President Trump Leads Multi-State Push For ‘Bible Literacy’ Classes In Public Schools

“Rep. McWilliams advocates for the Bible bill based off the fact that it had such an influence on how the Founding Fathers created our government. He references that our judicial system comes from Exodus 18 and the hierarchy of Judges. The moral codes that the country upholds come from the Bible, so the Book should be available as a possible history elective, according to McWilliams.

A proponent of other religious texts as possible classes, such as the Quran, Rep. McWilliams states, “without allowing a Bible into the schools, without allowing a Quran or any other religious text in the school, we look at establishing a religion of secularism in our schools.””

A proponent of other religious texts as possible classes, such as the Quran, Rep. McWilliams states, “without allowing a Bible into the schools, without allowing a Quran or any other religious text in the school, we look at establishing a religion of secularism in our schools.””

Engel v. Vitale says that this would never pass judicial review.

Keep teaching mythology for Sunday.

Actually it’s acceptable to use the Bible for literature and for historical references.

Actually it’s acceptable to use the Bible for literature and for historical references.

The Bible or Christianity is not to be used as a course by itself and religious belief cannot be taught in public school. 

It's acceptable to use the Koran for those purposes, too.  And the Iliad, and all other books of mythology.

But you'd screech your head off if that happened.

Fundies squall if The Pillars Of Islam are covered in History Of The Crusades...

I don't think it's really necessary to cover the Pillars if you're teaching a history class, is it? The Crusades is basically the Muslims were in Jerusalem and the Pope didn't like it. Get an army together and take it back!

All that fuss over a patch of desert. Go figure .

goo.gl

goo.gl

I think a decent working knowledge of all of the Abrahamic religions is important to teaching the history of the Middle East in general.  It helps us understand the motivations behind some of that history.

I think a decent working knowledge of all of the Abrahamic religions is important to teaching the history of the Middle East in general.  It helps us understand the motivations behind some of that history.

That history would not come from teaching the Bible.  I support the idea of a comprehensive critical religious survey course, but that is not what these supporters want.  They want to put a bible study course as religious belief in public schools, which is blatantly unconstitutional 

Some people won't be happy until they see this country as a theocracy.

I agree on both points, of course.  I'm just saying that religion plays a large role in shaping the culture and history of the people of a region.

When we learned the history of the Middle East, we discussed the move from a polytheistic society to a monotheistic one (Judaism), the advent of Christianity and Islam, and the spread of Christianity.  We never needed to open the Bible (or Torah or Quran) to do so.  We also discussed Roman, Greek, and Norse mythologies, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., when learning about other regions.

They were all taught without promoting one religion over another - just noting that each region and culture was shaped by its religious traditions.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your previous reply.

Some people won't be happy until they see this country as a theocracy.

Didn't they learn from Northern Ireland that not even Christians agree what the teachings of their God are?  

No harm done.

Didn't they learn from Northern Ireland that not even Christians agree what the teachings of their God are?  

They can't even agree here. Yet they all think their version is the "true" one.

You're right, of course (you're always right).

It's been a loooonnnnnnnnnggggggggg time since I had World Cultures and the only thing I remember is our teacher coming to school dressed in a sari for India day. And she brought a bunch of silk saris with her so we could dress up. The boys didn't dress up, of course.

(you're always right)

Check's in the mail!

We never really did anything fun like dress up.  In high school, we had international day, and foreign exchange students would often make and bring dishes from their home countries, which was pretty cool.

And some want state sponsored official atheism to be the religion of the state just like their precious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics once was.  

And some want state sponsored official atheism to be the religion of the state just like their precious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics once was.  

I wonder how atheism can be a state religion when 1, atheism is not a religion, and 2. It would be unconstitutional. I also wonder if you actually think about your replies before you post them?

Ill conceived platitudes.   People should avoid merely repeating stupid notions dreamed up by others.

Ill conceived platitudes.   People should avoid merely repeating stupid notions dreamed up by others

Indeed. Platitudes and parroting seems to be all some people have to offer.

I, for one, miss a society where there was a god for everything. A sun god, a moon god, a snake god, a crocodile god, a god for pretty much anybody to worship as they chose (just kidding, I find the concept of "worship" to be the epitome of ignorance).

Platitudes and parroting seems to be all some people have to offer

Original thought is not dead but seems to be lacking in those without education.

The problem is,  there seems to be more and more without education. Or just willfully ignorant.

we look at establishing a religion of secularism in our schools.””

Public schools are supposed to be secular, per the SCOTUS and the Constitution! Anything else is a violation of the separation of church and state.

secular atheism is a form of religion.  In fact it was the state religion of some of the most murderous regimes in the history of this planet.  

secular atheism is a form of religion.  In fact it was the state religion of some of the most murderous regimes in the history of this planet.  

The problems with your claims are;

1.) Atheism is not a religion, no matter how many times you make this fallacious claim.

2.) Public schools are not teaching atheism.  That would be unconstitutional for them to do.

3.) Those people were not killed because the rulers were atheists. They were killed because the rulers were brutal dictators. 

That is a willfully ignorant statement. Atheism isn't a religion. But christianity is and including bible study classes in a public school is blatantly unconstitutional. It's very telling how you want the state to promote your religion.

No worries I'm sure there will also be a bill soon that mandates atheist literature and history be taught in church (optional of course)

It isn’t about bible studies.  It’s about using it as literature and for historical purposes which is already allowed.  The proposal here makes it optional for schools, an optional elective for students and the author favors the study of law their historical books such as the Koran as well.  There’s really nothing to see here except the hate and bigotry of secularists.  

There’s really nothing to see here except the pushing of more ultra-right religious propaganda.

It’s about using it as literature and for historical purposes which is already allowed.

You should know that this is well beyond literature and history.   Nothing stops churches from offering education on the literary and historical aspects of the Bible.   That way you have a perfect 'elective' since each church will have its own version anyway.   By having them do it you will avoid complaints about the public schools teaching the literary and historical aspects the 'wrong' way.

That's just an excuse. If you want bible nonsense taught in school, teach it in a religious school. It has no place in a public school. I learned all the facts of American history without ever once having to refer to a bible. The Bible is not an American history book. Neither does it have, nor ever had, any place in our system of laws and government. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and christian apologetic nonsense!

Does religious fanaticism lead to willful ignorance, or is it the reverse?

It isn’t about bible studies.

Yes it is. The camel's nose is in the tent. A very slippery slope.

You should know that this is well beyond literature and history.   Nothing stops churches from offering education on the literary and historical aspects of the Bible.   That way you have a perfect 'elective' since each church will have its own version anyway.   By having them do it you will avoid complaints about the public schools teaching the literary and historical aspects the 'wrong' way.

There is no secular social benefit to a Bible literacy class being taught in public schools with taxpayer money.  This is nothing but the attempt to to take advantage of public schools and a captive impressionable audience for religious indoctrination. Bibles are free for the asking, so people can read them on their own or attend the church of their choice for a bible study class. 

It isn’t about bible studies.  It’s about using it as literature and for historical purposes which is already allowed.  

What happened to the 10 Commandment idea that you are supposed to tell the truth, or doesn't that apply in this situation?  You also claim that you want the rule of law obeyed but apparently that doesn't apply to your religion when you seek to use the influence of the state to further its spread. 

The books of the Bible can be mentioned in literature and history class as footnotes, but they are not to be taught as separate and independent ideas in public school.  You are desperate to create loopholes with your intellectually dishonest claims as a way to build a place for your conservative sect of Christianity to be taught in public school as a slippery slope violation of the strict separation of church and state.  The only way that Christianity could be taught in public school would be in a mythology class, along side Zeus, Horus, Enil, Thor, and Jupiter.  

I'd say both, in a vicious circle.

Mythology and superstition should not be taught as an alternative to science, math and history.

Teach fairy tales in churches, not in public schools. Children won't be lied to with my dollar. 

Mythology and superstition should not be taught as an alternative to science, math and history.

Maybe flat-earthers and alchemists will also want their beliefs mentioned in elective geology and chemistry courses? 

