Does a family need a collective spiritual life?
It is Easter Sunday as I write this, and during today’s packed and joyful service, I found myself wishing that it wasn’t so easy to let regular life get in the way of the New Life that many are so conscious of – and conscientious about – during holidays.
Most people believe in God. Addiction recovery programs such as AA have found that they don’t work without relying on Someone greater than yourself. Numerous studies have found that every member of a family is more healthy, has more friendships, and a more positive outlook on life with more regular spiritual practice. And in a family, a collective spiritual life is very influential. For example, a study by Dr. Sung Joon Jang found that children whose parents were more religious in practice were less likely to use drugs later on.
If belief was just a collective delusion, studies would have found no difference from those whose parents said “just say no” a lot. But it makes perfect sense if there really is a God who loves us enough to show us the path of life – and will help us stay on it, if we’ll listen.
Today, a growing minority – about one-third of adults according to the Barna Group –have begun to detach their beliefs from a regular spiritual practice. And some parents now assert that you can teach moral principles without religious belief. But where do moral principles come from if not from absolute truth? And where does absolute truth come from if not from the creator of that truth?
Rebecca Hagelin’s new book, “30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family,” demonstrates how simple establishing a collective spiritual foundation can be – and how important. As she says, “When everything is negotiable, then nothing is dependable.
Two thousand years ago, Jesus told a parable very relevant today: that someone who hears his words and “does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand” and cannot withstand the storms of life. But, Jesus said, “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” – when the storms come, the house stands firm.
Does a family need a collective spiritual life?
I still remember an Atlanta friend’s surprise when I told her about some volunteer work I did as a child. She admitted that she didn’t think less religious families like mine did that sort of thing. So then it was my turn to be surprised; I was raised in a neighborhood where religion was both diverse and took a backseat to other, shared values, with no apparent harm. Crime was low, kids were well-behaved, and neighbors valued one another and the world we lived in.
I don’t disagree with Shaunti that a collective spiritual life can strengthen a family, and it’s true that most people believe in God — who said anything about “a collective delusion?” Still, I’m astonished at her inference that the positive effects of spirituality on families proves the existence of a loving God. That really flunks the logic test, and points to a complete refusal to believe that anything other than a life based on the Bible will enable a family to flourish. Living morally with or without religious structure — that’s what creates those positive effects, and that’s what a family needs. There are those like mine that focused on morality through other means, with terrific results. I have a brother who took in a teenage neighbor and put him through college. I have a sister who is known in her small town for extensive work with underprivileged young women.
Then there’s my friend Mike, a caring physician, loving husband, great father and fourth-generation non-believer. He’s close to his extremely devout in-laws, who marvel at his strong, moral fiber. One night at dinner they finally worked up the nerve to ask him: “How do you know the right thing to do?” Mike smiled politely and responded, “Because it’s the right thing to do.”
These conversations are hard to have, but deeply rewarding. During a visit back home recently, I worked up the nerve to ask my most religious childhood friend if she wishes I accepted Christ as my savior. “Well, that would be great,” Zoe gently allowed, “but I don’t need you to believe what I believe.” Moral houses built on ground rich from many beliefs, weathering storms together — that’s always been the right neighborhood for me.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
351 comments Add your comment
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
9:26 am
First!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
9:31 am
Glad you friend doesn’t rape and kill daily Andi, but there is no reference for him about what is right and wrong. Without God you simply do what you “feel” is right. Just like Hitler and just like Stalin. You argument as usual is weak and fraught with feel goodness. Andi, I really hope you quit writing and find a real job when the AJC goes paperless later this year. Liberism is a mental disorder and you are very sick!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
9:38 am
Where are the mexicans buying guns? I hear they pay a lot, can someone have them give me a call. Just saying…
still cling to my guns and bible! Maybe I can make them a deal on some bibles too!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
9:38 am
Isn’t Shanti pretty!
Gale
April 17th, 2009
9:58 am
I still say it is a pity I cannot properly express rolling eyes in a text box.
Shaunti has written this same commentary before. No Bible? You cannot possibly know what is right and wrong! Wrong Shaunti! Very wrong. If you put your god-based morals on hold and discussed the concept with an open mind with lots of nonbelievers, you might see it is quite possible.
I like Anrea’s friend’s answer of “Because it is the right thing to do.” Some will likely complain that is moral relativism. I say, so what? We teach children to think and understand and care for others. Why should that need a rulebook?
Mara
April 17th, 2009
10:13 am
Haven’t we had this conversation before? Do I really need to reiterate the number of atheist/agnostic/humanists in prison vs. the number of believers (of various flavors)?! Do I really need to repost the links to the various studies indicating that morality (and even god-belief) is most likely genetic and evolutionary?
it gets soooo tiresome listening to ‘believers’ (mainly Christians, here in the US) harping on how IMPOSSIBLE it is to be a decent moral person without a big ol’ invisible spankin’ daddy watching your every move, judging your every choice, and making his lists of the ‘good’ people and the ‘bad’ people just waiting to ‘bring you home’ so he can decide if you’ve been a good girl (who gets to stay in the ‘nice place’) or a bad girl, (who gets tortured for all eternity).
don’t we have something better to argue about than religion?
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
10:18 am
Gale, is Dr K right to assist people in thier suicide? What if they aren’t productive? Just wack ‘em! Too expensive to do that heart surgery? Wack ‘em! Two men can get married, why not a man and a boy? Or a man and his donkey? How do you think Hitler and Stalin got away with what they did? Or Pol Pot or Che Guavanectar down in South America? They got rid of God. This is like aLgOrE with global warming (climate change I am so sorry!) Morals are relative UNLESS based on principals of a higher being (God or Jesus for you slow ones out there this morning!) Sorry Gale, nonbelievers aren’t moral, they can’t be. They are AMORAL, not immoral, but simply with out morals.
Gale
April 17th, 2009
10:26 am
Gandalf, sometimes we agree, sometimes we don’t agree. How about this question? If I wear a big bright cross around my neck, would you decide I am a moral person if you do not know me? The cross advertises that I am a Christian. As with many advertisements, this would be false. I think people who rely on a set of rules are more easily misled by someone who is not following the “rules”, but claiming they are.
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
11:50 am
Joke
No. She was confrontational and argumentative. She was also in an obviously hostile situation. She was not the person that needed to be covering that story.
