Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, July 9, 2009

Secular freedom

July 9, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

I’d like to thank Hobby Lobby for getting my favorite holiday, Independence Day, off to an insulting and un-American start with their full-page ad entitled “In God We Trust.” Faithfully regurgitating cherry-picked, out-of-context and largely irrelevant quotations spread by the Christian dominionist propaganda machine Wallbuilders and its pseudo-historian founder David Barton, they have besmirched with the usual bigotry of the religious right a day we should all have equal claim to, regardless of metaphysical speculations.

In fact, the principal founders of the nation were mostly deists, believers in an impersonal creator quite unlike the one Hobby Lobby sells, and a full, fair reading of their writings reveals this. Many were even derisively critical of core Christian beliefs, but the founders’ personal religion is irrelevant to understanding the kind of government they sought to establish, a secular one in a nation of free-thinking citizens.

Many attempts were made to put God and Jesus into the Constitution, but all were shot down, and the debate is well-documented. I can’t afford a full-page ad, so here’s the tip of an inconvenient iceberg that would cool Christian nationalists’ zeal, if they’d get their fingers out of their ears:

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear.” — Thomas Jefferson

Springsteen is from Lawrence

Comments

cato_the_elder 5 years, 5 months ago

BS has his panties in a bunch feeling the need to respond, albeit feebly, to Nancy Keel's thoughtful letter yesterday thanking Hobby Lobby for its full-page ad on the Fourth of July. Given the companion letter today from a writer who apparently hates our military, Blue 73's post is right on.

Jason Bailey 5 years, 5 months ago

Last time I checked, a) companies have the right to place any ad they wish in any publication they wish, b) publications have the right to reject any submitted ad they wish, c) you have the right to read or not read any ad that you wish, d) you have the right to not shop at any establishment that places an ad that you feel is offensive in some way.

Mr. Springsteen, you do not, however, have a right to impose your points of view on a company with which you disagree. I agree with you regarding Christians picking and choosing which quotes of Founding Fathers they wish to use to support their point of view while tossing out the deist points that most Founding Fathers clearly had. It's a myopic view of history and the men that comprised our history. With that said, Hobby Lobby is owned by an openly Christian family and, since you're a freedom loving Liberal, you surely support a company's right to free speech, right? Ooops, I just made a mess on the floor by tossing out the hypocrisy grenade.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Does anyone have a link to the actual ad?

George_Braziller 5 years, 5 months ago

Hobby Lobby is a big supporter of the Westboro Baptist "Church." That alone is a good enough reason for me to not shop there.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 5 months ago

No one is trying to stifle the speech of Hobby Lobby and other dominionists. However, Mr. Springsteen is pointing out the irony embodied in their message that is clearly antithetical to the founders' intentions.

monkeyhawk 5 years, 5 months ago

I, too, would like to thank Hobby Lobby for getting Springsteen's favorite holiday, Independence Day, off to an insulting and un-American start with their full-page ad entitled “In God We Trust.” It's too bad that his sensibilities were so affected that he could not celebrate his freedom without the vision of that despicable ad. I hope nobody ever throws holy water on him.

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 5 months ago

Not sure where da boss said Hobby Lobby had no right to print. Looks like to me he just expressing his opinion.

What is the difference between imposing an opinion and expressing an opinion?

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Cappy... "Mr. Springsteen is pointing out the irony embodied in their message that is clearly antithetical to the founders' intentions."

It was antithetical to the founders' intentions for people to have the right to freely express their religious convictions, and be grateful our nation gives us these freedoms?

salad 5 years, 5 months ago

Independence day has little to do with religion. It's all about tellin' your oppressors to go *$&#^% themselves and then blow stuff up!

I gotta say though, if I were runnin' a paper in this environment, and someone wanted to pay for a full page ad, I'd take their money.

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 5 months ago

Stopped reading after the terrible first paragraph.

JohnBrown 5 years, 5 months ago

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says… "Given the companion letter today from a writer who apparently hates our military..."

Cato, quit wrapping yourself in our flag. If you really cared about our troops you wouldn't have supported their cynical use in the Iraqi invasion, and you would still be worrying about their continued sacrifice in a pointless war that prevents the USA from being combat ready today.

Iran is stronger today because you and the other Neocons kicked that sleeping dog, Saddam. Because of that stupid invasion, out troops everywhere are at greater risk today. Thanks to you.

WHY 5 years, 5 months ago

Why are christians afraid of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean agreeing with some one else. It just means respecting the freedom of all members to move around in the common areas of life with out being attacked. Christians do your worshiping in your house and I will do my nasty pagan things in my house, and then we will all go to Wal-Mart and just buy the stuff we need without bothering anyone. Easy.

bankboy119 5 years, 5 months ago

WHY,

The Christians weren't demanding anybody become Christian. They bought an ad....the same way you see ads in the paper for strip clubs, bars, Priscilla's or whatever it's called now. Should we say the non-Christian establishments are not being tolerant of Christians, or many other religions for that matter, by promoting a lifestyle that doesn't follow their beliefs? No.

The same goes for Hobby Lobby taking out an In God We Trust ad. Get over it.

WHY 5 years, 5 months ago

bankboy119- good point and I am over it (the hobby thing). But on a side note I don't understand the religious rights avoidance of tolerance. They treat tolerance as a bad thing when respectful society seems to require more of it.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

WHY (Anonymous) says…

"Why are christians afraid of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean agreeing with some one else. It just means respecting the freedom of all members to move around in the common areas of life with out being attacked."

