Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Major Freddy And The Atheist Soldier
A few days ago Jim wrote about Spec. Jeremy Hall, a soldier assigned to Fort Riley's 97th Military Police Battalion, who filed suit against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a "Maj. Paul Welborne". Jeremy's suit claims that after he was given permission to hold a meeting of atheists, he was harassed by a Major, and by his fellow soldiers for being an atheist. The suit also claims that the Major threatened to block his re-enlistment for being an atheist. Lately Spec. Hall has been threatened in emails and blog posts from his fellow soldiers.
The Army replied that they could not locate anyone named "Major Paul Welborne".
Well, today the suit was amended to correct the spelling of the Major's name. It is "Major Freddy Welborn", and lawdy, lawdy, he's got a MySpace page. His "Interests" are:
The study of God's Word, Evangelism, Grandchildren and Family, and those Men called by God to Preach the Gospel.
Major Freddy describes himself like so:
MAJ Freddy & HIS Girl's Blurbs
About me:
Warrior for the Lord Jesus Christ. Currently serving w/3rd Inf Div Civil Military Operations (Governance) in Baghdad Iraq. Carla & I place all our Faith & Trust in our Savior the Lord Jesus - who provides eternal life to anyone that believes that he is the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, lived as God in the flesh (as man) was crucified, died, and was buried then rose from the grave the third day, then acended to the right hand of the Father - True repentance (turning away from Sin to God) Being born again, Forgivness & Justification occure to the True Believer in Christ when Baptized w/God's Holy Spirit. He who has the Son has life, he who has not the Son of God has not life. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It is by GRACE that we are saved thru Faith - It's a free gift and can't be earned. I love the Lord Jesus more than words can express, and seeking to gain a stronger relationship w/Him. I'll finish Bible College upon returning from Opns Iraqi Freedom.
Farther down, we see this little gem of an image.
I think he's a little, um, confused about the whole "1st Amendment" thing.
Hang in there Specialist Jeremy Hall. Don't let the godbots get you down. Stay safe.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The Christian US Army Major
How unlike the Lord you are, sir, by threatening the careers of fellow soldiers whose opinions do not fall into line with yours. You give credence to the belief that you represent Christian fanatics fighting Muslim fanatics. I don't want to live under their theocratic mind control, nor under yours. May shame be upon your intolerance.
The Last Supper and Dirk Diggler
I have started a gallery of renditions of "the last supper". Anyone with a myspace account can go in and take a look at my album "Religion". myspace.com/sherryeyoung . Anyone can go look at my myspace page. I have a picture of a Bush "salute" as my default of the moment -- that pic is worth a look on it's own!
Dolly Diggler Dagger (a sin in my heart, tee hee)
I am also confused
How is Jeremy Hall's "Atheists in Foxholes" picture any less devisive than the Major Welborn's picture of soldiers praying? Seems to me you are judging each parties representation of their beliefs (which seem fairly comparible to me) with an inconsistent standard.
Atheist
I am confused, I was under the impression that an Atheist was a nonbeliever in any sense of "GOD". With this in mind, all religion revolves around a sense of "GOD". Atheist is not necessarily a religion it is more so a state of mind. Common sense should tell you that when you discuss something as sensitive as GOD and religion that it will start a debate. So, why is the MRFF supporting this young man? This case is similar to the Congress Man that is sueing GOD himself. So quick to sue!!
suing god
The purpose of the suit was more as a protest to the fact that Americans are so quick to sue.
Hey guys, it looks like someone finally got the point that Atheism isn't a religion. Kudos to him.
The guy wanted to talk with people of like mind. That's what's called "freedom", I thought that's what the army was suppose to be fighting for.
"If there is evil in this world, it lurks within the hearts of men" ~Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia
Freedom from Religion
Dear Confused,
Atheism means lack of god belief. That's it. Don't try reading too much into it.
That's easy. The MRFF fights for freedom of and freedom from religion just like the US Constitution guarantees. Check out their website if you still don't understand.
How so? I see no similarities.
Said the jesus troll.
Part of our great heritage
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-Col.
Colonel: Flock of Dodos
Hey Colonel-
If you are still around tonight and get this message: Check out Showtime at 7:30 pm (Eastern). Look for a program called "Flock of Dodos." It's about Intelligent Design vs Evolution. A friend recommended I check it out.
I wonder how they taste?
I'm at the office and a meeting from right now through about 11:00pm.
Is it produced by a scientist scientist or some other kind of scientist? :-)
-Col.
Tastes like chicken
Col-
Funny you asked:
"I wonder how they taste?"
As a matter of fact, the film addressed this issue, sort of. You see, the Dodo is now extinct. I guess, the Dodo wasn't 'designed' very well after all. Or perhaps, as the scientist scientists would say, it wasn't 'designed' at all.
In all seriousness, the film "Flock of Dodos" was more than fair to the creationist point of view and even chastised scientists for doing a lousy job of explaining science to the average Joe. One of the important points they made was that scientists should not underestimate the the threat ID/creationist proponents pose to education in this country. Here is the website including a trailer for the movie.
Dirk
Threat?
Ah...! Therein lies the very issue! Somebody, or better put, some body (group) is theatened. It should never be about threat. It should be about where evidence leads any one of us--no matter who and no matter what the results are. That is science science.
"Tastes like chicken." You got me...that is funny! :-)
-Col.
Aid and comfort to the enemy
I may be interpreting your reply incorrectly...
Is this news to you that people like me feel threatened? I feel surrounded. I have foreign enemies knocking my buildings down because gawd told them to do it. And I have domestic kooks attacking on all fronts. Stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, abstinence only education, Intelligent Design/creationism in schools, HPV vaccine, global climate change denial, dominionism and faith based programs too name just a few are assaults on rational citizens of this country and an attempt to knock down the wall of separation guaranteed by our Constitution. Did you know that 150 lawyers who graduated from Pat Robertson's 3rd rate law school are working in the justice department? I can't believe this is happening right in front of our very eyes.
