Praying for rain: Atheist critics show how petty and small-minded they’ve become

[rug]

By Lisa Miller, Thursday, July 26, 1:02 PMThe Washington Post

With the death of the writer Christopher Hitchens, and the withdrawal of Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, from the front lines into a study of morality and neuroscience, the American atheist movement has a void at the top. A decade ago, atheists were brave, fierce warriors bent on battling conventional wisdom and easy piety. These days, it seems, atheists are petty and small-minded ideologues who regard every expression of public religiosity as a personal affront – not to mention a possible violation of the First Amendment and a sign of rampant idiocy among their fellow citizens.

Last week, such atheist hysteria reached a peak when Tom Flynn, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, publicly over-reacted to remarks made at a press conference by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. In speaking about the devastating drought now facing farmers in the Midwest, the worst in 25 years, the Secretary, who was raised a Roman Catholic, struck a tone both emphatic and personal.

“I get on my knees every day,” he said, “and I’m saying an extra prayer right now. If I had a rain prayer or a rain dance, I would do it.”

Flynn came out churlishly swinging. About Vilsack’s statement, he said, “that’s not just government entangling itself with religion, that’s government publicly practicing it, and wallowing in superstition.” Besides, he added (rather meanly), prayer doesn’t work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/praying-for-rain-atheist-critics-show-how-petty-and-small-minded-theyve-become/2012/07/26/gJQAB9BeBX_story.html

[Control-Z]

1. Praying for rain works?

Who knew??

[Goblinmonger]

2. Why don't you post this over in A/A so it can be discussed there?

Oh, yeah, that's right, never mind.

As to the OP, she seems like someone you would get along with quite well. You should email her.

[rug]

5. Why don't you respond to it here?

[Goblinmonger]

9. Do you think prayers for rain work?

I don't. I don't think there is any connection at all between prayer and getting results for that prayer other than correlation. The Secretary was an idiot for saying he is praying for rain because he has to know that won't cause rain to happen. This woman is just pissed off at atheists in general and is looking for something to complain about.

But, hey, what are your thoughts about the connection between rain and prayer?

[rug]

12. You realize, of course, that is not the point of the article.

To refresh, your recollection, start at #7:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121836327#post7

Considering this post is about the writer's view that (some) atheist critics have been shown to be petty and small minded, this sentence of yours is particularly ironic:

This woman is just pissed off at atheists in general and is looking for something to complain about.

If the irony eludes you, replace the word "atheists" with "theists".

[Goblinmonger]

13. It is the point that she thought was petty.

So do you think praying for rain works?

If you don't, then they only thing you have a problem with with the atheists is them saying it out loud.
If you do, then I guess that explains why you think the article is good.

[rug]

15. Correct. And "the writer's view" has a lot of substance.

It's not about prayer or rain at all. It's about people using and exaggerating to be assholes. To an extent that being an asshole overshadows the very thing they're being assholes about.

[Goblinmonger]

16. She probably would have thought

Malcolm X was an asshole. I doubt she would have been a fan of this "Ballot or Bullet" speech.

[rug]

17. You should look her up.

[AlbertCat]

100. It's about people using and exaggerating to be assholes.

You mean like saying things like, "If I had a rain prayer or a rain dance, I would do it."

That's the only thing that was asinine... the stupid appeal to prayer and magic. It was indeed "wallowing in superstition." and pointing that out is not "churlish" or rude or hysterical or petty. It's not mean to point out prayer doesn't work.... it doesn't. The atheists are not exaggerating.

And no one said SOME atheists critics are petty, it says "atheists are petty and small-minded ideologues". That too is a lie.

It's just atheist bashing because he told the truth.

[MooseTrax]

3. This Country Is Stupid

We continue to brainwash our infants and small children with a load of bullshit about worshipping ancient gods........for once, get real

[Kolesar]

4. Were you born with "original sin", rug?

I would be embarrassed to bring up the subject and to tell anybody that I believed it. I was just thinking of what a stupid concept it is.

[rug]

7. Were you born in the morning or the evening?

Show me where in the article original sin is discussed.

(I wonder how the notion that atheists are logical ever took hold in the first place.)

[Kolesar]

8. I presumed you were a "Christian" ...

... and that was the source for your animosity.

