Good "Christians"

What would Jesus do in this case?

Today was a historic first for religion in America's civic life: For the very first time, a Hindu delivered the morning invocation in the Senate chamber — only to find the ceremony disrupted by three Christian right activists.

Watch it here:

The protestors were a family, parents and their daughter, who are members of the anti-abortion, anti-gay and apparently now anti-Hindu group, Operation Save America. Said the group's leader, Rev. Flip Benham:

"What we have here is just a wonderful example of Christian theology becoming biography in the sacred chamber of the United States Senate, as a Hindu was offering up a prayer to open up the session this morning. And the folks that were there [the Pavkovics] ... waited for the Senate, or a Senator with a backbone, to remind the Hindu that there is one God who made this country great, and his name is Jesus.... When one stands up in the face of gross idolatry being allowed in the Senate, in the chamber of the United States Senate, it is incumbent on a Christian to stand up and speak the truth. No matter what, we must obey God rather than men.""

Somehow I just don't think this is what Jesus would have had in mind.

•  Any church...

  that does not believe in the primacy of the Pope is wounded.

  And you want sympathy for heathens.

  by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:14:52 PM PST

  •  that is snark right? Because if it isn't

    I'm going to doll out one of only 2 troll ratings I've ever delivered.  I'll wait for your response for a reasonable time and then I'm dropping a donut.

    by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:16:46 PM PST

    •  I'm pretty sure it was a snark

      I interpreted it as such when I rec'd it.

      by cacophonix on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:18:03 PM PST

      •  OK

        by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:19 PM PST

        •  If you check the DailyKos FAQ

          you will see (under "useful diaries") that ed has written at least five diaries referenced there...

          you can be pretty certain that this is snark! :)

          by Pandoras Box on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:51:14 AM PST

    •  yep, it had better be snark

      cause I gotta' donut just waiting for it.

      by left my heart on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:55 PM PST

      •  Mmmm...donutssssss....n/t

        by Arturo52 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:30:17 PM PST

    •  Snark? From ek?

      Nah. Could never happen. j/k

      Of course it's snark.

      by FrankFrink on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:03:35 PM PST

    •  Snark

      very dry. consider the source ;->

      by CalifSherry on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:15:29 AM PST

  •  Heh.

    by mcjoan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:17:56 PM PST

    •  Thanks for posting this! <n/t>

      by cacophonix on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:21:21 PM PST

    •  I would like to add

      that if one was to click on the youtube logo in the lower right of the video and go to the originating site, they can also leave comments (if you have a free youtube account), and these will be seen by people who may not visit Daily Kos.

      by EvilPaula on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:04:56 PM PST

  •  ek hornbeck . . . I'm waiting . . . maybe I'll

    dump all five of mine down your gullet.  I will continue to presume you were kidding . . . for awhile longer and then donuts away!!!

    by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:03 PM PST

    •  Well that's long enough...

      bombs away! I'll revoke if we hear back from him!

      by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:02 PM PST

      •  It's snark for crying out loud

        by cosette on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:11 PM PST

        •  gosh, ya think?

          As someone who had TU exactly once for about 36 hours, I have to wonder who are these donut-enabled individuals with such critically-impaired snark detectors, and WTF does that say about the meaning of "trusted"?

          For crying out loud, indeed.

          by craiger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:57 PM PST

          •  easy fellas or ladies

            I didn't drop one and I do have a sense of humor despite it being less developed than ek hornbecks.  I understand that donuts for simple disagreements are verbotin, which is why I tried (clearly not as cleverly) to see if he would respond and either confirm snark or defend such a patently goofy statement.  Sorry if I ruined the joke.  Sorry some of us dummies have been granted TU status.  I've only dropped one ever so there doesn't seem to be any real threat of me actually dropping one inappropriately.

            by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:58:08 PM PST

          •  I'm with...

            ...rrheard. I don't think I've ever given a TR that stuck, I didn't drop one here, and I wished you'd read the full thread first.

            by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:21:00 PM PST

            •  read first?

              I'd read the full thread at the time I posted my comment, although I'm not sure how that is relevant.  I'm quite familiar with ek hornbeck and knew even without researching the comment history that the comment was reputable.

              For more importantly, I've been reading the newspaper and Daily Kos for the last couple of days and the comment was very clearly a reference to a recent papal decree that was recently diaried here.

              Look, if there's even a chance that something is snark, and in this case it clearly crossed your mind(s) because there were threats couched in terms like, this sounds like snark and you'd better confirm that or I'll donut-bomb you, why not just hold your tongue and give the guy the benefit of the doubt?  And instead of being quick to click the Post button (which is perversely rewarded with the promise of mojo), how about instead doing some Googling to figure out what that snark was reference to?

              That's the meta in my comment.  Post is rewarded with TU status.  Reading first, as you suggest, is not rewarded, but it will help you to get the jokes.

              by craiger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:43:35 AM PST

              •  I do often move too fast

                I should slow down a little, you're right. I'm gettin' better at it. I've written a lot of comments the last few days I haven't posted. But I'm still a work in progress.

                I did read first, however. My initial comments was one of the first ones up. What I needed to do was check his diaries first (like I said upthread, I knew his work, but forgot his name), and hold back on the post button (as you suggested).

