Since she didn't say anything at all about her beliefs, or lack thereof, that has nothing to do with her credibility.

It's just a little diversion from you, a la McCarthy - "Are you now, or have you ever been, an atheist?"

"Since she didn't say anything at all about her beliefs, or lack thereof, that has nothing to do with her credibility."

She didn't need to.

Nope. Wrong again.

By the way, what does "...only those religious denominations that distribute paper Sunday church bulletins get to enjoy full equality from public institutions" mean? Syntax much?

Because that would be incorrect.

Once more, do you care to state what you meant by "...only those religious denominations that distribute paper Sunday church bulletins get to enjoy full equality from public institutions?" If you can't communicate well enough for people understand what you're saying, you can hardly expect to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion.

Since it appears from the article that the bulletin can be from any church, how do you know that "The church is reimbursing the money to the university for every bulletin turned in for the $3 off"?

What church is "The church"?

"...the twin towers of religion and morality."

At least you recognize that morality is distinct from religion.

For some reason, you forgot to cite the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the United States Senate in 1797 and signed by John Adams, one of Our Founding Fathers:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=002/llsp002.db&recNum=23

You obviously don't actually know any atheists. (And, no, your accusations on Internet forums that someoneis an atheist don't count.)

Stereotyping all atheists by the acts of a vocal minority...or by your preexisting biases... makes no more sense than stereotyping all Christians by the behavior of rabid fundamentalists. The fact of the matter is that, like most Christians (or people of other faiths), most atheists don't feel the need to proselytize.

My personal reaction to the discount offer?

What about people of faith for whom Sunday isn't their sabbath day? Jews, Muslims...even Christian faiths like the Seventh Day Adventists...all these folks could have attended their appropriate "church service" - and done so with their families - this week and yet not get the discount because their church service is on the "wrong'"day. Seems to me like "Faith and Family Day" is actually more of a "Certain Types of Christians Day".

Do I think the campaign showed common sense? No, I don't. Do I think it was ill-intentioned? No, I don't. But I do think it was poorly thought out and unnecessarily exclusionary. And none of this has anything to do with atheism and everything to do with a temporary lack of sound judgment.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that most of the folks who do attend KU softball games are not Christians??? I'd love to see the statistics that demonstrate that one.

Or are you trying to claim that Christians with families don't attend? Or is it that Christians with families who go to church don't usually attend games on Sundays?

Please. Oh please. Point us to the demographic study that provides the data that supports whatever faith-based claim you're trying to make.

Good grief, I guess that's b) you're hypersensitive.

If I work for the advertising department at KU and I'm trying to come up with a scheme to increase the attendance of a Sunday softball game, one good way might be to offer a discount to people who are out and about anyway. Your complaint is on the order of someone who whines that the Pink in the Park Promotion is an insult to those who have prostate cancer. http://www.wibw.com/sports/ncaaku/Pink_in_the_Park_Alumni_Day_Set_for_April_21_at_Arrocha_Ballpark_147666015.html

But sure, I'll argue that Christians with families who go to church don't usually attend games on Sundays. There are 92,000 people in Lawrence. If the city has about the same % of people who attend church as the rest of the US (40%*) that would man that there are 36,000 Christians in that count, more or less.

How many people attend the average KU softball game? If it's not on the order of 18,000 or more certified churchgoers, then "Christians with families who go to church don't usually attend games on Sundays"

• Robert D. Putnam and David E Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (2010) ch 1 at note 5

And FWIW, the attendance at last night's game was.... wait for it... 512. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/kan/sports/w-softbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/box_score/stats_20120420aaa.pdf

Christians with families who go to church don't usually attend games on Sundays.

Context, my friend. The issue on the table is KU softball. That I don't consistently repeat that limitation does not mean I'm talking about any games that you can conceive of.

But it is also demonstrable that the majority of Christians do not attend NFL games weekly, either. Do we have to walk through the proofs?

Overplayedhistory, I see you are also a poet like tange and I do admire your poetry.