He was leading into the resolution of the story, which was exactly what her original question was about. She cut him off. She was so aggressive, that she asked: Don’t you understand that the state of “Lincoln” (where ever the hell that is) was getting some amount of money. SHE was already off point. The reason why you had never seen her before ws because she was a novice. She screwed up.
I have worked for CNN twice in the 20 odd years I have been in Atlanta. They pay crap and hire either reporters who can’t get a job or production people that are kids, fresh out of school. They finally learned to put vets in the control rooms, but that only happened after they were sold to Time/Life (or whoever the hell bought them)
I have been in situations at least that bad (The Rodney King riots in Atlanta), where we were actually attacked, but we were both vets and was able to handle it and still look like pros. She and her videographer were amateurs, as per CNN.
She was horribly biased in a situation where people were already angry at her network for being biased. She was an idiot.
–As if crazies holding racist posters is not a valid story? C’mon! Where was FOX’s Fair and Balanced coverage of those people?–
There was a very tragic story on local Atlanta news about five people dying in a hit and run accident. We know it was a woman driving a BMW 740. We also know that she was smoking a cigarette and was talking on her cell phone. Do you know whether she was Black or White? She is (or was) at large, there is a description of her out, she is full blown BOLO, and the local news won’t mention whether or not she is Black or White.
The same thing happened a few months ago when some guy had gotten involved in a road rage incident who took out his pistol and killed another driver in front of that driver’s wife. the wife gave a full description of the killer, which was relayed by the news stations . . . all except the race of the killer.
With that sort of sensitivity to racial issues, where very useful crime prevention is retarded because of a HUGE element of a general description of a perpetrator is left out, why would you think that FOX should focus on that sort of thing?
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
11:58 am
Mara
–It gets soooo tiresome listening to ‘believers’ (mainly Christians, here in the US) harping on how IMPOSSIBLE it is to be a decent moral person without a big ol’ invisible spankin’ daddy watching your every move, judging your every choice, and making his lists of the ‘good’ people and the ‘bad’ people just waiting to ‘bring you home’ so he can decide if you’ve been a good girl (who gets to stay in the ‘nice place’) or a bad girl, (who gets tortured for all eternity).–
I just don’t get it, Why does that bother you so much? Not what they believe, but that they believe something differently than you? Is that it? I mean, what bothers you about the fact that they believe this?
I believe that there are natural forces that are as real as gravity that cause certain reactions, much like Karma. Some people may be more comfortable by associating a persona with those forces. I don’t see a problem with that. I don’t believe that, but that’s cool. They aren’t hurting me and what they believe isn’t hurting me. Other than the bus loads of Jehovah Witnesses that use to come to my old place, I have never been approached by anyone about this. They are harmless. With the problems that we have in this society, why all the bad feelings toward church ladies?
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:11 pm
The state of Lincoln could be either Kentucky or Indiana. That is where he grew up. CNN is full of fools. Lincoln’s actions durning the war, and the start of hostilities would have gotten him impeached today. Was he wrong to occupy a state tha secceeded? Texas might secede again! What would we do then! OMG!
Mara
April 17th, 2009
12:15 pm
TOJ – I don’t relly care what they put their faith in. What irks me is their certainty that I cannot possibly be a decent, moral, worthy person unless I believe it too. History is rife with those deemed ‘immoral’ being deemed unfit for inclusion into society.
For example, GWH Bush, when he was president, made no bones about his feelings. “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
12:15 pm
Gale
–I think people who rely on a set of rules are more easily misled by someone who is not following the “rules”, but claiming they are.–
Isn’t that true with everybody? it is definitely at least as true with politics. I just don’t understand this targeted bad feelings toward religion.
I like the Simsons, even thought they are very politically biased, but they do something I really respect. Homer’s neighbor is a born again Christian. He has his problems, like everyone on the show, but he is a great neighbor. He is honest, he is trust worthy, he is dependable, he is always ready to help in any way he can. He reminds me of a lot of Christians that I know. But he is also pious. And the show makes fun of that, but that’s OK, because he really deserves that. And that’s as far as it goes. There is no hate or targeting or anything like that.
That’s sort of how I feel. I was never rude to the JW that came to my door, any more than I am rude when kids come by, wanting to mow the yard. i just don’t get this disdain for religious people.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:27 pm
G
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:28 pm
O
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:28 pm
D
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:28 pm
LOVES YOU!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:29 pm
J
Gale
April 17th, 2009
12:29 pm
It isn’t a distain for religious people, TOJ. It is a distain for people who believe religion is the only moral position. Shaunti is expressing the other side of that coin with her distain for people who do not believe as she does. They do not believe in a supreme being, therefore they cannot be moral people. There is apparently to other measurement of a moral person for Shaunti and those who believe as she does.
I have met moral and immoral people who are believers. Belief in a supreme being is no guarantee of morality.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:29 pm
E
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:29 pm
S
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:29 pm
U
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
12:30 pm
S, DIED FOR YOU!
USinUK
April 17th, 2009
12:42 pm
GtG –
all he had to do was make some brownies … that would have been enough for me.
hair is on fire (has been all day) – will try to drop in later tonight – if not see you over the weekend!!
have a good one, all!!
Mara
April 17th, 2009
12:44 pm
i just don’t get this disdain for religious people.
contempt breeds contempt.
Bumper Sticker
April 17th, 2009
12:45 pm
Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you’re an a$$hole.
Mara
April 17th, 2009
12:47 pm
Gale – It isn’t a distain for religious people, TOJ. It is a distain for people who believe religion is the only moral position
well said.
Gale
April 17th, 2009
12:56 pm
I thought I would address this from a different angle. Shaunti’s question is about a family’s collective spiritual life. I am reminded a aa few families in my acquaintence where one member, often a parent, got religion and tried to impress it on the rest of the family. In each case, the family was torn apart by disagreements and the religious member’s insistance that they believe the same thing they themselves had come to believe. In that sense, I would have to agree with Shaunti. If the collective family is not in tune spiritually, there is bound to be a few problems. What Shaunti does not seem to accept is that many families may be spiritually in tune without sharing religious beliefs. I do not agree that a child raised by nonbelievers is more likely to become addicted to drugs, as in the example she sites. That is too simple an explanation. There are just as many adicts, child abusers, criminals and what have you raised by strictly religious parents. What IS important is the family cohesiveness, not the religion.
USinUK
April 17th, 2009
12:59 pm
Gale –
“What IS important is the family cohesiveness, not the religion.”
dang, missy, you are on a ROLL today!!!