It is apparent to me that many of you are being intolerant of Christians. I have not seen the ad that stirred all this up, and am curious to see it now, but really, I doubt it is worth all this anti-Christian rhetoric being bandied about.

And, trying to explain exactly what the founding fathers meant by drafting the constitution by telling us they were personnally "Deists, or Episcapilons, or Quakers, or Atheists" or whatever is ridiculous. Lawyers and judges have been debating what exactly the constitution means for hundreds of years, so it is hardly a clear and concise, simple worded document to interpret. These founding fathers also owned slaves, believed only white men who owned property could vote, and willfully decieved and killed the Natives to aquire their land. This does not mean that they didn't have a good idea when they drafted the constitution, it just means do not try to justify your arguments on their personal lives like it is above reproach.

Many people came to this country to be able to practice their religion free from persecution. Most people believe that is a protected right guaranteed in the constitution. Some of you should think about that when you are attacking Christian beliefs. Like it or not, religion has played a very important role in the founding and development of this country.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"Some of you should think about that when you are attacking Christian beliefs"

You make a lot of good points in your post, practicality, but there is a difference between "attacks on Christian beliefs" and resistance to the very real desire (and actions) of hard-right Christians to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

boltzmann 5 years, 5 months ago

Practicality, please explain to me how someone stating that they disagree with someone else's opinion with regard to the role of religion in the founding of the USA is an act of "intolerance" and anti-Christian. It seems to me that you are labeling as "anti-Christian" the mere fact that other people exist who do not believe as you do.

bankboy119 5 years, 5 months ago

It depends what your definition of tolerance is. And I don't think it's only Christians that have the challenge of balancing their faith and "tolerance".

If you adhere to any particular religion isn't the goal to please your god? Even if you're an Atheist your god is you so you live to please yourself. If you're Christian and the Bible says that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, should you not practice what it commands? Should you not grieve because you see people dying around you going to hell because their savior isn't Jesus?

With Islam, should you not want people practicing their 5 (or 7?) pillars of faith and making their prayers every day? If you believe that if you don't practice what the Qur'an teaches Allah will condemn you to hell should you not try and get people to follow your example?

What about with Atheism? You don't believe in a god so shouldn't you convince people that having faith in a supernatural being is wrong? You see them as living under laws that are ridiculous and missing out on certain aspects of life.

No matter what you practice, tolerance does not mean you have to accept what others are doing as right. The discussion of what steps to take in each religion against nonbelievers is completely different.

maybeso 5 years, 5 months ago

Yikes, is the Phelps family/Westboro Baptist Church really involved with HobLob in Lawrence? Can you verify, George B? I need to know.

ksdivakat 5 years, 5 months ago

WHY....I would hardly call the liberals who post on these threads as "respectfully tolerent" and just where did any "christian" say they did not tolerate others who did not believe like we do?? I have never seen that on here. What I have seen, is that anytime the word, religion, christian, or anything remotely related to faith is mentioned, then liberals tend to jump on here and the bashing begins. So show me where someone has tried to convert you, or advised you that you were wrong for not believing what we believe?? The issue with what the "founding Fathers" of this country said can be explained away in the exact same line of reasoning as you explain away the bible. The bible, according to liberals is nothing more than a record of history, and not all of history, so how is one to believe it to be true, when not all the facts are there, and there is nobody living to prove or disprove the facts?? The same can be said about Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Adams...etc....those quotes are from someone who "historically" recorded them, how are we to know they are true?? There is nobody living who can prove these things were said??? Hobby Lobby does NOT support westboro, this is more rhetoric from the left. The fact is...the Phelps do not allow anyone outside family to even attend their church let alone financially support it...and the last I knew, the owners of hobby lobby were not related to the crazy Phelps. I respect your disbelief, and am very tolerant of anothers view, I will not try to "convert" you and ask that you not try to "convert" me either......but there is no fear of tolerence from the right, but rather why waste time trying to explain that to people who dont believe it anyway, and choose to believe that all christians are bad?? The fact is, we dont care that you think we are bad, doesnt affect the way we believe or the way we worship. I just wanted to take the time to say that the tolerence street goes both ways....except here in lawrence!

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus says,

"there is a difference between “attacks on Christian beliefs” and resistance to the very real desire (and actions) of hard-right Christians to impose their beliefs on everyone else."

Even though I do not necessarily believe that "hard-right" Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on me, using that logic could it not also be argued that hard-left athesists are trying to impose their beliefs on everyone as well? I mean really, if people can advertise sex, cigarrettes, and alcohol freely on every billboard, commercial, magazine, and newspaper advertisments, why does everyone really get so bent out of shape when someone mentions God?

kmat 5 years, 5 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says… And, trying to explain exactly what the founding fathers meant by drafting the constitution by telling us they were personnally “Deists, or Episcapilons, or Quakers, or Atheists” or whatever is ridiculous.


You need to read what was written at the time by our founding fathers. Then you'd understand. They were pretty clear about it all.