Teach fairy tales in churches, not in public schools. Children won't be lied to with my dollar. 

This should be the stance of all rational people.

secular atheism is a form of religion.  In fact it was the state religion of some of the most murderous regimes in the history of this planet.

has anyone been killed in the name of "secular atheism" ? has anyone anyone been killed in the name of "God" ? has anyone been killed in the name of "Allah" ? (hint: only 2 of the questions have the answer of "yes" - i'll let you figure out which ones they are)

It’s about using it as literature and for historical purposes

Literature - only if it is presented as what is really is - fiction.

Historical - not sure how much of the info in the Bible is historically accurate or why there would not be better sources without all of the fictional people and assorted myths associated with them.  

Another problem is interpretation.  There are over 30,000 sects of Christianity that disagree on how to interpret much, even most, of the Bible.  Various sects of Christians have murdered each other in the name of being the one true Christian religion.  For this reason alone, the Bible itself should never be taught in public schools.  It is much too divisive.  This can create an atmosphere of hostility.  Hostility invokes negative emotions which are not conducive to a learning environment.  The purpose of public school is to educate children, not indoctrinate them into any religion.

That they were atheists is the reason why they were brutal.  

That they were atheists is the reason why they were brutal.

Wrong again. But your attempt to vilify atheists is quite transparent.

That they were atheists is the reason why they were brutal.  

Yet again, repeating an ill-conceived platitude.   Brutality is typically a result of seeking power.   History clearly shows brutal atheists and brutal theists.   Indeed, the most obvious contemporary brutality stems from radical Islamic terrorism.    And their brutality is political - seeking to turn the world into a single Islamic state.   They use Islam (as they interpret it) as justification for their power-seeking actions.

Stalin was brutal because killing one's opposition tends to shore up support.   Same with Chairman Mao.   Same with Hitler (but he also had a likely insane bigotry too).   The Reformation was a power struggle.   It is all about power, KAG.   Read your history.

Stalin was brutal because killing one's opposition tends to shore up support. 

Stalin was trained as a Catholic priest.

While digging through historical records to determine the feasibility of the legend that Hitler escaped to Argentina after the war, we came upon an interesting link between Joseph Stalin and the Roman Catholic Church.

It seems that Stalin was not only a Catholic, but he was an ordained Jesuit priest before he became a ruthless Communist dictator and mass killer of an untold thousands. Some believe Stalin was responsible for more death and destruction than Hitler yet the Catholic Church never chose to excommunicate him.

Stalin’s real name was Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. For obvious reasons, after becoming politically active, he changed his last name to Stalin, which, in Russian, means “made of steel."

He was born to relatively wealthy Catholic parents and attended a church-run school at Gori. He graduated at the top of his class in 1892. He then was accepted as a student at the “Orthodox” Seminary of Tbilisi, Georgia, where he trained as a Jesuit priest. 

History has revealed that both Hitler and Mussolini had the blessing of PiusXI. 

Stalin was trained as a Catholic priest.

Wow!  That's some crazy propaganda you got there. It's as bad as the time you used the holocaust denying site to define fascism. 

Wow!  That's some crazy propaganda you got there. It's as bad as the time you used the holocaust denying site to define fascism. 

How many different sources do you need? 

The man who turned the Soviet Union from a backward country into a world superpower at unimaginable human cost. Stalin was born into a dysfunctional family in a poor village in Georgia. Permanently scarred from a childhood bout with smallpox and having a mildly deformed arm, Stalin always felt unfairly treated by life, and thus developed a strong, romanticized desire for greatness and respect, combined with a shrewd streak of calculating cold-heartedness towards those who had maligned him. He always felt a sense of inferiority before educated intellectuals, and particularly distrusted them. Sent by his mother to the seminary in Tiflis (now Tbilisi), the capital of Georgia, to study to become a priest, the young Stalin never completed his education, and was instead soon completely drawn into the city's active revolutionary circles. Never a fiery intellectual polemicist or orator like Lenin or Trotsky, Stalin specialized in the humdrum nuts and bolts of revolutionary activity, risking arrest every day by helping organize workers, distributing illegal literature, and robbing trains to support the cause, while Lenin and his bookish friends lived safely abroad and wrote clever articles about the plight of the Russian working class. Although Lenin found Stalin's boorishness offensive at times, he valued his loyalty, and appointed him after the Revolution to various low-priority leadership positions in the new Soviet government.

pbs

You know that source doesn't claim he was Catholic, right? 

Why don't you post the site where you got your spectacularly fake claim that Stalin  trained to be a Roman Catholic Priest.  (among other obvious lies)

 It's among these stories:

Is the U.S. Food Industry Purposefully Poisoning Us?

Was Adam An Alien Half-Breed?

You know that source doesn't claim he was Catholic, right? 

It is a fact that J. Stalin trained as a Catholic(Jesuit) priest.

Sent by his mother to the seminary in Tiflis (now Tbilisi), the capital of Georgia, to study to become a priest, the young Stalin never completed his education, and was instead soon completely drawn into the city's active revolutionary circles.

How can I be a Holocaust denier when the 14 points of fascism describes the holocaust? 

openculture

It is a fact that J. Stalin trained as a Catholic(Jesuit) priest.

That is 100% false.  Again, even your second link doesn't say that.  Read it again. 

So, still no evidence that Stalin trained to be a Jesuit Catholic Priest in Orthodox Russia in under the tsar?

What a surprise! 

Most Christians then in that part of the world were Orthodox.  Today only 0.5% or 1 out of every 200 Georgians is Roman Catholic.  

Yeah, that's basic knowledge that Georgia is not a Catholic country. But bigotry runs deep, and it's convenient to call Stalin a Catholic on whack job sites operate like internet an version of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion.

Never read any atheist literature. Religion is such a non-topic for me that I wouldn't bother.

Never felt that I needed validation, or a support group for a lack of belief in superstition or mythology.

secular atheism is a form of religion.

Secular:

denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

In fact it was the state religion of some of the most murderous regimes in the history of this planet.

What regimes are those Xx? Please be specific. 

Most Christians then in that part of the world were Orthodox.  Today only 0.5% or 1 out of every 200 Georgians is Roman Catholic.  

Most Americans are some variation of Christian, so are going to claim that there are no Unitarians, Buddhists or Quakers in the US?  

Stalin's parents were Catholic,

Josef Stalin’s “very religious” mother named him after St. Joseph, and wanted him to become a priest. Stalin himself supposedly claimed that his father had been a priest, and he was purportedly “damaged by violence” while being “raised in a poor priest-ridden household.” As a youth, Stalin spent five years in a Greek Orthodox seminary, after which he purportedly renounced his religion. In his later years, Stalin apparently embraced Christianity once more. As Stalin biographer Edvard Radinsky remarks, “During his mysterious retreat [of June 1941] the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected.” Radinsky likewise chronicles a number of religious comrades in Stalin’s immediate circle. It is evident that, whether for good or bad, religion played a significant role in Stalin’s life.

Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, and in a speech in 1922 he remarked, “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter…” In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1.2), Hitler stated:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Stop spreading fake facts from bigoted conspiracy sites,

Stalin was a not raised a Catholic. He did not train to become a Jesuit priest. His parents weren’t catholic and they Weren’t well off.

his Parents were both Orthodox. His father was an alcoholic cobbler end abadoned stalin and his mom, who worked as a domestic and seamstress.

these are are easily verifiable facts freely available from any reputable source. It’s sad this even needs to be spelled out, yet you persist in spreading falsehoods for some reason.   Please stop spreading lies you learn from whatever fringe hate sites you look to for propaganda.

 His parents were Catholics and he was trained by Jesuits.  Although trained to be a priest, he never took the final step.

is parents were Catholics and he was trained by Jesuits.

And George Washington was a Hindu..,,,

This is classic NT. The only sources for the Stalin was a catholic are websites that cater to the chemtrail and bigot sites.   And it gets picked up and repeated by people who have no clue what they are talking about because it suits some stupid point they are trying to make. Please find a real source and educate yourself before you embarass yourself further and continue the corruption of the site.  