                Comment rec'd because I needed (most of) that constructive criticism.

                by Transplanted Texan on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:46:44 PM PST

        •  I gotta admit,

          watching the threats and countdown to bombing was mildly amusing;)

          by One bite at a time on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:47:42 PM PST

      •  Meh

        Silly me, just checked the diaries, the dude's no troll, it's snark. I just wish it wasn't the first comment on the diary.

        by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:28 PM PST

        •  Can't imagine it isn't a snark. He's a

          frequent commenter at Dkos.

          by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:43:30 PM PST

          •  Yeah, silly me...

            ...just didn't recognize his name, even though I recognized many of his diaries once I checked on it.

            by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:21:25 PM PST

      •  It is against the site rules to troll rate

        ek hornbeck.  Please see FAQ.

        by Friend of the court on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:44:41 PM PST

        •  ek is the master of snark! n/t

          by shaharazade on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:29:01 PM PST

        •  Please see...

          ...the comment "Meh" above.

          by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:21:44 PM PST

          •  I was just playin' with you a little. :-)

            by Friend of the court on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:34:24 PM PST

    •  I'll vouch for it being snark.

      If it isn't drop a donut on me too.

      Explicit "/snark" kills the mood.

      by Autarkh on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:21 PM PST

    •  First of all

      Troll Rating for disagreement is Ratings Abuse.

      But you are welcome to join the other 4 in the Hall of Infamy.

      Second, it was in the Washington Post, a newspaper of record.

      by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:53 PM PST

      •  you got nothing on me

        never knew about that search, but here's mine.

        by pacified on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:49 PM PST

    •  For future reference:

      

      by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:29:53 PM PST

  •  Oh fer Chrissakes!

    There is only one true religion and one path to eternal life through Allah and 27 virgins.  Kill the infidels!  If you're not Catholic, you're not saved, etc, etc...

    Is it any wonder no one can get along?  My God can kick your God's ass any day!

    by Red no more on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:22:00 PM PST

    •  Gods have asses?

      And why would they create something and then treat the poor animal so badly?  

      by otto on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:26:18 PM PST

      •  If an all-powerful God...

        ...met an unkickable Ass, could He kick it?

        by CunningBlogist on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:45:37 PM PST

        •  Can an all powerful God

          kick his own ass?

          by sarahnity on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:05:11 PM PST

        •   Can an all powerful God

          kick his own ass?

          by sarahnity on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:05:30 PM PST

          •  If you get a failed response...

            to a posting (and the site has been a little hinky today), your best bet is to check your Comments (you should bookmark that) and see if it really posted after all.

            by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:12:58 PM PST

            •  Just wanted to let you know

              This got posted.

              by otto on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:49:57 PM PST

            •  Thanks

              I always say if a thing is worth saying, it's worth saying twice.  

              I always say if a thing is worth saying, it's worth saying twice.  

              by sarahnity on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:05:40 PM PST

      •  Apparently, asses

        most certainly seem to have a God.

        by justme on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:03:18 PM PST

        •  touche!

          by Pandoras Box on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:54:49 AM PST

          •  Tushy, indeed. n/t

            by justme on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:19:58 PM PST

      •  Yes, gods have asses

        but only Balam may smote them. With a staff.

        by FrankFrink on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:06:36 PM PST

        •  How do you think Jesus got into Jerusalem?

          The bus?

          by Timbuk the Second on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:50:36 AM PST

          •  heh!

            by Pandoras Box on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:54:01 AM PST

    •  27 virginians, you ass hole

      George Washington will kick your ass...

      by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:27:00 PM PST

      •  And a video:

        by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:31:57 PM PST

      •  Followed by Robert E. Lee.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:31:57 PM PST

      •  not virgins, nor virginians..and the number is 72

        I have read that the orignal Islamic text was misinterpreted....as reward, as opposed to getting 72 "virgins", it should have been interpreted as 72 "grapes".

        That has to really suck. Some folks are in for a big surprise.

        by PRESSmUP on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:17:50 PM PST

        •  They'll probably really wine about it!

          No wait, they can't!  They'll have to settle JC's hash instead...

          (((And yes, this is SNARK!)))

          by ibonewits on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:45:55 PM PST

      •  George Washington - Superhero video

        here

        by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:40:08 PM PST

    •  I thought it was 72 virgins (n/t)

      by klk on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:35:28 PM PST

      •  according to Robin Williams

        its 71...

        by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:35 PM PST

        •  Must be inflation-

          It was only 21 when I left the madrassa.

          Maybe they're running low on suicide bombers - or they have a union, or there is a glut on virgins or something like that...

          by Red no more on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:38:42 PM PST

          •  That's it!!!

            they've got to have a union.

            Ask any Republican... the only thing worse than Al Queda is a Union.

            by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:47 PM PST

      •  You must be...

        reading that western style, from left to right.

        Arabic is right to left.

        by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:55 PM PST

      •  I thought it was "7 virgins and a mule"...

        "keep it cool, keep it cool."
        
        Come and see the show!

        by CunningBlogist on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:10 PM PST

        •  I listened to that song just this morning!

