Atheist Preacher?

Brian Flemming an atheist who claims to have been a Christian in the past is waging a mini, yet peaceful, war on Easter. Flemming is trying to show all of us the error of our ways bu letting us know that there is no God and that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I assume his atheism extends to all religions but right now he is focused on showing Christians the truth:

“People go to churches to hide from the truth,” Flemming said in a statement. “At no time is this more apparent than Easter, when Christians get together to convince each other that a man died, stayed dead three days, rose from the dead and then flew into the air above the clouds.

I find this interesting because Flemming’s desire is to tell us the truth. So the big question I have is, where is his proof. If I am to believe what he says then I think some sort of proof is in order. I would like absolute proof that there is no God and that Jesus did not die and rise from the dead. All he has to do is provide irrefutable proof and I am in. I don’t want any hinky stuff about it can’t happen because dead is dead or that there is no God because no one has seen him.

Of course, I can not provide absolute proof there is a God and that Jesus died and rose from the dead. The reason that religion is a faith is because it requires belief in some things that can not be proven. There are those who will tell us that the Bible and historical accounts are proof but they are not absolute proof and require a degree of faith. Faith is in the definition of religion. I, as a Christian hold these beliefs to be true. If one day I die and nothing happens so be it but if I do not believe and die and end up being judged then I will have lived a bad life. I would also submit that even if everything he says is true, is there anything wrong with living the kind of good and wholesome life that most religions teach?

I believe that each person on this Earth has a right to his own beliefs. I also know that I do not need someone like Brian Flemming telling me what I should and should not believe. I am free to take those decisions on my own and if he wants to think I am a fool for it then so be it. But when I die and get to heaven I will ask God to forgive Brian all the same.

Big Dog Salute to Stop the ACLU
Peakah’s Provocations

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

33 Responses to “Atheist Preacher?”

  1. Peakah says:

    …forgiveness is what he’ll need, then he’ll know why a third of the Earth’s population reveres Jesus as Savior.

    Great thoughts my friend, thanks for stopping by my place…

    Keep up the great work Dog.

  2. John K. says:

    Big Dog,

    This is absolutely horrible theology, but it is something that sticks in my mind when I read about people like Mr. Flemming. If I am wrong about my faith, then I have lost nothing. I have lived a life full of discipline and fellowship and strove for a higher purpose in all that I did. If I am right, then I am not vindicated or relieved, I am merely ready for the better life that I’ve tried to prepare for. Now if Mr. Flemming is right that there is no God, he’s fine. And I’m still fine. But if Mr. Flemming is wrong, I’m still fine…but what a hell of a price (pun intended) for being wrong.

    Again, that is absolutely terrible theology. I don’t want anyone’s faith to be based on “insurance”. But something Mr. Flemming would be wise to think about before trying to convince others to take their eternal souls into risk.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Peakah, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your kind words and your great site.

    John K. I agree, this would be horrible theology and I do not live my life in case it is true. I hope I did not give that impression. I think the larger point is, taking away the part we can not prove isn’t it still just a better way to live life? Good principle and good morals equal a good life regardless of what one believes. The belief in God only makes it better for those of us that hold those beliefs to be true.

    Thanks for commenting. I always welcome everyone’s thoughts. John, when I come to GA we need to get on the course (and you can give me a few lessons pro-bono)

  4. Michelle says:

    One can live a decent and ethical and wonderful life even without a belief in any god. I wish you believers would understand that (or admit it?) instead of making statements like this: ” I think the larger point is, taking away the part we can not prove isn’t it still just a better way to live life?” No belief in any god would make me love my son more, love my friends more, care more for all the inhabitants of our planet, strive any harder to help where I can, or to relish any more the feel of the sun on my skin.

  5. Peakah says:

    Michelle, I’ll happily admit it.

    When discussing this ignorant Atheist Preacher who’s intent is to knock down anyone who does believe in God, or specifically in Jesus Christ, we are not assuming that all atheists believe as he does.

    Of course belief in God is not necessary for happiness… I know from experience as well. When someone knocks what you believe and calls it all lies, arguements like John K’s emerge as a defense…

    Don’t take it out of context.