 No one who knows the first thing about Stalin's life would claim he was a Catholic. It's literally as stupid as claiming  George Washington was a Hindu.

You mean Washington wasn’t a Hindu?

Let me guess. You are catholic?

Actually, Stalin was Russian Orthodox. Much like Roman Catholic as far as the liturgy and dogma goes but the Russian Orthodox church has a Patriarch and doesn't obey the Roman Pope

What ridiculous BS.  

We have enough religious problems in America keep both the bible and the Koran the fiuck out of the schools. 

Me thinks O donnys gears are slippin a little these days .... 

Or is this just another trumped up distraction ? 

Me thinks O donnys gears are slippin a little these days ....  Or is this just another trumped up distraction ? 

Trump is pandering to his religious base who thinks that he looks weak because of his recent defeat by Nancy Pelosi. 

He is weak!  And impotent!

Trump is pandering to his religious base

So, just another trumped up distraction Got it. 

Probably so, that's kinda what I figure as well. 

Deny, delay, distract. Then do whatever ya want,

works for him time after time... 

Hopefully for not much longer. The Trumps and crew are in for a whole lot of deserved legal hurt.

The Trumps and crew are in for a whole lot of deserved legal hurt.

Trump's crew may be in for a whole lot of deserved legal hurt. I exspect trumpy to once again come out of a shit pile smellin like a rose to some. 

His five children are proof positive that he is not impotent.  

His five children are proof positive that he is not impotent.  

With 3 different wives, 

Jesus was very clear that divorce was wrong,

The Bible's teaching on divorce is expansive; however, in this short piece, we'll narrow our focus to one important aspect of Jesus's teaching from Mark 10:1–12 —the condition for divorce.

When the Pharisees tested Jesus on this controversial issue of divorce, His response focused on the "one fleshness" of a married couple ( Mark 10:2–9 ). Later, the disciples privately asked Jesus to explain His answer (10:10). As was His custom, once He was alone with the disciples, Jesus underscored the salient part of His teaching. He clearly stated that marriage is to be a permanent bond between one man and one woman. To break it off and marry another is adultery (10:11–12).

Jesus affirmed (and still affirms) the permanence of the marriage bond. But He also acknowledged that because of the depravity of the human heart, the marriage bond might be severed under certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? That requires us to turn to the "exception clause" of Matthew 19:9 :

 

Pretty sure that all of his wives were screwing his much more handsome and potent friends.

I want to see genetic testing just to make sure that Donald's kids are even human.

Show us their birth certificates Donald! And while you're at it, show us yours.

And your financial records. Trust us, we'll understand them.

Pretty sure that the liar and thief's days are numbered.

As If his sins are to be forever unforgiven by God or by his peers.  

As If his sins are to be forever unforgiven by God or by his peers.  

Can a person who claims to be Christian do anything they want as long as they ask for forgiveness? Why do they need to ask for forgiveness when the Bible claims that God is omniscient

Jesus was very clear that divorce was wrong,

As I recall, god wasn't very fond of infidelity either.

As I recall, god wasn't very fond of infidelity either.

Their god continues to create very fallible people who commit infidelity despite him being both omniscient and omnipotent. It just me but a person who has that power to create a better person and is yet so incompetent that he doesn't build a better person he is not someone that I would look up to for advice and leadership or worship.

Christians are worshipping an incompetent, psychopathic, ignorant, and shallow buffoon.   I have just come to the conclusion that evangelicals are supporting Donald Trump because it would seem that he is a lot like their god. 

Their god continues to create very fallible people who commit infidelity despite him being both omniscient and omnipotent.

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
― Gene Roddenberry

As If his sins are to be forever unforgiven by God or by his peers.

Your god is a mass murderer. Won't be seeking his imaginary forgiveness for anything anytime soon.

No.  Though there are some wishing it were so.  Asking for forgiveness isn’t for Gods benefit but our own.  God obviously knows we have sinned.  He also knows the ones we have not repented of.  The repented ones are cast into the depths of the sea, forgotten even if the natural consequences of them linger on for us.  It is the sin that is cherished or not repented of that keeps one out of Heaven.  Thus we humans can never judge who might earn hell or be rewarded Heaven.  We might think someone is absolutely awful based on what we see who has repented and is saved or one who looks for all the world to be this great and awesome good person but unknown is clinging to some sin they refuse to let go of.  This is why it’s not for us to judge.

He is not.  And two guys in a sexual act is an abomination to Him.  

You seem to be getting a little emotional there....

He is not.  And two guys in a sexual act is an abomination to Him.  

Your god continues to make LGBT people, even though you claim he is both omniscient and omnipotent. Your mythical deity sounds like he is either a sociopath or he is incompetent.  Why would you worship a person like that? 

No.  Though there are some wishing it were so.  Asking for forgiveness isn’t for Gods benefit but our own.  God obviously knows we have sinned.  He also knows the ones we have not repented of.  The repented ones are cast into the depths of the sea, forgotten even if the natural consequences of them linger on for us.  It is the sin that is cherished or not repented of that keeps one out of Heaven.  Thus we humans can never judge who might earn hell or be rewarded Heaven.  We might think someone is absolutely awful based on what we see who has repented and is saved or one who looks for all the world to be this great and awesome good person but unknown is clinging to some sin they refuse to let go of.  This is why it’s not for us to judge.

This is religious apologetic nonsense. 

It's also an argument from ignornace.

If you say so...  Don’t ask questions if you never wanted an answer.  Don’t attack our beliefs and expect to get anything other than a Christian apologetic answer in in return.  The sheer condescending arrogance of the secularists thinking that they know best is strong in the post I responded to.  

Can a person who claims to be Christian do anything they want as long as they ask for forgiveness?

absolutely they can ! it's the "get out of jail free card" - all they need to do is commit a sin of any nature, say they are "sorry" and ask for forgiveness then BOOM ! - all is forgiven and they can go to heaven and still sin again while on earth. (which many of them do repeatedly)

Why do they need to ask for forgiveness when the Bible claims that God is omniscient

because God needs to know you are sorry ? which is weird since God would already know if you are sorry or not since God supposedly made you... so there'd be no need to constantly ask for forgiveness.

Your god continues to make LGBT people

Silly epistte you know by now that bad = free will and good = god

If you say so... Don’t ask questions if you never wanted an answer. Don’t attack our beliefs and expect to get anything other than a Christian apologetic answer in in return. The sheer condescending arrogance of the secularists thinking that they know best is strong in the post I responded to.

Isn't it a little interesting that people who don't believe in God always want to argue about something He may or may not have done?

Isn't it a little interesting that people who don't believe in God always want to argue about something He may or may not have done?

just as interesting as those who believe in God can never seem to tell anyone exactly what He may or may not have done.

Silly epistte you know by now that bad = free will and good = god

If their god claims to be both omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent ( all powerful) then they cannot also believe in free will because if God knows what they will do before they do it because he is omniscient then they don't have free will to act.  If he is all powerful then he can control their behavior and as such his beings have no free will.

If he can control their behavior (god is omnipotent) then he cannot claim that their are sinful because he would not allow them to act in a way that is sinful.

QED; religious belief is illogical. 

just as interesting as those who believe in God can never seem to tell anyone exactly what He may or may not have done.

Which makes it odd that only non-believers demand "proof" for something they personally don't believe.

I have never felt the need to validate my faith in any way with those who don't believe.

But it is still amusing to watch the arguments from non-believers about what God did or didn't do.

Basically it will always break down to nothing more than "Prove it.".

I believe my go-to response to that will be "Prove it to yourself" because I don't care what others believe.

Believe or not, it doesn't affect me in any way.

because God needs to know you are sorry ? which is weird since God would already know if you are sorry or not since God supposedly made you... so there'd be no need to constantly ask for forgiveness.

If you continue to commit sin then you cannot be sorry for your past actions, but evangelicals believe that as long as you are saved you can do what you want because they have god in their heart as the result of accepting him as their savior. 

It's even worse that approximately 30% of the American public believes this nonsense and give 10% of their income to shysters who preach this idiocy.  Logic is a foreign language in the US.