          I'm on an ELP flashback...

          by JuniperLea on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:46:47 PM PST

        •  I thought it was,

          BONG HITS FOR OPERATION SAVE AMERIKA!
          BONG HITS FOR THE SUPREME COURT!
          BONG HITS FOR MR. 26%
          BONG HITS FOR RICARDO MONTELBAN
          BONG HITS FOR RICH CORINTHIAN LEATHER
          SMILES EVERYONE/SMILES
          WELCOME TO CHRISTIAN FANTASY ISLAND!

          by behan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:51:02 PM PST

      •  I thought I saw a new translation

        where it was raisins, not virgins.

        by grada3784 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:10 AM PST

    •  not as good as it sounds

      Yes, you get 72 virgins, but they are all the same sex as you... (or the opposite sex if you swing the other way - a corollary of Murphey's law says that you just can't win - ever!)

      by a lien on everything on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:36 PM PST

      •  aaaah...

        but what happens if you are bisexual?

        Are all the the virgins aliens?  Or, just Republicans?

        by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:52 PM PST

        •  Cap'n Kirk got some bodacious looking alien babes

          Just sayin'.

          by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:43:53 PM PST

          •  Larry Niven...

            is also down with green alien action.

            by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:46:35 PM PST

            •  Green Aliens?

              by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:59:43 PM PST

              •  Have you read...

                any of the later Ringworld stuff?

                Larry is just as perverted as Heinlein.

                by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:05:45 PM PST

                •  erm...

                  no

                  by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:10:01 PM PST

                  •  Niven-

                    Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.

                    by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:15:21 PM PST

                    •  Old school.

                      I love old Niven. Some of the newer stuff went a bit kiddie on me, but the stuff he did back in the day...

                      by justme on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:15:46 PM PST

              •  Such wonderful memories...

                This gave "cheesy" such a good name.

                by fmrgop on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:05:44 PM PST

        •  There's a difference? NT

          by grada3784 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:53:35 PM PST

        •  I must take exception to this slur

          I'm sorry, but I can't let this slur stand - neither I nor my relatives have any intention of providing such services at any time.

          signed, a lien ... on everything

          by a lien on everything on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 04:57:10 PM PST

      •  a related joke . . .

        . . . the musical satire group The Capitol Steps have a line about the virgins all being Ann Coulter look-alikes.

        by pine on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:26 PM PST

        •  Good point!

          I just saw "The Steps" Tuesday night.  I was in DC getting my son "Inaugurated" at George Washington Univ.

          He seemed to think he wanted to spend his college years in DC.  Should be an interesting four years-

          by Red no more on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:54:26 PM PST

          •  awesome place for college students

            I spent two summers in Washington D.C. while I was an undergraduate in 2001 and 2002. I interned on Capitol Hill during the day and lived in the dorms at American University. Those were the best two summers of my life.

            I highly recommend college in the DC area, though the tuition at George Washington and Georgetown is jaw-dropping . . .

            by pine on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:13:55 PM PST

      •  So if you're bi? nt

        by thejeff on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:14:27 PM PST

    •  as a true athiest i have to wonder exactly WTF

      these nutcases meant by "there is only one god and his name is jesus", call me stupid but don't so-called christians believe that jesus was the son of god? i've never heard of jesus referred to as god in my entire life. not that i want either or but damn, even i have read the bible and know this isn't meantioned in it- maybe they should read it, too.
       someone above needs to step out and get themselves some air, shit, get over it, all religions are called horseshit by the believers of another religion, it's just one of those facts of life and one that has started more diputes, fights, and wars than any other subject known to man. gonna flip donuts at me because i don't believe a word of any of them? this IS a diary about religious intolerance by other religions.......

      by playtonjr on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:46:12 PM PST

      •  no donut from me

        but yes, Jesus is God.  Jesus is the incarnated form God took when God wanted share our human nature.

        I know the "son of" language is confusing--but it doesn't mean an actual "son".

        Not trying to persuade you or anything, just explaining that Jesus is God (and the Holy Spirit is God also), and that most trinitarian Christians do believe that.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:00:23 PM PST

        •  Jesus did not claim to be God

          Mark 10:17-18
          17As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

          by Mad Mom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:33:03 PM PST

          •  John 10:30--the Father and I are one n/t

            by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:00:44 PM PST

            •  John 14:28--My Father is greater than I (n/t)

              by amRadioHed on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:03:23 PM PST

              •  basic Trinitarian theology

                rather than get into proof-texting (which I dislike a great deal) or an extended theological argument about the co-equality of the persons in the doctrine of the trinity, I'll leave it at this:

                • Not all Christians believe in the Trinity.
                • Even many Christians who think they believe in the Trinity actually do not believe or understand the co-equality/non-hierarchical part of the doctrine.
                • People who both believe and understand the Trinity believe and understand that Jesus is God.

                Check this out with anyone who has had serious theological education and they will tell you the same thing.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:53:29 AM PST

                •  Jesus had serious theological education

                  I'm just not convinced he bought the Trinity thesis....especially since this was "agreed to" in the 4th century, which would put this doctrine some 400 years after his death.

                  Certainly there are passages in the bible to support both views...me, I'm sticking with Mark since it was the earliest of the Gospels written, and John was the latest.

                  I know Paul also weighed in with his views about Jesus, but being that he never met Jesus in person, I'm not sure how valid his point is either.