  6. Michelle says:

    So what, exactly, makes Brian “ignorant”? Might I suggest you listen to his recent radio interviews? Links available here: I’ve met him a couple of times and can honestly say he is a pleasant, intelligent person. But you who (I assume) have not met him are willing to pass judgment? Doesn’t your religion teach you to “judge not lest ye be judged?”

  7. Big Dog says:

    I think the very idea that a man would have a war on Easter because he does not believe in it would make the argument for ignorance.

    I don’t care if you or he or anyone else lives as atheists and you do not see me conducting a war on atheism. I believe that you are all entitled to your beliefs and I believe that I am entitled to mine so I get a bit upset when someone attacks my beliefs by offering to tell me the truth when he has absolutely no proof to back up any assertions he has made.

    The fact that he views believers as insane (his words not mine) means that he thinks we are not in our right minds because of our beliefs. It is mighty pompous for you to attack me for questioning his ignorance without offering the same questioning of his attack (and a WAR on Easter is an attack).

    I also find it strange that a non-believer would ask me what my religion teaches. I think that you should look at who is actually judging in this case. Is it the man who attacks the sanity of Christians or the Christians who fight back when attacked.

    As stated, I am perfectly happy to let atheists live in their own world with their own beliefs. I wish they would exercise as much tolerance. When they try to remove God from our country through the voice of the minority then they need to be addressed.

    I hope this clears it up for you. Have a Happy Easter. I know I will.

  8. Michelle says:

    I have not heard Brian call believers “insane”. I certainly understand how that would make a believer feel insulted. He is an ex-fundamentalist Christian himself. As am I. So, no, I’m not really asking you what your religion teaches. I _know_ what it teaches for I once believed as you do. Similarly, anyway. I don’t know what sect you belong to. I was Southern Baptist then Pentecostal. And as for who is doing the judging…. non-believers are not admonished to “judge not lest ye be judged” since they don’t follow That Book, therefore, it is not non-believers being hypocritical when they judge others.

    > It is mighty pompous for you to attack me for questioning his ignorance without offering the same questioning of his attack (and a WAR on Easter is an attack).

    Actually, I was replying to the post just above mine. And I did not “attack” either of you. But now I am “pompous”. How Christ-like of you….

  9. Big Dog says:

    Since you brought it up, Jesus (who lived regardless of what you believe) used words like hypocrite to describe people it would not be unchristian to use words to describe someone. Pompous, a show of magnificence. How magnificent of you to call out one thing and not another. Sarcasm.

    This is from the story: Dubbing the effort “Operation Easter Sanity,”

    Logic dictates that if he views his version as Sanity, those who believe otherwise must be insane.

    Why is it necessary for him to attack other’s beliefs? Have we attacked him?

  10. Michelle says:

    Is a challenge actually an “attack”? Literally? Let’s say I believe in alien abductions and someone presents me with a DVD he hopes will change my mind. Is he attacking me? Attacking my beliefs? I wish someone HAD presented me with information such as that in the movie “The God Who Wasn’t There” when I was a teenager. Perhaps I would not have wasted so much time in that stultifying, negative, life-denying church. And IF you insist that presenting an alternative point of view is an “attack” then Christians are attacking people who believe differently every single day….

  11. Big Dog says:

    Michelle, war is a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism. Therefore, a war on Easter would be an attack or act of hostility, conflict or antagonism. It was not a challenge. It was a WAR on Easter.

    Did anyone ask for the alternative point of view? Did anyone ask him to go to churches and leave DVD’s? How is it presenting an alternative to say people who do not believe what I do are insane?

    Now, if he were presenting a different point of view by going on TV or paying for ads it would be a presentation. I do not see Christians going to other places, calling the members insane and then leaving DVD’s saying that they have the truth.

    I am glad you were released from the terrible bonds that engulfed you but the fact is, he is harassing people by inserting his views where he was not asked to come.

  12. Simon says:

    Why don’t you watch the DVD then and see if the truth has been presented?

    I love the Christian “prove god doesn’t exist” argument.

    Do you believe in fairies then? – you can’t prove they don’t exist, either. I’m sure you would cosider someone who believes in fairies to be at least slightly mad. Would you like someone who very seriously believes in fairies running your country, and who openly admits to talking to them every day, in fact makes it a selling point of his leadership – does that sound good to you?

    Honest answer please.

