligent designer has an equal chance as Zeus, Aliens or the Flying Spaghetti monster to be the one.
As for creationism - if you are referring to Genesis literalists who beleive that the earth was literally created in 6 days on a tuesday in October 6000 years ago, then there is plenty of evidence that that is not a possibility - UNLESS you dispute the entire validity of the field of science - in which case you are at your liberty to do so.
Also for future reference in any philosophical discussion it is widely held that you cannot prove a negative - i.e. prove that God doesn't exist or prove that the Flying spaghetti Monster didn't create California. In any argument, the burden of proof is upon the asserter.
In this case Darwin asserts naturla selection as his theory and bases it on the scientific method. And while his theory is not perfect and someday may even be proved wrong someday, it is nonetheless the most valid and accepted. With ID, there is no evidence or scientific evidence to support the theory, it merely had unanswered questions that the ID supported answer with a supreme being of some sort.
There are creationist groups that purport to have "evidence" or scientific proof that "suggests" ID, but as with the theory itself, it is based on ntohing but supposition and conjecture.
Why God couldn't come down and say "here I am" and then take credit for everything he did is beyond me - it would make everyones lives easier and would end alot of strife immediatelty.8/22/2005 3:14 PM|W|P| Phoenix|W|P|Oh good, you knew about the FSM. Hilarious letter that is.
But seriously... I only see this as a new tactic to advance the religious agenda. There are too many of us who are starting to shun recognized religion, and this is the new way of forcing the ideals onto younger generations in order to keep the numbers up.
Before we know it, if things keep going this way, we'll see burning of Darwin's books as it conflicts with religion just as the native americans were killed and their religious icons burned because it was different when christian settlers moved in on the new world.8/22/2005 7:41 PM|W|P| Codesuidae|W|P|Bush didn't exactly come out and say that he thinks ID should be taught in science classrooms. When asked he basicly said that the option should be taught, and I have to agree. He didn't say in what class, or in what manner it should be taught, just that students ought to be given the information.
I wouldn't read too much into his statements about it, his comments were the kind of answer that is intended to not piss of either side.
As for the merit of ID, well, it seems to me that it's material for a discussion in a philosophy class, but not much more than that. The reasons for its existance are obvious.
I can understand the fear that motivates those who are pushing ID into schools as an 'alternative' to evolution. They see 'science' as something that is pushing children away from their traditional belief system. They see that by taking advantage of what the children see as a credible source, they can lend their ideas equal credibility.
Some children will see this for what it is and dismiss it outright. Others will see it as an authority supporting (possibly grudgingly) the possibility of the alternative, which agrees with what they were taught in Sunday school.
The danger is that it almost necessarily supports the false idea the science and religion are at odds. The students are smart, but not experianced. They will understand that they are being told about ID in a science class because it is supported by the major religions. They might not understand that they don't have to choose, the two ideas co-exist quite peacefully.
Incidentally, historically speaking, it is unlikely that the ancient Greek gods could have been the designers in question, considering that they stole the world from the Titans.
Regarding proving a negative. This is not impossible. For example, its not difficult to prove the non-existance of a 100 megaton underground nuclear test at any given location on Earth in the last few decades. Such an event would create unmistakeable signs that many countries are set up to monitor.
Negatives that are difficult to prove are generally difficult because they involve exaustive searchs of the universe. For example, 'Faries do not exist' makes the claim that would require inspecting the entire universe to show it to be true or false. This is the sort of negative that claims of the nonexistance about gods entail.
I don't think the ideas of science are in any danger of being scrubbed out by religious zealots, its a field that provides quite a lot of answers that can be very effectively applied. Religions provide answers as well, but in different areas.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. It is my hope that some rational thinkers will agree to move ID into schools and place it firmly in the field in which it belongs, philosophy. This would require that an intro to philosophy course become part of the required course list in schools, which can only be a good thing.8/23/2005 10:16 AM|W|P| thordora|W|P|ID was brought up to a degree in the catholic schools I attended, but from what I recall, it was firmly in religon class, NOT in science. Even then, everyone I knew laughed about the idea.8/23/2005 11:46 AM|W|P| QOB|W|P|I've given this just a day's worth of thought and here's what I came up with: science cannot evolve until the definitions - defining lines - are removed and the absolutes are stripped. I wonder if a scientist who operates fully and completely within the defined lines of our current scientific "truths" could ever begin to research or analyze or consider possibilities outside said "truths"...and when someone stops considering all possibilities, they can't expand. I feel as if I don't have the vocabulary to effectively communicate my thought, so here's an example: let's say there's a realm of good and evil that effects all things. How would we begin to research around this theory if we never consider it, and how would we ever consider it considering it's so far outside current scientific "truths"? I think it would be wise for science to become more fluid. Just as it would be wise for humanity, religion, people to become more fluid.