However, I didn't say that since there is no proof that God exists, that is proof that s/he doesn't. Since there is no proof of it, I don't believe in her/his/their existence. I think it says somewhere that you can't prove a negative.

"Nowhere in the founding documents will you find Jesus Christ, the Holy Bible mentioned, anywhere. "

"Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath... 'I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." Delaware Constitution of 1776 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de02.asp

"And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." Pennsylvania Constitution, 1776 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp

"That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. " North Carolina Constitution, 1776 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp

Care to revise and extend your remarks?

Yet they are not the only founding documents. The new state constitutions that were necessitated by the Declaration are just as much "founding documents" as is the Federal one.

The same people who signed the Declaration created the state Constitutions, many of which specifically demanded that any which held office be Trinitarian (no unitarians) Protestant (no Catholics) Christians (no Jews). They specifically denied office to atheists. And yet we are supposed to believe that these men are deists?

Why draw the distinction? Since the state Constitutions were written between the two, why seek to exclude them other than they they provide exactly the evidence that makes Geekin's assertion look like the error it is? When the state Constitutions were written, they were the only governments*. I suggest that they provide a pretty good insight into the founders' approach to religion and government.

• The Articles of Confederation not coming into full effect until 1781 and the Second Continental Congress being all but powerless.

The problem is with Geekin's assertion that, "The Founders were enthusiastic Deists, which is why the founding documents speak of Laws of Nature and Nature's God. "

It is demonstrable that the founders who signed the Declaration in 1776 had no problem with putting Christianity in their Constitutions (you must understand that in 1776, the 1789 Constitution was not conceived of - so far as they knew at the time, each state would remain an independent if allied 'nation.' It was not until the failure of the Articles that the later Constitution became necessary )

Therefore, unless one wants to assert that the founders believed in the divine inspiration of the Bible at the state level, but as soon as they got to Philadelphia fell into the enthusiastic deism of "nature's God," then it's obvious that the two ideas are not incompatible. Nor is there any evidence that people at the time considered them incompatible.

Franklin and Jefferson were both deists, more or less, and depending on when you ask the question. So was Governeur Morris. The vast majority of the others were Christians of various protestant denominations who came from a tradition where Church and state were mingled far more than they are today. They learned later that separation of those two is a good thing, but to make the founders secular or deistic in outlook from the beginning is a grave historical error.

One final harassment and I'll let it go:

"The states constitutions may not accurately reflect the founding fathers views but rather reflects the views of the majority of their state's legislature. "

I think you're drawing a distinction here that is unwarranted. The Founding Fathers, otherwise known as delegates to the Second Continental Congress and the 1787 Constitutional Convention, were chosen by majorities of their state legislatures. It is very difficult to imagine how these delegates would have held radically different views than the people who chose them. This is especially the case when many (I would argue the vast majority) were themselves members of the state legislatures or the provincial congresses that had written the Constitutions.

It is far less difficult to understand that "nature's God" is a euphemism vague enough that a) no one would be offended by it, and b) no one should draw theological conclusions about the founders based on it.

Yeah. The articles you reference were eradicated back in the early 1800's, '31 i believe. They replaced "New and Old testament", "Jesus" and "Holy Scriptures" with " will support and affirm the Constitution...".

They were challenged as unconstitutional, citing "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Many cases ended in the states removing these type of requirements as UN-Consitutional and some have not been challenged while others are still in litigation or just ignored. It is a very interesting tpoic and one that I will further investigate when time allows.

Ultimately thogh, it appears that the state constitutions had such clauses but the United States Constitution and Founder's documents will forever remian devoid of Jesus or the Holy Bible.

Let's see. No effort whatsoever on Obama's part to take everyone's guns away. No matter how many times some folks squawk that "Obama wants our guns"...no effort whatsoever to take them away.

And "nationalization" by Obama??? Let's see. How's this for a fact? NO BUSINESSES OR INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN NATIONALIZED UNDER OBAMA.

It was Bush who bailed out the banks and rescued AIG, not Obama. And the banks were not nationalized!! They were lent money under TARP...a Bush legislation...which all the large banks and most of the smaller ones have paid back! Oh gee, darn.