[rug]

10. I presume you are liberal and progressive.

Perhaps I am mistaken.

[kwassa]

68. LOL!

I also wonder about the alleged connection between atheism and rationality, at least as practiced.

[freshwest]

6. I knew before I got to the link, that this was the case, but here it is:

Rain prayers are especially potent among desert dwellers; in the arid Southwest, Native Americans have for thousands of years made prayers, songs, and dances for rain and they continue to do so today.

“Thence throw you misty water,” goes the “Rain Magic Song,” of the Pueblo Indians, “all round about us here.”

Before they make such supplications, says Tony Chavarria, curator of ethnology at Museum of Indian Arts and Culture in Santa Fe, Pueblo Indians are taught to “look within yourself, your community to see what needs to be repaired, what you can to make yourself and your community a more balanced place so the deities will be more willing to convey that blessing.”

So when is he gonna march over there and tell them off?

[onager]

36. And some Indians believed their Holy Shirts were bulletproof...

That didn't work out so well for them. Weirdly enough, they may have borrowed that idea from the Mormons:

An elaboration of the Ghost Dance concept was the development of Ghost Shirts, which were special garments which warriors could wear. They were rumored to repel bullets through spiritual power. It is uncertain where this belief originated. James Mooney argued that the most likely source is the Mormon "endowment garment" (which Mormons believe protect the pious wearer from evil).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance

I wonder why no one felt holy/spiritual enough to test the Ghost Shirts beforehand, and make sure they repelled bullets?

[freshwest]

37. You might want to go and ask the native Americans about that. Attend a pow wow. Report back.

[AlbertCat]

101. Rain prayers are especially potent among desert dwellers;

How "potent" can they be if they don't work..... and they don't.

[freshwest]

102. It doesn't matter if it rains or not. It's their culture. Are they allowed to have one?

[AlbertCat]

120. Are they allowed to have one?

Oh please! Get off the soap box.

Of course they can have a culture.... but I still don't see how something that doesn't matter whether it works or not can be "potent". I'm sure it brings the tourists in, however.

[dimbear]

11. This is so so important, because misuse of power impels the victims to wasted lives and suicide.

Tragic.


Oh.

Sorry.

Wrong thread.

[demosincebirth]

14. Why are they obsessed with something they don't believe in. Isn't that some kind of

psychological disorder?

[Silent3]

18. Bullshit rhetorical tactic

Do you really think that stupid question is a thought-provoking and probing inquiry with a serious point to it?

[demosincebirth]

20. You may not like it, but it's a serious queston.

[Silent3]

42. You'd have to have a serious meaning for the word "obsession"...

...before it becomes a serious question.

Showing more interest in a topic than you deem appropriate, by a facile criterion that not believing in a thing should and must make that topic totally uninteresting to the non-believer, does not make that "excess" of interest an obsession.

The level of effort that it takes for multiple posters to respond with a few words a few times a day on an a particular topic, which apparently all blends together in your mind as a concerted group effort taking as much energy for each individual as the collective effort of all of those individuals, is hardly an obsessive level of effort.

Either you have no understanding of what obsession is, or you're using the word spitefully towards people you simply wish would shut up.

[demosincebirth]

51. You can't escape it...that's what it is. The truth sometimes hurts. . Your group (atheists) are

obsessed with something you don't believe in. A close cousin would be stalker. Definition of stalker also has "obsessed" in it. Face it, I'm not just pulling this shit out of my hat. Isn't there a group you and your ilk can go to? Maybe AA (Atheists Anonymous) or something of that nature. Of course without the god aspect...heaven forbid.

[cleanhippie]

70. Appears you are simply projecting your insecurities.

Good luck with that.

[demosincebirth]

78. Is that all you can toss at me?

[cleanhippie]

79. An underhanded throw is all that's required.

And you even managed to strike out on that.

[demosincebirth]

96. I know others who throw underhanded. too. Gosh, you are so eeeasy.

[cleanhippie]

97. I only use as much effort as is required, and dismissing you takes very little.

You even managed yet another strikeout, even when you were alone on the field.