Which makes it odd that only non-believers demand "proof" for something they personally don't believe.

they are just not convinced - unless they are gnostic atheist (which i think is a stupid position since there is not 100% proof either way) - so that's why they ask for "proof" (look, mystery solved.. once again)

I have never felt the need to validate my faith in any way with those who don't believe.

congratulations ?

But it is still amusing to watch the arguments from non-believers about what God did or didn't do.

just as amusing to watch arguments from believers about what God did or didn't do - but can't provide any proof that God actually did anything... they just convinced themselves God did since they have no other explanation (remember... "god works in mysterious ways" right ?)

Basically it will always break down to nothing more than "Prove it.".

exactly true and neither side can prove nor disprove 100%

I believe my go-to response to that will be "Prove it to yourself" because I don't care what others believe. Believe or not, it doesn't affect me in any way.

me neither.

If you continue to commit sin then you cannot be sorry for your past actions, but evangelicals believe that as long as you are saved you can do what you want because they have god in their heart as the result of accepting him as their savior. 

sure you can be sorry for committing that sin -- as long as you just commit a different sin next time

It's even worse that approximately 30% of the American public believes this nonsense and give 10% of their income to shysters who preach this idiocy.  Logic is a foreign language in the US.

so it seems sometimes.

If we agree, which seems to be the case, how's about next time just responding with "I agree" and save me the time of wading through posts just to have you agree with me?

Thanks in advance.

If we agree, which seems to be the case, how's about next time just responding with "I agree" and save me the time of wading through posts just to have you agree with me? Thanks in advance.

just as you have the freedom and ability to write those long posts - i have the freedom and ability to respond with long posts. I'm glad we agree

ust as you have the freedom and ability to write those long posts - i have the freedom and ability to respond with long posts. I'm glad we agree

Tsk, tsk,

Just when I thought we were making some progress, too.

Did someone forget about the simple, direct-and-to-the-point of "I agree" already?

Tsk, tsk,

Just when I thought we were making some progress, too.

Did someone forget about the simple, direct-and-to-the-point of "I agree" already?

tsk tsk. Just when i thought we were making some progress, too. Did someone forget this already ?:

just as you have the freedom and ability to write those long posts - i have the freedom and ability to respond with long posts.

pay attention next time and we'll make some progress

Do you have a real reason to argue, or are you just spoiling for a fight or something?

Here, I know how much this will mean to you:

Please, take and have the last word.

He had no problem with impregnating a girl who was promised to another though did he.

Who cares? Your God sure has some silly hangups.

And he didn't even have the decency to buy her dinner first.

Your god never said anything about two guys in a sexual act.

What Jesus did say was that he wouldn't know [Deleted]  You pretend you speak for God while advocating hatred.  I hope for your sake that your God isn't as evil as you claim it is; otherwise [Deleted]

As If his sins are to be forever unforgiven by God or by his peers.  

Yeah, well, the way I understand this "forgiveness" thingy is you have to ask God for it. When asked if he'd ever asked God for forgiveness, trmp straight up said he had nothing to be forgiven for....ever....in his whole life.

And you still lick the ground that he walks on....

Not even the courtesy of a reach around first either.

Not even the courtesy of a reach around first either.

(blushes)..............I wasn't expecting that from you. 

I scrolled through and read it and kept scrolling because I was convinced that I read it wrong and then came back and read it again slowly. Yep, she really did say "a reach around."

Not even the courtesy of a reach around first either.

How rude, am I right?

Lighten up Francis.

You likely do not even want to know the answer to that question.

She and the son she gave birth to were the focal point of the entire Old Testament.  The old covenant leading to the new one.  Mary’s pregnancy with the Son of God was not the result of a sexual act.  

Nothing like a full on frontal assault on the very basis of Christianity.  No surprise there.  

The very basis of Christianity is hilarious - a virgin birth.  It's a myth that was stolen from earlier myths.

Why is it so important to some folks to think that Mary didn't have sex, anyway?  And if you suggest that if Jesus did exist, he would likely have been married and - gasp - had sex, they go ballistic.  How would it change anything (other than to dispel the idea that women who aren't "pure" are somehow bad) if they did have sex? 

You are happy with a full on frontal assault on the very basis of reality.  No surprise there.

You likely do not even want to know the answer to that question.

Try me.

Nothing like a full on frontal assault on the very basis of Christianity.

Christians displaying a persecution complex as the slightest perceived slight. no surprise there either.

Mary’s pregnancy with the Son of God was not the result of a sexual act.

Obvious BS story is obvious! 

Why is it so important to some folks to think that Mary didn't have sex, anyway?

Whether she had sex or not doesn't change the fact that she was supposedly knocked up by someone other than her husband. No amount of religious logic twisting covers that up.

He can push all he wants but it will have to include ALL religions then including satanism.  

He's just sucking up to the faux christians that still lick his asshole

You're correct.  The idiotic religious fanatics are the main base he has left, so he's trying to pander to them.  Since he loves to violate his oath about upholding the Constitution, he has no problem trying to do this.  Everyone knows he isn't a Christian except the evangelicals ... I guess once you distance yourself from reality that much, it's easy to take it a little farther and believe this lying asshole.

They are hypocrites one and all, remember these are the same people who constantly spewed Obama was a muslim.  And now they worship at the altar of trump who is NO christian.  

I have no problem in principle with offering an historical analysis of the world's religions (or at least the most common) or of the holy books of the world's religions.   But strictly limiting this to the Bible is an obvious incrementalist tactic to teach Christianity in public schools.

I have no problem in principle with offering an historical analysis of the world's religions (or at least the most common) or of the holy books of the world's religions.   But strictly limiting this to the Bible is an obvious incrementalist tactic to teach Christianity in public schools.

They have no interest in a comprehensive critical survey course of the world's religions because that would not accomplish their goal of indoctrinating impressionable children with Protestant Christianity.  What these people want is to use the public schools and taxpayer money for bible study, which is blatantly unconstitutional.

I agree.

I agree.

The job of the government is not to create religious believers or to put people in the pews on Sunday, but instead, it is to be absolutely neutral on the issue of religion and religious belief.  Public schools are not a place for churches or religions to evangelize to a captured and impressionable audience. It should not have to be said that the state is not to be supporting or endorsing any religious morality via legislation because doing so is a blatant violation of both religious clauses of the First Amendment. We cannot have equal secular and religious rights if the state is forcing people to live by the moral code of any religion. 

Butt we both know that it's hard to win without at least faking a belief in Christianity.

Pretty sure that the best administrators are rational atheists that are "passing".

So, liars...

So it would seem.  

So, liars...

What are atheists lying about?

see 4.1.3

see 4.1.3

Did they claim to be Christians or did they just omit that idea?  Why should a politician be a member of a church? 

When was the last time that Donald Trump was in church, that was not part of his job?

will they show the loopholes?

So much for history.

would they be able to give an atheist a poor grade based on non belief?    

A reading of the seeded article clearly answers that question.  

all I see is that it is an elective

A reading of the seeded article clearly answers that question.  

Why should taxpayer money and limited school hours be used to teach religious belief when this could just as easily be done at various churches? Which version of Christianity will be taught and which bible will be used? Will students be told that religious belief is not based on historical facts or logical thought? 

What is the overall social good for teaching something as divisive as religious belief in public schools? Why should public schools not teach Islam, Satanism, Paganism, or Hinduism instead of Christianity? 

I've been through a few colleges and universities, and looking through the catalogues left me baffled at times. Why would anybody pay that kind of money to learn "applied basket weaving" or "pro badminton" or "Satanism 101". I suppose if your parents have that kind of money to waste on a useless college whim,... why not. The colleges and universities can all use the money.

Spent some time tutoring football players at KU so they wouldn't lose their eligibility. That's where all of the big money comes from. College sports. In retrospect, I should have charged much more for my tutoring.

Football players that have hit so hard and so often in their elementary and high school days no longer can do much else but play college ball on a scholarship for only a handful of years.

