Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Faith-based help

July 14, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

This is in response to another vitriolic letter from Mr. Springsteen (Public Forum, July 9). First, it takes a very high level of self-importance to attempt to tell Hobby Lobby, or anyone else how they are to believe or what they are to believe in. It seems that whenever someone has a weak argument, they have to quote someone famous (Thomas Jefferson) to give legitimacy to their views.

Second, I would challenge Mr. Springsteen to make a list of people who were helped in times of need by Jewish/Christian organizations and how many were helped by atheist organizations. Where are the atheist soup kitchens, halfway houses, clothes for the needy drives and fund drives? For example, where were his organizations when New Orleans was devastated? I never heard of atheists finding shelter, jobs, food medicine, rescues, etc., for the needy.

A cornerstone in American liberty is to believe or not believe as one chooses. I don’t presume to tell Mr. Springsteen how or what to believe in. Everyone in this country has the right to their belief system. It just makes me sad to think that he would rather make fun of a group of people who try to help than to go out and make the community/country a better place. Do something instead banging out hateful letters.

Talley is from Lawrence

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"I don’t presume to tell Mr. Springsteen how or what to believe in."

Of course you do.

Strontius 5 years, 5 months ago

"It seems that whenever someone has a weak argument, they have to quote someone famous (Thomas Jefferson) to give legitimacy to their views."

Which is precisely what the Christian revisionists have been doing for decades (if not more) and is exactly what Hobby Lobby did and we are right to criticize them for it.

Secular people are probably some of the most generous and kind people I've ever known. As someone who led the KU group SOMA for three years, I can tell you straight up that when we tried to join major charity works, such as manning a soup kitchen or habitat for humanity, we were either turned away or no one ever got back to us. The general feeling I got was that secular people simply weren't wanted as volunteers, so in essence, your criticism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, I just recently had a friend get booted out of the boy scouts after many years of service because he was an atheist, despite the many volunteer hours and hard work he put into that organization.

Secular groups simply don't have the resources or infrastructure to do massive charity work on our own. Given that we are no more than about 20% of the population, it hardly seems fair to demand that we equal or better the other 80%. However, I do know many secular people who DID volunteer and help with the New Orleans efforts, but most of them had to lie about their religious affiliation to attend those trips due to religious groups vetting people and effectively creating areas of control. The impression I got from many volunteers for New Orleans was that the sheer number of disorganized and unprofessional volunteers actually made the situation slightly worse at times.

However when secular people make up 70% to 80% of the population, when we control all three branches of government as Christians do today, when secular organizations are firing religious folks for their personal beliefs (or lack thereof), we can then have a frank discussion about who's belief system contributes more to the greater well being of society.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Dennis wasn’t challenging whether there are secular charity organizations, he questions how many atheist charity organizations are actually helping. Surely you can see the difference. And arguing that some secular organization are predominately run by atheists isn’t a valid argument. Why do so many liberals want to make this issue about religion vs. secularism when that is not the issue or argument?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"Why do so many liberals want to make this issue about religion vs. secularism when that is not the issue or argument?"

Are you calling Mr. Talley a liberal?

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Bozo... "Are you calling Mr. Talley a liberal?"

Thank you for again living up to your name. Where does Talley talk about secularism?

Doubting_Thomas 5 years, 5 months ago

Mr. Springsteen's letter was not "vitriolic." He was simply pointing out the incorrect assertion by Hobby Lobby (and others) about how this country is supposed to be a "Christian nation" (whatever that really means). Nor was he telling them what to think or calling for censorship. He was simply pointing out an untruth in their advertisement, an untruth which is commonly spread by Christian nationalists every day.

Mr. Springsteen's argument is not weak, however, and he is right to quote Jefferson as well as many other founding fathers. While it may be true that some of them were Christian, they apparently saw fit to prevent a theocracy with the very first sentence in the very first amendment to the U. S. constitution. It is interesting that the very first sentence in the Bill of Rights states that there will be no establishment of religion, which unfortunately many Christians would really like to bring about.