[Silent3]

80. What can't I escape? Your ridiculous use of the word "obsessed"?

You haven't even managed to defend that steaming pile of crap, and then you up the ante to throw in "stalker" too.

Perhaps you should apply for an internship at Fox News. You're doing great with developing the right rhetorical bag of tricks.

[riderinthestorm]

99. We're not obsessed, US society is obsessed. We'd be fools to ignore the cultural impact

of religion and how it impacts nonbelievers.

[skepticscott]

19. By your "logic", creationists

have a psychological disorder because they're obsessed with evolution (which they don't believe in).

[demosincebirth]

21. It's not logic, it's a very simple question. The way you answered my post may be part of

the condition, too. Completely evading my question. I'm fucking serious about it. By the way, don't associate me with your "creationist."

[skepticscott]

39. It was your flawed "logic"

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 07:19 AM - Edit history (1)

that led you to pre-conclude that paying what YOU consider to be undue attention to something you don't believe in constitutes a "psychological disorder" and warrants your rather silly question in the first place. My response was merely to point out just how silly it was.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that other people's belief in it isn't detrimental.
What's wrong with any sane and sensible person who doesn't believe in a god putting effort into eliminating the violence, the bigotry, the ignorance and the regular violations of the law that are precipitated by religion? Heck, even some religious people have enough sense and decency to do that. You call it "obsessed" because you see a lot of it here, but that's about as idiotic as saying that people seem to be "obsessed" with eating when you only watch them in restaurants.

And btw, don't lie about what I posted. I don't take it well. I didn't "associate" you with creationists, and you damn well know it, so stuff your BS deflections.

[demosincebirth]

56. Ah, I'm getting to you now... very thin skinned too. Better work on that, along with with your

(I hate to say it) osbsession with people or symbols of faith. Take me, I'm for strict gun control. I hate guns of any kind. Yet there is nothing I can do (realisticaly) to get rid of them. I don't get in the attack mode anytime I meet some gun nut or see someone post in the "gun" group. I just say my piece, call 'em crackpots and leave. Many would call this forum a place for religious bigots. Now I say, if the show fits...

[skepticscott]

60. When you're down to

lying, and completely avoiding the substantive points that were raised, in favor of juvenile taunts, I think everyone can see where you're coming from. You should be delighted to have had your question answered, and yet here you are all bollixed.

Rounds are over.

[demosincebirth]

98. The substantive point is the word obsession, if you haven't noticed it was the subject of my

original post and you skip and hop like a tap dancer around the the original question that I asked. And so do the rest of your cadre Face it, your group is obsessed with anything religious and most likely it's a condition that affects most atheists. What you do is disconcert people of any faith even if we are all progressive and liberal and our sole purpose is to defeat the republicans and the right wing of their party. I really can't fathom your groups aggression.

Juvenile taunts is probably the only way to respond to some narrow minded, hardheaded religious bigots that call themselves liberal and progressive.


My head hurts... Adios

[skepticscott]

109. Your obsession

with the word "obsessed" was addressed in post 39, and like everything else, you have no substantial answer.

[demosincebirth]

117. Jeez, I just asked a question you and your ilk didn't care to answer. It does have an answer but

you try and turn it around and make me the villain. You atheists are totally obsessed and I mean obsessed in "Capital letters" about anything religious even if it does good in the world. That to me has to be some kind of psychological disorder. You and your cohorts also follow me around this thread like if I was a dog in heat. You don't drop the issue and go to some other religious thread to where you can harangue some other poor soul who mistakenly post something sincere and innocent about religion.

A-dios

[Bradical79]

122. Your completely insincere and dishonest question has a simple answer.

The answer is NO, it is not a psychological disorder to fight back against ignorance and expect our government officials to uphold the separation of church and state. It is not a psychological disorder to give your honest views on religion in an open religion forum. It is not a psychological disorder to refute the completely unsubstantiated claims of the religious.

[Bradical79]

121. Responding to something you are surrounded by is not obsession.

Your idea of what an obsession is, or what constitutes psychological disorder are fundamentally flawed.

[dmallind]

22. Being concerned - sorry "obsessed" - about the establishment clause is a bad thing?

Or would it be ok if Vilsack sacrificed a goat at midnight while holding a naked black mass to beg Satan for rain at a taxpayer-funded event? What's the difference and why is it bad to object to one and not the other?

