Atheist Seeks End to Hill Chaplaincies (Michael Newdow at it again)

Washington Post ^ | August 30, 2002 | Jim VandeHei

[Catspaw]

The California atheist who sued to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to kick the House and Senate chaplains out of Congress.

Michael A. Newdow, a lawyer and emergency room doctor, this week filed suit in federal district court in Washington contending that it is unconstitutional for taxpayer-funded chaplains to pray in Congress and minister to lawmakers. He wants the court to prohibit the House and Senate from employing spiritual chaplains, who are paid by Congress to lead prayers, counsel members and perform other religious tasks. Chaplains make as much as $147,000 per year.

[AndrewC]

...and tell you what sort of examples to find -- again. ... You simply found an example of what I told you was there for the finding.

Interesting twist of the events. I provided Caroline and only Caroline in response to your statement ---I haven't seen any examples of atheists hating religious people, but there sure are a lot of religious people who hate Michael Newdow.

Since there is no mention of Newdow in my citation of Caroline, it obviously meets the first part of your phrase--I haven't seen any examples of atheists hating religious people. Thus once again you admit that I provided what I intended. Caroline, an atheist, hates Lott, a religious person.

[Tired of Taxes]

The region spoke Greek, The Jews spoke Greek and wrote in Greek and Hebrew, however, I think it is quite a stretch to say the new testament was written in Hebrew, if not an outright fabrication. Mind you Hebrew was a language that was more TRADITIONALLY spoken in those days.

Well, you make a good point, and perhaps you're correct that the NT was written in Greek originally. But, as the original documents did not survive, we only have copied versions on which to derive our information, and that's where the debate originates.

Atheist look at this purely from an intellectual point of view, but what you need to understand is a heartful, spiritual point of view is required too.

I think the above statement sums up the main difference between atheists and theists. To me, the words "heartful, spiritual" indicate an emotional need. And, I must admit, the emotional attraction to religion can be quite strong. I understand the attraction completely. But, I don't see how anyone "chooses" to believe or not. You either believe or you don't.

[sirchtruth]

But, as the original documents did not survive, we only have copied versions on which to derive our information, and that's where the debate originates.

I do not mean to nitpik here, but we do not know if the original copies have not survived, they may yet to be found. I do not have a problem at all debating whether the copies are true or not, it can not be substantially proved without the original. But remember the bible IS the most accurately copied, translated book in history and that is a fact which is provable. You can not find another book to even make an equal comparison too because none exist. If you use the same standards as those which are used to the nearest competitor in what constitutes accuracy, the bible withstands any test and is even more reliable.

But, I don't see how anyone "chooses" to believe or not. You either believe or you don't.

This is a very good point you've made. You either believe in the authenticity or you do not, however that beleif must come from the perspective of faith for some of the same reasons you have subscribed too. You must choose to have faith because you can not physicaly see the original.

Quickly, holography is a technique using lasers and photographic plates to produce three-dimensional images. You can not reproduce the same image unless you illuminate it with the same light in which it was created. I point this out because it reminds me of scripture. Unless you illuminate it with the original light of God it can not be fully seen for what it is.

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[Lysander]

bttt

[flyervet]

"Interesting twist of the events."

Not at all, Andy. It's a faithful and chronological recounting of the events as they occurred.


"I provided Caroline and only Caroline in response to your statement ---I haven't seen any examples of atheists hating religious people, but there sure are a lot of religious people who hate Michael Newdow."

Of course, you conveniently forget to mention that I told you what you'd be able to find out there. No problem; I expected as much from you.


"Since there is no mention of Newdow in my citation of Caroline, it obviously meets the first part of your phrase--I haven't seen any examples of atheists hating religious people."

Yawn. I told you what you'd be able to find. You went out and found it. Good dog!


"Thus once again you admit that I provided what I intended."

I don't believe I've admitted anything. However, once again you point out what you've found as if you want some sort of reward. Perhaps a large box of Milk-Bones and a squeaky chew-toy will satisfy you.

[AndrewC]

"Interesting twist of the events."

I don't do rematches. You lost. Get on with it.

[flyervet]

Of course you don't do rematches, Andrew. I didn't invite you to do one.

You can spin all you like, but the fact is, I told you what you'd find. You went out and found it. Crow all you like, but quite simply, you lost. Get over it yourself.

[AndrewC]

I haven't seen any examples of atheists hating religious people, but there sure are a lot of religious people who hate Michael Newdow.

No one is more blind than one who will not see.

Trent Lott: Hate Mongering Homophobic Christian Bigot Exposed

Here we see that we are tasked with discerning if Trent Lott is a delusional moron or if he is low-life scum politico who will mouth anything in an effort to get votes form delusional morons. Either way its delusional morons all the way down.

Sincerely, Caroline

Blind as ever.

Now doubly blind.

[flyervet]

Andrew, I already told you that I don't do rematches. But if you insist, I can certainly continue to tell you why you're wrong.

"No one is more blind than one who will not see."

And no one is more proud than one who, when defeated, will not accept the fact gracefully. Pride goeth before a fall, Andrew.

"Here we see that we are tasked with discerning if Trent Lott is a delusional moron or if he is low-life scum politico who will mouth anything in an effort to get votes form delusional morons. Either way its delusional morons all the way down."

I don't see the word "hate" anywhere on that page, except where it is used to describe Lott himself. Do you see it anywhere else on that page? Furthermore, when we conservatives use language like that to describe liberals, are we then guilty of being hateful ourselves?

We can't have it both ways, Andrew. We have to be better than the liberals we oppose, or we risk becoming like them. I'm afraid their methods may have already become part of your character.

"Blind as ever. Now doubly blind."

I think you'd better look in the mirror. It's going to take some hard scrubbing and lots of elbow grease to get that liberal stain off your character.

[AndrewC]

"No one is more blind than one who will not see."

[flyervet]

And no one is more proud than one who, when defeated, will not accept the fact gracefully. Pride goeth before a fall, Andrew.

We can't have it both ways. We have to be better than the liberals we oppose, or we risk becoming like them. I'm afraid their methods have already become part of your character.

[AndrewC]

Bats aren't, but you sure are. Persistent too. But I can also be persistent since handling a person such as you, requires little effort.

[flyervet]

Name-calling . . . the refuge of the liberal.

[AndrewC]

Name-calling . . . the refuge of the liberal.

Well, thanks for your confession, but we already know that of liberals.

[Jhoffa_]

This guy is gonna wind up catching a bullet.

My thought's exactly..

At this point, I don't even care what his argument is or if he is right. He's such a whiney putz I just want him to shut up.

[flyervet]

Andrew, the only name-calling going on here is coming from you.

I can't understand why you'd want to argue like a lib.

[AndrewC]

I can't understand why you'd want to argue like a lib.

The reason for that is that you are the one that does not see the obvious and are the "lib". You like the characterization(name calling) that you have used, namely lib, come back with the same thing after a great passage of time hoping no one will notice. This "game" goes on because you come back for a beating time after time. This discussion with you began because I said you could not see the obvious --- No one is more blind than one who will not see.. You have earned that adjective. I was not the only one to see you display that quality. Post 167 also characterizes you as "blind".