It's very obvious that American History is taught well in our schools. Everyone should have to read more than the little bits thrown at us in school.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

Oh kmat, please enlighten me to what you think the constitution means concerning what I said. I am all ears.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

logicsound09,

I also was referring to all the statements made yesterday in the thread to the article "Nation of Faith." As for this article I agree that there has only been a few, so far.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound09… “No, it's ironic because Hobby Lobby was using their freedom of expression to express a misguided view about the basis for our country, much like yesterday's letter to the editor.”

How is it a misguided view about the basis of our country by putting “God Bless America” in an advertisement? That sounds like quite a logical leap.

cato_the_elder 5 years, 5 months ago

JohnBrown, it's mid-2009, the current presidential office holder and his enablers are working full-bore to impose a collectivist political system on the free citizens of this country, and you are still behind the times suffering from a bad case of BDS. I suggest that you consult the physician of your choice while that opportunity is still available to you.

ksdivakat 5 years, 5 months ago

BABBOY and anyone else....."So, blueharley, would you say the religious right and their conservative buddies are tolerant of liberals?" Of course he cant say that, as he doesnt speak for EVERY christian out there, just as liberals should not generalize christians. ITs up to each individual as to how and why they deal with faith or the disbelief of faith. The live and let live attitude comes from this, we do believe in a higher power and that there is something out there bigger than us, we chose to call that power God/Jesus/Ali, whatever word you want to throw out there. However, what one believes beyond that is an individual decision, and being tolerent of liberals is ok in my book, your attitudes and actions are not going to affect me in the least when we all die, so in the end, it really doesnt matter. If there is a God, and if there is a heaven, then some are going to go and some are not, end of story, if there is none, then its over. But most people I associate with and fellowship with, believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions and that everyone including athiests should be able to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution and rejection. We just ask, that you give us the same thing.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"using that logic could it not also be argued that hard-left athesists are trying to impose their beliefs on everyone as well? I mean really, if people can advertise sex, cigarrettes, and alcohol freely on every billboard, commercial, magazine, and newspaper advertisments, why does everyone really get so bent out of shape when someone mentions God?"

"Hard-left atheists" are not advertising sex, cigarettes and alcohol. And if this issue were really about the mere mention of God, there would be no issue. The issue is that some Christians think that this should be a theological state, based on their theology, and even try to claim that that's what the founding fathers wanted.

kmat 5 years, 5 months ago

Practicality - what I said was you need to read what the founding fathers wrote. Go educate yourself. Since you find it so hard to use google, here's a link from constitution.org with the writings, dealing with the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (specifically the debates are a good read). Thomas Jefferson documents are good.

Like I said, our schools barely teach anything about American history and it's really sad. How many of you have actually ever read much beyond what the basic text books had?

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fcollection=65&Itemid=27

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Please stop twisting a simple public display of faith and/or religious conviction as a trampling on your rights. Stereotypical claims that Christians are intolerant is just ignorant.

Too many of the atheist/agnostics want to be a perpetual victim and claim a simple advertisement is some how unpatriotic and wants to rewrite history to "prove" faith in a higher power is irrelevant to our nation's founding. Only the ignorant think that because our history is substantially influenced by a freedom of religion, means anything other than just that. It doesn't mean one religion is right, or our constitution is a religious document designed to create a theocracy. The history of our nation doesn't mean anyone wants to take away any of your rights, so again stop whining.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 5 months ago

Practicality says: Like it or not, religion has played a very important role in the founding and development of this country.


the very same thing could be said about slavery. But we all now know that was wrong too. religion is a lie, it is only there to control the masses for dominant power.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Bozo… “The issue is that some Christians think that this should be a theological state, based on their theology, and even try to claim that that's what the founding fathers wanted.”

Who has said anything even close to this? If anyone has actually (not implicitly) made that argument I want to know, because I adamantly disagree.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical says: Stereotypical claims that Christians are intolerant is just ignorant.


I think as a whole, most religions are inherently intolerant. If they weren't then there wouldn't be so many factions. Christianity is split into how many different religions? dozens, if not hundreds. each one claiming that theirs is the only TRUE way to god and happiness. many condemning all other religions as heretics and heathens. The Salem witch trials and crusades were all done in the name of Christianity. not very tolerant it seems.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

AreUNorml… “religion is a lie, it is only there to control the masses for dominant power. “

Whether or not religion is a lie, or slavery is immoral doesn’t change our nations history. You didn’t contradict Practicality’s point.

Also, you should refrain from making assumption:

Practicality did NOT say “Since religion has played an important role in the founding a development of this country, therefore…(ex: our nation was suppose to be a theorcracy). He didn’t make a conclusion, he just stated a fact. Stop feigning victimhood when no one is arguing to take away your rights.

exhawktown 5 years, 5 months ago

Bruce--don't shop at Hobby Lobby. Do your thing. Let others do theirs. Even business owners have a right to express themselves. If you don't like it, don't spend your money there. And, as stated before by another individual, "turn the page."

jimmyjms 5 years, 5 months ago

"The bible, according to liberals is nothing more than a record of history"

Say what? Replace "history" with "made-up fantasy", and you may be closer to a (stereotypical) truth, but I'm not aware of any liberals saying that the Bible is "record of history."

BTW - shouldn't "Bible" and "Christianity" be capitalized?