Since you claim to know that freedom to believe what you want to believe is a cornerstone of our liberty, then you should understand how dangerous it is when people try to trample the First Amendment and would very much like to bring about a theocracy. Spreading the lie that all the founding fathers were Christians and designed the United States as a Christian nation is just the first step. It's an idea that Hobby Lobby's management and all Christians should be ashamed of. If we are to allow religion to permeate government, who's to say that it's the religion that you follow? Ever notice how Christians seem to want religion in government, as long as it's their religion? They would be outraged if an Imam recited a prayer to Allah to open a session of Congress. It seems that most Christians believe that freedom of religion actually means freedom of Christianity. That sound you hear is all the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

Polly_Gomer 5 years, 5 months ago

"Why do so many liberals want to make this issue about religion vs. secularism when that is not the issue or argument?"

As if liberal/conservative has anything whatsoever to do with it. Fail.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Doubting_Thomas… “…no establishment of religion, which unfortunately many Christians would really like to bring about.”

That is an ignorant statement. I don’t know any Christians who want an establishment of religion by the state. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I suggest you recant this statement. And arguing that the founding fathers were Christian doesn’t mean you are advocating for a theocracy. Please stop playing the victim.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

"Where does Talley talk about secularism?"

From the letter (did I really need to copy it for you?)

"Second, I would challenge Mr. Springsteen to make a list of people who were helped in times of need by Jewish/Christian organizations and how many were helped by atheist organizations. Where are the atheist soup kitchens, halfway houses, clothes for the needy drives and fund drives? For example, where were his organizations when New Orleans was devastated? I never heard of atheists finding shelter, jobs, food medicine, rescues, etc., for the needy."

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

bozo....

Thanks for the copy and paste, but I searched high and low for the word "secular," but I still couldn't find it. Perhaps you could copy and paste where she uses that word. Seems to me she is just talking about athiests in what you copied in pasted. Maybe if you read it without your bias glasses you may be able to read it more clearly.

Strike two.

Doubting_Thomas 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical: "I don’t know any Christians who want an establishment of religion by the state."

You obviously haven't met very many fundamentalist Christians, have you? Ever heard any Christians argue that we need prayer back in school? What about all the religious displays on public property? Ever hear Christian outrage over taking "In God We Trust" off our money or "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance?
Ever read any Christian message boards on the internet? Remember W's "faith-based initiatives?"

There are many, many Christians out there who want to put God in government, and you saying you don't know any is amazing to me. You really need to get out more and meet more Christians. The same Christians arguing that we need prayer in school, religious displays on public property, "under God" in the pledge, etc are the same ones saying that we need this because this is a "Christian nation."

boltzmann 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical says "Dennis wasn’t challenging whether there are secular charity organizations, he questions how many atheist charity organizations are actually helping. Surely you can see the difference. And arguing that some secular organization are predominately run by atheists isn’t a valid argument. Why do so many liberals want to make this issue about religion vs. secularism when that is not the issue or argument?"

Mr. Talley's letter was in response to the earlier one of Mr. Springsteen, for which the principal issue concerned whether the US was a secular nation or a Christian one. Nowhere in Mr. Springsteen's letter does he refer to atheism. It is Mr. Talley that is creating the straw man in referring to atheism. I ask you why you didn't similarly call him out on this the way you are calling out other members of this board - in a rather insulting way, I might add.

Kathy Getto 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Doubting_Thomas… “…no establishment of religion, which unfortunately many Christians would really like to bring about.”

That is an ignorant statement. I don’t know any Christians who want an establishment of religion by the state. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I suggest you recant this statement. And arguing that the founding fathers were Christian doesn’t mean you are advocating for a theocracy. Please stop playing the victim. _________- Not an ignorant statement at all. The evidence is in Sam Brownback and The Fellowship.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Doubting_Thomas…

While the SCOUTS has ruled the 1st Amendment prohibits, SOME religious displays on public property, faculty lead prayer in school, leaving In God We Trust on money, etc., advocating for such things is not advocating for an “establishment of religion by the state.” Again, it does not mean they want to establish a state religion any more than people advocating against such things are advocating for the destruction of all religions in America.