So yes, I feel threatened. I don't want to live in a theocracy and I don't want to be caught in crusade against the Muslims. I have no use for religion of any flavor. Why can't you people understand that and keep it to yourselves?
Okay, it sounds like we agree except.... So why are you and your people threatening me? I don't come knocking on your door on Saturday mornings spreading my good news. I don't evangelize on street corners. I don't send missionaries to find new converts. I don't visit your blogs. As a matter of fact for most of my life, I have been an 'apathetic' atheist. I always felt ones religion or lack thereof was a personal-private thing. I always thought science was seen by everyone as a way for humanity to progress and make our lives better. What happened?
I am now kind of an atheist activist. I don't go around preaching, but whenever the subject comes up, I speak out about my atheism. I speak up mainly to let others know, they are not alone and don't have to remain quiet. It's okay to push back against the theocratic onslaught.
I grew up attending Lutheran churches, went to Sunday school, summer bible camps and even spent two years attending confirmation classes every Wednesday night. Lutherans seemed to be all about peace, love, kindness and especially charity. What happened? Where did the nice Xian's go? How did these people turn into fear mongering pro-war pro-torture fag-stomping dominionist anti-science global warming deniers? Just yesterday I came across an article about another Xian monster called "The head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique has told the BBC he believes some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately." How could someone do such a thing? Why would you associate with people like this? What kind of a monster are you, Colonel?
This is a joke right? Don't answer that. The question was rhetorical and I already know the answer. You think gawd did it. You have elaborate excuses and rationalizations from creationist pseudo scientists that fit neatly into you predispositions. Evidence? There are literally mountains of evidence and fossils in museums around the country and world. There are literally tens of thousands of scientists from around the country and world that research and update the field of evolutionary biology. Yet you choose to ignore them in favor of a handful of religious kooks that are repeatedly discredited by real scientists. The evidence is there if you care to take a look. Technically, evolution is a theory. However, it is the ONLY viable theory science has right now.
Glad I can make you laugh, but this isn't funny. The threat is very real and you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy of humanity (religion). Why is it that you can see with such clarity and wisdom just how silly other religions like Mormonism or Islam sound, but fail to recognize what an irrational leap of faith you are taking by favoring creationism over science?
There is no end-around in the issues of life
The questions of existence, meaning, and truth are of such great nature that we must face them with an open mind, even if the evidence is scary. For whomever.
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. One believer in God isn't evil or inane simply because someone else who believes is one or the other. If this were true, one could hold that all who post here are Stalins.
Assuming truth by counting noses is a logical fallacy. Even if at the current time a greater quantity of scientists believe in evolution, it doesn't make it true. If a head count were all that was needed, you would be a theist of some kind.
I could never be an atheist, Dirk. Not enough evidence. Virtually no evidence, actually. Your position is one that, for me, is just far, far too counterintuitive. I could see agnosticism—that I could understand. But I am not Kierkegaardian enough to be an atheist. Sorry—that doesn't come from my Christianity, that comes from my reflection on the cosmos.
So does that mean I'm out to get you? Nope. I'll defend the Framers' First Amendment along with you. Will I beat on your door? Nope. I won't even log here if I'm not wanted.
I believe free thought is a value we ought to be able to share. I also think it looks nothing whatever like browbeating.
-Col.
Free thought
Colonel-
You are right about a few things and horribly misguided about others. Can you please explain how you are able to dismiss the mountains of evidence in support of evolution? You and I both know there are these places called museums. Inside these museums they have very old bones and fossils that show the transition of how different species evolved. For example, Lucy is a three million year old hominid. She is a missing link, if you will. How do you explain away the six different methods of carbon/chemical/radioactive dating that confirm each other?
Do you realize that all arguments creationists make have been debunked repeatedly by multitudes of scientists? I have given you many examples of good people in the field of science like PZ Myers and Neil deGrasse Tyson that want to share their knowledge with you. You talk of open-mindedness while burying you head in the sand like an ostrich. What makes you predisposed to ignore evidence and expertise that is so readily available?
You are right, it's not about numbers, however it is about respect. It's about peer reviewed research. I'm sorry, but Behe's work does not stand up to review by his former peers in the field of biology. Why do you cling to a few religious minded outcasts who happen to line up with your wishful thinking?
Yes, you talk a good game. But it's only talk. Let's get real for a moment, shall we? I previously suggested an interesting film called "Flock of Dodos." Will you take a look or is it too scary? Will you look at Dr. Myers' website or is it too scary? And what about Dr. Tyson? I showed you a video of his that you dismissed out of hand. As if you know better than an highly respected astrophysicist because he comes to a conclusion that is too painful for you to consider.
In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Tyson to serve on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and in 2004 to serve on the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, the latter better known as the "Moon, Mars and Beyond" commission. He was soon afterward awarded the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by N.A.S.A.
If NASA respects Dr. Tyson, why can't you? Why can't you listen to the experts? I don't think you should talk to me about open-mindedness anymore if you can't answer these questions. Believe me, I understand your religion is very important to you. But if you allowed yourself to step outside of your protective bubble of delusion for a moment, there is whole world of science you are missing out on.
You misunderstand me. What I am suggesting is that you take your religion back from the monsters. You are defending the indefensible simply because you share a religion. There are good atheists and bad atheists. There are good Xian's and bad Xian's. I get it. That's not what I'm talking about. You don't really think of me or anyone else here at UTI as similar to Stalin do you? I hope you are just being silly.
My point about the Bishop in Africa was that Xian's like you need to get a grip on reality and accept that abstinence only education doesn't work and that it is truly evil for him to claim that European condom companies are purposely trying to give his people AIDS. Can we agree on that at least? Or are you so completely deranged that because your bible and religious leaders say that gawd does not want us to use birth control, the Bishop's actions are justified?