And the auto manufacturers? Shall we talk about Chrysler? Bailed out by the government...then bought by Fiat. The feds no longer own any part of Chrysler.

Shall we talk about GM? Once again it rises to #1 in the world in auto sales? The same GM that Bush bailed out in December 2008? A bailout that Obama added more funding to, not initiated?

In 2010, the federal ownership of GM dropped from an initial 61% to 33%. It has now dropped to around 25%. For some odd reason, that just doesn't sound like "nationalization" to me.

There will always be people who prefer to claim there's a bogeyman under their bed, rather than turning on the light and actually looking. They prefer to be fearful. Prefer to have someone to "blame"...even when there's nothing to be blamed for. It's so sad.

"Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office...they can take totally unexpected turns." Gee, like Sam Brownback?

Take a small bit of comfort in one fact, FHNC. GM was not "nationalized". It is still a publicly traded company on the stock exchange. Not only that, GM has paid back every penny of it's bail out to the Federal government (boy, I bet that chaps your cheeks), unlike Goldman-Sachs and BOA (which were bailed out by your hero, GWB), I have no argument with the Constitution being the "rule of law". I truly wish it were. Then maybe the First Amendment guarantee of freedom from religion would be honored by the states and states wouldn't be trying to pass "anti-immigrant" legislation (legislation that could have very possibly negatively impacted your friend were he coming from Cuba today), which is clearly under the pervue of the Federal Government only, as within it's rights to be the only body in this country to treat with other nations.

Why on earth do you believe that GM was nationalized??? Do you even know what "nationalized" means? It sure doesn't sound like it. It also doesn't sound like you know anything about corporate reorganizations and bankruptcy. Perhaps you ought to spend a little bit of time determining actual FACTS, rather than repeating imaginary nonsense simply because it 'sounds' like something you'd like to believe is true?

And, wrong...it's NOT the Black Panthers. It's just some nasty little group that calls themselves the "New Black Panther Party". They aren't affiliated with the Black Panthers. And the leader (who offered the bounty) has been arrested.

And, out of curiosity, while you rail against the growing divide between most of us and the "well-connected and politically powerful", do you also want the well-connected and politically powerful's taxes lowered? (As 'job creator' or not...doesn't matter.) I ask because so many people argue just that. Seems kinda odd to want them to have even more while complaining that they are getting more but, hey...some folks disassociate pretty easily.

I am examining my motives for nefare---but I think I'm OK.

I am jealous of your poetic abilities---you and overplayedhistory---does that qualify?

Well, there are a lot of similarities between religion and carbonated beverages, so I can understand why you wouldn't be able to see the difference between the two. I can't claim to be much better. There was that one time when I asked the driver of a Pepsi truck to preside over my wedding. Talk about awkward!

I should have asked the Coke driver...

Learn a sense of humor.

There is an inherent difference in giving a discount to an item which is generally available to all and giving a discount to an item which is generally available only to a certain group.

Perhaps if a church put their members' lives at risk for the KU softball team, then it would be similar to veterans getting into national parks for free on Veteran's Day.

Or we could dispense with the clumsy analogies and call this a poorly thought out attempt to drive attendance by giving an unfair advantage to a particular group? It is biased, but hardly illegal.

Labor unions getting a discount on a national holiday dedicated to labor unions is more similar to veterans and Veterans' Day than the church example.

Kids eat free at Denny's is sound marketing because kids eventually turn into adults. Same premise behind cartoons on cigarette ads. It is entirely different from the church discount.

Wait, the members of the CommunityAmerica Credit Union get discounts to some of the games at the Community America Ballpark?! Stop the presses!

Seriously, stop with the bad analogies. It is what it is. You cannot just compare it to any group you want and claim that the comparison is valid. You don't see me trying to compare it to giving discounts only to white people, do you?

rest assured - I know of no church that hoards its bulletins from the general public. All the ones that I know of would give them to you just for the asking.

Hell, Immanuel still mails the bulletins to my house despite the fact that the person they're being mailed to hasn't lived there for at least 3 years.