Reasonable people can disagree about an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. For example, four Supreme Court Justices disagreed that the 2nd Amendment allowed for an individual right to bear arms. Does that mean they want to take away all our guns? If, when you say “establishment of religion” you really mean they disagree with the certain interpretations of the SCOTUS relating to the 1st Amendment, then you are correct. But that is like saying anyone who has ever disagreed with a SCOTUS ruling wants to destroy the Constitution and our form of government.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Boltzmann… Perhaps Mr. Talley’s letter is contradict a point Mr. Springsteen didn’t make, but many are attacking this letter by making the same fallacy. If you want to argue what you think he is implying then that is your choice, but that will probably be a lonely argument.

“I ask you why you didn't similarly call him out on this the way you are calling out other members of this board - in a rather insulting way, I might add.” - boltzmanm

Because I am too busy defending other ignorant statements and stereotypes. Plus I disagree on what the primary purpose of Mr. Springsteen’s letter, based on what he wrote. Do you define "insulting" as challenging the validity of a statement or an irrational conclusion?

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Valkrie_of_Reason… “The evidence is in Sam Brownback and The Fellowship.”

First, you are going to have to provide more evidence than that.

Second, simply because someone may disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, and the separation of church of state, doesn’t mean they want to establish a state religion. Currently, church’s aren’t required to pay property taxes, if anyone supports that does it mean they want to establish a state religion? Of course not.

You disagree with particulars then state those particulars. But making broad generalizations is stereotypical and ignorant.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

This whole LTE is a pathetic string of fallacies and irony. Springsteen, vitriol and personal crusading aside, never said anything about what Hobby Lobby should believe. Suggesting that Hobby Lobby is misrepresenting the founders' viewpoints is not the same thing as trying to control beliefs, and it's insultingly stupid to suggest that they are. Then of course there is the rather amusing irony in the yark about quoting Jefferson, when of course the original ad by Hobby Lobby (which I'm guessing the writer decided was unimportant enough to inform themselves about) was exactly that.

Then, rather than try and actually support or defend those two off-the-wall statements, all he talks about is an unrelated strawman. (one that, given the huge difference in numbers or power between religious people/groups and atheist people/groups, is so stacked as to be incomparable)

Then of course a wrap-up where he talks about his unfounded previous point, still providing no support.

Fail.

And Satirical, if you don't think that many, many Christians would want their religion as being recognized, if not always officially, then certainly as the most important, and the most American, then you are, quite simply, blinding yourself.

You should not be defending this LTE, from any logical sense.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

"My 15 yr old could tell read Springsteen's LTE and tell by his implication and my inference, he's an athiest. Why can't you?"

Because we're not 15 years old anymore. Perhaps the better question is why you can.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound09…

First, I wasn’t countering Strontius’ comments, I was countering TomPaine. There is no point in attempting to counter anecdotal evidence.

“However using that way is hardly incomprehensible, as the distinction between the state being without religion (secularism) and atheism/agnosticism is fairly minor.” – LS09

Second, as you initially point out Strontius incorrectly uses “secular” synonymously with “atheist/agnostic.” Secular simply means it is not connected with religion, not that it is an atheist organization. The distinction between the terms is huge and implication on our governance substantial.

Our nation is secular. It does not endorse or require anyone belong to a particular religion or no religion at all. It does not prevent religious display, or promote them. The is a huge difference between being a secular nation and a religious/atheist one. You are illustrating the problem many Christians have, which is fear of people using that some logic to change the government from religion neutral to being anti-religion. This is the tide many Christians see, and are fighting back against. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and will continue to do so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

boltzmann 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical says "Boltzmann… Perhaps Mr. Talley’s letter is contradict a point Mr. Springsteen didn’t make, but many are attacking this letter by making the same fallacy. If you want to argue what you think he is implying then that is your choice, but that will probably be a lonely argument."