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

kmat,

I am well read on the subject. Your arrogance is quite unbecoming. Obviously you seem to have taken offense to what I said and are acting like I never have read the constitution, bill of rights, 1st amendment. Yet you fail to clarify what it is that you disagree with. Please stop acting like you are the only person who took Western Civ I and II. It is really quite common for people who attended college

MarchSadness 5 years, 5 months ago

Mr BSS, you have completely embarrassed yourself with this letter. You must not spend US currency either since it also has the evil message of "In God We Trust" on there too. People like you make me dislike Lawrence, KS so much. This town would be better off without people like yourself.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

AreUNorml… “The Salem witch trials and crusades were all done in the name of Christianity. not very tolerant it seems.”

First, giving historical examples of SOME alleged Christians being intolerant does not prove the stereotypical claim that Christians are intolerant.

Second, even if you could prove that historically all Christians were intolerant, doesn’t prove today Christians are intolerant.

“I think as a whole, most religions are inherently intolerant. If they weren't then there wouldn't be so many factions.” - AreUNorml

You seem to not understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Tolerance: “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.”

Acceptance: “favorable reception; approval” See dictionary.com

Simply because religions disagree with one another over correct doctrine, or don’t “approve” or “agree” with everything doesn’t mean they aren’t tolerant. In order to prove Christians are intolerant they would have to not allow the other sects to exist at all, or constantly persecute and/or harass (rather than just disagree with) other beliefs.

By your definition of tolerance, anyone who believes anything is intolerant. For example if you believed in “X,” and someone believe in “not X,” then both of you are being intolerant of each other? Of course not, it just means you don’t agree with or approve of the other persons belief, but can still be tolerant by agreeing to disagree and have a “permissive attitude toward (their) opinions.”

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

MarchSadness….

I don’t want to see you around Lawrence come March 2010. You hear me! : )

Stuart Evans 5 years, 5 months ago

Breaking news: Live police action taking place now on N.3rd Street. 2 white suspects male/female in a white car. lots of cops, lots of guns.

MarchSadness 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical- I know, I really should change my name on here. I made it after we lost for the second straight year in the first round.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

AreUNorml,

I am sure you can list many horrible things done in the name of Christianity throughout the history of the world. We all can. But, just because the Romans of 2000 years ago tried to conquer the known world does not mean the citizens of Rome today are still trying. That is the type of logic you are using and it is faulty. Taking incidents and beliefs out of the era in which they were held and attributing them to modern day is idiotic.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jimmyjms…. “Say what? Replace “history” with “made-up fantasy”, and you may be closer to a (stereotypical) truth, but I'm not aware of any liberals saying that the Bible is “record of history.””

You might want to talk to a Jewish scholar about whether any of the Torah (Old Testament) has any factual history. You may disagree with the parts referencing divine intervention; but I think most historians (including liberals) commonly accept it as having some historical accuracy concerning the history if the Jews and the region.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

Also, I would like to point out that claiming the owner of Hobby Lobby is a member of the Westboro Babtist Church or a member of the Phelps brood without any proof is just plain wrong. People in Lawrence will gossip that around and that family would lose business on careless untruths like that.

Tony Kisner 5 years, 5 months ago

I missed the ad, were those cute little baskets on sale? I have been waiting to go on sale.

Bruce, this is just another example of how everyone is out to get you. Hobby Lobby, Pizza Hut, those black helicopters..........

jimmyjms 5 years, 5 months ago

"You may disagree with the parts referencing divine intervention; but I think most historians (including liberals) commonly accept it as having some historical accuracy concerning the history if the Jews and the region"

Were you attempting to define "parsing" with this answer?

There's huge difference between saying something is the "historical record" and saying that something has "some historical accuracy", is there not?

And I'm not aware of anyone on this thread referencing the history of Jews in the region.

It's obvious, I should think, that the poster was saying that the Bible, miracles and all, was a historical record. And I think you'd have a difficult time finding a historian, of any political stripe outside of evangelical Christians, that would agree with that.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

jimmyjms…..

No, here is the problem: you like many others on this board are taking logical leaps and making assumption that what someone else is saying is the opposite of what you think is correct in order to start an argument, rather than actually reading what they wrote.

You assume that when someone else references the Bible as a historical record they are making a blanket statement include “miracles and all.” But when you claim it isn’t history and instead a “made-up fantasy,” you think it is “parsing” when someone rebuts your claim that the Bible has some historical accuracy, claiming you weren’t making a blanket statement. In short you seem to want to apply other people’s statements universally, but when someone else does the same to your statement (even when it is much more logical to do so based on context), they are “parsing”? Are you attempting to defining hypocrisy?

P.S. Thank you for falling into my trap.

Jeff Dean 5 years, 5 months ago

Feel free to spend your money an Michaels, that is what I do. It's just as good as Hobby Lobby.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound09….

Out of curiosity, why did you stop including the person you were writing to at the beginning of your post?

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Okay, I think we have all effectively established that Bruce S. Springsteen is either delusional, or has a bone to pick, since Hobby Lobby's ad didn't reference anything he wrote about, and is simply a declaration of faith and/or showing gratitude for the 1st amendment freedoms we all enjoy on our Nation's birthday.

Simply saying "In God We Trust" doesn't mean our nation should be a theocracy, and any assumption otherwise is wrong.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound09…. “I've always been fairly inconsistent at that.”

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems whenever you write to me you always include my name. It’s not a big deal, but if I leave a blog for a bit and comeback often I will just scroll for my name, and if I don’t see it I move on (because most everyone else’s comments aren’t worth discussing/defending).