[cbayer]

23. He was asked by a reporter from a christian news organization specifically about prayer.

His reply was that he did pray, he didn't know how many other people did, but reiterated all the other things he was doing to fulfill his responsibilities.

He didn't pray, he didn't ask anyone else to. He was asked and he answered.

Is that really a violation of the establishment clause?

[dmallind]

24. Had he answered as I described, would you have cavalierly dismissed Christian complaints?

I already know the real answer of course.

[cbayer]

25. But that's not what he was asked, so it's merely a hypothetical.

I suspect if he had such practices, he wouldn't be in the position he is in.

So do you think what he did say is a violation or not?

[demosincebirth]

28. By reading threads on this forum I will whole heartedly use, and will continue to use,

"obsessed" to describe some members of DU who post here. You know dmallind, one of my motto's in life is "live and let live," but that is absolutely impossible here. When someone posts anything with the slightest hint of religion (funny, it's the title of the group) the "obsessed" come out in attack formation and do their thing. You said "Or would it be ok if Vilsack sacrificed a goat at midnight while holding a naked black mass to beg Satan for rain at a taxpayer-funded event? " You know what? I could care less as long as long as no laws are broken. I might sound facile, but that's what it is for me. Simple as that.

[cbayer]

52. This is an interesting question that I would also be interested in understanding.

While it certainly does not apply to all atheists, there are those that do seem to be interested in theism more than a lot of believers are.

Often the argument is made that atheist means only that one does not believe in a god or gods It is sometimes said that atheism is similar to not collecting stamps. But someone who does not collect stamps is unlikely to have much interest in them.

I think there is a separate category of anti-theist and that that would explain the high level of interest.

[demosincebirth]

57. I see your point, but not collecting stamps is impossible to turn into an life changing obsession of

not collection stamps. See my point?

[cbayer]

58. I think I am agreeing with your point.

[trotsky]

63. But if stamp collectors were everywhere, proclaiming how wonderful stamp collecting was...

and how YOU should be a stamp collector too, and it's because stamp collecting has made their life so complete, and states had written into their constitutions that non-stamp-collectors couldn't run for public office, and judges made custody decisions based on which parent collected stamps, and people on TV blamed non-stamp-collectors for the problems of the world, and on and on...

Naw, don't think about it too much. Just keep trying to make fun of atheists speaking their minds on the topic of religion and its role in public life. That's much easier.

[MineralMan]

61. Obsessed? I don't think many atheists are obsessed.

On the other hand, atheists are surrounded by people who have religious beliefs, and are presented with those beliefs frequently. From time to time, atheists are even threatened by people who hold those beliefs. So, it's only natural that we would have an interest in such things, I think, if only for self-protection.

Many atheists were once religious believers themselves. They no longer are, but that doesn't mean the subject doesn't interest them. Since religious belief affects our lives often, it's important to understand, I think.

As for the Secretary of Agriculture and his reference to praying for rain, I doubt that many atheists care one way or another about that. Some may, but people are praying for one thing or another around us all the time. We're pretty used to it. Not that it will do any good. The rain will come when it comes, as it always has. Drought and flood have always been with us. Prayer won't change that. Indeed, if you think about it, the biggest flood in human history was purportedly caused by the very deity a lot of people are praying to. That's their belief, anyhow.

We live in a country populated by people who believe all the religions of the world, and by people who believe none of them. Under the law, we are all precisely equal in our rights here. Of course atheists are interested in religion. There's no escaping its influence.

[Trajan]

26. A highly personal attack on Flynn by Ms. Miller ... some fallacious barbs included ....

"He was SO MEAN when he said 'Prayer doesn't work' ....." ...... Yeah ... SO mean ! ..... SO SO SO SO MEAN ! ....

He is SO petty ! ... SO small minded ! .....

Not one lick of substantive refutation by Ms Miller ....

I say - Go to heck Ms. Miller .... you MEAN MEAN MEAN old lady you ! ....

[mzteris]

27. He can pray all he wants

On his own time. He can talk about it all he wants on his own time. But when he is speaking as an official of the united states govt which clearly delineates separation of church and state, then he should keep his mouth shut as to his religious proclivities.