I am not "implying" anything. Mr. Talley explicitly named Mr. Springsteen's letter (with link) as his motivation, so it is valid reasoning on the part of the posters here to make comments based on both letters. This not a "fallacy", as you describe.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

Man, right-thinker, it's almost like you make non-righties' motivations to be what you think they should be, not what they actually are. Unheard of, I know, but it almost could seem that way, you making an incorrect assumption that's applied as a sweeping generalization.

That never happens, though. Not with you.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jonas_opines.. “And Satirical, if you don't think that many, many Christians would want their religion as being recognized, if not always officially, then certainly as the most important, and the most American, then you are, quite simply, blinding yourself. You should not be defending this LTE, from any logical sense.”

First, if that is your opinion, then you only hear about extreme Christians. Just like many have a negative view of feminists because so many extreme feminists make the news. How can it be recognized as “most important” if it is not official? If you are claiming that Christians try to convert people and convince them to adopt their ethics, then I agree. But last time I check that is not illegal, and in fact almost all groups (religious or not) do the same.

Second, I am not defending this LTE. I largely agree with your assessment of what he wrote. Too many people here make assumptions.

devobrun 5 years, 5 months ago

Nancy_Boy: The left won. The issues are defined by secular progressives. The solutions are produced in universities and government, secular organizations. Science, art, social interaction of all kinds are defined by the progressives.

And they don't even know it.

When welfare doesn't work.....blame the conservatives. When evolutionary theory proves to be just another narrative, attack the few creationists that care to argue. Social progressive faith is just as pig-headed as all other forms of abstract thought that doesn't work.

The only difference between fundamental religious types and modern social constructivism is that former acknowledges their unwarranted faith.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Blotzmann… “Mr. Talley explicitly named Mr. Springsteen's letter”

Sigh. The fallacy some made is in countering a point Talley didn’t make, which is that there are relatively few charitable secular organizations. Talley never said that, so arguing that there are many charitable secular organizations is creating an issue that isn’t there, just like you claim Talley did.

Doubting_Thomas 5 years, 5 months ago

satirical: "Second, simply because someone may disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, and the separation of church of state, doesn’t mean they want to establish a state religion."

I never insinuated that disagreements over SCOTUS rulings meant that some do want to establish a state religion. I'm just using personal knowledge of many Christians and from websites and posts to many message boards that there is a common thread, especially among fundamentalist Christians, that we need God in government. I'm sure if you go out & talk to a few fundamentalists, they will tell you how this country was supposed to be founded as a theocracy and they would very much like to see it happen.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 5 months ago

Okay, we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We have freedom to argue about it endlessly. Having heard the lies that Protestants tell about Catholics I find it difficult to believe that an authentic dialogue could take place. I have never sat foot in Hobby Lobby because I can't afford anything they have.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical: No, the list of people I've heard it from include many who are not extremists. I've encountered many statements like "We're a Christian nation, and we should continue to be so," over the years, from people who are regular practicing Christians, and not political or religious extremists in any real sense. But then, extremist is probably dependent mostly on perspective. As, for that matter, is the notion of what it means to "Establish" a national religion.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Doubting_Thomas.. “I'm sure if you go out & talk to a few fundamentalists, they will tell you how this country was supposed to be founded as a theocracy and they would very much like to see it happen.”

First, there is a difference in putting “In God we Trust” on money, and creating a theocracy. If you can’t see that distinction then you are a paranoid extremist. Allowing some recognition of a diety, or giving some benefits to religious institutions isn't creating a theocracy. The is true for many other things some thiests wish to allow, such as certain religious displays.