Bumper Sticker
April 17th, 2009
1:04 pm
Pray for jobs.
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
1:15 pm
Gandalf
Yea, and Lincoln freed the Slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation . . . Right. That document freed no one. The 13th and 14th Amendment, signed by a president from Greenville, TN, a southern state freed the slaves. I can’t believe that they teach school kids that a proclamation changed the constitution. LOL!! A proclamation declares the Grand Marshall of a Veterans Day Parade.
Gale
–It is a distain for people who believe religion is the only moral position.–
The trick is to differentiate between the religious people who do that and the ones that don’t. I don’t see people from either side trying to do that, much like political viewpoints. Do you think that religion should be restricted because some people that are religious don’t like you? That’s what I seem to be getting.
I could give a hundred examples and you guys would site a hundred reasons why religious people should ALL be persecuted, but there is no way to change how you guys feel about a really gigantic group of people because a very few of those people might not like you. Instead, God, (or nature or whatever name floats your boat) has given me this absolutely beautiful spring day. Has given me good health and a nice old 14 speed road bike and I plan on putting all that I have been given to good use.
You guys can stay here and work on all those reasons to have bad feelings about millions of other people, while I am having a wonderful afternoon celebrating my God and all that he (or she or it) has given me.
Have a good weekend.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
1:16 pm
Nope, Jesus is what’s important. With out him you resort to writing {dumbass} bumper stickers and using them as you mantra!
Beelzebub
April 17th, 2009
1:17 pm
MY followers are very devout and spiritual. >:-)
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
1:19 pm
How does a 14 speed work? My 21 speed is 3×7 is a 14 2×7?
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
1:19 pm
And B! You forgot one thing, you’re a peckerhead!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
1:20 pm
But B, seriously, like everything God created, He loves you too!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
1:21 pm
Oh, Both you B’s, BLOW ME!
American Woman
April 17th, 2009
1:28 pm
Mr. Paranoid, WHO here said religious people should be persecuted? WHO here said religion should be restricted? I’ve never heard anyone argue that here — only that the government should stay out of religion and not promote any one religion over another, and that religious people should not control the personal lives of others. If I’m wrong, please show me who said that. Conversely, Former President Bush DID INDEED say “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots,” which sounds like persecution to me. My father the atheist fought for this country, and he’s a good, kind, moral, hard-working, generous man and faithful husband who lives by the golden rule every day of his life. Anyone who maligns his morality deserves a kick in the nuts, but he’s too gracious to do it, and would admonish me for even thinking about it.
Gale
April 17th, 2009
1:33 pm
Do you think that religion should be restricted because some people that are religious don’t like you?
Certainly not. I am quite aware that some people who are religious don’t like me, or what they think I stand for. Frankly, I rarely blame that attitude on their religion. I don’t think even the attitude that only believers can be moral should be blamed on religion. To my mind, the problem is, hmmmm, narrow focus might be the phrase I want. When I encounter someone with that certainty that they hold the absolute truth and whatever I think is absolutely wrong, I don’t try to change their mind. That level of ideology is also unlikely to change my mind or beliefs. So too, the thoughts of a child may be better guided by conversations about beliefs than by rote memorization of rules.
Mara
April 17th, 2009
1:38 pm
Do you think that religion should be restricted because some people that are religious don’t like you? That’s what I seem to be getting. I could give a hundred examples and you guys would site a hundred reasons why religious people should ALL be persecuted
I think I speak for all of us when I say that NOBODY supports persecuting or restricting the religious. But I suppose like anything else, it depends on what you mean by ‘persecute’.
Some people believe that if the State doesn’t provide special treatment or allow those who speak for the State to endorse a particular belief, they are being suppressed. Some cry ‘persecution’ when they are not allowed to use the tax-payer’s resources to proselytize or discriminate. Some cry ‘restriction’ when they aren’t allowed to put up religous icons in buildings we all own, to hire or fire because their employee doesn’t worship the same god, or when they are required to obey the same laws as everybody else. Some people think that businesses who try to be inclusive by asking them to say “happy holidays” instead of “merry christmas” are restricting their religious beliefs.
So, what do you mean by ‘restriction’ and ‘persecution’?
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
1:44 pm
Hey AW do us all a favor? STFU Please? Oh, and God Loves You!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
1:47 pm
around Chistmas I say “Merry Christmas”! It’s a cool way to ferret out the silly ones who say, “I am not Christian?” I then say sorry, so, then, are you a Christ killer or a just a heathen?” or “have fun in hell!” It’s rather funny.
Gale
April 17th, 2009
1:54 pm
Gandalf, in the interest of silliness (It is Friday, after all) Do you believe the Christ will return, or that he may have already returned (several times and been locked into an asylum or murdered for his beliefs)?
Scalia
April 17th, 2009
1:57 pm
I have no problem with people being in God, but the rules of religion are just absurd sometimes. No eating meat on Friday. Say ten hail marys and you will be forgiven. Confess your sins to a priest. Why can’t I confess them straight to God? Why do I need a medium?
Why didn’t Shaunti mention preachers children? Out of the ones that I have met, they have been some of the wildest kids I have ever met.
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
2:03 pm
To all
Ask anyone who has ever persecuted or restricted anyone if they were actually guilty of persecuting or restricting anyone and chances are, they would say much what you guys have said: We don’t persecute or restrict anyone. We just demand that you only practice your religion at certain locations. We don’t restrict you by restricting you and we certainly aren’t persecuting you by restricting you to restrictive locations.
It’s very simple. The country was founded in 1776. There was a specific parallel existence between government and religion that worked wonderfully for two hundred years. Religious minorities were sometimes put in awkward situations, but other than that, there were no real problems. but after this system had worked for two hundred years, a very angry and bitter woman decided that she was going to make a name for herself, which she did. The entire country was forced to revamp a working system into a system that is becoming more and more an abject failure. There is no moral teachings in school and parents are often persecuted for disciplining their kids. Unwed birth rates, in spite of killing as many kids as we can, are out of control and we are raising a subcultuire of out of control chjildren who send naked pictures to each other when they are 14 years old. so how’s all this working out for everyone?
NOW I’m outta here.
USinUK
April 17th, 2009
2:04 pm
TOJ –
“Well that’s nice. I didn’t realize that you were a medical professional. I’m sure you always call a discoloration on your finger nail a chromonychia, and when you have a little gas, I’ve heard you mention having a bout of eructation so many times in the past.”