    Why is it when Bush or Blair say they talk to their imaginary god, it’s all fine and us atheists are supposed to just accept it, but if it were fairies or little green men who live under the floorboards, Christians would suddenly start shouting “the man is obviously insane”?

  13. Big Dog says:

    I do not have to watch the DVD. You can not prove a negative. There is no proof one way or the other, it is a matter of beliefs or faith, as it were.

    If fairies walked the Earth over 2000 years ago and there was a history written about them which depicted that they in fact existed then I would believe it. The fact is there are no written accounts of the existence of fairies (or little green men under the floor boards). There is a historical account of God presenting himself to Adam and Eve. There is a historical account of Jesus living, performing miracles, and being crucified and having risen after three days.

    People can choose not to believe the written account but they are the writings of the people who lived at the time and witnessed the events.

    So there is your honest answer. Send me a few historical books that tell of fairies or little green men and we can talk. Hans Christian Anderson and Mother Goose do not count as historical accounts.

  14. Andres says:

    If you want to use the bible as a guide for moral behavior or to have a spiritual life, that’s fine; but calling the bible a historical record is ignorant.

  15. Big Dog says:

    So a book that describes the lineage of man, has the ancestry of people and describes the events that shaped their lives is not a historical account?

    There you have it, recall all the school history books. These types of things are not historical.

    What do you call a book that gives a historical account of a people?

  16. Andres says:

    Among other things, the bible does try to give some sort of lineage. Simpy writing something, though, and claiming it to be true does not make it so. This book is a compilation of so many writings, and some people claim different scriptures belong together. Indeed, one can ask, which one is the real bible? The one that has been so poorly translated over the years? All of the books, only the ones that have been approved of?

    And anyway, the bible is not meant to be read as fact; whether it is true or not does not really seem to matter, as is the case with any religion. What matters is that it should help people in some way. Its purpose is to make people moral and to find comfort so that if people follow this guidebook, they will have wonderful afterlives.

    If you want to use the bible to guide you and make you a better person and who will therefore go to heaven, that’s great. But if you allow yourself to become so giddy about your shot at a going to heaven that you start professing this book is historical, well, that’s ignorant. Separate your faith from fact. What’s so difficult about that?

  17. Big Dog says:

    The funny thing is I never professed anything except that I have beliefs that should be mine to have. Unlike the topic of this post, I never went around trying to convince people that they should do things my way or that I know the truth. I know what I believe and that is good enough for me.

    What you guys believe should be good enough for you without imposing your ideas on others. Why do you all care what people believe. I certainly do not care what you believe.

    The Bible has been translated as have many old books. The fact that there are historical accounts which form the foundation of several religions is important.

    There are many non Biblical references to the events. I am sure though that you can produce a historical book that refutes the existence of these folks and what they went through.

  18. Andres says:

    Do you realize how insincere you are? You don’t want people to keep their opinions to themselves and you don’t want to keep yours to yourself either.

    I mean, you write a blog! You put out your opinion about many topics, and the edges of your blog take shots at groups you don’t agree with or that proudly show what groups you want to be associated with. You have a dog pissing on someone’s head. And you claim you aren’t pushing an opinion? How disingenous can you get?

    Don’t claim you could care less, either. You want those groups to go away, or to come to their senses and just see things your way. I agree that you don’t want the truth. You just want it your way. At the very least, you should be honest with yourself and not backpedal out of an argument.

    Doesn’t look like Big Dog behavior to me.

  19. Big Dog says:

    Perhaps I gave you more credit than I should have. This is a religious post. I do not care what your religious beliefs are.

    I have a blog to write what I want. People do not have to read it and I don’t go around and force it upon them.

    People come to my blog of their own free will. When he goes to churches and drops off DVDs he is imposing his will.

    I do not backpedal out of an argument. If you are going to debate then stop throwing red herrings in the mix. I do not really care what you believe WITH REGARD TO YOUR RELIGION or lack there of. I really don’t care what else you believe but I am free to comment on what I think about things in society, as are you. If you want to make a statement, get a blog. It is less intrusive.

  20. Big Dog says:

    And I believe my post only asks for the proof to the truth. I do not attack him or force any belief I have on him.

    Read, comprehend, comment. That works better.

  21. Andres says:

    Fleming may drop off DVDs at churches, but no one has to take them or look at them. He isn’t forcing anyone by following them home, making them sit down, and putting the disc in the player, is he?