Also, could you explain what is this thing you call "outside the blog world." Could you describe it to those of us who have never seen it?

jimmyjms 5 years, 5 months ago

"P.S. Thank you for falling into my trap."

Hmmm. Not too sure about your answer there, as you seem to have missed the point, entirely.

ksdivakat stated that liberals refer to the Bible as a "historical record". My point wasn't to debate the historical accuracy of the Bible (which even you have indicated can only be referenced as historical "some" of the time); I was pointing out that most liberals would would take issue with having that viewpoint attributed to them.

If you'll take the time to reread what I posted, it should be quite obvious. So your saying "you claim it isn’t history and instead a “made-up fantasy” completely misses the mark. I never said such a thing, and the fact that I included the label "stereotypical" in the following sentence in reference to liberals should have shown you that.

Lastly, you threw in the Old Testament and the views of Rabbinical scholars vis-a-vis the historical accuracy angle - as this was totally outside the scope of the conversation and served only to support your viewpoint, I think it can pretty fairly be labeled as parsing.

BTW - what's up with setting "traps" on a message board? You might consider getting out a little more.

JackKats 5 years, 5 months ago

Bruce,

I find it laughable that you fight so hard and take so much of your time fighting something you don't think exist. God is and no matter how hard you fight, and repeat your hatred towards Him, you can not make him go away.

So as your hatred boils down deep with in the deepest recesses of your being, I say this prayer to God for you.

God, please give to Bruce the reward of his actions and the fruit of his work. May your grace be withheld so he may know by its absence, that you have been blessing him all the while as he fights against you.

ksdivakat 5 years, 5 months ago

logicsound...."I believe the source of your problem is using anything ksdivakat said as a basis for intellectual debate"

God Bless you logic...and have a wonderful day! Its a beautiful day out there...may the sun always shine on your face......

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

Again, I have not seen the ad, but I thought everyone agreed all it said was "God Bless America", is that all it said? And, if it did say that, how is that twisting the Constitution?

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jimmyjms… “My point wasn't to debate the historical accuracy of the Bible…”

Whether or not this was your “point,” you made a statement that the Bible was not history, but rather “made-up fantasy” (see your post at 11:10 to see if you ever said such a thing). I countered your statement, but declaring the Bible is not entirely fantasy, even if you are an atheist.

“I was pointing out that most liberals would would take issue with having that viewpoint attributed to them.” - jimmyjms

I countered this point by claiming most historical scholars (including liberals) agree with the statement that the Bible is a “record of history.” You claim the Bible is made-up fantasy, which I defend as saying that is not entirely correct and you claim I am parsing? They are your words. Be more specific in the future if you don’t want to be corrected, or at least don't universally apply others statements, and not expect the same be done to yours.

“I think it can pretty fairly be labeled as parsing.” - jimmyjms

Ksdivakat could pretty fairly label your comment as “parsing” when you assumed she was referencing all divine intervention in the Bible, when she said it was a “historical record.” Again, seems like need to take some of your own medicine.

“BTW - what's up with setting “traps” on a message board? You might consider getting out a little more.” - jimmyjms

Everyone has their own source of entertainment. I enjoy proving other people wrong. But I appreciate your concern for my well-being.

jimmyjms 5 years, 5 months ago

"you made a statement that the Bible was not history, but rather “made-up fantasy”"

Again, you're incorrect regarding this statement. Read it again if you must, but you're wrong.

"I countered this point by claiming most historical scholars (including liberals) agree with the statement that the Bible is a “record of history.”"

OK - name some.

"I enjoy proving other people wrong."

Your average in this regard is not particularly good.

QuestionMan 5 years, 5 months ago

"C.S. Lewis once reminded Christians that human beings live forever, while the state is only temporal, and thus is reserved to comparative insignificance. And to spend your time altering the state when you could be spending your time giving people eternal salvation is a bad bargain." John MacCarthur

If you want to see more that will give you a different view of what some Christians think about trying to shape and run government, I encourage you to start at: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/45-97

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Pywacket…

I respect your opinion however, I disagree. I do not see this advertisement as propaganda, any more than when any business engages in community service by donating money, subsidizing or encouraging employees to serve other, etc. Obviously when a business engages in community service they are aware there is a possibility of communal good will that results. This does not mean their efforts were not altruistic. Perhaps some businesses give back to the community solely for selfish purposes, and others just want to make the community they live in, and where they provide their services a better place to live.

“The issue isn't about whether they have the RIGHT to do it, but rather whether they exercised good business sense and honesty in their expression of “free speech.”” - Pywacket

When I see a company running an advertisement giving thanks for the freedoms we enjoy living in the greatest nation on earth, I don’t see subterfuge or assume they are being disingenuous. While it is possible one exists, I tend to give people and businesses the benefit of the doubt. I think they are simply showing gratitude. But perhaps I am just an optimist.

“Rabid religious nuts are well known for attempting to mislead and deceive anyone they can get to listen to them.” - Pywacket

Is this not true for most fundamentalist? It seems you want to pick on those who have religious convictions.

Also, if simply espousing one's beliefs in public is your definition of a "religious nut", then I think you have some issues.