[rug]

29. Should he answer the question at a press conference?

[mzteris]

72. In a manner as is appropriate to his station.

His ELECTED station. He is representing the US. Not his church at that point in time.

[rug]

94. Actually, it's his appointed station.

In this case he was asked a direct question at a press conference.

Should he have answered truthfully, declined to answer, or lied?

[mzteris]

103. respectfully declined. n/t

[demosincebirth]

30. He's the Secretary of Agriculture. Now, what would be his own time? Maybe taking a crap at his

office would be closes to "his time." How about it?

[mzteris]

73. if he can't make the distinction,

then maybe he shouldn't serve.

[BlueJazz]

31. Amen to that. I'm fed up with politicians feeding the masses bullshit to be popular.

[rug]

32. This too?

[BlueJazz]

43. That also. I have no problem with those who are sincere in their beliefs....

...and especially those who follow the best teachings of most faiths.
(love your fellow man/women and try to do what's best for society and feel empathy
for your followers and the downtrodden)

But...as you well know...most of these prick politicians follow some sort of distorted
feeling that has nothing to do with Jesus or god....if they did, we wouldn't be trillions in debt,
people sleeping in the street and mass misery on a country-wide scale.

You and I (I'm sure of that) want the same thing....to wake up every morning and feel
"Life is wonderful and I'm proud to be a part of a kind and caring world"

[mzteris]

74. isn't that all it is, really.

Being accepted by one's peer group. Which usually happens to be whatever "religion" you were born into. If he'd been born halfway around the world, which religion would he be, eh?

I used to drive my Southern Baptist mom crazy with that question!

[humblebum]

33. Religious speech is still speech nonetheless and is protected as such. Until Congress is forbidden

to have a chaplain, your complaints about individual prayer in public are nothing more than complaints and have no basis in fact. The same Founding Fathers who contributed to the Constitution also established the office of Chaplain. That pretty much shows their true intentions on the Separation of C & S.

[onager]

35. Founder James Madison was no fan of chaplains...

And yes, I know - because Sean Hannity keeps blathering it - that Madison voted for Congressional chaplains. But he regretted it later.

Madison probably just caved in to all that Xian "pious whining and hypocritical canting" that fellow Founder Thomas Jefferson complained about.

Here's what Madison really thought, in his own words and directly from his Memoranda on the First Amendment:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.

The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles...Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt...

Madison didn't like the idea of military chaplains, either:

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable.

But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one?

Apparently not - where special-rights-demanding Xians are concerned, anyway.

And why are all these things a bad idea anyway, Mr. Madison?

They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies.

He sure got that "too apt to lurk" part right.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

[humblebum]

40. You'll also notice that Madison was only one of many, and that tolerance was key. The

stance taken by some atheist groups today has no basis in American history.

[skepticscott]

47. Translation:

"Oh crap, I didn't expect to have my totally uninformed representation of history refuted by facts...I'd better throw something lame out there to make it look like I got the last word in, since I can't refute any of that post with facts of my own"

[humblebum]

50. Don't let the facts confuse you. nt

[Goblinmonger]

64. You're joking right?

I mean, yeah, there were plenty of people at the Constitutional Convention, but you do know that Madison was they guy that basically wrote the thing and came up with the concept of Federalism that made it all possible.

But, sure, that Madison guy was just one of many that are all equally important.

[humblebum]

66. I'll stand by my words and yes I am very well aware of what went on at the Constitutional Convention

But the office of Chaplain was not decided at the Constitutional Convention, and Madison was only one voice. It is obvious that the majority decided because the office does exist and has for a very long time.

You would do well to read up on Madison. He was not nearly as one dimensional as you are suggesting.

No, Madison was NOT the guy that basically wrote the thing.

Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_US_Constitution#ixzz21rQ9k4hu

And as far as Madison being the one who "came up with the concept of Federalism" - Hamilton initiated the penning of the "The Federalist" papers, and invited Madison to contribute also under the pen name "Publius."
I don't think Madison coined the term Federalism, nor the concept. As a matter of fact in Parer #18 Madison refers to several earlier and ancient forms of confederations, as models for the US style of federalism.