I’m a lady. we don’t get gas. we just explode when we hit 50. sorry that proper terms seem to send you into “fits” – I assume that means you would prefer to say wee-wee, poo-poo and hoo-ha rather than use their proper words, as well. some of us are adults. some are not. I see which camp you fit in.
“What I am talking about is a pregnant woman who refuses to say that her unborn child is a human. That sort of thing, but since you have obviously never seen the debates, I guess this is the best you can do. The next time the discussion breaks out, I’ll point it out and then maybe then you will have nowhere to run . . . er . . . I mean you will further understand the situation.”
if you have a problem with something that Sunshine says, take it up with her. not me. whether the fetus is a human isn’t in question — no one here has ever asserted that the fetus is that of a puppy, pony or prairie dog. the issue is whether that fetus should be treated the same as the woman carrying it. or, at least that’s the issue for me. if you want to know Mara’s, AW’s, Sunshine’s or anyone else’s opinions on the matter, ask THEM – I’m not the spokesperson for All Pro-Choice People.
“Entertainment and news? Ring a bell? Cronkite and Limbugh? Do you recognize any sort of difference? David Brinkly and Sean Hannity. Any spark at all?”
see, here’s the difference … Sean Hannity is on FOX NEWS. Neil Cavuto is on FOX NEWS. Glenn Beck is on FOX NEWS. NEWS. Not the Fox entertainment channel. NEWS. Not Comedy Central. Not hosting their own late-night comedy/chat show. NEWS. Fair and balanced, indeed. Limbaugh – he’s his own animal – he’s “entertainment” when it serves him to be (usually when he’s in hot water for saying something he shouldn’t … like calling a serviceman a “puke”).
Lastly, re: Barney Frank – his home was used for prostitution by his lover. This may come as a surprise to you, but one’s partners/spouses/SOs CAN do things in your home that you don’t know anything about. It happens every day. The situation was investigated and Frank was found to be innocent of having anything to do with it. Then, the good people of MA continued to send him to DC because he is still one of the smartest guys in the room …
and with that, I’m heading home after a MUY long day.
Gale
April 17th, 2009
2:08 pm
TOJ, We don’t restrict you by restricting you and we certainly aren’t persecuting you by restricting you to restrictive locations. Wow, that sounds like the argument I often hear about same sex marriage. You aren’t restricted from marriage. You are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. (not saying you personally are guilty of that one. Just say’n)
American Woman
April 17th, 2009
2:17 pm
As a five-foot-two-inch unarmed civilian, I can promise you I HAVE NEVER RESTRICTED ANYONE in their free exercise of religion. I have, however, summoned the courage to call it like I see it. WHAT A WHINY-A– TOOL! O’Really and InShannity make enormous advertising revenues convincing you there’s a war on Christmas, but you can’t produce a single piece of evidence that anyone is persecuting you other than to repeat Galdalf’s favorite request that you please STFU with your whiny poor-me, I’m-so-persecuted crapola. Nobody cares who or what you worship.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
2:22 pm
Scalia you don’t! Just a Bible. Then find some true Christians and form a fellowship. Christians are better than you, just saved.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
2:23 pm
He will come again, and no jail can hold Him!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
2:26 pm
EXPAT: How can one of the Smartest Guys in the room….never mind…you can have that one it’s Friday! Get a Bass for me at the pub and some Fish and Chips…
American Woman
April 17th, 2009
2:29 pm
Gandalf, earnest question here. (I’m not an atheist, just distrustful of professed believers.) Is there a way tell the “True Christians” from the ones who use religion to further their own personal agendas or as an excuse to hate/discriminate/judge/malign/control others, without taking the time to get close to them first? Do I have to risk being slimed in order to find one I can trust?
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
2:37 pm
AW: I only want you to STFU, please? Easter is just past, let’s wait till October to discuss the VAST LEFT WING Compromise
on Christmas! Death to tyrants!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
2:41 pm
True Christians can be hard to find. Took me 47 years. BUT you can tell true Christians by thier love, of everyone. Not restricted by race creed color or orientation. Trust your instincts, you can find a good group of Christians if you try. So Gay Bashers, not Christians…Haters aren’t part of the Christian way.
American Woman
April 17th, 2009
2:49 pm
G, thanks for putting down your poo-pellet gun for a moment to say something real.
Gale
April 17th, 2009
2:53 pm
But Gandalf, )you can tell true Christians by thier love, of everyone. Not restricted by race creed color or orientation.) How do you know they are Christian and not Jewish or Buddist or Hindu, or Pagan or various other religions which also profess love of everyone?
Scalia
April 17th, 2009
3:10 pm
And what about the Jehovah’s Witness? They claim that 144,000 will get into heaven. And the conflict on when is the sabbath.
I love God. I like Christianity. But the do this and the way people twist the scripture to say what it means.
I love what Chuck said about taking the bible as a whole and not in sections. I wish more Christians did that.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:29 pm
Gale, that’s easy! They have a Bible! Duh!
JWs are too exclusive, they like Mormons make stuff up, so they aren’t going nowhere but down south!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:30 pm
JWs and Mormon aren’t Christian, anymore that Barry Obama is!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:31 pm
AW I always say whats real, real funny!
TGIF!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:34 pm
Oh, got some good stuff here, after studying Bidens tax return, I actually gave more than 6 times what he has to charity. He claims he give to his church. I do too, but it’s reflected on my tax return! He like most of his ilk don’t care about charity! Goverment is responsible for that. Barry at least gave 6.5%, but Joe Biden you should be ashamed! ASHAMED! Biden, well, it’s friday, but really, he is a donkey ball licking moron!
American Woman
April 17th, 2009
3:37 pm
There you have it folks: Slime or Substance? You decide. I’m retreating back to my “I don’t trust any of you self-righteous f—ers” position. Thanks for the beautiful nano-moment, G. As you know, those never last.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:37 pm
EXPAT: The “God made brownies to forgive your sins”..nice, but Satan would make cherry pie and rule the day. Something about giving your Son as a sacrafice that works better. But thanks for playin’!
Gale
April 17th, 2009
3:40 pm
I thought Satan made apple pie?
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:40 pm
Try this AW, go into a small non-Denominational Church this Sunday. If they all look normal (or semi normal) greet you and you feel welcome, no one is handling snakes, give that a try… If they bug you or start the speaking in tongues and handlin’ the rattlers, tell the all the STFU and leave…but give it a shot! I only tell you to STFU with love in my heart
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:41 pm
Whitesnake with the Cherry Pie?