I covered most of this above and we have been through this ad nauseam over many posts. We agree, it's not about numbers. However, again, I think you were missing my point. If you can find someone we can both respect, I will listen. Can you convince Dr. Tyson or Dr. Myers that creation science/Intelligent Design has merit? Is there someone else perhaps that I might be able to respect? I am familiar with the guys you like such as Behe and Dembski and a few other. I can't take them seriously because I have seen their work literally torn to shreds and made a laughingstock of. Is there such a thing as a scientifically respected creationist? I don't think so, but maybe you could find one.
And as a side note, I was a theist until age 15 or so. I tried. Everyone I knew was a theist and I thought there was something wrong with me. I tried to believe, but I could never get satisfactory answers to my questions. I always felt like I was being conned. I knew that gawd was a figment of men's imaginations because no one could show him to me. Yes, gawd exists inside the human mind, but no one has ever been able to show me him outside of their heads. Sure, it's a nice idea to live in eternal bliss, but that doesn't make it's true.
I don't care what you are. Christians can enjoy science. Xian's can keep their faith and their real world beliefs separate. Not all Xian's take the bible literally as you seem to in many cases. Like I said, I don't care what you are, but when you keep the rest of us prisoner with your bronze age goat herding mentality, we have a problem. If you want evidence, go to a museum, read a book. For Pete's sake stop putting your hands over your ears and yelling "la la la la" like a child. Open your eyes my friend. There is more evidence than one man could hope to process in a lifetime, you just choose to ignore it. And what exactly does it mean when you say "comes from my reflection on the cosmos?" How can you ignore the greats like Carl Sagan and amazing astrophysicists like Tyson? That sentence seems like false hubris to me.
I don't think you realize how destructive and regressive your 'world view' actually is. If you say you are not out to get me then I will ask you to stand with me and fight those who would impose their theocratic ideals on this country. Will you help me teach people that Stem cell research has the potential to help cure or eradicate maladies like diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, heart disease and spinal cord injuries? Will you help others to realize the virtues of saving our environment and to actively call for our leaders to address global climate change by weaning this country off carbon based energy? Will you stop supporting abstinence programs as the only means of birth control? Will you make sure ID/creationism stays out of public schools?
From Wiki: Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. Sounds like you might need to put your religion away to truly experience freethought, eh?
Dirk
(Sorry. The length of this post got out of hand.)
A fine effort
And I applaud you for it. Your patience for this greatly exceeds my own, but the good Col. will cling to his demons no matter what you say for there is no evidence so great that it will shake his faith. Perhaps when he is dead and his ectoplasmic essence has gone off to be with the god-who-impregnated-his-own-mother maybe he will send all us poor deluded atheists a heavenly postcard.
Heheheh
Ah, Thameron, you flatter yourself. You see, I could be convinced of my "error" many different ways--I can think of at least four without even serious reflection. But no one has ever done so in my 20+ years of research. I'm still waiting. And waiting....
But how about you? Will you be forever trapped, not by angels of any kind, but just a passe epistemology?
-Col.
Yep, way too long
For me to answer in any kind of detailed enough manner to make sure I'm not misunderstood. I don't have the time to respond in essay form--I'm sure you understand.
There are several things you miss. I logged earlier that the agnostic Robert Jastrow (head of NASA's Gothard Space Institute) noted the theistic nature of the cosmos, and you wrote him off as a believer. He is/was certainly as “great” as Carl Sagan or P.Z. Meyers. The religious journey of Einstein et al. is enough to dismantle your approach.
It's interesting that Behe and the host of others with him came to their realizations via Darwinism, not religion. In fact, Behe is no flaming “religionist” whatsoever. It was birthed in the lab, not the chapel. Further, Behe has not been torn to shreds--if anyone wants to do that, they need to provide a paper that details how Darwinism can work at the molecular level on irreducibly complex systems. It's easy to debunk him: just show how it can be done! Don't cry, wail and moan about these evil, evil rascally I.Ds.ers. 'Course, the problem is, these papers don't exist. Well, huh! You mean things like rotory motors and biologically cascading systems don't just "poof" into existence? Wow! Who'd a' thunk it?
Museums full of bones prove nothing against my worldview, Dirk, nor do means of age-dating. I'm not a young earther, and virtually every Old Testament scholar I know is Old Earth as well. The age thing is thus a straw man. Further, I have no problem with aspects of evolution. I just know it can't be 100% unguided. When you're running into exponents in probabilities that are above the 50 threshold (where mathematicians draw the line at "impossible"), that is where it clearly moves into a faith game for you--Kierdegaardian at that. Has God allowed natural law, including some evolution? Absolutely. But to think it can all be by accident is a howler to me. Further, whatever Lucy is or is not (it's debated), there should be vast piles of missing links in the fossil record; perhaps as many as regular species. We should have lizards with half a wing, fish with semi-lungs, etc., etc., out the ying-yang. This is part of why S.J. Gould cast his lot against standard Darwinism and espoused the hopeful monster theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould was no Christian—he just knew unguided Darwinism was too staggering in terms of the data.
As for political issues, you will find genuine Christians on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of such things as some of the issues you raised. I don't care to get involved in politics in this forum, because it muddies the water over the real issues. If the African Bishop said what you say he did, then he was either mistaken, or yes--I agree with you--wrong in an evil sense for saying such. All lies are evil. However, the areas of Africa where abstinence has been taught along with other means of protection have done the best. As for the idea that condoms were implicated, sure, it's stupid. But remember that the very scientist that discovered the AIDS virus and was considered the top mind on the subject on the planet came to hold that AIDS initially got its impetus from the use of nitrous gas by homosexuals. Just goes to show that men "in the know" can also have some very odd ideas, so the Bishop wouldn't be alone.