Again, this was all just a thought. I haven't considered much past this intial thought. Just wanted to share and open it up for others' consideration.
My father, one of the wisest people I know, once said to me: As I get older, the only thing I know for certain is that I don't know anything for certain.8/23/2005 12:24 PM|W|P| Rudicus|W|P|I thought Socrates said that?
In any event you are correct, most likely the scientists would not go looking for God or an intelligent designer like that. My understanding is that there are faith-based scientists that are looking for things like that, so perhaps they will find something.
But as it stand, it wouldn't be a scientific study at present becuase there isn't anything to suggest a way to scientifically study the existence of a higher power - currently that idea is purely philosophical and has not been postulated how that being or what have you might exist within the confines of our universe. So until then it's pure speculation that is currently untestable, so a scientist would really be able to do much even if they wanted to.
Some day perhaps - maybe after we discover how to build fusion reactors or warp drives or teleporters, we may be in a better position to theorize.8/23/2005 2:21 PM|W|P| QOB|W|P|I guess what I mean is that if you say science is "THIS", then you don't allow for scient to be "THAT". It may be "THAT". We only believe we know. You really got me Rudicus, when you spoke about absolutes. So I guess scientists, even, would be wise to remember that...that there are no absolutes. None. (And I'm sure a fluid vantage of that statement would allow you to reconcile that statement to itself. It's only seemingly contradictory.)8/23/2005 3:25 PM|W|P| Glod|W|P|http://www.venganza.org/ is quite funny.
I like reading through ID sites and countering all the arguments. Though I doubt they'd listen if I told them. Maybe I should make another site, almost identical in design but about science.8/23/2005 5:48 PM|W|P| QOB|W|P|This is one of the sites I like, Geese Aplenty. Greg does not post often about heavy issues, but I liked his take on this issue.8/24/2005 1:31 PM|W|P| Codesuidae|W|P|"science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves." -Richard Feynman
That's probably the most insightful definition I've ever read about what science is. Scientists are just people who do research, any research, using methods that, when used properly, make it harder to fool themselves. There aren't any boundaries set by 'truth' or accepted principles. There are discription of events that we see are never wrong (these discriptions of what is are called laws) and there are theories about why events occurs.
If you see boundaries in scientific research, they are either boundaries of credibility or limits on your creativity.10/11/2005 7:30 PM|W|P| Editor Choice|W|P|Many Thanks for your nice blog. I will come back.
I wanted just to mention an interesting site about Religions. With more than 500 pages, Religion News and Articles:Religion Universe: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism (Daoism) and many others8/19/2005 12:31:00 PM|W|P|Rudicus|W|P|I thought it would be a nice thing to do going into the weekend to highlight some Blogs by TRR readers so you guys can go visit them and give them some traffic and comments.
If you have the time and interest, please visit these guys and give them some love - and make sure to let them know where you came from.
21st Century Gonzo
An ongoing story written by TLR starring ME(well a pumped up even cooler version of me - if that's possible)! It's a good story and is just starting to pick up steam, so now's a good time to get in on it.
Blogtemps.com
A political site written by different political bloggers around the blogosphere. Always something interesting.
Endings
This is QOB's site - it's very cool and fun and easy to participate.
The Bulldog Manifesto
Bulldog raises some major political points and has some very compelling arguments about what's really going on in this country. Start with this post.
The Master Smiled
This is a great site - Dushan is the next Lao Tzu.
The Martian Anthropologist
This is also a great political site made even greater by the comments of a wild cast of characters ranging across the political spectrum.
Tragically Deep Thoughts
This is a cool site that is a personal blog but it's about a guy who has a great perspective(and interesting life) and represents a viewpoint that is different from many other blogs - go check him out, you'll probably learn something.
And finally, buy Phoenix's book so she can get some gas money.
That's all - please take some time if you have it and visit these folks.|W|P|112447292319486546|W|P|Friends of The Rudicus Report|W|P|8/19/2005 1:20 PM|W|P| QOB|W|P|One day, about a month ago, I found myself reading 21st Century Gonzo. I remember thinking, "Oh my God, Rudicus is scary crazy man!"
I've been looking for that site for the past couple of days. (I couldn't remember the name or how I'd gotten there the first time.) Now that I've spent more time around these here parts, I'm not so intimidated by the image being painted in that story. It's a great read. Thanks for the link.
P.S. I'm asking forgiveness for the past couple of days of comments. I have come down off the 'high' I was on. I've put my soapbox away. I've grounded myself. (I re-read some of what I'd written, and it reminded me of my children when they want attention: "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!")8/19/2005 1:23 PM|W|P| Rudicus|W|P|It's what we're all here for after all - people don't post in public forums if they don't want someone to read it. We all go in cycles and I'm sure we can all put up with each other soapboxing fro time to time.