    People have free will. You proved that point when someone asked you to just look at a DVD and you refused.

    And if you want me to stop throwing out red herrings, perhaps you should stop setting up strawmen. I figured as long as you were going to use faulty logic, I’d get some practice in myself.

    But I’m going to let this topic drop now. I don’t want to be accused of being a troglodyte or a troll. I typed in the word “atheist” into a blog search and this is how I found your blog. No one forced me to read it. I did it out of curiosity after I had finished writing an entry at my blog.

  22. Big Dog says:

    It was nice of you to stop by. I will not, nor have I called you or any other atheist (except Michael Newdow) names. I will not accuse you of anything except having an opinion, to which you are entitled.

    I wish you all the best and Happy Easter.

  23. […] –Brian’s taken care of: When I die and get to heaven I will ask God to forgive Brian. […]

  24. Nelson Cruz says:

    I, being agnostic, personally think that atheism, rejecting the existence of one or even several gods with absolute certainty, is an act of faith, just as much as professing the contrary. There is not enough proof ether way.

    Like Michelle I know that religion is not necessary to be a decent and ethical person. Treating our fellow humans with decency and kindness just because it’s the right thing to do, and not for fear of hell or envy of heaven, might even have bigger value in the eyes of a hypothetical judgmental God.

    However Christians seem to get a lot more from their religion. They get reassuring answers to some of life’s most disturbing questions. It fulfills spiritual needs, and generally helps them lead happier lives. So, even though that doesn’t work for me, I try to respect those beliefs to some extent.

    If they are happier that way, and they don’t bother us non-believers, why not leave them alone? That’s why I think this War on Easter might be going too far.

    However I do understand that this active “atheist fundamentalism” is a reaction to the Christian fundamentalism that has been taking over the US. Christians haven’t been leaving non-believers alone, have they? They have been trying to impose their so called “morals and values” on everyone, even to the extent of setting them in law! They should not be surprised by an equal and opposite reaction.

    If Christians recognize that what they think God’s wishes are, and what they think He likes or dislikes, are a matter of belief, then why try to impose those things upon everyone? It seems many Christians have been forgetting what beliefs are, the distinction between beliefs and facts, and about the freedom to choose one’s own beliefs.

    Religious beliefs are a personal choice. Laws and government are for everyone, and so they should be kept free from religious beliefs, especially those of the majority! The 10 commandments have no place in court houses, and creationism and prayer have no place in schools!

    I have seen “The God Who Wasn’t There”. I would personally leave a few parts out… and change others, but it is an interesting and thought provoking movie, especially the first half. Everyone that thinks the Bible is the literal word of God, or even that it is historical fact written by those that lived at the time of Jesus, and that everyone should abide by its teachings, would do well to see it. Too much of a good thing really is a bad thing!

    Also check out the National Geographic documentary on the Gospel of Judas. There where several versions of the story of Jesus in the early history of Christianity (over 30 gospels). The leaders of the time simply choose those which were more popular as well as more politically and religiously convenient. How can we be so sure today about what happened over 1900 years ago, when people that lived mere decades after Jesus weren’t?

    As for the origins of Easter… well, check this out:

    Please do not consider my post as an “attack”, or that I hate Christians or whatever. I am simply trying to contribute to the discussion. I’m trying to provide information against a narrow fundamentalist view of the Bible. Fundamentalism in ANY religion is a dangerous thing.

    Happy Easter.

  25. Big Dog says:

    I appreciate the candid opinions. You laid out cogent thoughts without attacking anyone. I believe in live and let live.

    We do have to consider that our country was founded on certain Christian religious principles and that those items are in our founding documents. I also would point out that we live in a republic which means that the majority rules. Since 85% of the country is comprised of Christians it stands to reason they will have a large influence.

    As far as prayer in school or the Ten Commandments, it is interesting to note that the majority should be allowed to practice those things. If a child did not want to participate in prayer he would not have to.

    The idea of separation of church and state has been twisted. The idea is supposed to be that government will not impose religion but that people are free to exercise their faith. Atheism, as you stated is a belief, by denying everyone who believes the chance to practice in their own way, we have forced that belief on others (the minority imposing its will on the majority).