I get confused…
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:43 pm
Gale you didn’t like
“Gale, that’s easy! They have a Bible! Duh!”
I thought that was my wittiest post ever! Give Gandy some props? ;-(
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:45 pm
OMG! Poison not Whitesnake “she’s my Cherry Pie”. Please Rock and Roll, forgive me!
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:46 pm
Well, I love you all and wish you a great weekend. I have to go. Church Picnic and all this evening. Peace in your lives!
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
3:47 pm
USinUK
–If you have a problem with something that Sunshine says, take it up with her. not me. whether the fetus is a human isn’t in question — no one here has ever asserted that the fetus is that of a puppy, pony or prairie dog. the issue is whether that fetus should be treated the same as the woman carrying it. or, at least that’s the issue for me. if you want to know Mara’s, AW’s, Sunshine’s or anyone else’s opinions on the matter, ask THEM – I’m not the spokesperson for All Pro-Choice People.–
I was just asking for your opinion of their stance, (not of them, for taking that stance) but for the first time since I have known you, you don’t seem to have one How strange.
–see, here’s the difference … Sean Hannity is on FOX NEWS. Neil Cavuto is on FOX NEWS. Glenn Beck is on FOX NEWS. NEWS. Not the Fox entertainment channel. NEWS. Not Comedy Central. Not hosting their own late-night comedy/chat show. NEWS. Fair and balanced, indeed. Limbaugh – he’s his own animal – he’s “entertainment” when it serves him to be (usually when he’s in hot water for saying something he shouldn’t … like calling a serviceman a “puke”).–
See here your problem. You’re a little late. CNN has offered entertainment programming on the CABLE NEWS NETWORK for as long as they have been on the air. But by your standard, Nancy Grace should be considered a news anchor. So should Larry King. Sorry, that is BS. You listened to the MSM and they made you out to be a fool, yet again. (Remember the MSNBC deal where they claimed to be playing the entire interview with that STARTED WITH HER ANSWER) Political Commentators should attend political rallies.
–Lastly, re: Barney Frank – his home was used for prostitution by his lover. This may come as a surprise to you, but one’s partners/spouses/SOs CAN do things in your home that you don’t know anything about. It happens every day. The situation was investigated and Frank was found to be innocent of having anything to do with it. Then, the good people of MA continued to send him to DC because he is still one of the smartest guys in the room …–
The good people of MA also keep sending a man that left a friend in a canal to drown because he was too drunk to pull her out of the car that he had drunkenly driven off the road. There is a reason why the term “Yellow Dog Democrat” was invented.
Men were booking sexual episodes with male prostitutes out of his home apparently at all hours and they did this for a year and a half. I suppose that you believe that there is no way that he could actually be telling a lie to keep himself out of jail by saying that he had no idea, but I believe that he just might be just human enough to lie to keep himself out of prison. Call me crazy.
But the question is whether or not his standards of proof would be the same as say, any other gay man. What do you think? Do you think that he just might have been given just a tad of special consideration because he was a US Congressman. Again, call me crazy, but I do believe it.
Gandalf, the White!
April 17th, 2009
3:48 pm
FESTUS not fetus. If you don’t dehumanize it….;-)
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
3:50 pm
Gale
– Wow, that sounds like the argument I often hear about same sex marriage.–
And is that restricting or persecuting gay people? I think it is.
Once again, you get it.
Gale
April 17th, 2009
3:53 pm
Gandalf, “Because the have a Bible” was just too obvious for me. Have a good weekend.
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
3:53 pm
AW
-O’Really and InShannity make enormous advertising revenues convincing you there’s a war on Christmas, but you can’t produce a single piece of evidence that anyone is persecuting you–
Just because you don’t recognize the proof doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
American Woman
April 17th, 2009
3:58 pm
Somebody’s awfully obsessed with Barney Frank for a straight guy. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) I’m just sayin’. What, no equal time outrage for Vitter? He supported the prostitution industry. Or Craig? Tap tap tapping in a public restroom where children might go. Scarborough’s high-paying TV gig totally trumps his stint a Congressman, so nobody talks about the DEAD WOMAN in his office in Florida. You know, the healthy 28-yr-old woman who apparently, for no reason, fell and “hit her head on the desk” or something? We know it was an accident because the special coronor guy Jeb called in to handle that matter for the local authorities said so. Do we have to go to Fox News to get “FAIR AND BALANCED?” Why can’t we get that here?
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 17th, 2009
4:01 pm
The problem, of course, is nothing is dependable, except death, and the bad inevitably following the good. The road to hell is paved with good faith and good intentions, so too is death itself. The crutch of superstition can’t change that basic fact.
Moral and ethical behavior rewards us here on earth, not in some fantastic airy-fairy land in the sky. Love one another is the basics of how us humans co-exist in a complex world. When we stray from that, the world stops working.
Fundamentalism in all its religious avatars only serves to put us at each others throats. It is fear-based, and “hate-the-other” based. Human civilization cannot progress as long as it is saddled with it.
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
April 17th, 2009
4:09 pm
Let’s face it – the Bible is full of crazy stories from an old tribe of goat-herders that spent too much time wandering around in the sun…
The Other Jack
April 17th, 2009
5:04 pm
AW
I don’t know what it is about Frank. i have had to work with so many slimy little people like him, being in a creative field. And to think that he actually has a huge amount of real, national power. It’s just creepy. i don’t think it is about his sexual orientation. There are lots of strong gay men. He’s the kind of guy that if you shook his limp hand, you would want to run to the bathroom and wash it. And he’s very arrogant. It’s like he was born to be a victim and he is going to play his righteous indignation to the hilt. I’ll bet his entire like, people have wanted to just slap the sh!t out of him.
As far as everyone else you mentioned, I say put them all away. None deserve special consideration, in fact, they should be held to a higher standard.
have a good weekend, Kimmy.
the basics
April 17th, 2009
9:57 pm
Anyone with a fundamental grasp of ethics knows that ethical considerations are dichotomous – there is the teleological perspective – that is, consequences determine actions, and the deontological perspective, that is, what does duty or obligation demand? A person who does not blend these two perspectives is ethically dangerous. On the one hand, we have the person who will do anything, so long as he can get away with it. On the other, we have the fanatic who ignores consequences as long as what is “right” occurs. Neither perspective requires a theological stance.
I’m not sure why this remains a question. Philosophers and ethicists have been dealing with this question for centuries. It is…sad…that we still believe that a legalist and deistic teleological perspective is the only one that yields ethical people.