Second, although I cannot contradict your anecdotal evidence, I have never met, nor talked to any Christian who wants this country to be a theocracy. If so, I would immediately and fiercely oppose him or him (or them). When most people refer to being a so-called “Christian nation” doesn’t mean a theocratic government, they are referring to common values and morals of the people and in some instances laws which reflect those ethics. Laws which in some respect are based on ethics/morals don’t create a theocracy and aren’t necessarily unconstitutional.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jonas_opines…

See my second comment at 10:48 in distinguishing a “Christian Nation,” from establishing Christianity as a state religion or being officially recognized.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

That is the part that would depend on perspective, Satirical. The government of the Kings of England was not a full theocracy, despite their established religion. I'll agree that our govt. does not seem to be actively attempting to establish a religion, but for every person you describe as this:

"You are illustrating the problem many Christians have, which is fear of people using that some logic to change the government from religion neutral to being anti-religion. This is the tide many Christians see, and are fighting back against."

there is equal evidence to suggest the other way. There would be, I opine, an awfully long, step by step buildup, before our country got to the actual position of establishing Christianity, or any other faith, thought, persuasion etc., as an official religion in the way that you demand before you will label it Established. But people who see things that might contribute to that trend will fight against it, in the same fashion as your above-mentioned Christians. It's not so simple as your simplified definition would make it.

ksdivakat 5 years, 5 months ago

I guess I dont understand why all the hulabaloo over hobby lobbys ad?? Bottom line, they paid for the ad, they have the right to run it, and if athiest want to run an ad, then pay for it and run it as well..problem solved! If you dont want to take out an ad, then turn the page..its really simple.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jonas_opines…

You don’t think I realize that some people want excessive entanglement of religion and government (or as far as establishment as state religion), while there are some that want our nation to be anti-religion? I realize there are extremists on both sides.

My problem is with the stereotyping that has gone on today, and often does, by people who only see one side and erroneously think most Christians want excessive entanglement of religion and government (or as far as establishment).

I am sure you would say to a Christian that fears government is turning anti-religion simply because faculty lead school prayer isn't allowed, doesn’t mean the government is anti-religious, and doesn’t mean that people who support the removal are anti-religious. You would probably defend those people against those wild allegations.

So, similarly, when people make wild claims that Christians want a theocracy, or want excessive entanglement of their religion and government simply because Christians don’t want to remove “In God We Trust” from money, or support laws based on their ethics, etc., I will defend them against wild allegations. Both kinds of stereotyping are wrong, and making extreme statements about what one side is “really after” is ignorant.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

"You don’t think I realize that some people want excessive entanglement of religion and government (or as far as establishment as state religion), while there are some that want our nation to be anti-religion?"

Why would anyone ever think that you don't realize that?

“I don’t know any Christians who want an establishment of religion by the state.”

The only way to reconcile those two statements will be by quibbling about with specific definitions of words such as "entanglements" and "establish," or perhaps "know," far more than is called for or expected on an informal venue such as this. (Hell, kind of like secularism and atheism) At the very least, you should take more care to be clear about your specificity, and perhaps drop the notion that your specificity is intrinsically correct..

Doubting_Thomas 5 years, 5 months ago

Satirical, while I admire your defense of a secular state, you can't deny that many Christians do want excessive entanglement of religion in government. Or maybe not "excessive," but they do want religion to play a part. I notice you did not comment on those who want to put prayer back in school. I could also mention the recent and current efforts by creationists to push teaching the so-called Intelligent Design in public schools. This was struck down in Dover because it was seen for what it is, a thinly-veiled attempt to teach creationism in schools. While this may not equal a theocracy, many Christians do favor such things.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

LS09…. “My point was that atheists typically are in favor of secularism, so the distinction, while clear, is fairly unimportant.”

What kind of logic is that? All “A’s are “B’s.” Does that mean all B’s are A’s? Or that the distinction doesn’t matter? There are many theist that are in favor of secularism, which doesn't prove anything.

“You would have an extremely difficult time finding atheists who would like to create an atheistic state—one that forbids belief in God.” – LS09

First, I will use the same proportionality rationale that Strontius and others have used. Since there are fewer atheists, the extreme ones are (likely) comparatively fewer. I think proportionally there are probably just as many atheists who wish to have an atheistic state as there are Christians who want a theocratic state.

Second, an atheistic state couldn’t forbid a belief, it could only forbid its practice.

Third, there are many who consistently frequent the LJWorld blog who would love nothing more than to have the government no longer give tax breaks to religions, and prohibit any type of benefit to religions. This is much more extreme than the flip side, who wants our nation to be a “Christian nation.”