    I do not see attacks on atheists until people like Michael Newdow try to change the traditions of our country against the will of the majority. If the majority agrees that “In God We Trust” should be on our money then it should be there. That is how a republic works.

    If a person is elected President by an 80/20% margin, the 20% is not allowed to disobey the laws enacted by the President the majority voted for.

    Once again, I would have never brought up the topic if it were not for the war on Easter. When you wage a war (non-violent or not) you have to expect resistance from the people upon whom you are waging the war.

    Happy Easter

  26. Nelson Cruz says:

    Yes, in democratic regimes “the majority rules”. But it should not be a tyranny of the majority. That’s why the US Constitution has a number of protections to shield the minorities from certain wishes of the majority (or of those elected by the majority). Things like Freedom of speech for example. It’s meant so that the minorities can say and publish what the majority might not want them to.

    Freedom of religious practice and separation between church and state have a similar aim. The US was founded by many religious minorities that fled from England to escape prosecution. That is why those protections are in the Constitution.

    And although I don’t think anyone is being prosecuted and coerced in US for their religion, at least not violently, there are some things that can be… lets say uncomfortable… to religious minorities (including atheists).

    That “In God We Trust” is in the dollar bills, I don’t think bothers many people. It’s been there for so long… what does it matter?

    But if you where a Hindu or Buddhist or even simply agnostic or atheist, and you went into a courthouse and you saw the Ten Commandments posted outside, how would that make you feel? What does it say about the supposed religious neutrality of the judicial branch of the government? Even moderate Christians feel uncomfortable with that, and they should!

    As for prayer in public schools, even if not mandatory, it is still coercive. Maybe coercive is too strong a word. But doesn’t it indicate to kids that they SHOULD pray? That they SHOULD be religious, and Christian in particular? Even if a kid doesn’t wanna pray… he or she can still feel pressured to it.

    Parents can teach their kids whatever they want. And send them to church and Sunday school. But prayer in public schools? How is that not government pushing religion? On kids no less!

    Like a comment on some other blog said criticizing this War on Easter campaign, “I don’t think it is right to target children.” And yet even government, through schools, targets children with religious indoctrination. Yes, it can help instill morals and values in them, but like I said before to much of a good thing…

    It is not healthy when kids live terrified of going to hell for eternity because of some minor thing, like it happened to the maker of The God Who Wasn’t There. And it invites a backlash later in life.

    By the way, I said before that I don’t think anyone is being prosecuted and coerced in US for their religion, at least not violently. Well… there are exceptions. Like the woman who lost custody of her son to her ex-husband because she was an actress in a play that mocked religion and the judge said it was “obvious” she should not raise her kid.

    We can’t watch things like this happen and then be surprised when someone launches “wars” on religion. The problem is that moderate Christians are so silent, and so everyone thinks they agree with and support the vocal fundamentalists. So often do we plead the moderate muslins to speak and act against the extremists that use their religion to spread hate and terror, and yet we in the Christian world don’t do it ether!

    Sorry for the long comments. Sometimes I cant stop my fingers.

  27. Big Dog says:

    Interesting thing about the Ten Commandments. They adorn the doors of the Supreme Court. Our laws are basically based upon the TC. I have no problems with them there just I would have no problem with religious items from other faiths. As a matter of fact it is not unusual to find religious items from other religions when Christian items have been banned.

    We give Muslim children a prayer room and our kids are forced to learn about Islam but if you mention Christ, God help you. There is a misunderstanding. The First Amendment does not talk about separation of Church and State. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion. A display in a federal building does is not Congress establishing a law. When it is not allowed it is a breech of the part that reads or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

    As for prayer in school. I understand your point and can concede. The real problem lies in that the ACLU has fought a moment of silence. Children could do what they want, pray, meditate, or sleep but it is opposed. Here they are regulating thought.

    As for freedom of speech. The only freedom is that government will not restrict your speech. Your employer can tell you what you may and may not say at work and can fire you for disobeying. Congress may not make a law abridging freedom of speech. That does not give you any special rights. If you said something sexually explicit to a woman at work you would probably get fired.

    Why is it that children who want to pray have their free speech rights (given what everyone thinks about free speech) but no one else is supposed to have their rights trampled? If parents are responsible (and I am 100% in agreement) why have the courts ruled schools can teach about sex, homosexuality, birth control, and all kinds of other things?