                  Then again, I never met Jesus either, so what do I know?

                  All I know is I'm a follower of God who doesn't believe in the Trinity, but I'll go to my grave being an unflagging disciple of Christ and His message.

                  Peace to you!

                  by Mad Mom on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:40:51 PM PST

                  •  jesus had theological education--touche!

                    lots of Christians don't believe in the Trinity.  What you believe is fine with me.  I'm not trying to persuade anyone, just reacting to various comments from people who said they have never heard of such a thing as Jesus being God.

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:31:55 PM PST

              •  wikipedia entry is surprisingly good

                In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy.

                the above quote is the start of the wikipedia entry on the Trinity.  the same thing can be found many other places on the net, but the wikipedia explanation was surprisingly concise and clear.

                and this is an English translation of a 12th century diagram used to teach trinitarian doctrine:

                
                

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:43:33 AM PST

                •  Yeah

                  I'm very familiar with all that, and none of what you say is wrong. I was immersed in trinitarian doctrine for the first 20 something years of my life.

                  Personally however I find the trinity to be one of the oddest things about Christianity. It's surprising how so much importance is put on believing in this idea such that not believing it is considered heresy, while the idea itself basically has no Biblical support. Weird. I guess maybe it's necessary to believe it to avoid being labeled polytheistic like all those evil pagan religions.

                  by amRadioHed on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:12:44 PM PST

                  •  you are on to something

                    if Jesus is divine, then he has to be one with God, otherwise Christianity is polytheistic, and lots of people reject the religion on that very basis.

                    Personally, trinitarian thinking explains a lot of things for me about the nature of God and I like it.  "biblical support" is a funny thing because the Spirit leads people to interpret verses in different ways.

                    But as I said to Mad Mom, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, just reacting to several people commenting that they never heard of such a thing as Jesus being God, when in fact the majority of Christians around the world are trinitarian.

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:35:28 PM PST

      •  It's mostly the fundamentalists who refer...

        ...to "Jesus is God" these days, although it's a standard part of most (Trinitarian) Christian doctrine.

        The Fundies are trying to compete with all the other "___ is God" groups around.

        by ibonewits on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:52:43 PM PST

      •  LOL

        call me stupid but don't so-called christians believe that jesus was the son of god? i've never heard of jesus referred to as god in my entire life. not that i want either or but damn, even i have read the bible and know this isn't meantioned in it- maybe they should read it, too.

        Years ago, when Flip Benham still headquartered in Dallas, he came crusing through our clinic's parking lot one afternoon in his navy blue Suburban, just as a member of our staff was crossing the lot to her car. She was wearing a Mary Engelbreit shirt emblazoned with a Queen of Everything applique.

        Flip stomped on the brakes, leaned out the driver's window, and yelled, "You think you're queen of everything? Do you know who the KING is?"

        My co-worker smiled winningly and came back with, "Mmmm ... Elvis?"

        by moiv on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:42:25 PM PST

      •  words from the founder of our party

        on this subject

        (note the trinity idea seems to have originated in Babylon (Iraq) and was grafted onto christianity around 300 ad.)

        The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God."

        ---===---

        "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

        "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

        "But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

        "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

        "On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." - Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

        by NCrefugee on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:47:50 PM PST

    •  Seventy-two virgins! 72!!!!!!

      by oibme on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:54:04 PM PST

      •  I stand corrected-

        It must be my dyslexia kicking in.  At my age it might take me a month to get the 27 trained...  hee hee ;-)

        by Red no more on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:56:16 PM PST

        •  I thought it was a transposition,

          as in accounting anything divided by 9 is a transposition. 27, 72. That is also why I typed it out, so you could see the difference.

          by oibme on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:08:05 PM PST

    •  No way dude, my god can kick your god's

      ass.

      by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:20:52 PM PST

    •  The American Family Assn also

      encouraged their followers to protest. Once again, these right wing nutters have been fighting for freedom of religion - theirs!

      by madgranny on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:28:00 PM PST

      •  OSA and AFA -- partners in crime

        Don Wildmon's AFA provided all the legal representation for OSA when Benham burned a Quran and got up to all sorts of other mayhem in Jackson, MS last July.

        They're all connected -- with each other and with the powerhouses of the religious right.

        by moiv on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:51:36 PM PST

  •  The hypocrisy is astounding...

    by Bonne Vivante on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:05 PM PST

  •  Apparently there are at least 20

    people who agree with this remark, so if its not snark, he's not the only problem here.

    by nupstateny on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:44:49 PM PST

  •  My knees still hurt..

    and my perpetually tugged on ears.

    Is 'ruler hand' a medical term? Cuz I think I have it.

    Blessed be...etc.

    ::::

    by nowheredesign on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:49 PM PST

  •  Yes, the Pope is a Primate

    As the cover of Free Inquiry magazine said a few years ago, "Catholic Primate Accepts Evolution".

    by dconrad on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:03:26 PM PST

    •  Hey, famous comment!