That said I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in your posts.8/19/2005 1:33 PM|W|P| thordora|W|P|That said I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in your posts.
that a good or a bad thing? :P8/19/2005 1:35 PM|W|P| Rudicus|W|P|I meant out of the ordinary for her as in nothing crazy like8/19/2005 1:39 PM|W|P| thordora|W|P|oh, and the Martian ROCKS! Finally caused my lazy butt to link to him....8/19/2005 5:00 PM|W|P| The Lone Rangers|W|P|Thanks for the feedback Rudicus, and I couldn't possibly pump you up or make you cooler than you are.
qob : he is a crazy man but only scary when he's crazy.
I've also read and linked Martian, since he keeps my Republican side balanced.8/19/2005 5:08 PM|W|P| Defiant Symmetry|W|P|Thanks for the feedback and the link, that means so much to a "young" blogger like me. I continue to learn from the expertise of people like you.8/19/2005 8:59 PM|W|P| Phoenix|W|P|Thanks for the link Rudicus.
I could really use that gas money. ;-)8/20/2005 9:37 PM|W|P| Martian Anthropologist|W|P|Bitchin'. Thanks for the link, Rudicus, and the nice comments, guys.8/21/2005 1:39 PM|W|P| dushan|W|P|k, you rock, I rock, we all rock. let's join and start a rock band! ;-)8/21/2005 1:39 PM|W|P| dushan|W|P|no seriously: Thanks!!! :-)8/22/2005 6:12 AM|W|P| The Lone Rangers|W|P|Thought you may get a kick out of this:
http://chaoscenter.blogspot.com/2005/08/coming-soon-to-bookstore-near-you.html8/19/2005 09:02:00 AM|W|P|Rudicus|W|P|It seems like the activist judges who adjudicate within the law (terri schaivo and the like) are reviled, while activist judges who adjudicate within their own belief system are A-OK. Well it comes as no surprise to me that the judges who ACTUALLY judge within the law never seem to get overturned, but the ones who attempt to impose their own religious or moral beliefs on others from the bench seem to get consistently overruled.
When we hear about the so-called "activist judges" we now know what that means - anyone who doesn't support the President, Republican controlled Government or the Moral Right.
Well now we can score another one for truth, justice and the "real" American way (which is freedom btw).
Remember this crazy story?
For those who don't recall or don't have time to re-read - this is the couple who was getting divorced and the judge told them they couldn't expose their 10 year old son to their religion of Wicca - even though both parents were in agreement on that point.
Well tough luck buddy, the law saved another person from being subject to one person's views about religion - which is why we have freedom of religion and separation of church and state in the first place - this is how it is supposed to work folks.
"In its unanimous ruling, the court declared that a Marion County judge was out of bounds in approving a divorce decree that also directed the parents to shelter their 10 year old son from non mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."*
Thanks for playing.
Not much else to say, but it's nice to see the law actually working for a change.
The only odd thing is the article ends with this line:
"Wiccan beliefs center around the balance of nature and a reverence for the earth. They do not worship Satan."*
What's that about. I agree its important to define Wicca, but do people actually think that Wiccans worship Satan? Or perhaps it's that people think anyone not Christian is a pagan and all pagans worship the Devil. Of course I'm reminded that I have people in my office who think Judaism is a pagan religion, but have no problem associating decorating Christmas trees(a pagan ceremony from a pagan religion) with Christianity.
Take the time to find out about other people, places and belief systems - it might open your eyes...oh I forgot, asking questions and being exposed to other faiths may make you question yours - never mind, stay ignorant, its safer that way.
*quotes courtesy of The Indianapolis Star by Michele McNeil|W|P|112446123750844380|W|P|Overruled!|W|P|8/19/2005 11:14 AM|W|P| Martian Anthropologist|W|P|Regarding that judge: Unbelievable. The Wiccan belief system/religion is actually a very tolerant, kind belief system.8/19/2005 6:39 PM|W|P| thordora|W|P|Wicca was the ONLY "religon" I was ever vaguely drawn to. But I remember my father being VERY nervous about his 13 year old daughter reading into it.
I found it a gentle, respectful belief system that put much emphasis on personal responsibility...While I personally had no use for it in the long run, I absolutely would support my daughters if they became witches. They'd be nice to people based on the rule of three. Good enough for me.8/19/2005 9:04 PM|W|P| Phoenix|W|P|I'm glad they told that Judge where he could shove his ruling.
Now if we could just get the mandatory mental screening for all children deemed unconstitutional...10/11/2005 10:33 AM|W|P|