Do I understand you correctly that the reason you're an atheist is because you've never seen God? That's it? That you just came to “know” there wasn't one? How? Was it some kind of feeling, to use Thameron’s obsession?
Dirk, I know you think you are right. We all do. But to start at a conclusion and then get angry at others for not having the same one isn’t their fault. That isn't open mindedness or free thought, no matter who writes some definition. Free thought is just that--nothing more, nothing less--despite connotations in various minds. We have to look at the evidence and work forward from there. I know you agree with this, so let’s stick to it and leave the extra-curricular ad homina out of it. We’ll both be better men for understanding each other instead of flailing our arms.
-Col.
The Col. reveiled?
Talk about way too long...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/i_get_email_9.php#more
Is that you, Col.? ;)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I could wish
Naw, Jim, not me. I hardly have time to keep up with UTI. But I do agree with virtually everything the writer said, and wish I articulated myself that well. I think even you can admit there is, at times, a certain air of desperation among some of the Darwinists. Don't you think?
And P.Z.'s reply that IDers, "are entirely ideologically driven, trying to find a pseudoscientific rationale" is just plain stupid. I mean, stupid. It is demonstrably false, at least for some of the leading ID minds. I don't claim to know all the motivations behind every scientists, but many of those he is referring to are sure not Bible-thumpers, and came to ID via Darwin and full acceptance of him. P.Z.'s condescending response, at least on this one topic, is the kind of drivel beneath someone of his educational caliber. And I think he knows it.
-Col.
That desperation you smell...
Um, no. What you mistake for desperation about the theory of evolution is more likely despair over the thought that religion-driven bullshit will leave us a third-rate country as the rest of the world continues to develop actual science. Because that is what ID and the related crap will amount to. If you doubt me, look to the countries of the world where theocracy holds sway, and see what the condition of their science and industry is. Is that what you want, Col.?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Actually
Um, no. I think I smell something else from the logic of your response. :-)
No, I like the America that Christians have helped (immensely) to build. Things like the separation of powers, etc., all come from the likes of Blackstone's commentaries via the writings of Locke. Christian through and through, and yet has never been a theocracy. In spite of the fact that our founding document builds the very case for America on God, God was never intended to be the King, and never will be.
But, of course, none of the future's scientific success has anything to do Darwinism's success--as though science can't be done without him, or only atheists can do science. You know, just the opposite could be argued. Marx was thrilled with Origin, and was going to write the forward for it, but the publishers thought better. I guess one might be able to look at history and see how well Darwinism works for science; the former Soviet Union would be the prime example.
Is there an example of a Christian theocracy ever in history? The Byzantines would likely be the closest, but even that was certainly no theocracy.
-Col.
State of the Military
If this guy represents the brightest and the best that this country has to offer, I think we're in trouble. I'm sorry Colonel, but your religious sensitivity does not trump someone else's right to free speech. If you and your friends of the religious right are going to use your faith as a political cudgel then you become fair game. How do you expect gays to act towards Christians? You insult and condemn them for years on end and when they fight back, you cry foul and complain that your feelings are hurt. Well, excuse me Colonel but go fuck yourself!
Take a look at the other side of the story
This page has been quick to condemn Major Freddy Welborn based on the contents of his myspace page. Why don't you all take at Jeremy Hall's page, full of "little gems".
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=10817404
Seems to me if Major Freddy is doing something wrong with his page, poor ole Jeremy is just as guilty. At least Major Welborn can voice his opinion without using needless vulgarity. Some of the pictures are pretty, *ahem*, "mature" as well.
Spc Hall's myspace page
Just curious, what problems do you have with 22yo Jeremy Hall's web page?
Rosary colored glasses
Hi Dolly,
Can you imagine what our wedding invitations would look like? Sorry.
Anyway, I was wondering the same thing. I think Mr. Balanced took exception to the F-word or something. I tried putting on my 'rosary' colored glasses to detect evil on Jeremy's page but even that didn't work. The F-word was the only possibility I could come up with unless Mr. Balanced was freaking out about Jeremy's audacity to question blind faith. I suppose to a christianist, stating one's opinion in public is the same as forcing that view onto others?
Dirk
Wow, Freddy seems a little
Wow, Freddy seems a little overzealous bordering on psychotic. I can easily picture him taking great pleasure in killing an Iraqi with his bare hands while he sings Onward Christian Soldier.
Wait, now that I think about it, he is probably only killing with one hand while he uses the other one to jack off to Jesus.
Honest opinions
Hi, Brent:
I've already posted here that, with what information I had at my disposal, I thought not allowing the meeting was unfair and even likely unconstitutional.
Though not a constitutional issue, the Folsom Street Fair's ad campaign this year is similar in that it deals with how we treat other groups. Since I don't put up original posts here, this is the best place to ask how each of you thinks about the ad below. Do you support it? Does it trouble you? Do you not care one way or the other? Do you think Christians deserve it? Just wondering.
Folsom Street Fair Ad
Thanks~
-Col.
Ah, Folsom...
Funny, everyone seems to think Folsom is a gay street fair (not a parade, Brent--that's Pride; it's in June & sponsored by a vodka company). As you see in the ad, there are three women (plus Sister ROMA!), one of whom has a male submissive (the one in the puppy hood). While the original fair 20 years ago was primarily attended by gay men, I'd guess it's approaching 50/50 homo/hetero in terms of attendance (okay, maybe more like 50 homo/30 het/20 as-the-mood-strikes-me) with a steadily growing women's contingent (lesbian and straight).
Among the things I find so fascinating about this "controversy," manufactured and phoney as it is, are:
1) Where did the offended Christians encounter this image? It's not as if the fair does push advertising on Christian web sites. There are no roadside billboards. You'd have to go out of your way to see it before you could be offended (at least before the "controversy" broke out).
2) The Da Vinci painting is barely 500 years old. It's not as if the image is an integral part of the ritual of the Christian faith.