Ah well. Such is the human condition.
Bruno
April 17th, 2009
10:51 pm
“I don’t really care what they put their faith in. What irks me is their certainty that I cannot possibly be a decent, moral, worthy person unless I believe it too. History is rife with those deemed ‘immoral’ being deemed unfit for inclusion into society.”
Mara–As a young person, I felt out of place when I attended church because I had great difficulty accepting stories which defied the laws of physics (and common sense). When I hung around people who seemed to have great certainty that they would be spending their “afterlife” in some idyllic place, I felt self-conscious for not having that same certainty. When asked directly if I was “saved” or not, I usually didn’t have the courage to express my true feelings about the matter.
Then finally, as an adult, I decided to take a second look into Christianity and read the Bible cover to cover over a period of time, and did a substantial amount of supplementary reading about the History of the Bible. Not surprisingly, I ultimately found out that the vast majority of self-professed “Christians” actually know very little about what the Bible actually says, or doesn’t say. Most of the practices of “Christians” today are decidedly non-Biblical in origin, including the celebration of Christmas and Easter, along with Sunday worship.
As a result, I developed a much greater certainty in my own views of cosmology and morality, and no longer felt intimidated whenever some “Christian” blowhard started spouting off. Now don’t get me wrong. I think the Bible is a great source of explanation, wisdom and guidance, and remains one of the premier guides, if not THE premier guide, on how to live a life well. In a general way, I agree with Gandalf’s statements regarding the necessity of having moral absolutism at the core of one’s views, along with the dangers of moral relativism. In other words, I’m still a right-wing SOB, just not one who uses some “literalist” claim about the Bible as my basis for being so.
I understand that part of your post also refers to the more serious ostracism/persecution of “non-believers” that has occurred throughout History. Fortunately, that is no longer much of a reality in the “Christian” nations, but remains a big problem in the Muslim world.
Bruno
April 17th, 2009
11:14 pm
“don’t we have something better to argue about than religion?”
What remains an interesting question to me is why do otherwise intelligent people have such a willingness to accept mythological explanations in answer to our deepest questions about cosmology–i.e. what is the origin, nature and structure of the Universe we live in? Is the desire to quell our fears about what happens to us when we die so great that any story with a happy ending is acceptable?? Or do such stories actually reflect a deeper, more primitive understanding of the world that is encoded in the recesses of our consciousness? In the end, I think the most honest response to our deepest questions is that we just plain don’t know, which is more comforting to me than hoping beyond hope that the laws of physics really aren’t true.
BTW, so that you all know that I’m not a yellow dog Repub, I’m giving a big thumbs-down to Shaunti’s article this week, and at least a half thumbs-up for Andrea’s response. I think I’ll faint if any of you Libs ever give Shaunti any credit.
The Other Jack
April 18th, 2009
10:06 am
the basics
–that we still believe that a legalist and deistic teleological perspective is the only one that yields ethical people.–
Morality and ethics are taught, not inherited. Most modern parents usually can’t be trusted to help their kids with algebra. So where do kids get that training? There is no moralistic teaching in schools and attendance in church, much to the delight of progressives, is in a steep decline.
I keep reading that progressives insist that there is no difference between religious people and non religious people as far as morality and/or ethics. In the meanwhile, these same progressives have no problem with the slaughter of one tenth of our population because with our new lack of moral training, we have teens having sex with everybody They use examples of moralistic individuals that claim to be progressives while we hear examples of religious people without obvious morals. Examples are not an accurate barometer. I would think that a very accurate barometer would be to compare the teen pregnancies and arrests in a secular school as compared to a religious school, with both schools drawing from the same demographic and/or region.
Instead of each progressive marching in and spouting their small sermon about how religion results in people with no more stringent morals than people with no faith, I would think that a single person would want to offer statistics or facts that compare two institutions. In a study conducted by Tufts University, ase.tufts.edu/econ/papers/linda_loury.pdf it was found that “Catholic girls are less likely to give birth (at 20.5%) compared to non-Catholic girls (27.7%).” That is also taking into account that because of the abhorrence to abortions in the Catholic faith, the numbers are tilted, since Catholic girls are much less likely to obtain an abortion.
This is the conclusion of that paper:
V. Conclusion
This paper examines the relationship between the likelihood of giving birth as a teen and the
Catholic percentage of religious adherents in one’s county. The results show that, independent of the individual’s own religious background and socioeconomic characteristics of the individual’s
neighborhood, the percentage Catholic has a large and significant impact on choices that alter teen
fertility. The paper also presents evidence that the percentage Catholic affects teen births through changes in the peer’s attitudes and attempts to conform to the behavior of one’s peers. This research suggests that other policy, environmental, or technological changes that alter attitudes and behavior of peers may have similar effects by changing the distribution of options individuals are willing to consider.
If you have a problem with this research, please offer alternative research that says that non-religious people are as moral as religious people. Should be a simple task if what all these progressives are saying is true.
USinUK
April 18th, 2009
12:12 pm
GtG –
“Satan would make cherry pie and rule the day”
gah. yuk. yuk. yuk. and this is why Satan could never win me over. now, if it was key lime pie …
TOJ –
“I was just asking for your opinion of their stance, (not of them, for taking that stance)”
criminey. YOU don’t even know what you’re talking about. first you said we’re afraid to call it an abortion and why do we call it pro-choice. then you said :”I asked you to explian why you think that liberals are so reluctant to call a human baby a human baby. That’s the discussion.”
NOW, you’re saying that the discussion is about critiquing what Mara / Sunshine / Gale / whoever else has to say about the matter.
and you say I’M being evasive?? geez-o-pete, you can’t even settle on a question.
As I’ve said before, I really don’t care what you or anyone else call it (I’ve even said you can call it a cadillac, if you like – over which you threw a conniption) — the main issue is does IT supercede the woman carrying it. From what Mara and Sunshine (and I believe Gale, as well, but I could be wrong) have said in the past, they don’t think that it does. To me, that’s the issue that matters and, about that, I have been consistent.
“Nancy Grace should be considered a news anchor. So should Larry King.”
So, you’re saying Sean Hannity = Larry King??? Sean Hannity has been interviewing celebrities and personalities and discussing movies and pop culture??? REALLY??? Is that what you’re really saying??? That Sean Hannity doesn’t discuss the NEWS of the day??? He doesn’t interview NEWSmakers?? As far as Nancy Grace, I only watched her show a couple of times before leaving the country, but I believe both she and Van Sustren talk about the NEWS — not Jennifer Anniston’s love life — from a legal/judicial POV.
a swing and a miss – but nice try.