The best of the best (1 out of 1000 at best) make an NFL team and get rapidly used up.

Sure glad I chose martial arts and being a bouncer and fighter instead of playing more football (safer).

I never took any of those fluff courses in college because I was too busy taking engineering and science courses for my major. The closest that I came to fluff were a few fine art courses or psych' courses.

The closest that I came to fluff were a few fine art courses or psych' courses.

I wouldn't consider either of these to be " fluff " courses.

I wouldn't consider either of these to be " fluff " courses.

I've used the fine art courses in helping me show clients what something will look like. Psych courses help me understand people and make it easier to relate to them.

 I had planned to study industrial design out of high school. I still go back and forth between the skills of both majors.

idsa

I had to take some electives to get the credits I needed for graduation. So what do I take?

Parasitolgy, Nazi/Japanese interment camps, and Bioethics.

Fun stuff!

Same here.  So I took Cultural Beliefs in Healthcare, Chemistry in Medicine, and Nutrition.

I had to take a few credits of PE, so I guess those were my fluff courses - volleyball, women's self defense, and Nautilus training.

I think the only time my academic advisor rolled her eyes because she thought a class was too easy was when I signed up for Computer Literacy, but my high school didn't have much in the way of computer classes, so I felt a bit lost when I got to college and everyone was more tech literate than I was.

I had to take a few credits of PE, so I guess those were my fluff courses - volleyball, women's self defense, and Nautilus training.

My PE credits were archery, cycling, and aerobics.

I think the only time my academic advisor rolled her eyes because she thought a class was too easy was when I signed up for Computer Literacy, but my high school didn't have much in the way of computer classes, so I felt a bit lost when I got to college and everyone was more tech literate than I was.

This was a requirement for me because I had used a computer maybe 10 times when I graduated high school.

I took computer classes in high school, but our computer lab was really out of date.  When I got to college, I was a bit lost and had to rely on friends for help.

I took computer classes in high school, but our computer lab was really out of date.  When I got to college, I was a bit lost and had to rely on friends for help.

We had maybe 6 Apple computers in the computer lab. There was a group of guys that decided who could use them.   Unless you were a friend of theirs, good luck.

We had a decent computer lab in college. Maybe 24 each of Hewlett Packards and Macs. If that was full, there was a smaller lab in the library, but the main lab had staff to help if you needed it.  The problem was that the network got overloaded easily.  Our calculus and quantitative chem classes had to be there during our allotted times, and that many calculations froze up the whole lab at times.  If you were lucky,  you'd saved your work.

In college, we had 20+ IBM ATs in college in 3x different labs but it was a constant battle to get time on them outside of scheduled classes. I had CAD courses and then my computer programming courses. At times, it was a 24-hour room at the end of the semester.

It was anthropology and Lithics for me. Needed a minor and making arrowheads was cool.

Which Bible?

King James?

New International Version?

New American Bible? - this is the one the Catholics like

New Revised Standard Version?

Modern Literal Version?

New American Standard?

The Living Bible?

This is just a sampling of the Bibles that are out there

the fight over which Bible to use might be funny to watch

They're start thumping each other with their Bibles

What's really gonna be funny is watching these idiots try to prevent Muslims, Hindus etc from doing the exact same thing.

Yup. We already saw them lose their minds when a calligraphy teacher was having students copy a line from the Koran, can you imagine what they'll do when teachers are handing out Korans as study material?

Don't forget their guns.

I would like to submit my Book of Shadows as a text for classes in the public school system.  Think that will "fly"?

You've got my vote, although I would like to see it taught in church instead

Now that sounds more interesting than the "Bible." 

Especially if we get to turn somebody into a newt

You're sitting on a park bench and faintly hearing " help me...help meeee" and it's a fly with Trumps head in a web?

Only sickos my age will get this..

Always preferred the drunken Pagan orgies myself.

I guess I'm a sicko....LOL!

I would like to submit my Book of Shadows as a text for classes in the public school system.  Think that will "fly"?

That might have been an elective I would have be interested in. Think of the parties the class could have enjoyed on Samhain, Yule, Imbloc, Beltane, and Mabon.

in reference to @9.2.1

As shown here in multiple ways this is a bad idea that is unpopular and unconstitutional. Go Trump!

I would say that maybe God wanted Obama to be President, but that would be impossible.

To most liberals, Obama IS their god.

I would say that maybe God wanted Obama to be President, but that would be impossible. To most liberals, Obama IS their god.

I demand an immediate apology because I am a Pastafarian. In the absence of an apology, you will boil for your affront to the FSM. We have sous-vide technology so this punishment could last for eternity. 

you will boil for your affront to the FSM.

And then covered in marinara with a side of meatballs

That is why I go with Angel Hair (it doesn't take an eternity).

Good point.  They acted like he was their messiah.  

Good point.  They acted like he was their messiah.

Obama was not a messiah.

https://youtu.be/l46t_nrySg4

Glenn Beck is a conservative and was the leader of the TEAparty, and as such he does not represent Democrats.  Do you see the obvious conflict of interest?

Come back to me when you have proof of a Democrat believing that Obama was the messiah. 

Actually Ron Paul was the founder of the tea party. Glen Beck is a piranha.

There were two TEAparties, IIRC. 

Glen Beck is an idiot and so was Sarah Palin but most of the TEAparty members followed them, so it also made them idiots. Ron Paul is a shyster who is still hawking his financial theories to the gullible. He also has many ties to racism.

The catalyst for what would become known as the Tea Party movement came on February 19, 2009, when Rick Santelli, a commentator on the business-news network CNBC, referenced the Boston Tea Party (1773) in his response to Pres. Barack Obama’s mortgage relief plan. Speaking from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Santelli heatedly stated that the bailout would “subsidize the losers’ mortgages” and proposed a Chicago Tea Party to protest government intervention in the housing market. The five-minute clip became an Internet sensation, and the “Tea Party” rallying cry struck a chord with those who had already seen billions of dollars flow toward sagging financial firms. Unlike previous populist movements, which were characterized by a distrust of business in general and bankers in particular, the Tea Party movement focused its ire at the federal government and extolled the virtues of free market principles. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tea-Party-movement

And one wonders why one spends less and less time here and more at The Political Forum.com.  That is a much more friendly place.  One from there came over here when I had my monthly 2 day sabbatical from here and he was treated rudely in the extreme here.  That was embarrassing if not totally predictable.  

The catalyst for what would become known as the Tea Party movement came on February 19, 2009, when Rick Santelli, a commentator on the business-news network CNBC, referenced the Boston Tea Party (1773) in his response to Pres. Barack Obama ’s mortgage relief plan. Speaking from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Santelli heatedly stated that the bailout would “subsidize the losers’ mortgages” and proposed a Chicago Tea Party to protest government intervention in the housing market. The five-minute clip became an Internet sensation, and the “Tea Party” rallying cry struck a chord with those who had already seen billions of dollars flow toward sagging financial firms. Unlike previous populist movements, which were characterized by a distrust of business in general and bankers in particular, the Tea Party movement focused its ire at the federal government and extolled the virtues of free market principles. britannica

The TEAparty were Ron Paul supporters and existed in the fall of 2008. Santelli and others tried to hijack what previously existed with his ideas.

Libertarians led the way for tea party disaffection with establishment Republicans. Starting in early 2008 through the early tea parties, libertarians were more than twice as “angry” with the Republican Party as social conservatives; more pessimistic about the economy and deficit during the Bush years, and more frustrated that people like them cannot affect government. Libertarians, including young people who supported Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, provided much of the early energy for the tea party and spread the word through social media.

And one wonders why one spends less and less time here and more at The Political Forum.com.  That is a much more friendly place.  One from there came over here when I had my monthly 2 day sabbatical from here and he was treated rudely in the extreme here.  That was embarrassing if not totally predictable.  

You won't hurt my feelings if you would stop posting here.

Should I find a gay or a secular-progressive baker to make a cake for your going away party? We'll have rainbow napkins, pink triangle mints and invite Bernie Sanders or AOC to say a few words about you..........