3) It's one of the most imitated (and parodied) images in art history. The pearl clutching over the sanctity of this cherished image would be a lot more convincing if it were a touch less selective.
To answer your specific questions, Col. Support it? Yes. The small jpgs don't do it justice. It's a technically well done photo of people I know and like. And the Fair itself, apart from filling The City's hotels and restaurants to bursting this weekend (along with the Love Parade and a half dozen other events), will provide a quarter million dollars to local charities and non-profits, most of them involved in direct service (things like providing hot meals to disabled shut-ins). Trouble me? Why would it? As to whether Christians deserve "it" (whatever "it" is), the models, most of whom are Christians (including several Catholics), seem to be on board with the idea, and I thought it was rude to questions the integrity of other Christians' faith. Or is that only Christians you agree with?
I don't bear a grudge. I have no surviving enemies.
Usagi
Hi, Usagi:
My question didn't have to do with the event so much as the method of advertisement. You say there were Christians involved. When I think of Christians, I think of those that make every attempt to follow the moral pattern of Christ. Just because someone's name is Lincoln doesn't make them a car.
But more to the point; Communion is a very cherished thing to Christians. This means that the ad is demeaning to them and, I might add, I think purposefully so. So the question then comes to, "If you believe the ad is perfectly proper, is it proper for someone to use the word 'queer' in reference to homosexuals?" Or do things only cut one way for you?
By the way, I originally saw the story on evening TV news.
-Col.
P.S. I guess I can just see it coming--someone thinking I'm arguing for calling homosexuals names. Nope. That wouldn't be what Christ would have done either. I'm just using the hypothetical to make a very obvious point....
Hmmm...
Posters? Yeah, printing posters is pretty old-fashioned, but for things like street fairs still worth the effort. Amazing how far afield from the original site these things can move these days, isn't it?
I don't know everyone in the shot personally, but several I do know identify as Christian and attend Christian houses of worship.
So, attending church and doing charitable work (feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger, tending the sick, visiting the imprisoned, and burying the dead) doesn't fit into the moral pattern of Christ? Okay, it's been a few decades since Sunday school, so maybe I'm misremembering.
I do seem to recall some commentary from the Big Guy about judging others, but like I said, it's been a while (and considering the years of their lives devoted to caring for people in need, to say nothing of the time in seminary, it's not like the participants need me defending their Christianess).
Guess I'm not looking at it from the right angle to see Communion. There's no rail, no alter, no cup. (And that's not even how we heathen Methodists did communion at all--bread cubes and individual cups of grape juice where I grew up. Cherished? No, not really in my old church. That's more of a Catholic thing as far as I could tell from Dad's grumbling about his younger days. Actually, technically I am Catholic since I had to be baptized there as a condition of my parents being married in the cathedral since Mom was a heathen Protestant.)
Nope, nothing there but a take on a 15th century painting that started falling off the wall before it was finished. And the more I look at it, the less it looks like the Da Vinci: the composition is different with multiple levels, the figures are not in the same positions and are posed differently, the background is completely dissimilar, and the defining feature of the Da Vinci, the perspective's vanishing point in the center of Christ's head, is not present.
"Perfectly proper"... way to move those goalposts. But in point of fact, yes, it is perfectly proper. There are no genitalia or female nipples visible. No sex acts depicted or implied. Body wash commercials are more sexually explicit. A fashion editorial in any top tier magazine would be edgier and a cover shot would feature more flesh.
What that has to do with using "queer" in reference to dykes and faggots, I'm not sure. I guess it depends on the context and how deliberately provocative or insulting you want to be. On the other hand, considering the 40 plus Queer Studies programs around the country, there's an argument it's more correct than the clinical and less accurate "homosexual."
If you can say that with a straight face to a guy who came out in the late 80s, irony may indeed be dead. You clearly have no concept of exactly what people calling themselves Christian (who wouldn't recognize the moral pattern of Christ if it hit them upside the head) are capable of. Suffice it to say, if prayer or thought or wishes could kill, I'd have been a dead man long ago. To be clear, not for anything I'd done but because I am queer. There are plenty of Christians ready to pick up the stones right now given half an opportunity.
These poor straight atheists don't fully understand yet what they're in for now that they've decided to get uppity and insist on existing in the absence of a closet. But they will. If you hadn't realized yet, folks, the tuning up hasn't started yet, let alone the overture. This is still the random tooting as the orchestra walks in to warm up.
Because of the "controversy." My point.
No, only someone with virtually no reading comprehension would think that, but you're still missing the point very badly. That's not uncommon.
To move away from the "controversy" (which BTW spiked sales of the merchandise as far as I could tell) and back to the main topic of the post. How do you image this would play out if--say--a Jewish Major who'd been leading the men and women under his command in readings of the Torah quashed a Methodist's request for a meeting of fellow Methodists to sing from the Methodist hymnal?
I don't bear a grudge. I have no surviving enemies.
As Usagi predicted.
No, you're just saying that Catholics aren't Christians, and neither are other (self-proclaimed) Christians who may have had something to do with the ad. As Usagi predicted:
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Xian Defense Mechanism
Good catch Jim.
The Colonel/Joe always does that. If we are talking about evil Xians or Xians that have different opinions than he does, they are not considered "real" for some reason. He did the same thing the other day when he said that certain people weren't "real" Americans. Must be some type of defense mechanism that protects his ego from self criticism. I have noticed many evangelicals with this particular characteristic. Especially Bush. Evangelicals see themselves as "god-like" or trying to be just like god. Therefore, they cannot admit mistakes because, of course, god does not make mistakes.
Dirk
paradox
Some Christians have this idea that all Christians are good (silly, isn't it?) deep down because if they weren't good and said Jesus holy name their little mouths would catch fire, but on a basic level they know that some Christians are evil. How to solve this contradiction? Well you could admit that the premise that everyone who shares your religion is good is fundamentally incorrect. Or you could do what a lot of Xians end up doing - deny that someone who they can easily see is evil is a "true Christian".