[Goblinmonger]

67. I've read plenty on Madison.

The Center for the Study of the American Constitution is pretty much in my neck of the woods. I've had many conversations with John Kaminski, the Director there, who also consults with the SCOTUS.

And Hamilton wrote a VERY small number of the Federalist papers as he got sick. Pretty much all the good ones that define our government were Madison's.

Yes, he does list other confederations as the basis for his thoughts. I've read his whole run down he did of historical governments. NONE of them were the type of federalism we have today. That was his brain child. And it is only because of his meticulous notes that we know what happened at the convention.

[humblebum]

69. Obviously, none of them were the type of federalism we have today. That is Madison's point.

He used them as examples of how federalism should not work. Though he did not write the Constitution, he did devise the "Virginia Plan" that was used a framework for the US Constitution. That is why he is considered as the Father of the Constitution.

And I would not say that Hamilton wrote a "VERY small number of the Federalist papers."

The topics of their contributions were quite different. Hamilton, as Publius, wrote #'s 1, 7-9, 11-13,15-17, 21-36, 59-61, 67-69, and 71-85. Jay wrote the least.

Yes, Madison was the one who kept the very meticulous notes of the proceedings.

[mzteris]

76. oh gawd. you haven't been reading

David Barton, have you?

[humblebum]

82. Nope.

But I did read The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay edited by Garry Wills

And, A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin

And, America's Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar

and just a few others.


You might try gaining a rounded understanding of the subject instead of merely mining for quotations.

[mzteris]

84. I've probably forgotten more about the subject

than you knew in the first place, or obviously know now.

Cherry pick all you want. You have a warped view of the men and the movement.

[humblebum]

85. Until you put up something of substance, it appears that

you have forgotten much more than you like to admit. And cherry picking? Who is the one relying on obscure quotes to prove a point? Never did I intimate that Madison was not anti-established religion, but his was not the only opinion, and all of his life's history point to a man who was one of compromise, negotiation, and toleration - not just his words but his actions.

[mzteris]

86. He wasn't the only "anti-religious one" either

now was he?

Nearly all of note, of merit, of those "involved" in the central process (and yes, Madison WAS the central player here with SOME input from others - also of like mind. . . )

Sorry, can't debate with someone who obviously clings to such a limited scope of knowledge. I gave up putting up reams of quotes and references years ago. Waste of my time 'cause figured out the person to whom I'd be posting had no intention of reading it all. Their minds were made up damnit and no amount of posting on my part would change that.

If you REALLY want to know, then do some real research. You'll value it more and maybe even learn a few things you obviously don't know. Ya gotta dig deep though. A library, maybe, as google tends to throw up the latest fads unless you know how to datamine properly. Not gonna teach you that, either.

[humblebum]

87. Never did I say that he was the only anti-religious one and by your words here,

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

you are identifying yourself as exactly the type who had "Their minds were made up damnit and no amount of posting on my part would change that.

By Madison's writings, sayings and actions, there can be no doubt that he was a negotiator and a man of compromise.

None that I know of were pro-established religion. There is a difference between being an atheist, or an agnostic, and being anti-religious or anti-established religion as the case may be. If the intention of all, or even a majority, had been to have an ABSOLUTE separation between C&S, then there would have been no chaplains in Congress, nor any mention of religion or belief allowed in any political dialogue, speech, or autograph.

[mzteris]

89. I did start out by saying,

they were "politicians" after all and knew how to play to the masses.

[humblebum]

91. Of course they were politicians and that is what politicians do, but their

actions in Congress at that time were FAR less scrutinized by the public than today. There was no CNN and word did not travel fast. And the only real evidence we have of their personal thoughts and ideas is by what they wrote, what others said about them, or by the revealing physical artifacts and evidences they left behind. With Madison you have a very mixed bag and that reveals a complex man.

[mzteris]

104. There is nothing "mixed' about

Madison's pov on "religion".

[humblebum]

108. Well he wasn't exactly condemning religion when he said:

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:40 AM - Edit history (1)

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238

He was clearly the man of compromise that you so dearly want to deny. In almost every instance from religion, to banking, to slavery, to his faith in factions, to states' rights, he was willing compromise on his own positions for the good of the nation in crises that existed at critical points in the nation's history.