“There is a reason why the term “Yellow Dog Democrat” was invented.”
hrm. Mitt Romney is a Democrat???
and as for your claims that your problem with Barney Frank has nothing to do with his homosexuality, you expose your own lie when you say “He’s the kind of guy that if you shook his limp hand, you would want to run to the bathroom and wash it” … his limp hand? yeah. your problem has nothing to do with “teh ghey”.
as for the rest of your claims … “apparently at all hours and they did this for a year and a half” – first of all, Gobie only had access to Frank’s hosue when when Frank was out of town. secondly, he only knew Gobie for 18 months, so you think this all started on Day 1, do you??? “But the question is whether or not his standards of proof would be the same as say, any other gay man. What do you think?” Actually, I think the question is the standard of proof vs. anyone else, gay or straight. And, a LOT of significant others/spouses/parents go unarrested and unprosecuted because they didn’t know what was going on in their house.
Archie
April 18th, 2009
2:56 pm
Shaunti is a traditionalist type of person and there’s nothing wrong with that and since I go to church 3 out of 4 Sundays I say yes to the topic question and no to the topic question. There are obviously people that do well morally and yet they have no real spiritual life. Shaunti is just like a lot of people I know that just plain don’t understand other people with views different from their own. If you were raised in a family that attended church regularly and now you don’t then you may have problems but if you were like Andrea and you weren’t raised in a household where religion was not in the foreground then you won’t have any problems with or without a collective spiritual life. Shaunti writes from the point of view that most church-going folk would have and that includes my church which is very traditional and the folk do good work but all church folk have to, have to, have to understand everybody simply does not believe in God and that does not make them bad people. Atheists have to understand the same thing about believers. Those last two statements have probably hurt some feelings but until people understand those last two statements you will always have this debate which will solve nothing.
The Other Jack
April 18th, 2009
9:21 pm
USinUK
–That Sean Hannity doesn’t discuss the NEWS of the day???–
LOL!! How pathetic. So does Letterman and Leno. So I guess we aren’t watching the Tonight Show, we are watching NBC Nightly Late News with Jay Leno. LOL!!
This one, you lost several posts ago, but you keep trying. Sean Hannity is not a news person and if he has to be in order for you to be right, sorry, Charlie, you lose.
Wiki:
Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961) is an American radio and television host, author, and conservative political commentator. HMMMM. Nothing about being a New Anchor or reporter. What about that?
I know wiki is editable, but you are are so desperately trying to prove an untrue point, YOUR MOVE. Show me a reliable source that says that he is a New Anchor on FOX News. Now tap dance around this one like you have been tap dancing around the other questions.
Hey here you go: This is from a site that you would love called TV News Lies.
Journalism Credentials: None available.
According to his bios posted on Fox’s web site and his personal web site, Sean has not attended any journalism classes, has no formal training in journalism and has not been a reporter. He was a talk show host on a college radio station and he made a very successful jump to AM radio.
See? LOL!! they are as clueless as you, but they already have tried and can’t find anything that says that Hannity is a News anchor.
It’s not that you can’t prove your point, (which you can’t), but it;s that you are so desperate not to be made out to be a fool for the MSM that is so funny.
So when you can prove Hannity is a news anchor for FOX News, you just let me know, K? You know, as much as you hate it, the MSM made a fool out of you yet again. Looks like you would learn.
The Other Jack
April 18th, 2009
9:41 pm
USinUK
BTW. What do you think about Obama and the Congress pulling education vouchers for 15,000 students in the Washington DC area? Instead of paying at the most $7,500 for students to avoid one of the worst systems in the country, they will be paying $15,000 per student and the students will be lucky if they survive the year.
Beck had a family on his show. It was a Mom and three daughters. The oldest was 16 and had been attending a private school for several years. Her mother had attended the DC school system and the poor woman could barely speak English. As desperately as she tried, she just didn’t know what correct Engish was supposed to sound likie. When they asked the 16 year old a question, damn, she was someone I would hire in a minute. Articulate, logical, intelligent and thoughful. When the secretary of education was asked about the criminal behavior of the Congress/Unions, his answer was: We will do everything we can to see that those 15,000 kids get to graduate from those great private schools. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE KIDS FROM NOW ON?
So how is that HOPE and CHANGE for the students in the DC area? YOUR party won that one over the students. They will be forced to go to one of the worst and most violent school systems in the country, and don’t give me that crap about “the schools need to be fixed.” The unions and government have RAN those schools for years and have done nothing but make them less and less effective. In the meanwhile, Blacks are looking just like the DIXIECRATS like em. Ignorant and can barely speak English. George Wallace would be damn proud of his party over this one. I guess this would confirm that specific WHite people ARE just trying to hold the Black Man down. Too bad that YOUR party is so corrupt that they are using a Black man as an excuse to do it.
The people you support are power hungry criminals that don’t gve a damn about anyone but their own power. When are you going to wake up?
USinUK
April 19th, 2009
7:18 am
TOJ –
“So does Letterman and Leno. So I guess we aren’t watching the Tonight Show, we are watching NBC Nightly Late News with Jay Leno”
so Hannity = Leno??? then, criminey, Hannity needs to work on his opening dialogue cuz it suuuuuuuucks.
and as far as “Journalism Credentials: None available. Sean has not attended any journalism classes, has no formal training in journalism and has not been a reporter. He was a talk show host on a college radio station and he made a very successful jump to AM radio.”
gosh, by that measure, Peter Jennings wasn’t a Journalist, either – he dropped out of high school and got his start on radio, as well.
so … you want to use Wiki as a measure, fine – Wiki describes the Colmes-less Hannity show as being the same as Hannity America … Hannity America they describe thusly:
At the beginning of each show, Hannity gives his opinion about the nation as a whole, usually relating to issues happening in politics over the past week.
Additionally, the program also features other segments, including “2 on 2″ and “Hannity’s Hot Seat.” During the “2 on 2″ segment, Hannity welcomes one conservative to join his side and two liberals to talk about issues covered earlier in the program, commonly causing conflict between both sides with differing ideals.
The “Hot Seat” section of the program features someone who Hannity has an issue with, debating them about what they have talked about.
…
yep. that sounds EXACTLY like Leno and Letterman.
as for school vouchers – I’m agin’ ‘em, whether for DC or any other city or state.