"If there is evil in this world, it lurks within the hearts of men" ~Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia
Right and wrong
Wrong about seeing myself as God-like. Right about trying to be like Him.
It's really easy, guys. It doesn't take a scientist scientist scientist scientist. Read what Jesus stood for in terms of sexual morality. Are these guys promoting that? If not, then not...whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox in claim. This is much further afield than Hank judging who is actually skeptical about life's questions. I guess we're not on a level playing field. Wow....
But the real question remains. You were both being so oblique you never got to the point. Why dance? The real issue is: Does it only cut one way when it comes to demeaning someone?
-Col.
"The Popular Front of Judea"
Col., we've all pretty much answered this question. My answer (with the refrain "Get over it.") was one you didn't care for, but so what? And if your co-religionists don't care about the supposed offense, and indeed some of them participated in the making of it, then what is the problem?
Ah, but there is the *real* crux of the matter: they're not your co-religionists, are they? No, because they don't agree on some particular point, as you say yourself. So you're taking umbrage, and expecting some special consideration, over your own narrow little interpretation of scripture.
And that's what you and your kind want, isn't it? To be the ones who define what is moral, what is right, what is taught in the schools and printed in the law books. Because you have the Truth, handed down from God Himself! All others are mistaken, or deceived, or Deceivers themselves (because, you know, there really are Demons out there!) Splitters!
Wars have been fought over such things, Col. Horrors untold have been conducted in the name of Holy Truth. You may pretend to be a tolerant man, but when push comes to shove you show your real colors. Yeah, this is a trivial example, but it shows what would happen if you really had your way, doesn't it?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Wrong and wrong
Not at all. You are simply not able to make others in whatever image you want them to be in, Jim. A predisposition as to what I or others are, a truth does not make. An attempt to beat them into that mold a reality does not make, either.
I actually asked a different question from the one that you, in tolerance, told me to just get over. The point of my new question is to put things in a very specific context.
I have averred I would not put the "q" word in someone's face specifically because I am not the "kind" that you attempt to make me. Jesus wouldn't have done that, so I won't either. It is simply (Gr. agape) love to treat your fellow man with deference. We have spoken about this before in areas where I have told you I'm ashamed at how Christians have behaved toward you. When I'm ashamed of Christians throwing stupid comments at those we're supposed to be loving, it isn't about "narrow kinds", it's about Jesus' paradigm. You have quoted the little ditty here yourself, "Jesus, save us from Your followers." So you clearly know that we often have let Him down and been other than what He intended us to be. But here, I've taken a position toward homosexuals that is one of deference. I'm simply asking if, in this specific context, you (plural) would be similarly tolerant toward a Christian?
I guess stated an entirely different way, if I logged on here and referred to someone with the "q" pejorative and they raised a question about it, would you say to them, "get over it" or would you recognize the wrong I had done?
You've leveled with me before saying you're asking something honestly. I am trying to do just that with you (and others here). Not gaming. Not judging. Not shoving. Asking.
-Col.
Col Again
In his usual overwrought language, Col is equating a virtually defenseless minority, gays, with an economically and politically and socially powerful group, the Christian majority.
Basically, he’s making the point: “I’m holding back from kicking your 2-month-old puppy. I expect you to show the same restraint when my 700-pound pet grizzly comes into the room.”
...
There’s something delightfully obtuse and yet spooky in some of his comments. Years ago, I worked at a fast food place, and every Friday and Saturday night there was a certain Captain K.C. Cooke, an ex-military man and a current prison guard who moonlighted in security work.
He had all sorts of opinions, and was absolutely convinced that he was right in every single thing. And I’m not even sure “convinced” is the right word. There was something beyond conviction in him ... it appeared that he couldn’t even conceive of doubting himself. He had a placid certainty that was as unscratchable as neutronium.
He once told me that the reason he still had all his hair, at his age, was that he kept it cut short. Long hair, you see, caused you to go bald early – and all of us young people were making a sad little mistake in the way we wore our hair, which we would pay for in later years.
He lectured me gently throughout one whole Friday night – in the presence of one of my black coworkers – about how “knee-grows” had smaller brains, and so were suited to do simple labor on their own, but needed firm guidance from white people in all more complex stuff.
He was always gentle in every discussion, which disturbed me in the beginning because he was wrong about so much. Eventually I think I figured out that he was gentle because he believed that everybody around him was so pathetically, tragically wrong – about just about everything – that only through his own vast and generous love could we have any hope at all of ever getting fixed. He seemed to have passed through condescension and rocketed out the far side, into a kind of saintly patience.
It took me a while to understand why he scared me so much. It wasn’t just that I didn’t have a hope of ever actually having a conversation with him, or changing his mind about anything. It was more that I, and all the other people around him, weren’t really human to him. We were something like fondly-regarded cats – he loved them, but he wouldn’t hesitate to take one in for neutering or declawing, or even euthanasia, if it was for their own good.
Sometimes I fancy I catch faint little whiffs of that here.
The fox catches his own scent first.
Hank, you trully amaze me. I tell you there are several ways to change my mind, but you think I'm fixed. I speak to how a Christian should behave in deference to a homosexual, and you attempt to make it equal to a hick racist spouting idiocy.
Two questions: are you sure about your atheism, and is it okay in your mind to demean other people including Christians?
I'm almost astonished that this can't be about the original issue instead of throwing everything else in the whole sink at it. Why do you think that is?
-Col.
The Christian Rides Forth with his Bright Sword of Reason
I keep hearing this little comedy skit playing in my head:
You demean all Christians when you demean me. I'm astonished.
Just because I ignore your arguments, you ignore my arguments. You must not be very firm in your "beliefs."