    Just questions. Once again, I don’t care what other people do or believe. But in a Republic (we are not a Democracy) the majority does have the final say.

  28. Nelson Cruz says:

    I guess you can say that the laws are based upon judaic-christian morals. But as for the Ten Commandments, only two of them are laws (shall not kill and shall not steal). There is one about false testimony that is also somewhat mirrored in law, but only in court when one is under oath and similar situations. And these laws are more or less the same all over the world. The other commandments don’t have any reflection in the law, anywhere in the western world as far as I know. So I think courthouses are no place for the TC, or any other religious rules or symbols, especially in a country that is supposed to be neutral towards ALL religions.

    It’s understandable that Muslim kids get a prayer room. Their religion mandates they pray 5 times a day and in specific way. Christian kids can pray when they get home or when they go to church.

    According to your literal interpretation of the First Amendment, can the government then mess with your religious freedoms all it wants as long as Congress doesn’t make a law?

    As for schools teaching about sex, homosexuality, birth control, and STDs… well… the way I see it kids are there to learn about the world. Teachers can easily teach those things in scientific terms, and leave morality questions for the parents. Also quite often kids and parents alike are too embarrassed and ashamed to talk about sex, birth control, and stuff like that. So kids talk among themselves about it, and all kinds of crazy and ignorant rumors circulate (like stuff about using bottles and coins to avoid getting pregnant). That happens a lot in England, and the rate of teen pregnancies there is chocking. And then there’s AIDS and other STDs. So it’s a matter of public health as well. It’s better that kids get some basic knowledge about these things, from people that actually know what there talking about.

    That in no way stops parents and churches from teaching them about abstinence or stupid things like “God hates homosexuals and they should be killed”. After all, it is in the Bible (together with a whole lot other things that the fundamentalists conveniently ignore!).

  29. Big Dog says:

    I don’t remember reading God hates all homosexuals, just that homosexuality is an abomination, but I could be wrong (seems to me God does not hate anyone).

    A coin is an effective means of birth control, so long as the girl puts it between her knees and keeps it there with those knees…..

    My literal interpretation of the First Amendment (and what other way is there to interpret something?) also says and will not prohibit the free exercise thereof so no, they can not mess with religion so long as they don’t make a law.

    If Muslims can have a prayer room on school property then those of other faiths should be afforded the same opportunity. They can go there and say a prayer or meditate or whatever. The Muslim prayer room idea allows the school to show preference to one religious group.

    Last i checked, schools had a hard enough time teaching kids to read and write. They are not the public health department. Certainly those items can be discussed as science, as can evolution, and Intelligent Design. Guess which one gets shunned?

    How can the TC, a Koran, a Bible, a menorah, or any other item make a court partial? They are there to uphold the rule of law as it is written in the statutes. If the Court House had a poster up for a movie about murder, would the court’s decisions be any different? Taxpayers foot the bill for a courthouse, shouldn’t they be able to say what is allowed to hang there?

    In all the years we have had the Supreme Court making rulings, can anyone point to a decision that was influenced by the religious symbols on the walls including the TC on the doors? This seems like much ado about nothing to me. people are way too sensitive about what is hanging. Hell, some government buildings (many of which house courts with other agencies) hang posters for planned parenthood and abortion. Should they be hanging those and will the posters make courts decide cases differently?

  30. Nelson says:

    You’re right; the Bible doesn’t say God hates homosexuals. It says homosexuality is a “detestable act” or that it is an “abomination”. I have seen both versions quoted (different translations I guess). But it is used as an excuse to hate and mistreat homosexuals. Even the other day I read something about a female student in a university claiming it was her religious right to speak against homosexuals when she was warned not to do so. Couldn’t help but wonder if she has the same fervor for the other rules in Leviticus and other parts of the Bible. This letter always comes to mind:

    As for the coin between the knees, there are still some positions where it could be done…

    Sometimes I wish the laws where as simple to interpret as you say. One has to read between the lines, consider the “spirit” of the law, the intentions of the lawmaker, and the jurisprudence built upon the law. That’s why we need all those lawyers and judges…

    I agree with you on the prayer room. It could even be one room for everyone; from any religion. Putting kids from different religions praying together… now there’s something that could do wonders for tolerance and understanding between religions.