      I think I have comment envy...but this is certainly a good one!!

      by amitxjoshi on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:53:40 AM PST

      •  I have comment anxiety

        Uh...is this thing on? I...uh....thanks.

        by JohnGor0 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:22:18 AM PST

    •  You will be dealt with

      by Bill O's band of roving phone security contracters. No more monkeying around for you.

      by mrblifil on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:19:26 AM PST

  •  Catholics are NOT the Extremists

    Catholic schools teach evolution and the church is very much in the mainstream aside from the issue of contraception. The right wing Evangelicals in the USA are the nutcases.

    by owl06 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:17:10 PM PST

    •  Well...

      Right wing Catholics aren't leaps and bounds better than right wing Evangelicals.

      Noticing a pattern here?

      (For the record, the Pope is not right wing.)

      by stormhit on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:26:06 PM PST

      •  Isn't he Opus Dei?

        By Catholic Establishment standards, that makes him fairly right wing.

        Not in the same league with Rev. Dobson, of course. (But then, few are.)

        by Canadian Reader on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:08:17 PM PST

      •  except the current one

        Joey the Rat.

        He will make it clear to you soon.

        by NCrefugee on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:50:44 PM PST

    •  Nutcases?

      This is a recent statement made by the Pope that I simply repeat.

      I find it no more remarkable than the claims of Bob Jones and much more authoritative because it comes from the Vicar of Christ.

      by ek hornbeck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:33:55 PM PST

  •  Their god: pissed, my God: cool with it!

    Their god
    
    
    

    My God
    
    <</p>

    by Faheyman on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:51:43 PM PST

•  can someone help me take my religion back?

  please.

  even if we can't push them out, at least can we offer some parity to their ugliness?

  by danthrax on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:14:59 PM PST

  •  I am sorry danthrax...

    I am not a Christian but your religion is being hijacked.
    We need to call those kind of folks whenever it occurs and tell them it is not acceptable but abhorrent in a democracy.

    by vassmer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:02 PM PST

    •  and that's a principle everyone can get behind

      as my grandfather, a Roman Catholic born in a much different generation, always says:

      (1) work hard
      (2) pray to whomever you like
      (3) mind your own business

      2 & 3 go hand in hand.

      by danthrax on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:25:03 PM PST

      •  Smart man, your grandad.

        by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:38:16 PM PST

      •  lets amend 2 to say

        pray to whomever you like. Or not.

        by calipygian on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:55:45 PM PST

    •  Grammar Lesson: present participle

      Christianity isn't "being hijacked".

      It's a fait accomplit.  A done deal.  It happened a long time ago.  It's not still in-progress, it's over-and-done with.

      Maybe it can be snatched back, like a football, but cultural conservatives grabbed hold of it back in the 1980s and have been clutching it under their arm since.

      Christianity "has been hijacked".

      by Lasgalen Lothir on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:25:28 PM PST

      •  They started grabbing in the '50s.

        Everson vs. NJ was in '47 iirc.

        by cosette on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:29:48 PM PST

        •  Everson vs Board of Education

          Wikipedia

          by cosette on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:33:19 PM PST

        •  The 1250's to be specific

          Or was that the 1150's....

          by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:44:52 PM PST

          •  Before my time.

            I'll defer to you on that, PatsBard   ;-)

            by cosette on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:49:14 PM PST

            •  Oooo... Zing!

              I felt that way over here! LOL

              by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:00:34 PM PST

      •  Christianity was hi-jacked before they cut

        Jesus down from the cross.  Reading about the first 500 years of the evolution of Christinity is unbelievably fascinting, then comparing its progress through the centurians.  Talk about Barbarians at the Gate.

        I would like to tout a book here as a primer for understanding a lot more about the relationship of Christianity, Judaism and Islam - it is Karen Armstrong's 'Battle For God'. Excellent scholar and terrific read.

        by soccergrandmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:37:45 PM PST

        •  Through the centurains?

          Spread quickly through the Roman legions, did it?

          by thejeff on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:16:46 PM PST

          •  typo, but yes, actually it did

            there is a wonderful litle book called 'Perpetua's Passion, the Death and Memory of a Young Roman Woman, by Joyce E. Salisbury, set in Carthage in 203 AD, it is the story of chosen martyrdom of a Roman matron of the class from which the centurians came, the officer class, I suppose they would be in modern terms, and explores how early Christianity spread, even into the Roman legions. She chose to be thrown to the lions rather than give up her faith.

            Thanks for that, I must go back and read it again.  There was a time when I was utterly fascinated by the way the movement rooted and spread throughout the then Roman Empire, finally arriving in my neck of the woods in Scotland and Ireland around 600 or so with the story of Brendan, later canonised, he was the one who was reputed to have brought it to America. Probably got some of the facts skewed because this is from ancient memory, in my brain I mean, filed in the dead files.

            Probably be better off diving back into the depths again as the beauty and peace began to be corrupted by evil and greedy men.

            Better use of my time than hanging around here anyway.  Might teach me to deal with the whole concept of martyrdom for one's beliefs.

            by soccergrandmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:10:28 PM PST

  •  Sorry dude

    In this country, these idiots pretty much own the trademark. Between that and the decline of the mainline churches, I'd have to say that we're seeing a permanent change in the character of Christianity.