I'm all for separation of rulings, but I think this one is being blown way out of proportion.

Seems like an obvious difference to me.

Buying a can of Coke is an option for everyone...and not something that has to be done on a specific day. (As an aside, Coke has a reimbursement program for places offering discounts like this.)

Getting a church program on that one Sunday, however, requires actually going to a Christian church on that Sunday. Like it or not, that is not a option for everyone.

Even though there is no reimbursement program, I realize KU is simply hoping for more ticket sales than they would have gotten otherwise.. But they're doing it by promoting a certain and restrictive faith-based activity.

Had they said any program from any religious service during that week, then it would at least have been more in keeping with their "Faith and Families" theme. (Assuming other places actually have church programs. Not even all Christian denominations do.)

As it is, the discount is restricted to only Christian denominations ...as if attending the services of any other faith/denomination counts.

No...I don't see it as an act of discrimination. Rather, I see it as a simple act of ignorance. Of simply assuming that Sunday was everyone's day of worship and the game is on a Sunday so...

Yes, it's the real issue. Instead of whining about not getting a $3 ticket tomorrow, they could don a pink t-shirt and get a $3 ticket tonight: http://www.wibw.com/sports/ncaaku/Pink_in_the_Park_Alumni_Day_Set_for_April_21_at_Arrocha_Ballpark_147666015.html

This is not a freaking conspiracy, people. KU and its softball team have not been overrun with fundamentalists. It is one of a whole season full of such promotions designed to raise interest among people who would not normally attend a game.

If this really bothers you, I suggest you seek professional counseling. And I'm only saying that because it's true.

"Can we not just assume someone is doing something to be nice to or honor another person or group?"

There is nothing wrong with being nice or honoring another group. It is just that when one religious group is consistently the only one being honored... it is kind of hard to argue against there being bias.

Notaubermine: "It is just that when one religious group is consistently the only one being honored... it is kind of hard to argue against there being bias."

It's not hard to argue at all, since the promotion on the Website says "with a religious bulletin." It does not specify "one religious group" unless somehow all religious groups constitute one religious group.

Here's the schedule for promotions for 2012: This season debuts the Big 12 Conference's new Friday-Saturday-Sunday series format with each weekend opener serving as "Blue Friday" at Arrocha Ballpark. Every Friday, the first 100 fans in attendance wearing blue will receive free popcorn....promotions include Faith and Family Day on March 25, April 22 and April 29, which admits fans into the ballpark for only $3 with a religious bulletin.

The two "Jay Days" are set for an April 11 doubleheader against Wichita State and an April 25 doubleheader against UMKC. Free hot dogs will go to the first 50 students and the games also count for Rock Chalk Rewards double points. ..

During opening weekend, Hero's Day is set for March 24. Military personnel, medical professionals and members of the police and fire departments can attend for only $3 with ID...

During the Texas series, Senior Citizen Day will take place on Saturday, April 14, while the popular "Bark in the Park" is scheduled for the following day. The April 15 promotion gets doggie fans into the gate with a donation to the Lawrence Humane Society.

"Pink in the Park" is slated for the following weekend when the Jayhawks face the Cyclones of Iowa State on April 21. Fans wearing pink will be admitted for $3 and Jayhawks for the Cure bracelets will be handed out at the gate.

The final home weekend of the season will feature Senior Day on Saturday, April 28, and Brunch in the Park on Sunday, April 29. Kansas closes its home slate against Texas Tech that weekend. (from a source) http://www.kuathletics.com/sports/w-softbl/spec-rel/031912aaa.html

Last year's promotions included many similar ideas: http://www.kuathletics.com/sports/w-softbl/spec-rel/012411aab.html

If you can discover in that evidence of bias toward "one religious group" then you have keener eyes than most, Legolas.

"I don't think Ann is an atheist; just kind of wierd and "snobby"."

Not to mention inefficient. If she really wanted an answer to her questions, she could have called KU Athletics instead of asking hundreds, even thousands, of people who do not have the information she is looking for.