You will have to cancel your party 🎊 🎈 🎉 plans as I’m not going away. Just because I’m spending less time here doesn’t mean that I’m leaving.  I was elsewhere today and not one of the articles I seeded there would have passed the censors here.  Even a The Stream article written by a sitting United States Senator.  My post that was locked here last weekend has 175 comments and growing there with the exact same title.  You should consider though the effects the rudeness here had on a new member here from there that I persuaded to give this place a look due to its mix of members.  

It's a liberal site and we may be outnumbered, but remember that it is a big social forum. We have some good things in the works here. There are other people reading these conversations. You and others like you help to shape public opinion. Think about what others think when they see good people disparaged as racists and homophobes and whatever else the left uses to intimidate & silence opposing views. Like you once said, America's greatest enemy comes from within. 

It's a liberal site and we may be outnumbered, but remember that it is a big social forum. We have some good things in the works here.

How should Perrie make the site more conservative?

She shouldn’t.  That’s not the point.  The issue is making it more fair to its conservative members both in moderation of post content compared to when liberals say similar things and in seed sourcing since our sources are 11-1 more likely than left leaning ones to be labeled questionable, hate, or pseudoscience.  Like I said, nothing I seeded on the other site would have been locked based on the content of the words but all would have based solely on the source the written words came from.  

It's a liberal site

Good grief.   And many (most?) of the ex-NV liberals stay away because they think this is a conservative site.   

Funny thing about a site that does not cater to a particular ideology;  instead of recognizing the highly beneficial absence of echo chamber both ends of the spectrum proclaim bias.

Rest assured, I’m not going away except for my obligatory 2 days a month for posting while Christian conservative.  

This site doesn’t cater to a political side but it strongly leans against one side.  

Actually Ron Paul was the founder of the tea party.

Link? 

[deleted]

I had my monthly 2 day sabbatical

What is this 2 day sabbatical you have each month ? Are you suspended two days every month ?

My post that was locked here last weekend has 175 comments and growing there with the exact same title.

If it's like most of your seeds here, half of the comments are yours. 

Eliminate biased liberal moderators ?

Who are you referring to, and how are they biased against conservatives?  What are some examples of their bias? 

She shouldn’t.  That’s not the point.  The issue is making it more fair to its conservative members both in moderation of post content compared to when liberals say similar things and in seed sourcing since our sources are 11-1 more likely than left leaning ones to be labeled questionable, hate, or pseudoscience.  Like I said, nothing I seeded on the other site would have been locked based on the content of the words but all would have based solely on the source the written words came from.  

You want her to do this but you also claim that it wouldn't make the site more conservative? Did you say this with a straight face? 

Actually Ron Paul was the founder of the tea party.

Actually, no he wasn't......

Ron Paul on the Tea Party... (from LewRockwell.com)

Well I don’t deal with the Tea Party (or the Republican party or any of that) per se, we must deal with the idealogy [sic] of the concept of liberty. The Tea Party was actually started during the Ron Paul presidential campaign in 2007 when there was a spontaneous moneybomb that was done on the anniversary of the original tea party. And it was strictly related to the issues and ideas I have just finished talking about. What happened after that was that a lot of people came onboard – including Republicans – who watered down some of the beliefs, and certainly changed the opinion of some on foreign policy so that the original Tea Party movement was taken over by the Republican Party, which I think was part of the problem.

Ron Paul had no actual involvement in starting the Tea Party. 

From the Wiki Page on the "Tea Party".....

References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held in the 1990s and before. In 1984, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch of Koch Industries founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), a conservative political group whose self-described mission was "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation." Congressman Ron Paul was appointed as the first chairman of the organization. The CSE lobbied for policies favorable to corporations, particularly tobacco companies.

In 2002, a Tea Party website was designed and published by the CSE at web address www.usteaparty.com, and stated "our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated." The site did not take off at the time. In 2003, Dick Armey became the chairman of CSE after retiring from Congress. In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into FreedomWorks, for 501c4 advocacy activity, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Dick Armey stayed as chairman of FreedomWorks, while David Koch stayed as Chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. The two organizations would become key players in the Tea Party movement from 2009 onward. Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks were "probably the leading partners" in the September 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington, also known as the "9/12 Tea Party," according to The Guardian.

Fox News Channel commentator Juan Williams has said that the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign. Indeed, Ron Paul has stated that its origin was on December 16, 2007, when supporters held a 24-hour record breaking, "moneybomb" fundraising event on the Boston Tea Party's 234th anniversary, but that others, including Republicans, took over and changed some of the movement's core beliefs. Writing for Slate.com, Dave Weigel has argued in concurrence that, in his view, the "first modern Tea Party events occurred in December 2007, long before Barack Obama took office, and they were organized by supporters of Rep. Ron Paul," with the movement expanding and gaining prominence in 2009. Barack Obama, the first African American President of the United States, took office in January 2009. Journalist Joshua Green has stated in The Atlantic that while Ron Paul is not the Tea Party's founder, or its culturally resonant figure, he has become the "intellectual godfather" of the movement since many now agree with his long-held beliefs.

And for what it is worth, I was a Paul delegate to my County Convention, State Convention and an alternate delegate to the RNC in 2012. At that point in time Ron Paul had disavowed any connection to the Tea Party....

I know that personally as a fact...

The more extreme one's position, the more fairness will appear distant.

our sources are 11-1 more likely than left leaning ones to be labeled questionable, hate, or pseudoscience.  

Have you done a spread sheet on that data Xx or did you just pull that number out of your nether regions? 

Like I said, nothing I seeded on the other site would have been locked based on the content of the words but all would have based solely on the source the written words came from.

Those are the rules that you agree to when you post here. WHY do you whine about it ad nauseam? You admit that you have a willing venue for your propaganda. Instead of you demand that NT be just like them.

That's like going to a Cajun restaurant and demanding Pizza. 

The more extreme one's position, the more fairness will appear distant.

A concept that escapes most ideologues.......

It's a liberal site and we may be outnumbered, but remember that it is a big social forum.

Yes and remember that the liberal members are part of the reason it IS such a 'big social forum'. 

We have some good things in the works here. There are other people reading these conversations.

Well since you said it was a 'liberal site' that MUST be because of the liberals right? 

You and others like you help to shape public opinion.

Yes but not necessarily in the direction you or Xx want...

Think about what others think when they see good people disparaged as racists and homophobes and whatever else the left uses to intimidate & silence opposing views.

Think about what others think when they see good people disparaged as communists, Marxists and whatever else the right uses to intimidate and silence opposing views. 

So simply the stopping of the censorship of conservative sites and calling it community standards would make it more conservative?

That is a much more friendly place.

By all mean, feel free to go there and stay there then.

 One from there came over here when I had my monthly 2 day sabbatical from here and he was treated rudely in the extreme here.  That was embarrassing if not totally predictable.  

See previous statement. 

And who gives a rat's ass what lunatic Ron Paul says anyway ????

 I was elsewhere today and not one of the articles I seeded there would have passed the censors here. Even a The Stream article written by a sitting United States Senator. My post that was locked here last weekend has 175 comments and growing there with the exact same title.

Actually Xx, that seed only has 172 comments as of this very moment. The forum you so love, has NO standard for sources. We @ NT agreed that we wanted a standard. 

Oh and you call it a 'The Stream article' yet you didn't use 'The Stream' as a source, either here or there. 

Now to address your calling out the administration of NT for locking your seed. 

politicalforum

The Rules: 

We welcome constructive criticism or complaints, but the public forums are not an appropriate venue for criticizing the staff, administration, or ownership of the site. If you have questions about a specific moderator decision, feel free to send a PM to that moderator, an administrator, or the site owner.

So it looks like you have a deep desire to have NT follow 'The Rules' of the other forum yet you violate those very Rules here on NT. 

You should consider though the effects the rudeness here had on a new member here from there that I persuaded to give this place a look due to its mix of members.

Judging from the replies that I read to YOUR seed on that forum, there is plenty of 'rudeness'. Perhaps it's just their reaction to your seed...