“This is a false and made-up fear that some Christians use to make themselves the victim where they are absolutely not.” – LS09

First, reference my points above again to counter whether extreme atheists exist.

Second, I see the exact same made-up fear by seculars and atheists/agnostic on this thread today and many in the past. Christians are no more trying to establish a state religion than atheist are trying to prohibit the free exercise thereof.

“Perhaps you should take him to task as well?” – LS09

I don’t respond to his comments for the same reason you (normally) don’t.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jonas_opines… “Why would anyone ever think that you don't realize that?”

You implied it when you after you quoted my statement regarding some Christians fearing anti-religion, stated “there is equal evidence to suggest the other way,” and after discussing the trend to become more theocratic stated, “But people who see things that might contribute to that trend will fight against it, in the same fashion as your above-mentioned Christians.”

“The only way to reconcile those two statements will be by quibbling about with specific definitions of words such as “entanglements” and “establish,”” – jonas_opines

All words require defining. That goes without saying. But you seem to be okay with people using it as a sword (“many Christians would really like to bring about an establishment of religion”), without being more specific; but when I try to defend that statement and use it as a shield, I am the one that has to be more specific?

If someone is going to make a broad and generalizing statement then I have not issue calling them out challenging the general notion, and/or asking them to be more specific.

I used “excessive entanglement” because that is a term the SCOTUS uses. We are both aware there is a spectrum of religion’s involvement in government, or lack thereof. This is why blanket statements are ignorant.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

"but when I try to defend that statement and use it as a shield, I am the one that has to be more specific?"

The point being that you Were being more specific, using a more particular and contextual definition of Establish than the other people were using. If you Are being more specific, then you should make sure that other people know, and potentially recognize yourself that it is not necessary to be as specific as you are personally being.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Doubting_Thomas…

“you can't deny that many Christians do want excessive entanglement of religion in government. Or maybe not “excessive,” but they do want religion to play a part.”

I do not deny that many Christians do not think certain benefits which affect religious institutions are Constitutional. There are several allowed today which I do not feel are excessive entaglements; such as providing religious groups with police, water, and fire protection services even though they are not required to pay property taxes, “In God We Trust” on money, religious officials opening legislative sessions with prayer. These practices are historically accepted, are benign, and/or do not primarily advance religion. They have also been Constitutionally upheld.

I would not say the many Christians want “religion to play a part” because that is too broad a term. Simply because some Christians want a nativity display on public grounds, while it may be Unconstitutional, to me doesn’t mean they want “religion to play a part.”

“I notice you did not comment on those who want to put prayer back in school.” – D_T

I do not support faculty lead prayer in school. Most Christians I know do not support this, or if they do, probably don’t understand the issue and erroneously think the rule prohibits any prayer in school.

“I could also mention the recent and current efforts by creationists to push teaching the so-called Intelligent Design in public schools.”

I do not support teaching intelligent design but do support any valid scientific criticism of macro-evolution, which does exist. I agree that arguably, some Christians want religion to play a very minor part in their education. But again, using this as a fear that Christians want to take over control of the government and create a theocracy is unfounded.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Made_in_China… “How about the whole abortion debate (based on the notion that the skygod blessed the zygotes and we are not just the third chimp on the planet) or gay marriage, based on old testament 'abominations?””

Simply because a group wants laws that reflect their ethics does not mean they are trying to establish a state religion. Simply because those ethics derive from a religious sources is irrelevant and doesn’t prove any establishment of a state religion. Also, there are secular reasons for the stances you mentioned.

Liberals also want their ethics to prevail in both instances. There is no difference.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

Jonas_opines… “If you Are being more specific, then you should make sure that other people know, and potentially recognize yourself that it is not necessary to be as specific as you are personally being.”

What? My whole point was to make them be more specific since they were making broad and stereotypical statements. Again, if they are being more specific shouldn’t they also “make sure that other people know?” They are the ones that initially made the statement, not me. Am I just suppose to know EXACTLY what they meant by “establishment?” No, I counter the statement based on a common definition and if they define it differently than they can say so. The initial burden is on them, not me.