“Obviously, they have a right to spout their beliefs and even to print out-of-context and very misleading statements…” - Pywacket

What part of the advertisement was “out-of-context” or “very misleading”? I think most reasonable people who don’t look for evil purposes behind the motives of anyone with which we disagree see this for exactly what it is; an expression of gratitude

"I'd like to see the responses from these same hypocrites if an atheist or Muslim proprietor ran a parallel ad, twisting the Constitution to their message and attempting to use their business as a recruitment tool.” – Pywacket

First, I have no issue with an atheist or a Muslim running any ad, especially one being grateful for living in a country that allows them to believe, or not believe as they wish. I think that would be great.

Second, specifically how did this ad “twist the Constitution?”

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Pywacket…

I wonder what your opinion would be if the ad stated something to the effect of “America is great because if gives a woman the right to choose.” Would you see that propaganda by rabid feminists attempting to mislead and deceive anyone they can get to listen to them? Would that be ramming their beliefs down the throats of the community or their patrons?

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 5 months ago

After reading the ad, I say their intent is crystal clear IMHO. What do you think Practicality?

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jimmyjms… “Again, you're incorrect regarding this statement. Read it again if you must, but you're wrong”

Here is your exact statement at 11:10: “’The bible, according to liberals is nothing more than a record of history’

Say what? Replace ‘history’ with ‘made-up fantasy’, and you may be closer to a (stereotypical) truth, but I'm not aware of any liberals saying that the Bible is ‘record of history.’”

“OK - name some.” - jimmyjms

Lol, are you seriously claiming there are no historians that are liberal and believe the Torah has some historical facts? Until I find a random name you seriously won't believe this statement?

“Your average in this regard is not particularly good.” - jimmyjms

Coming from you that really hurts. Way to back up your claim with evidence.

gogoplata 5 years, 5 months ago

I love how both Christians and antiChristians love to lay claim to what the founders believed. Yet both sides support politicians who have no regard for the Constitution that these founders set up as the rule of law.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

QuestionMan….

I have a question for you. Do you think C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest writers of his generation, was implying that Christians shouldn’t be civically active at all?

vinceparker 5 years, 5 months ago

HOBBY LOBBY and FRED PHELPS: Hobby Lobby is in no way affiliated with Fred Phelps. Hobby Lobby does contribute to various Christian charities. The confusion may come between David Green of Hobby Lobby, and David Greene of the First Amendment Project, who has defended Phelps.

jimmyjms 5 years, 5 months ago

"Say what? Replace ‘history’ with ‘made-up fantasy’, and you may be closer to a (stereotypical) truth, but I'm not aware of any liberals saying that the Bible is ‘record of history.’”

Wow. So what you're saying is that you need the freaking cliff notes to this post to get the drift? Alrighty.

"Replace ‘history’ with ‘made-up fantasy’, and you may be closer to a (stereotypical representation of what liberals actually perceive - in a stereotypical and generalized way) in regard to the historical truth of the Bible."

"Lol, are you seriously claiming there are no historians that are liberal and believe the Torah has some historical facts?"

No, I didn't say that at all(why are we talking now about the Torah?). But it's fairly ironic that the same person who is attempting to chastise me with "way to back up your claim with evidence" is trying to refute a point that he obviously doesn't grasp with vague allusions to unnamed people regarding a very small part (Jews in the region) of a text and in a scenario that, again, misses the point completely.

You are welcome to believe whatever the hell it is that you're attempting to talk about. Have at it.

What I said (and all that I said) is that saying that liberals believe the Bible to be a "historical record" of the time, as the original poster put it, is quite simply not accurate. This stands true for some conservatives as well.

It was you that parsed the sentence to differentiate between the "magical" and "non-magical" parts of the Bible, and of Jews in the region, and of Rabbinical scholarship, non-sequiturs all.

dweezil222 5 years, 5 months ago

I'll be happy to continue shopping at those businesses, and it doesn't matter to me whether the proprietors are Christian, Muslim, atheist, Jewish, or share my reverence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

================================ rAmen!

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

After reviewing the actual ad I still simply see it as proselyting/ gratitude.

Hobby Lobby doesn’t isn’t required to show two sides in order for the ad to be “true,” and proselyting isn’t propaganda. Are the people who posted quotes from the Founding Father’s indicating our nation isn’t a religious one also guilty of propaganda? Is someone guilty of propaganda whenever they try to advocate for something or someone?

Does anyone disagree these quotes are genuine, or simply disagrees what the quotes explicitly state, or imply? Our nation has been influenced by religious liberty, and Christianity specifically, no honest person can deny this. Again, this does not mean, and no one has stated this means our nation is, or should be a theocracy.

I think their purpose can be surmised from the bottom of the ad which states “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,” and then gives contact information “To learn how to being a relationship with Christ”

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jimmyjms… Ah, you have done what almost everyone does when I have proven them wrong; attempted to re-write your original statement. But even then you are still wrong.

I don’t need cliff notes because your statement was quite clear, you think it is stereotypically true that the Bible is closer to a “made-up fantasy” than historical, and that liberals don’t think the Bible is a “record of history.” You are wrong on both accounts which I have shown numerous times.

If you intended otherwise you should have said so, or agreed with my “parsing” statement and moved on. Instead you choose to engage in this pointless debate about what it was you actually said.

The Torah is part of the Old Testament, which is part of the Bible. I can understand why you wouldn’t know that fact.

You seriously don’t see the difference between backing up a broad generalization with facts, and making a logical conclusion which doesn’t require facts? I have stated why I don’t need facts, but you have not. Again, I see no need to provide random names, when it would be illogical to assume there are no liberal historians that think the Bible has some historical facts.