On religion, he was clearly against any government sanctioning of religion, and equally against any government interference in religion.

[mzteris]

112. That in no way suggests that HE

was religious in any way.

Think of him as the predecessor to the ACLU.

In fact, as you can see from your own statements - he most definitely supported the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

[humblebum]

115. I have never said that he was religious and yes he

did support "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE." I have never stated otherwise. The question is what constitutes Separation of C&S.

Perhaps this partial quote from Madison's 'Memorial and Remonstrance' can give some insight into his personal beliefs or maybe his playing to the masses belief:

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."

Of course you also suggested that politicians play to the masses and no doubt Madison was a politician. So was he just playing to the audience or was he expressing his personal religious beliefs?

Also, the nerve of the man, even mentioning, let alone acknowledging deity, in the capacity of a politician speaking in a public forum. Now, here is where you indicate SARCASM.

Tom Flynn would have had a field day with Madison had he been around in Madison's day and heard him saying such things, or publishing such language in such capacity as a public official.

[humblebum]

41. Why do you even listen to Sean Hannity? I thought he left the scene with Palin, but Madison

had many other things to say over the years, i.e.

It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238

[mzteris]

75. they were politicians who knew

their constituency. Few of them were really all that religious. But it played well for the (hysterical) masses.

And on the matter, let's hear what James Madison had to say on the subject:

President James Madison didn't believe that Congressional Chaplains were constitutional.

From "Detached Memoranda":

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains estabfishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.[17]


I've always been rather fond of Madison.

[humblebum]

81. You act as if James Madison was the only Founding Father. Pretty shallow I'd say. And

He certainly had much more to say over many years than you are portraying. He was an expert at compromise and negotiation. Hardly the radical anti-religious zealot you are trying to paint him as. I have a great admiration for the man.

"Few of them were really all that religious" very much the non-statement. I suggest you cite your sources.

[mzteris]

83. you really have been reading Barton, haven't you?

It appears you know very little about the Founding Fathers and the founding of this country.

[onager]

88. If you enjoy his take on American history...

Just get him going on Soviet Russian history.

SPOILER: It was all the fault of the atheists. Without those troublemakers, Russia would still be ruled by kindly Czars and humble Orthodox clergymen. Like Rasputin.

[mzteris]

90. His fabrication of American history,

you mean.

Gah - his "books" are only good for propping up table legs and fire starters. Not sure I would even recycle the paper for fear of contaminating resultant product.

[humblebum]

92. Still, much talk but no substance. IOW, those "books" are

good for "propping up table legs and fire starters" whenever you disagree with the authors, who are in fact well respected in their field. Admitting that you condone burning books is quite revealing.

[mzteris]

93. Garbage deserves to be burned.

No I don't advocate "book burning", merely expressing an opinion as to the "value" of said work.

I guess this does show where your true allegiance and source of info comes.

Enjoy your stay.

[humblebum]

95. Actually, it shows where your true allegiance and source of info comes [from].

Up to this point you have been all talk, and as before nothing of substance has been put out there for all to see. Then I would assume that your opinion of historian Joseph Ellis is equally disdaining?

[mzteris]

105. Joseph Ellis??

Oh, you mean the guy who lied about being in Nam as a paratrooper and working with Westmoreland, Ellis?

Nah, he's just great as a source.

[humblebum]

106. So, then you do think he is a trusted resource? Somehow that

doesn't surprise me.

[mzteris]

111. don't get this, do you?

[humblebum]

113. Then why didn't you use the sarcasm icon? nt

[mzteris]

114. I thought it unnecessary.

It seemed perfectly obvious to anyone who can read and interpret what they're reading. Oh wait . . . I forgot . . .

sorry, should have used it in the first place.

[humblebum]

116. Kinda like using sources to back up your claims, huh?

"It seemed perfectly obvious to anyone who can read..." so why bother?

[longship]

34. Not buying any of it. "Rain dance fallacy"

I danced, and I danced, and I danced. And lo and behold, it rained.

Same thing with the pray for rain fallacy. I prayed and prayed and prayed and it finally rained.

It is all well known as confirmation bias. You forget all the prayers (dances) that didn't bring rain. You only remember the last prayer (dance) before the rain arrived and declare success.