The more extreme one's position, the more fairness will appear distant.

it's just more of the "us vs them" and "good vs evil" war mentality that some of the posters have, combined with a never-ending deck of "victim cards" - deeply rooted in their belief systems that tout the very same war ideology. 

[deleted]

Actually the seed has 178 so quit nit picking.

Isn't that what YOU just did? 

I seeded two articles there from THE Stream including one by Sen. Rubio.

Only ONE had the 'same title' as the one that was locked here and you didn't use a link from The Stream in that seed. 

Sure some voted to censor others content with so called community standards but no one voted on which censorship board we’d have to clear in order to be able to speak here.

Not 'some' Xx, the MAJORITY. 

They have standards over there at the other site I use. You can’t seed from blatant universally recognized hate sites and you can’t seed a headline with the intent to flame Or clickbait.

I READ 'the Rules' Xx. There is NO prohibition on the sources of seeds. As for flame baiting, here as there, the Admin or Mods decide. Hence the lock on your seed with a flame baiting title. 

My New York article cleared their standards since it was a relatively universal opinion article across Christian News Media. 

Your NY seed wasn't locked because of the source Xx. 

There would have been less issue here if we were given a choice as to who was going to censor our content and what criteria they were going to use.

Actually, your preferred forum has basically the SAME authorities who decide what criteria is used to censor content. I already cited them in me prior post. 

the staff, administration, or ownership of the site.

So WTF are you bitching about again? 

The other BIG difference from there to here is the flagging function and since you a prolific user of that function I seriously doubt that you want THAT to change. 

Comment removed for context [ph]

I never said that the locked seed here was locked because of the source.  I said that other articles I seeded over there would have been locked here, not for the actual content of what they actually said but because of where they came from.  That is what I said.  I didn’t seed the NY article from the Stream though it was there.  I still read the banned sites and when I see something on them or by one of their leaders elsewhere i like, I go elsewhere and seed the exact same material from a different source as conservative and Christian sites affected by SPLC and Facebook, Google, Twitter, MBFC, etc. are cross pollinators getting their articles and authors to sites not yet impacted by tech industry censorship.  

What about those who think Trump is the messiah? 

I never said that the locked seed here was locked because of the source.

Yet your whining has been all about the 'censorship' of sources hasn't it been Xx? 

I said that other articles I seeded over there would have been locked here, not for the actual content of what they actually said but because of where they came from. That is what I said.  

Again, you KNOW the rules here and you have another willing venue for the rest of your crap. 

I didn’t seed the NY article from the Stream though it was there.

Wait WHAT? Didn't you say:

I seeded two articles there from THE Stream including one by Sen. Rubio.

That was you right? Your refuting your own comments now Xx. 

I still read the banned sites and when I see something on them or by one of their leaders elsewhere i like, I go elsewhere and seed the exact same material from a different source as conservative and Christian sites affected by SPLC and Facebook, Google, Twitter, MBFC, etc. are cross pollinators getting their articles and authors to sites not yet impacted by tech industry censorship.

Well gee Xx, you're tell me that you have been able to post the 'exact same material' from sites that don't meet NT's standards merely by searching for acceptable sources. You've just admitted that you don't have any problem getting the articles you like onto NT. 

So WTF are you whining about again? 

Yes and remember that the liberal members are part of the reason it IS such a 'big social forum'. 

Liberal members or all those who read it?

Well since you said it was a 'liberal site' that MUST be because of the liberals right? 

No, I'm sure that people aren't reading it because there are liberals here or the readers are liberal. You may be overestimating the size of the liberal ideology in America. Liberals do control the University, the media, Hollywood and a good deal of the federal government but they are a minority viewpoint nonetheless. Shall I present the latest Gallup Poll:

"(CNSNews.com) - More Americans identify themselves as conservative than as liberal or moderate, a   new Gallup poll says . While the percentage of conservatives has stayed about the same since the early 1990s, the percentage of liberals has increased and the percentage of moderates has fallen.
The poll found that in 2016, 36 percent of Americans said they are conservative, compared with 25 percent who identified as liberal (up from 17 percent in the 1990s); and 34 percent who identified as moderate (down from 43 percent in the early 1990s).

Gallup notes that "moderates" were the most prevalent group from 1992 to 2002, before conservatives overtook them in 2003.

cnsnews

Yes but not necessarily in the direction you or Xx want...

And not necessarily in the direction you want.  Objective readers come to their own conclusions based on a lot of things. They don't need a professor or a party whip to tell them what to think.

Think about what others think when they see good people disparaged as communists, Marxists and whatever else the right uses to intimidate and silence opposing views. 

Unfortunately, that has been the tactic of the far left for some time. They OWN it.

Liberal members or all those who read it?

They're not mutually exclusive.

No, I'm sure that people aren't reading it because there are liberals here or the readers are liberal.

That wasn't my assertion Vic. Oh and I note that you didn't address the 'good things in the works here.'

You may be overestimating the size of the liberal ideology in America.

Since I didn't estimate the size of anything, it's impossible  for me to have overestimated the size of anything. 

And not necessarily in the direction you want.

Then Xx should be happy that he is achieving his goal. 

Objective readers come to their own conclusions based on a lot of things. They don't need a professor or a party whip to tell them what to think.

Then why did you encourage Xx to 'help shape public opinion'? 

Unfortunately, that has been the tactic of the far left for some time. They OWN it.

Oh you shouldn't overlook the far rights concerted efforts to perfect the 'tactic'. Practice makes perfect...

Vic and the other conservatives here can relax and rest assured that I am not going to leave this site.  He is of course right about the non member audience we have an impact on. When I seed a reasonable mainstream conservative or Christian article and the progressive or secular respond as Vic mentioned, it’s a win for us. On an interesting side note a search of an article title on line that has been seeded here shows up in the search list as a NewsTalkers article.  

Oh and I note that you didn't address the 'good things in the works here.'

That's because I was talking to Xx, but I am glad you took note.

Then why did you encourage Xx to 'help shape public opinion'? 

Because I think he is a good man with good idea's. Something worth contributing.

Oh you shouldn't overlook the far rights concerted efforts to perfect the 'tactic'.

So sorry, to disagree as usual, but I seldom see any politicians labeled as Communists. I do see legions of politicians and average people called "racists" by the left. As a matter of fact the Governor of Virginia, a democrat had a picture in his yearbook that many would regard as truly racist. He refuses to step down. (and may not have to because the Lt Gov is involved in a scandal as well). I assume you know this, but I've heard little about the irony of that situation. You see Gov Northam won his position via a campaign in which he falsely smeared his opponent (Ed Gillespie) as a "racist".
And then there is the little matter of all those being so smeared over the last 30-40 years by the left. Or the absolute certainty that the left will be using the tactic in the 2020 Presidential campaign. It's truly amazing that anyone could deny such an obvious fact of life in American politics.

 That is a much more friendly place.

Any site that is friendly to far right wing fascism won't be a site I will go to.

Just a good president.

[Removed]

Vic and the other conservatives here can relax and rest assured that I am not going to leave this site.  

Were you elected their spokesman or are you merely claiming the mantel? 

He is of course right about the non member audience we have an impact on.

Of that I have no doubt. 

When I seed a reasonable mainstream conservative or Christian article and the progressive or secular respond as Vic mentioned, it’s a win for us.

Since that occurrence is so rare, your 'wins' are few and far between. 

On an interesting side note a search of an article title on line that has been seeded here shows up in the search list as a NewsTalkers article.  

Yes and 'the non member audience' will then see why it's source or content was rejected by NT. 

That's because I was talking to Xx, but I am glad you took note.

I took note of it because it was in reply to my comment. If you want to talk to Xx, post to him.

Because I think he is a good man with good idea's. Something worth contributing.

Supercilious and holier than though comes to mind... 

So sorry, to disagree as usual, but I seldom see any politicians labeled as Communists.

We're not talking about what YOU call politicians are we Vic? 

If you want to talk to Xx, post to him.

I did - Post# 13.2.11

Supercilious and holier than though comes to mind... 

Try honest

We're not talking about what YOU call politicians are we Vic? 