    Intelligent Design gets shunned because it is creationism masquerading as science. I’m not gonna make a big scientific discussion about it here, but let me say this much. Intelligent Design’s supporters do claim some “evidence” for it. But it’s more like taking certain cases that no one can currently easily explain with evolution, and willfully interpreting those to further there “cause”, their beliefs. That’s not scientific. The way I see it Intelligent Design is AT BEST a mere hypothesis right now, perhaps deserving some discussion and study, but it is not up to the theory level like Evolution. The Theory of Evolution, although not currently perfectly able to explain everything (that’s why it’s still a “theory”), is supported by something like 99% of the world’s scientific community. And it’s used today to explain all kinds of things; even behavior and psychology.

    If schools start teaching shaky hypothesis put forth by fringe scientists, that have no broad consensus, they’ll have to significantly expand science curricula! What will come next? Some crazy guy will say he has some evidence that the universe was made in 6 days? Or that the Earth is 6000 years old? Or that the Sun somehow circles around the Earth? Will schools have to teach that? I know there are people that still believe the Earth is flat and doesn’t revolve around its axis, and they even have some interesting explanations about how it appears that way. But we don’t teach that, do we?

    I’m not completely against mentioning Intelligent Design in schools. But it shouldn’t be more than footnote. Like a teacher once told my class, “evolution, as far as we know, is how we came to be, but you can still choose to believe that God had some part in it, guiding the process or something”. I guess that’s not enough for the people that want to literally interpret every word in the Bible.

    As for the TC in courthouses, sometimes the appearance of impropriety is bad enough. It’s not the right place for them, or movie posters. Movie posters should be in movie theaters, and religious symbols should be in churches!

  31. Big Dog says:

    Interestingly your teacher might have been on to something. Maybe God created us in his image and evolved along with us?

    The whole idea, to me is a matter of tolerance. I don’t care what atheists believe. I don’t care what other religions believe (except Satanic worship because of the ghoulish things they do) but we have no tolerance. It is my way or your way.

    I was not brought up that way and all my years in the Army gave me much more insight into the idea of respect for differences.

    I think ID is something that should be explored in as much as neither it nor evolution can be proved. Schools are for stimulating thought and new ideas. People are given information and expand upon it and either disregard or embrace it. Some find ways to make life better or apply new techniques. Intolerance breeds inactivity and it stifles imagination.

    As for the TC in a court house. I think that court houses have enough problems without worrying what is on the wall. I think it is interesting that they have never given the appearance of impropriety in the Supreme Court where they have been forever. I am willing to have them remove the TC from court houses except the SCOUTUS (history) as long as all items are removed. Posters for abortion and planned parenthood (and those for choice, if they exist). Papers for AA and NA, ads for baby sitters. None of them belong if not any one of them belongs.

    I appreciate the candor and discussion on an intellectual level. Too often it is easy to attack someone who you have never met because it is in writing and rather impersonal. I know, as I am sure do you, that in this country most people can get along just fine regardless of what they believe. Though it is still unwise to discuss politics and religion!

    Have a great day.

  32. Simon says:

    Faith or lunacy? Hmm, funny how every time science disproves something religious people said was fact, the religious people say “Oh, you’re not supposed to take that literally”.

    Many of America’s democracy is founded on ideas invented by the Romans – does that mean we should still throw Christians to the lions or crucify people?

    Just because the people who founded America had antiquated and superstitious beliefs, that doesn’t mean you have to stick with them when they have become out-dated.

    Society moves on. We don’t throw Christians to the lions or have gladiators cut each other to death for our amusement. We realised that was barbaric.

    Religion is immovable – it is still preaching the same values of the people who invented it 2000 years ago, even though forward thinking people have moved on.

    Should we still stone people to death for adultery?

    Of course not.

    Should we believe there’s a big man in the sky who made us and even inspired this book called the Bible?

    Of course not.

    Old fashioned, out-dated, backward-thinking, nonesense.

  33. Big Dog says:

    The big question is should the collective we tell others what to think?

    What people choose to believe and what they choose to think is their right and no matter how anyone else looks at it, it should not be disallowed.

    I don’t tell you what you should believe, what gives you the right to tell me what to think.

    Close minded, now there are words that describe your thoughts on the subject. I hope you live a good and peaceful life no matter what you believe, why can you not just leave others alone and let them believe what they want?