As I originally stated, “(If) you disagree with particulars then state those particulars. But making broad generalizations is stereotypical and ignorant.”

sustainabilitysister 5 years, 5 months ago

I don't think that atheists or agnostics feel the need to associate their belief or lack of believing with philanthropic actions.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

LSO9….

Just so I am clear….providing evidence to support the theory that our nation is atheistic in origins, to create a bigger wall between church and state is okay in your opinion; but providing evidence to support the theory that our nation is founded on Christian beliefs, to make the wall smaller is wrong? And you think Bill O’Reilly is paranoid?

Also, see my definition of “Christian Nation” at 10:48.

Satirical 5 years, 5 months ago

SouthSide…

I don’t know who the pastor is, but I think Sunday services are at 12:00 in the fabric section.

ksdivakat 5 years, 5 months ago

Southside...they begin as soon as you pay for a full page ad! If not then turn the page!!!!

jessanddaron 5 years, 5 months ago

In Mr. Talley's own words,

"First, it takes a very high level of self-importance to attempt to tell Hobby Lobby, or anyone else how they are to believe or what they are to believe in."

You have epitomized the argument right here. This is the central idea our government is built on. Zealous Christian behavior is fine in anybody's mind. No one is trying to say that because our founding fathers were against religious institutions and the power they can have in government, doesnt mean people shouldnt be able to express their faith as freely as they would like.

The problem lies in the DNA of organized christianity. By their own doctrine, they are compelled by a divine force to basically convert anyone whose beliefs dont align in order to save them from damnation. This idea which is so important to their faith(thus being the reason the founding fathers understood the importance of seperating it from government) explains why religious organizations can be detrimental from being too influential.

America is, and will always be, a nation totally indiscriminate when it comes to religion. Regardless of how any religious zealot would like to interpret the constitution, the idea that the United States of America puts high value in the personal liberty of any man or woman to believe whatever they choose to will always ring true.

In my opinion, it isnt unamerican to question these things, it is unamerican to disregard our nations foundations to impose your will on others. Hobby Lobby falls under that category as well. If they would like to run an ad involving religion, as long as it appropriate, more power to them. LJWorld sold some ad space...

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 5 months ago

What could an ad in the paper possible have to do with separation of church and state? How many other ads on the 4th of July had similar sentiments? I could live with the Catholic church being the official state church, as long as it was Francisian and liberal like St. Johns. St. Francis had some very good ideas. We could do a lot worse than him. Priests are the spiritual equivalent of bots on the Internet, the bots are intermediaries between uses and the computer, so priests are the same between God and the people of the church.

jessanddaron 5 years, 5 months ago

Irish,

I didn't really follow any of that...

wordgenie8 5 years, 5 months ago

Thanks to all the "good Christians" who seem to populate Lawrence and feel free to bother others in public with their 18-century prejudices and deficit model of helping I feel way more comfortable as a pedestrian on the streets of L.A.and San Francisco than I do here. I'd think as a true friend of Christ you'd have better people-reading skills than to interfere with those who are quite happy to simply mind their own business and would be greatly relieved to see you do the same. Such people could really use to improve their social intelligence before imposing their beneficence on the world. So maybe join up with a soup kitchen or something, just please don't go around ambushing innocent bystanders who might well prefer their own version of kindness and self-interest to yours. True spirituality does not impose bigoted attitudes on the world as a shortcut to gaining admission to those coveted pearly gates.

jonas_opines 5 years, 5 months ago

Does the flag need to be waived for a particular reason, babboy?

B^)>

7texdude 5 years, 5 months ago

Folks, I bet that a homeless man will be thankful for the meal and not even guess what your religious beliefs are. Charity is charity. Be thankful you can give it and hope the others are courteous when they get it. As for the seperation of church and state, remember that the government is the people. A lot of these compassionate conservatives in this country voted for a black, liberal Democrat. The Christian church has always tried to control government - goodness in 2000 the U.S. gov't was dominated by Republican conservatives. It is nothing new. It will always be that way. If you don't feel that way, vote against their candidate.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.