There's something wrong with you. What do you suppose it is? Why are you so screwed up?
And unlike SOME people, I'm totally open-minded. I'll listen to you as soon as the sun stands still in the heavens, space aliens land and divulge the secrets of eternal life, and scientists search every atom of the universe and determine that my benevolent, omnipotent God isn't hiding in any of them. See? I'm a pushover. I'm so open-minded I'm practically a sponge.
Oh, and by the way, what's wrong with you?
Maneuvers
I can only come to one conclusion with all of what has been logged on this topic. The attempts to adroitly (and disingenuously) maneuver around the only real point is because you must think it is fine to throw things at Christians because of your hatred of them (or more accurately, what you attempt to make them out to be).
Okay. Just note any hypocrisy is certainly not in my court on this one--I'd treat the homosexual better than you would treat people of my “kind”.
-Col.
Whoo.
Two-month-old puppy. 700-pound grizzly.
Oh, and: Neener, neener.
That's correct, Col.
Bravo, Col. That's correct - we're *all* disingenuously dancing around the 'real point', and you are the only one who has the TRUTH.
Sheesh.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Another honest question
Okay. So how could I have asked this in a way that was appropriate? How can I more adequately raise a point or request genuine information?
I'm being as serious as I can, Jim. I endeavor to be a participant here in a helpful and adult way. It's hard to do, partly due to the format. One idea naturally spawns another, so there can be rabbit trails. One writer may intend one thing, but it is misunderstood as something else. Preconceptions on everyone's part are always hurdles.
How can I engage with UTI minds in such a way as to avoid as many of the above pitfalls as possible? Or is it possible?
Thanks~
-Col.
A hopefully honest answer.
Ned Ryerson.
(Huh? Ever see Groundhog Day? The Bill Murray movie? Ned is the annoying insurance agent.)
Col., this is an honest answer, and one likely to be fairly painful to read.
You remind me of Ned Ryerson. Oh, just because I just got through watching that movie again. But it fits as well as anything else I could come up with. I played with several variations on the theme, decided to just go with what was foremost in my awareness.
See, I have serious doubts at this point about your sincerity. You're like the insurance agent at the High School reunion - wanting to 'get along' and 'work with' people even though you don't really see eye-to-eye with them the way you would like to pretend.
Now, why do I say that? Why do I have the temerity to question someone else's motivations? Isn't that outside the accepted, but unstated, rules of polite conversation?
Because you don't come across as being genuine. Sorry. I've played along with you, wanting to have the kind of conversation I can have with friends who are people of faith. But it never quite works. I'm always left scratching my head over your willful obtuseness, wondering how anyone who really means well can be so completely clueless.
*sigh* Example in this case: you wanted to turn this into some kind of referendum over Christian persecution. All the rest of us saw it as your denying the legitimacy of any other viewpoint other than your own. You wanted to show how the poster (which you raised as an issue - it didn't have anything to do with the original post) was offensive to "Christians". Everyone else was wondering how you got there, since we saw other self-admitted and practicing Christians who evidently weren't bothered in the slightest by the poster. You deny that they could be "real" Christians, protest that we're applying different standards in terms of discrimination.
Um, no. If I have some kind of obsession over Men Who Wear Hats, that's my problem. I don't get to claim victim status just because other people see no problem with people wearing hats.
You constantly say you have an open mind, are willing to look at the evidence. But then you seem to shut that open mind at the first bit of evidence contrary to your expectations, and keep it locked up tight when someone else has a different perspective. In short, you come across as all-too-similar to every ravin' fundie any of us have had dealings with.
Numerous times I have said to myself that I'm just not going to bother responding to you. Then I figure that maybe, just maybe, you're what you portray yourself as...and so I give you the benefit of the doubt, figure that engagement in discussion with you will be enlightening as to the perspective of someone of deep faith, if nothing else. Yet when you drop back to the most basic denial of reality, and claim victim status on top of it, I change my inclination.
In short, I don't trust you, Col. I think you want to be thought of as a "thinking, rational" person. You may even have some very deep misgivings about your faith, which you are unwilling to admit to. I dunno. I do know that I seldom look to your comments here as being part of a dialogue, and expect them to more be a defense of faith. What you might hope to gain from such an action is beyond me.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Thank you. Where do we go?
Well, I at least have to thank you for an honest answer. It is transparently so; very different from how I often feel about posts here.
We certainly disagree as to what occurred over the Folsom question. What I was asking went in a different direction.
As to trust, what can I say? I've told you what I am, and that I'm not beyond attempting to make a point. However, I'm not beyond learning one either. I speak to people all the time about the site and things I've become aware of. Some of the things I've learned here reflect very poorly on Christians. Some reflect on atheists, or at least some of them.
Coming from a bit more regimented background than a free-wheeling blog site, I sometimes am completely dumbfounded at the inability or unwillingness of loggers to adhere to initial trajectories of thought as well as accepted conventions of logic & debate. It is, I guess, just the nature of this case.
I think you can understand, if you allow yourself to, how it is an almost impossible course to chart. If I agree, I'm Eddy. If I disagree, I'm a fundy. If I acknowledge there are potential defeaters for my worldview, I'm not honest. If I point out an area where you (plural) are hypocritical, I'm a victim. If someone says something really ignorant or adolescent, I can't say so or I'm a bigot. I've even asked more than once how you want me to interact in an effort to avoid all the mines.
Is there enough real free thinking at UTI? How frequently is there honest inspection of other ideas--or introspection of one's own? There appears to be anger (in diametric relationship to the UTI header), but how many "whys" or "becauses" are there? Insulation is fine if UTI is an atheist's good ol' boys club where everyone can yuk it up together and think of themselves as elitists. But that isn't what I was told this site was. I was told it was an organ for thinking freely. Something for minds that are keen on the world and its discovery.