You have the burden of proving all liberal historians don’t think that. All I would have to show is one who did. Do you really want to engage in that contest? You doubt the veracity of that statement so much you actually need facts? You and I both know, you don’t need names, your just want to engage in another pointless argument because you can’t defend your previous statement and want to waste my time.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

cont'd

“What I said (and all that I said) is that saying that liberals believe the Bible to be a “historical record” of the time, as the original poster put it, is quite simply not accurate.” - jimmyjms

Again, you aren’t being specific, I would have thought you learned. If you mean SOME liberals, then say so, if you mean the divine parts are historical, then say so. Since I don’t like to assume, I am not going to put those words in your statement and read it as it is written, which is universally.

Liberals do see it as being a historical record, maybe not to all, but much of it. Your statement can easily be inferred to be universal, so again, all I would need to do is show evidence of 1 liberal who do see it as a historical record and you are wrong. Since it would be insane to not believe 1 such liberal exists, evidence will not be provided to the insane.

You are losing. I have seen this time and time again on this board by others. It is best to just give up and end this pointless debate. Nothing is being solved other than you showing you didn’t mean what you really said, and your main point was something that isn’t entirely accurate. If you want the last word that is fine, but I see no point in continuing to prove you wrong, and engaging in these tangential arguments which serve no purpose. In fact I am upset with myself for wasting so much time on your mindless arguments.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

SupertrampofKansas,

Thank you for posting the Ad. I had not seen it. I agree that it is more than just a blanket statement like "America is great, God Bless America" like I had thought. I will have to get back to you about my opionion.

jimmyjms 5 years, 5 months ago

"you think it is stereotypically true that the Bible is closer to a “made-up fantasy” than historical, and that liberals don’t think the Bible is a “record of history.”"

Um, what? No. That's not even close.

"You are wrong on both accounts which I have shown numerous times."

You said it numerous times. You've proven absolutely nothing.

"I have stated why I don’t need facts"

Wow.

This - "If you mean SOME liberals, then say so" from the same person who is arguing that liberals do see it as a historical record, but only some of it....what?

"Liberals do see it as being a historical record"

All liberals?

"all I would need to do is show evidence of 1 liberal who do see it as a historical record and you are wrong."

Reread the above - and then the following.

"Again, you aren’t being specific, I would have thought you learned. If you mean SOME liberals, then say so, if you mean the divine parts are historical, then say so."

Whee. Get some actual, physical friends. You've made a mountain out of a mole-hill here. Most liberals do not accept the Bible as a "historical document"...because people don't return from the dead, bushes don't speak, and walking on water is hard to do without skis. Arguing that because the Bible also describes the whereabouts of Jews at the time makes the entire document "historical" is laughable. But you seem like a very unhappy little person.

Enjoy your "trap setting". Seems pretty pathetic, however.

llama726 5 years, 5 months ago

Wow. I'm so sick of intolerant Christians complaining about people being intolerant of their intolerance. So many of you hard line Protestants are desperate to be oppressed that you look for ANY opposition to Christianity and bemoan how you are being crushed by the insensitivity of people to your faith. While things like Priscilla's ads might be in the paper (rarely), there's nothing that says Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless America in the paper, there's nothing that says There Is No God in the paper. Why? Because while people like me who are not that religious don't care if that makes you feel better, if I put something saying there is no God or something similar in an ad in the paper (assuming it'd even get run), you'd protest the paper and wouldn't shop from any of the other advertisers. That's the difference. You make a big deal over words on a piece of paper, I don't care because I am comfortable with myself and how I conduct myself. PS - I'm not saying I'm not a Christian per se, but I don't fall in line with the idea that to be a Christian, you have to jam it down everyone's throats. Go live your life and be a good person - stop arguing on the internet.

Mixolydian 5 years, 5 months ago

Holy moly!

Put the thesaurus down Bruce and just back slowly away before you hurt yourself anymore.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 5 months ago

On christian victimhood: I heard someone once speak about "Christians are so oppressed. But fear not, some day christians will be allowed to freely worship in untaxed sanctuaries. Someday a christian will be elected to public office, maybe even President". (obvious snark)

And as for strip club ads, Priscilla's ads and such...heck, those ads are intended FOR christians.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

llama726,

Maybe you do not get out to Topeka much, but this Billboard was up about a month ago.

http://www.cjonline.com/news/local/2009-03-27/no_religion_billboard_up_in_topeka

Both this billboard and the ad by Hobby Lobby are advertisements. Intended to sway people to their personal beliefs of how they would like the world to think. The tolerance street goes both ways.

llama726 5 years, 5 months ago

I don't care about the Hobby Lobby ad. The Hobby Lobby ad didn't get a newspaper article because it was an ad, and it is accepted as normal. I don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby ad. I'm at work, so I can't look now, but I'm guessing there has been some backlash to such a billboard. Probably more of a backlash than a single letter to the editor.

kmat 5 years, 5 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says…

kmat,

I am well read on the subject. Your arrogance is quite unbecoming. Obviously you seem to have taken offense to what I said and are acting like I never have read the constitution, bill of rights, 1st amendment. Yet you fail to clarify what it is that you disagree with. Please stop acting like you are the only person who took Western Civ I and II. It is really quite common for people who attended college


You're showing that you weren't a good student, Practicality.