We?  We don't need you to interpret what was said: It was me who called out the left for smearing people as racist. You countered that the right does the same calling people Communist. Here is that point I've been making....You know, where the people reading this get to judge who is right.

It's been a pleasure

I did - Post# 13.2.11

Not this one Vic. 

thenewstalkers

Try honest

While on occasion that may be true, he bares false witness with the best of them. 

You know, where the people reading this get to judge who is right.

Well first of all Vic, I don't accept your premise that they are mutually exclusive.

The only way for us to see who 'the people' judge is right is by the thumbs up votes. Much of the time, Xx is his only supporter and he yours. But hey, who's counting right? 

I don’t know of any site like that nor do I have any interest in such a place either.  

I claim nothing.  I’m simply one small part of the conservative membership here.  I simply said I’m not leaving.  

Observing nonmembers who read seeds and their conversations here have no vote on the comments.  We still try to reach out to them.  

Observing nonmembers who read seeds and their conversations here have no vote on the comments.  

Members are 'the people' too Xx. 

We still try to reach out to them.

As do I but I do it by posting facts supported with links and data. 

I simply said I’m not leaving.  

So no party. Got ya. 

I support what I believe in when I reach out to others including independents and neutral non member observers.  Rest assured I’m not trying to reach out to you or other members of your ideology.  I’m trying to persuade the others of the errors of your sides belief systems, religious and political.  

[deleted]

I support what I believe in when I reach out to others including independents and neutral non member observers.  Rest assured I’m not trying to reach out to you or other members of your ideology.  I’m trying to persuade the others of the errors of your sides belief systems, religious and political.  

Have you ever been open to the possibility that your political or religious belief system may be wrong?

Some people here have absolutely no sense of humor here whatsoever.  Sad, really.  

At least as much as you have about yours.  

I support what I believe in when I reach out to others including independents and neutral non member observers.  

You may support what you believe in but you rarely support what you seed and post here at NT. 

Rest assured I’m not trying to reach out to you or other members of your ideology.

Yes Xx, your ad nauseam regurgitation of your animus toward 'secular progressives' is well documented.   

I’m trying to persuade the others of the errors of your sides belief systems, religious and political.  

Other than using emojis to applaud your fellow travelers, HOW are YOU being persuasive Xx? 

At least as much as you have about yours.  

I have logic and science facts on my side.  You are repeating 2500 myths and discredited claims.

More like quackery and pseudoscience.....I have reality on my side.  

I have reality on my side.  

Considering you don't seem to know what science is, I'd have to say not!

Thanks Vic for your participation on this seed.  It’s much appreciated.

Mans idea of science is extremely limited compared to that of God the author of science and the creator of the universe.

not unless I’m a part of your party 🎉  🎈  🍾 🎊 

I have God and what you have is pseudoscience quackery in comparison.  

I have God and what you have is pseudoscience quackery in comparison.  

No, what you have is fairy tales while I have reality ground in logic and reasoning.

God the author of science and the creator of the universe.

That's nice. Prove it!

I don't believe in God either but wouldn't spend is anytime refuting people that do it is counterproductive.

People can believe in whatever they want. But when they posit such beliefs as factual or true, especially at the expense of already established facts and science, then that is a disservice to logic and reasoning,  promoting willful ignorance, and should be challenged.

It shows a lack of civility and a total lack of respect.

Challenging beliefs or claims based on it is not disrespectful. Belief is not exempt from scrutiny.

Weak.

Is Obama the topic? 

President Trump Leads Multi-State Push For ‘Bible Literacy’ Classes In Public Schools

Which is fuckin hilarious. The least godly man on the planet making a complete mockery of christians and their religion. 

They'll create a new bible in Texas that will screw their brains up.

Too late.

As opposed to the New York atheist bible? https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Bible-Illustrious-Collection-Irreverent/dp/0061349151

As opposed to the New York atheist bible?

Now that sounds like a good read.

As opposed to the New York atheist bible?

I had never heard of an atheists Bible until you mentioned it, so it cannot be a very popular idea.  Despite what you seem to want to believe, atheism is not a religion.

Did you bother to read any of the excerpts from it, or the reviews?

"All thinking men are atheists," Ernest Hemingway famously wrote. True? Here are quips, quotes, and questions from a distinguished assortment of geniuses and jokers, giving readers a chance to decide for themselves....

When I think of all the harm [the bible] has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it.
Oscar Wilde

SAINT, n. A dead sinner revised and edited.
Ambrose Bierce

There ain't no answer. There ain't going to be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer.
Gertrude Stein

Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are skeptical.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Susan Ertz

I love the wit of H.L. Mencken,

“For the Bible, despite all its contradictions and absurdities, its barbarisms and obscenities, remains grand and gaudy stuff, and so it deserves careful study and enlightened exposition. It is not only lovely in phrase; it is also rich in ideas, many of them far from foolish. One somehow gathers the notion that it was written from end to end by honest men—inspired, perhaps, but nevertheless honest. When they had anything to say they said it plainly, whether it was counsel that enemies be slain or counsel that enemies be kissed. They knew how to tell a story, and how to sing a song, and how to swathe a dubious argument in specious and disarming words.”
― H.L. Mencken, H.L. Mencken on Religion

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. …[This] convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency. that they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. Nor is there any visible intellectual dignity in theologians. Few of them know anything that is worth knowing, and not many of them are even honest.”

“For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt. The more stupid the man, the larger his stock of adamantine assurances, the heavier his load of faith.”

A few thoughts by Voltaire on religious belief.

– “As long as there are rogues and fools, there will be religious. Ours is unquestionably the most ridiculous and most absurd and bloodiest ever infected the world”

– “The world embarrasses me, and I can not think – that this clock exists and has developed a watchmaker”

– “Fanaticism is superstition that the transport is at a fever, that rage is to anger”

– “Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy the mad daughter of a very wise mother”

– “If God did not exist it would have to invent”

– “Christianity is the most infamous superstition that ever stupid men and desolate the earth”

As opposed to the New York atheist bible?

This is where the reality of ignorance hits the pavement.

Did you look into this book before you saw The title? Obviously not.

In ways so common for the gullible, they desperately seek out things like this because it says "Atheist's Bible" and not only assume it's actually a bible but that it relates to the Texas Board of Education's rewriting history.

The Atheist's Bible is a collection of quotes and quips from famous people that proclaim to be atheists.

Just another example of many to define the lack of honesty and intellictual depth of so many conservatives.

Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Susan Ertz

I love this.  It perfectly encapsulates what I’ve been saying forever.  If people would just take their desire for eternal life to its logical conclusions, they would beg for it all to end in some sort of personal finality, be it death or reincarnation.  The alternative would eventually be eternal torture, whether in hell or in heaven.  Forever isn’t just a long time, it’s never ending.

Gotta suck when you make a snarky comment only to have it blow back so quickly. 

Sucks even more when one seeds an article about why there is no need for a fact checker...LOL

Remember everyone that the seed is about Trump supporting the effort of several states to voluntarily allow the use of The Holy Bible as a study of history and literature, not theology in elective classes. Nothing more, nothing less.  Please stay on that seeded article topic or I will lock 🔒 the seed and throw away the 🔑.  

You allowed that line to be crossed a week ago and you voted up the comment Xx. 

Trump supporting the effort of several states to voluntarily allow the use of The Holy Bible as a study of history and literature, not theology in elective classes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've studied history and literature and at no point was the bible ever required or necessary for either. Neither is the bible a history or literature book itself. At best, it belongs in mythology. 

Please stay on that seeded article topic or I will lock 🔒 the seed and throw away the 🔑.

Good! Do us all a favor then!

This would actually be a good thing....present the bible coldly as a work of fiction by comparing it to actual history thus showing how it's historical accuracy is virtually nil.  And there is a place for showing how it's been referenced  one way or another in literature over the centuries.   But, of course, this is just really just another way the vanishing extreme religious right hopes to keep imposing its religious views into the public sphere.  Certainly, no elementary teacher would be qualified to do this in a truly academic way and almost none at the secondary level either.