So what do you want me to do? To quote Ross Perot (or was it Mark Twain?), "I'm all ears."
-Col.
Running out of feet.
First, you're welcome. Second, then why do you bother to come here? I'm serious about that - and I think that it gets to the fundamental problem with your interaction here: what do you hope to accomplish? Just dialogue? Then getting into pissing matches with people isn't doing it. Converting us heathens? Of the hundreds of people who read this site daily, your words may have some impact in this regard, but I'd bet it's not in the way you want. Challenging your own beliefs (either to hone your own arguments or to escape from your belief - yes, many people who are in the process of becoming atheistic do go through a phase of intense defense of their belief system first)? Well, that works only insofar as you're actually willing to listen to the things that others say.
Well, you keep saying that. I'm just not sure that it's true (and I'm not saying that you are lying, necessarily). I see very little evidence of it. What I do see is a rehash again and again of the same arguments, posturing and backhanded compliments, the occasional subtle insult. Sure, you're civil, and that does separate you from the garden-variety troll.
Ah, there's one of those subtle insults and posturing.
Colonel, we don't know who you are. I've bolded that because it really does deserve the emphasis. You act as though we should accept your credentials and assertions about all the debates you've attended/participated in, respect your background and education. Well, we don't have that information, other than your claims. For all we know, you could indeed be that graduate class in psychological warfare at the Discovery Institute (or whatever it was) that we joked about weeks ago. You could be Ted Haggard or Benny Hinn, having a bit of fun. You could just be some random guy who likes to jerk around atheists. We don't know. All we do know is what you say here, what arguments and information you present. And we judge that accordingly.
Bullshit. You just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to come here and test your ideas (or whatever it is you are doing, see above), challenge us, insult us, and then still have people like you. That's not how people work. If you offend them, they're going to react.
You've several times said that you see this as sitting down over a beer with buddies, thrashing out ideas. But I'll be honest - you behave in a bar the way you behave here, you're going to either get tossed out or punched in the nose. For my part, I'd finish my beer quickly and then 'remember' that I had an appointment I needed to run off for. Why? It's not because we disagree on many points - hell, I disagree with the bulk of the world on many points, and yet I've managed to get along with most people just fine. It's because of your tendency to be haughty and patronizing, to get into pissing contests with most of the regular posters here. To continue the bar analogy, you're like the stereotypical frat boy who walks into a gay bar and starts getting all offended that the homos are dancing together.
Col., it's a bar. We serve alcohol to anyone who wants to come in and is of legal age. No one is gonna toss you out. But if you sit down next to someone and start trying to sell him life insurance (to go back to my Ned Ryerson comment), don't be surprised if he finds a reason to get up and go somewhere else. Come over to big table where everyone is singing camp songs, and you don't get to get offended that they won't listen to you put forth your theories on opera. The guys playing poker in the corner have no desire to change to playing beer pong. You can start up your own game, if you want, and try and get people interested. Or you can put up a sign on a table and invite people to come hear the Truth of Jesus. No one will boot you. But you don't have the right to get in people's faces when they're talking about something else (as you did early in this thread) and insist that they change to topic to something you want to talk about.
How many times have we tried to get off on the right foot?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Again, thanks for the clarity
Jim, I've obviously misunderstood. The bar analogy is helpful--I hadn't thought of things in that light. I mistakenly thought everyone was, more or less, at one big table and there were many different conversations going on concurrently. I certainly didn't mean to divert one; as I said, I wasn't sure I could or should start a blog, so was actually trying to be careful not to overstep. I also thought part of the goal was to engage ideas and issues that by their very nature raised some level of controversy. I apologize.
Respectfully,
-Col.
Umm.
Translating freely from the above:
Thank you.
I’m a good person. Some other people are not.
You people are dumb, but I can deal with it.
Why are you all so mean to me?
What’s wrong with you people? Why isn’t this place like I want it to be?
Gratuitous quote.
Col Cliff Notes?
I love it. Seriously though can't we see that we are all by far intellectually inferior to our beloved august military philosopher? I mean who else could make the argument that it is utterly and abysmally stupid to believe that the universe suddenly came into existence through natural processes as yet to be determined by science whilst simultaneously asserting that is patently obvious that some anthropomorphised, extracosmic superbeing (which somehow magically escapes the necessity of being created) instantly created the universe? Well now. You just have to respect that. And when you look at the complex structure of living creatures (wings and eyes and such) and you look at the fossil record and cannot see half-wings and half-eyes there and you (as master of biology and probability) cannot think of any possible reason why they wouldn't be there it must, as any blind fool can see, mean that the various stories of some guy wandering around the desert two millenia or so ago wilting fig trees, exorcising demons and getting himself killed must be true down to the last jot and tittle. Patently obvious. Oh, and all those other stories about men wandering around the mideast talking about some God or other? Well don't worry your pretty little heads about them. They are false of course. The deep thought processes of The Col. (whose fathomless mind has been contemplating the cosmos for well over ten years now) has generated mountains...hills...heaps...molehills... well, alright...NO extensive proofs of their erroneousness, but if he says they aren't true, and says it in those big words, well then they must be false, and that's good enough for me. Islam pah! I mean they throw rocks at pillars and bow towards Mecca. How ridiculous is that? Silly atheists. Just look at the fossil record! It's all right there before your fully formed and divinely dictated eyes! No half-wings and no half-eyes means Christianity is true! Lots of people believe it unlike your Spaghetti Monster and frilly pink unicorn so it must be true! The extinction of the trilobites meshes perfectly with biblical scripture (when interpreted correctly), and if you disagree you are just being mean and adolescent and The Col. would surely whup your sorry ass if you were in a debate forum even if he had one bible filled hand tied behind his back. So don't you go dissin' The Col. now. You wouldn't like him when he is angry, and it might jus' be time for that there jawbone of an ass to get another workout. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Good one, Jim
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Post new comment