I didn't say anything about reading the Constitution, Bill of Rights, st Ammendment (by the way, that's in the BOR).

I said read what the founding fathers had to say. I provided great links. Most people haven't ever read or studied much of the debates and letters.

I have clarified what I disagree with. You're reading comprehension needs some work. I posted what I disagreed with and provided you links so you can understand.

You said: "And, trying to explain exactly what the founding fathers meant by drafting the constitution by telling us they were personnally “Deists, or Episcapilons, or Quakers, or Atheists” or whatever is ridiculous."

If you would read the debates and other info outside of the constitution, you will understand what the founding fathers meant.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

You are probably correct about the backlash to the billboard. I have not looked either. There has been multiple billboards in multiple cities funded by this Freedom From Religion oganization, so I am sure there has been backlash. In my opionon though, Hobby Lobby has a right to fund their ad just as this Freedom from Religion has the right to fund this billboard. I do not believe either advertisments are as offensive as some advertisements by companies selling their products.

I find it hard to believe that the advertisement by Hobby Lobby could actually ruin someone's Fourth of July though. Although, from a business standpoint, after reading all these posts, it might not have been a smart move to do so.

Practicality 5 years, 5 months ago

kmat,

Sigh, you missed the point, again. The argument concerning Religion is irrelevant to what the founding fathers personally believed. That is what I was stating. Because, they also believed in many things that are no longer the case either. Like slavery and the fact that only White Men with property could vote. So, my point was soley that their personal beliefs were not infalliable arguments, because neither slavery or white male property owners only voting still exist.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical: is there a signicant difference between proselytizing and propaganda? They seem virtually the same to me.

WhiteDog 5 years, 5 months ago

Didn't anyone see the full-page Christmas ad? I've refused to set foot in that store since this ran in December...

http://www.hobbylobby.com/holiday_messages/images/recent_messages/previous_message2.jpg

"Most of us spend our lives seeking our destiny, One Man created His own.

"It began in a manger and led to a cross, and it included you.

"You too have a destiny and someday... someday soon, your destiny will cross with His."

Obviously, only Christians are "included". The text might as well read, "Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc... We don't give a rat's ass about you." And you know, I don't often go where I'm not wanted.

mdrndgtl 5 years, 5 months ago

Bruce Springsteen sucks, didn't make it past besmirched...

beatrice 5 years, 5 months ago

I think it was an error! Hobby Lobby is a business interested in making money and they forgot to print the "L."

It should have read, "In Gold We Trust."

kugrad 5 years, 5 months ago

Just so you Hobby Lobby fans are fully informed, a co-worker of mine says that Hobby Lobby in Lawrence donates money to Fred Phelp's church; yep, that Fred Phelps. She says she called Hobby Lobby and asked and was told, yes, they do support Phelps. I haven't personally called and asked, but we are talking about a church-going, well-educated middle-aged professional here, not an unreliable person by any stretch, so I take her at her word.

overthemoon 5 years, 5 months ago

there is quite a difference between expressing one's beliefs and rewriting history to conform to those beliefs. I am wary of the politicization of religious beliefs. While I respect the many good religious people (of all faiths) that uphold the best of their religious beliefs, too much of what we see in action is church sanctioned ignorance and hypocrisy.

Sinclair Lewis gave us fair warning: “When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

I quit shopping at Hobby Lobby years ago. The help is horrible, the inventory erratic and the whole place just seems like a front for something. Maybe so. So they support Phelps? I will never set foot in there again, but that's easy as its usually on Sundays that I have time to think about any sort hobby/craft stuff, and Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays to make sure its employees go to church.

overthemoon 5 years, 5 months ago

White dog

That's hysterical! Is that Jesus or just some good Jewish dad using hobby lobby craft tools while Junior plays with the scraps?

BigPrune 5 years, 5 months ago

Bruce, I loved "The River" but then you beefed up your body so it was more in proportion with your large head, sold out, then came up with "Born In the USA." I changed the channel everytime it was on the radio or MTV.

Next time, just turn the page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q3LvjD-eZ8&feature=channell

gogoplata 5 years, 5 months ago

"a secular one in a nation of free-thinking citizens."

Thats a laugh. Where are the free thinking citizens? I see a lot of lovers of government but not too many free thinking citizens. If we got this federal government back down to a constitutional size this would be a non issue. The reason it is an issue now is because both Christians and antiChristians want to use big government to push thier values on others.

alm77 5 years, 5 months ago

" Chill out folks; at least we can stil 'argue' about this stuff. Most of the people posting here would have been killed in past centuries and could still be hammered in about 1/2 of today's world."

Exactly. God Bless America!

Curtiss 5 years, 5 months ago

Wouldn't it be fun to put a full page ad in the J-W with a huge "Allahu Akbar" headline? And a bunch of warm and fuzzy stuff about jihad and stoning sinners?

Then I'd sit back and watch all our favorite kneejerk right-wing rednecks jump and and defend the ad and whoever placed it because they believe so strongly in religious freedom for everyone.

Doubting_Thomas 5 years, 5 months ago

Christians get so upset when someone criticizes an ad mentioning God, but if we atheists ran an ad saying that there are no gods and the bible was made up by superstitious bronze-age goatherders, they'd be all up in arms about it. Looks like you are only free to criticize when it's something that goes against Christianity.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.