    And yes, it's changing into something not at all Christian. Don't look so surprised.

    by maxomai on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:16 PM PST

    •  My personal opinion about churches is

      to pray in my closet. Somewhere in the Bible, I believe. ;-)

      by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:47:58 PM PST

      •  New Testament, something about burning your

        candle in the dark, maybe Corinthians?  sometimes my early Anglican education peers through the murk of my atheism.

        by soccergrandmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:40:36 PM PST

    •  yes, they call it "extremists"

      oh, dummy me, that is only if you are a muslim, god forbid we call these assholes extremists, they are christian...

      by playtonjr on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:52:35 PM PST

    •  baloney

      sorry, you are buying the right wing meme and reselling it.  They don't own my religion.  My religion is just fine.

      by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:54:38 PM PST

  •  they don't have your religion

    just keep doing what you are doing.
    I had an interesting evening visiting with a Catholic Priest the other night.  His sister was my room mate in the hospital.  I told him why I was not a catholic, he took it in stride.  Of course I was not rude about it.  We also discussed Iraq where he was a Chaplin for a year and how we both worried about the people coming back and their mental health based on having done things they shouldn't have to have done in an unjust war. There is room for understanding among all of us.

    You faith is unique to you and no one owns it or can define for you.  Don't let these ignorant wretches embarrass you and don't allow anyone to tie you to them.

    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:49 PM PST

  •  Why you even want it back?

    by Flippant on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:30:45 PM PST

•  wtf

  and I thought they screened people before being allowed into the senate chamber. Some days I really wonder what the hell I am doing still living in this country.

  by FireCrow on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:15:39 PM PST

  •  Not so much

    You can just get in line.

    by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:21 PM PST

  •  That's why they screen people.

    So that only militant KKKristians get in.

    According to the GOP, this is their country, exclusively.

    It was no doubt considered a major fuckup that the entire gallery didn't rise up and boo. Or that security had the unmitigated gall to interfere. They'll be fired soon and replaced by obedient members of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:55 PM PST

•  Despicable. n/t

  by chicago minx on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:16:11 PM PST

•  Were these racist facists arrested?

  Geez, Secret Service arrests folks for T-Shirt "violations." What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  I am sure the Fox News and the wingnuts will be honoring these folks as heroes.

  by vassmer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:16:25 PM PST

  •  Bush will give them pardons.

    And medals. And an apology.

    The non-Christian who delivered the prayer, however, is gonna be interrogated.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:21:29 PM PST

    •  interrogate??? he*l, he is

      probably ALREADY in Gitmo.  (but, getting healthcare now).

      by left my heart on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:34:44 PM PST

  •  Opposition to Religion is not Racist

    Please...religion is a set of beliefs and philosophies...IDEAS, and are subject to criticism and questioning. Just because some religions have majorities of one race or another does not mean opposition to religion is racist.

    That being said: Yes these people are idiots of the first magnitude. Personally though, I don't think they should be having any invocations within the chambers of government by any religion (see First Amendment).

    by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:30 PM PST

    •  Has a Rabbi offered prayers at the Senate before?

      Or a Catholic?  Or a Muslim?  I think that opposition to a non-Christian religion was only part of these yahoos' objection to a Hindu prayer.  I have my doubts that if it was a Rabbi or a Catholic (read: made up of a lot of White folks) offering prayers, this particular group of wackos would have popped out of the woodwork.

      That being said, I completely agree, an invocation shouldn't be made.  The government doesn't need Jesus' help any more than Jesus should need the government's.

      by Arturo52 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:58 PM PST

      •  There's a reason for it beyond racism

        Just to be pedantic about it...

        Although some of the uber-Christians are also anti-Semitic, most at least tolerate Jews, on the idea that they're part of the same theological lineage, just not "enlightened" to the messiah. Both pray to the same God, so they're not terribly different.

        Of course, the same is true for Islam--same god, different representative--but most Christians don't understand that because they only know the old (Jewish) and new (Christian) testaments, and not subsequent scriptures based on the same foundations.

        However, Hindu is a completely different thing. Multiple gods, all that. It's entirely different than the monotheistic Jewish god lineage. And thus, like the Roman pagans that Christians broke away from, Christians consider any polytheistic or non-theistic religion to be base idolatry. The whole "thou shalt have no other gods..." stuff.

        I'm sure there's an element of racism in this--brown people from south Asia! We can't have that!--but theologically, the objection is on the basis that they don't worship Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah.

        by Talea on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:17:14 PM PST

        •  Most Christians

          like Jews, as opposed to simply tolerating them, because they are God's chosen people and without them Christ would not have died for our sins.  At least, most Christians that I know.

          by UltraMegaTron on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:08:40 PM PST

    •  I'm with you on this one, Boisepoet.

      by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:54 PM PST

      •  And I would go a step further

        . . . religion is a set of beliefs and philosophies...IDEAS, and are subject to criticism and questioning. Just because some religions have majorities of one race or another does not mean opposition to religion is racist.

        Some religions attract a majority of their followers from particular ethnic groups. I'm not sure there is any religion with a "racial" component.

        That said, I have no doubt these gallery lurking slack-jawed, narrow-minded assholes sporting day-passes from Darwin's waiting room are bigots of the first order.  Actually, I know they are.

        cl

        Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

        by Caoimhin Laochdha on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:08:30 PM PST

    •  I know these types of folks.....

      most of them are racists too and that is why I included that. I agree, opposition to religion isn't racist, but these folks are racists who long for the days (which never existed anyway!!!) where this was a "Christian" country.