But that rain would have come anyway, wouldn't it? So all the prayer (dance) was superfluous, wasn't it?

The Rainmaker Fallacy is one people should understand so that they don't get fooled by such idiocy. You predict an event that is inevitable and when it comes true, you claim victory.

It's utter bullshit.

[mr blur]

38. Must try harder. You're slipping. nt

[rug]

53. It takes little effort.

[Evoman]

44. What a meany face!!!!

Do we have a jerking off motion emoticon on Du yet?

[cleanhippie]

45. Yes, we do.

Please use liberally

[Evoman]

46. Sweet! What word do you use to do that?

[cleanhippie]

48. I had that smiley ready for use on my DU2 profile.

I had forgotten about it. Just went back, opened my account, and viola!

I did have some posts locked/hidden for using it, as mods/juries sometimes thought I was calling the poster a jerkoff. I feel its use may result in the same interpretation. Exercise caution.

[humblebum]

59. I agree. You do engage in that act liberally. nt

[cleanhippie]

62. .

[Goblinmonger]

65. *GASP* That's a sin.

He'll go blind! Or grow hair on his palms!

That is by far the most immature and idiotic thing I have read from you. And that takes a lot.

[rug]

54. No, she said they're petty and small-minded.

BTW, congratulations on finding your jerking off smiley.

[Evoman]

126. Here we go....

[rug]

128. Speaking of petty and small . . . .

[Evoman]

129. No need to get all snarky.

Didn't mean to post that as a response to you. I just wanted to try it out.

Now this one IS meant for you. Enjoy.

[rug]

130. That looks like an enjoyment you'd prefer alone.

[Evoman]

131. Ha! You just don't know me at all!

The more the merrier I always say.

[Fumesucker]

49. Secretary of Agriculture Claude Duplantis revealed today that he sacrifices a chicken every day..

"In fact I"m sacrificing an extra chicken to the rain loa right now." said Secretary Duplantis as the interview progressed..

[rurallib]

55. Flynn could have suggested

that the admin start working to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. That would actually do some good.

BTW, being from Iowa like Vilsack, I can tell you by looking out my window that the praying ain't working here.
Maybe god is a republican and he wants to trickle down on us.

[Dorian Gray]

71. Isn't that just sort of semantics

I pray hard for rain every day!!!! It doesn't mean that someone actually sits down and prays. It's just words. Words of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Or not...

[skepticscott]

127. Uh, in this case, yeah it does

Vilsack said explicitly “I get on my knees every day” Funny that you would ignore that completely. Unless your praying hard for rain every day involves the same, your comparison is just knee-jerk apologistic BS.

[Dorian Gray]

132. It read like hyperbole

to me. Because if I speak like that, it's hyperbole. But, if you want to say that my comparison is knee-jerk apologistic BS, so be it.

[patrice]

77. Weakness must attack dissenting difference. nt

[intaglio]

107. So one atheist is a rude twit

who could have phrased the opinion better. So what?

Would the same objection have been made if Mr Flynn had observed that actually acting to alleviate the drought might be a better response than praying, unconstitutionally, to any deity on government time? Why tout religion at all? It it to demonstrate your faith to the faithful thus securing electoral advantage or is it to shame other people into joining your cult?

There is an old saying "God helps them as help themselves," unfortunately he doesn't seem to do anything else.

[cbayer]

110. Facts

He was asked specifically about prayer by a reporter from a religious news service during a press conference.

He had already spoken at length abou what his department was doing about the drought.

He said he personally prayed in addition to all the other things he was doing. He did not pray on government time.

How do you think he should have handled the question?

[demosincebirth]

118. Facts are irrelevant.

Peace.

[cbayer]

119. Often ignored, but not irrelevant.

Peace to you as well.

[Bradical79]

123. Petty and Small Minded Journalist Writes Insulting and Idiotic Article

Not shocked, just disappointed that someone is actually getting paid to write this crap for such a well known news source.

[rug]

124. Yeah, she's a hack.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html

[humblebum]

125. "Small Minded Journalist Writes Insulting and Idiotic Article" about

small-minded, insulting, and idiotic actions of certain people.