The Other Jack
April 19th, 2009
8:21 am
USinUK
Waiting for any source that says that Hannity is a news anchor . . . Without presenting that, all we have is desperation on your part.
Waiting. Can you prove a completely untrue point? You are wrong again and it all boils down to you trusting the MSM. Sad. Really sad.
The Other Jack
April 19th, 2009
8:25 am
USinUK
You are against Black kids getting the opportunity to go to decent schools. And you give no argument, it’s just what you are told to do.
Wow. You really are a democrat. You must be very proud. You and George Wallace. Maybe you can lay down in front of a school bus like he did. it’s all for the same goal.
Hope and Change
April 19th, 2009
8:28 am
Wow. I sho kope i can get a job, not being able to read or write and all.
The Other Jack
April 19th, 2009
8:37 am
Hope and Change
You will be fine. People like USinUK will always support your getting a welfare check as long as you keep voting for the democrats. You don’t need an education. But the bureaucrats and Union members need the money and power. Vouchers may pay for you to have a decent education, but they drain money from a non-working school system. And what is more important? You getting a good education or union members getting a paycheck?
You just hush up and have some youngin’s. The democrats have elections to win. Run along now. The democrats are in charge. You will be fine. You will be uneducated and you will have not a prayer for a decent life, but hey, did you think the Dixiecrats were interested in anything but your vote?
The Other Jack
April 19th, 2009
9:40 am
USinUK
BTW, The school that the girl had been attending was the same private school that Obama’s kids attend. I can’t help but wonder why you wouldn’t want these poor kids to have a chance at that kind of an education. Is it race? I’m just asking a Democrat straight out, is it that the Democrats are really still resentful of Black people? What I have read on the intyernet is the opponests of vouchers say that there is no statistics that prove that the kids to any better. If that is the case, shouldn’t Obama’s kids be attending Washington DC public schools? Isn’t this a real issue of CHOICE?
I’m not dropping this. This is the perfect example of why Democrats are so extremely dangerous.
deborahinAthens
April 19th, 2009
11:37 am
Pat Robertson, who is an in-your-face Christian “leader” was involved with a shady scheme to make money with the dictator of Liberia, know for torture and murder. But by God, Robertson is a good Christian. I am sick to death of being told by the religious right-wing fundamentalists that I cannot be a Christian if I believe in civil rights, abortion, evolution, etc. etc, etc.! I have accepted Christ as my savior, I am a good person with sound morals and am an ethical person. How dare you slime-balls judge anyone as whether you are “good” or “bad” based on what is basically a political point of view. Please stop this insanity. I expect any day to hear that burning at the stake or stoning will come into vogue if you don’t go to the “right” church.
USinUK
April 19th, 2009
2:18 pm
TOJ –
wow. short on that lithium prescription again, I see. (or are there a lot of empty Thunderbird bottles rolling about at your feet??) cuz those voices in your head really aren’t doing you any favors.
I am against school vouchers, but am for opening up school registration to allow kids to attend any school in their county (provided they can get their own transportation there). The reasons I am against school vouchers will probably surprise you:
1) when religious schools start accepting government $$$, the government will have leverage to dictate what they teach/who they hire. having attended religious education most of my undergrad education, I’d like to see these types of schools maintain their independence.
2) just because you receive a voucher doesn’t mean you can attend the school of your choice – private schools can still discriminate against students they may not want (minority kids, kids of different religions, special needs kids or those with disabilities). if enough private schools did this, the public schools would become the refuge of the unwanted – which is what vouchers is supposedly trying to fix in the first place.
if you want to believe that I have those opinions because I hate black people and want to keep them down, then have a ball. you have pretty much proven yourself to be so blinded by hatred of the Dems that it really doesn’t matter what we say, you see us all as hippie-dippie, hood-wearing baby-killers, anyway.
as for Hannity, my point still stands – if ANY host of ANY show on CNN had gone on the air in 2003 and said “go to my website to find out about the anti-war protests in your city” (which is what Hannity and others on FOX did with the tea parties … to the point where one of their little blondie anchors actually admitted that they did PR for the tea parties), your head would have exploded.
but, as usual, IOKIYAR. we expect nothing less from you.
USinUK
April 19th, 2009
2:22 pm
oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh …. THIS explains TOJ’s problem:
“U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water — contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked, according to an Associated Press investigation.
Hundreds of active pharmaceutical ingredients are used in a variety of manufacturing, including drugmaking: For example, lithium is used to make ceramics and treat bipolar disorder; nitroglycerin is a heart drug and also used in explosives; copper shows up in everything from pipes to contraceptives.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090419/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_factories
it’s not UNDERmedication … it’s OVERmedication … ’splains a lot.
USinUK
April 19th, 2009
2:25 pm
GtG –
by the way … thought of you this morning – made homemade hot cross buns for the hubster and my MIL this morning … but didn’t feel like making the pastry cross bit, so I called them hot agnostic buns …
Hey USinUK
April 19th, 2009
9:31 pm
I’m a Unitarian/Universalist in Episcopalian clothing, but Hot Cross Buns have been a tradition in my family since I was a kid…how can they be Hot Cross Buns without the icing cross on the top??? Or did you just make squiggly icing swirls?
Of course, you’re a LITTLE late on the buns, since they are traditionally a Good Friday treat
, though there are suggestions that they have Pagan origins as well. Oh well – hope you enjoyed ‘em…my folks have been making and delivering trays to family friends for 30-some-odd years now, and they are SOOO good. Maybe having them off-season is a good thing.
USinUK
April 20th, 2009
12:37 am
Good morning Unitarian Episcoplian!
I tried making one recipe of HCBs on Easter weekend, but they were more like hot cross ROCKS … so, I just wanted to try a different recipe (which wound up totally FAB). here, they don’t do an icing cross, it’s a pastry cross on top (the same pastry as a pie crust) and I just couldn’t be bothered …
and, yes, having them ANY season is good!!!
Lyrazel
April 20th, 2009
7:59 am
Much further out than inevitable
Halloween be thy game
Skyking has come and Wilma is done
Uncertain as it is uneven
Give us today hor’derves in bed
As we forgive those who have dressed up against us
And need us not enter inflation
But are liver onions and potatoes
For wine is a shingle
And amore a story for your father.
John Hartford
USinUK
April 20th, 2009
8:25 am
Lyra –
that sounds like what you’d get with a Mad Libs version of the Our Father!