      It goes with the Hestons or Buchanans who think the US is sinking because it isn't a "white Christian" nation.

      Actually, I prefer no prayers at all! However, I don't think they will end the practice soon.

      Heston: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or—even worse—Evangelical Christian, Midwest, or Southern, or—even worse—rural, apparently straight, or—even worse—admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning or—even worse—NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or—even worse—male working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. http://www.vpc.org/...

      by vassmer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:57:51 PM PST

    •  How about bigots?

      Is that more precise?

      Though if I had to money on it, one way or the other, I'd bet on racist too.

      Different forms of prejudice tend to go together. It's really all about "Not like me"

      by thejeff on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:04:04 PM PST

      •  Bigoted indeed

        While I appreciate the discomfiture of the Hindu gentleman involved in this ugly little spectacle, it's still just one religion bashing another, something they've done since we humans invented religion.  It's a nasty bigoted process and always has been.  Many religious people have managed over the centuries to tolerate other religions based on the proximity of the others' beliefs to their own, while some even manage to lay their religious prejudices aside while dealing with other religious people (for which they do deserve credit.)  

        But don't expect this kind of bigotry to end any time soon, it is built into the very nature of religious belief, which demands the exclusion of all other beliefs, despite the fact that none are provable in any way.  It is an inherently irrational and emotional reaction that is at the core of what religion demands of the believer, though I'm sure many here will object to this characterization.  But I'll pose a little thought experiment to test your reactions, with the caveat that you need to be honest with yourself about it:

        Replace the word "Hindu" in the diary above with "atheist" and see how you feel then.  

        Did you immediately think "that's ridiculous", or "but that's not religion, why should an atheist offer an invocation"?  If you had any similar reaction, you'd better recheck your tendency to bigotry, for that is what such a reaction is.  Yet making those statements would be widely accepted in the United States today, almost without question or public outcry of any kind (unlike the case of our Hindu friend above.)  

        When the same reaction that greeted this incident occurs in the context of an atheist being heckled while giving such an invocation, then we will truly be on the road to eliminating bigotry and achieving the republic that the founder envisioned.  We would all do well to remember the words of Jefferson:

        But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

        Now ask yourself, has anyone picked your pocket or broken your leg?

        by Stwriley on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:15:41 PM PST

        •  Well, I do think it's kind of ridiculous,

          but that's because I'm an atheist most days and never feel the need to invoke anything.

          I wouldn't ask an atheist to lead a prayer. I'd think that would be offensive.

          But maybe I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "invocation"?

          by thejeff on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:06:29 PM PST

          •  It's meaning is not specifically religious.

            Webster's defines "invocation" first as:

            1 a : the act or process of petitioning for help or support

            An invocation does not necessarily imply religion, it's just commonly used that way now.  There would be no inherent contradiction in an atheist invoking the guiding principles of reason and the spirit of the Constitution as an admonition to lawmakers at the opening of a session, for instance, and thus be issuing an invocation by any proper definition of the word.  It does not need to be a prayer nor be addressed to some supernatural power or entity to be an invocation.

            by Stwriley on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:37:14 PM PST

            •  Except...

              invoking the guiding principles of reason and the spirit of the Constitution as an admonition to lawmakers at the opening of a session,

              This would utterly confuse them..."reason?, uh, how do I use that?...

              Thanks for the good comments.

              by Boisepoet on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:54:27 AM PST

        •  Not all are exclusive-

          But don't expect this kind of bigotry to end any time soon, it is built into the very nature of religious belief, which demands the exclusion of all other beliefs, despite the fact that none are provable in any way.

          There are a number of religions that do not demand such exclusion of other belief systems. As one example, many in Japan are fairly active in Shinto and Buddhism.

          There is one telling characteristic among the major groups that are harshly exclusive. In the paraphrased words of an author I vaguely recall it is whether they originated in the hot desert sands of the middle east or not. Those originating elsewhere seem to have a more tolerant view. Of course that is exactly what the hot eyed fanatics of all three closely related monotheistic religions that originated there hate so much. Tolerance is a curse for them.

          With their assured political position outside the reality based community I'm also sure the chaplain's comment "lead us from the unreal to the real, from the darkness to the light" would have been deeply offensive if the nuts had been listening instead of (I hope) concentrating on Capitol police and cuffs. As an invocation in its technical sense that is very appropriate right now!

          by pelagicray on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:58:16 AM PST

          •  Splitting hairs

            Some religions have made accommodation with each other, true, but that hardly refutes the point.  Just because you get combined faiths like Shinto/Buddhism in Japan doesn't mean that they are not excluding all other beliefs.  Such a person (following Shinto/Buddhism) must automatically, for instance, reject all monotheistic religions, because their claims are directly incompatible with his own belief.

            Many try to cloak this in other terms, as the ancient Greeks did when they simply related the gods of others to their own and thus (as in Herodotus) refer to others gods as the same as their own.  But the underlying difference still remains and this is simply a closet (rather than open) rejection of others beliefs in favor of their own.  Even Ba'hai or Zoroastrianism, tolerant though they are in many respects, fall prey to this logical trap in either the open or closeted form.  It is a logical necessity for a religion, one that no amount of toleration for other religions can negate.  A believer may tolerate others, but they still think those others wrong or they'd convert.

            by Stwriley on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:47:35 AM PST

            •  Not entirely

              A number are surprisingly accommodating and some have absorbed surprising elements from others. On the other hand there are fundamentalist of all stripes.

              It is difficult to reconcile the Zen abbot who invited me to sit for tea and discussed his beliefs and had no problem with the god of the West with some of the rather violent fundamentalist claimants of the same religion that I also ran in to in Japan. The abbot viewed all expressions of "god" as a form of enlightenment. That included my agnostic scientific based view that such spiritual things were near nil in probability.

              Candomblé in Brazil generally sees no conflict between the African Orixás and the Catholic pantheon. They just assign attributes in common. I've never run into one, but I suppose there are fundamentalist there and perhaps missionaries too. The ones I know tend to not worry what others believe. Join them, don't join them, just leave them to what means something to them.

              I view them all as superstition. As long as they are tolerant so am I. As long as they offer aid to someone without turning that person into an aggressive idiot or missionary I have little objection. They cannot convert me nor can I convert them though I can enjoy gentle discussions on ideas. None, not one bit of that can apply to fundamentalist with "my way is the only way" views. Those I find most often in the religious strains originating in that hotbed of intolerance known in the West as the Middle East.

              Though I am convinced the basis is pure superstition I can also grant each has much good in its ideas when they are based on simple humanism. Unfortunately they seem to carry a virus of destructive intolerance that is tearing the world apart. Those with that virus do not care a bit because they live in the unreality of golden streets, virgins or whatever.

              That is where we certainly agree. They are in a logical trap and cannot see as they are blinded by insubstantial belief. In its benign form it builds beautiful temples, does "good works" and can provide stimulating discussions over tea (or better stuff!). When it goes sour it tends to go deadly and terribly destructive.

              Those asses in the gallery were simply stupid, ugly, pitiful examples of that trend. My reaction to them is a deep snarl and a feeling some have for snakes. I'd probably enjoy lunch discussions with the chaplain they were protesting.

              by pelagicray on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:47:26 PM PST

    •  Not racist. True. But bigoted? Hell, yes.

      by Canadian Reader on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:11:55 PM PST

  •  They were arrested but get this.....

    Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an AP reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.

    For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Again, the American Family Association. The GOP sponsored neo-KKK/terrorist association. No surprise.
    Can you imagine living next door to people like this? (shudders)

    by vassmer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:26:50 PM PST

    •  So if it had been any other monotheistic god it

      would have been okay?

      And isn't Jesus the son of god? Or are my many years of missing organized, ritualistic religious ceremonies showing?

      by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:33:05 PM PST

      •  nuts would have approved "Allahu Akbar" I guess

        as a monotheistic religion, but who can figure out these psychos?

        by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:38:39 PM PST

      •  Yes. Apparently Baal is on the approved list

        You have to fill out the paperwork and it may take several months, but eventually you can get your god placed on the approved monotheistic religion list.

        by MagisterLudi on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:53:22 PM PST

        •  Cool - that will give me time to make up the

          back story.

          ;)

          by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:12:00 PM PST

          •  Don't bother...

            there is only one God and The Flying Spaghetti Monster is his name.

            by amRadioHed on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:19:07 PM PST

•  Jumped the shark...

  why haven't they already?

  by Squirrel2634 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:16:34 PM PST

  •  Where's our Musharraf?

    We need someone in America who isn't afraid to crack down on our home-grown fundamentalist threat before it's too late.

    It may take a strong hand to do the job right.

    by greendem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:37:36 PM PST

    •  musharraf is a fundamentalist

      this I'm with the uS is an act, the only reason he pretends to be an ally is the US said they would bomb Pakistan into the stonge age if didnt help, musharraf and the fundamentalists are one and the same.

      by SensibleDemocrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:15:25 PM PST

•  I'm an agnostic who was raised Hindu

  And I find this just appalling. These people who interrupted the service today clearly do not understand Hinduism, but just as clearly, they also do not understand Christianity, and they also do not understand America.

  Shame on them.

  by cacophonix on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:16:40 PM PST

  •  Ignorance in fundamentalism is a badge of honor

    It is certainly appalling, and is so on many levels.  Shame on them, but hopefully they don't plow us under with their Dominionist garbage.  Last gasp of that for a while if a Dem wins the White House.

    by Prof Dave on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:41 PM PST

    •  Junk science and fuzzy math

      Their pastors warned them against evil secular "reason", and so they ignore it or substitute their own "facts".

      by AdmiralNaismith on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:30 PM PST

    •  Domestic terrorism will rise sharply

      And when will someone tell these guys that "freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom of one religion and one religion only".

      by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:49:31 PM PST

      •  Good - sort of

        the conflation of Muslims and terrorists will stop and the association between fundamentalists and terror will start.  Just the tool we need to put a permanent end to Dominionism.

        by Prof Dave on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:43 PM PST

        •  Waco didn't -

          McVeigh didnt.  Paul Hill didn't.

          If the Christian right did 9/11 it wouldn't stop it.  Because it's just too convenient a reason to hate brown people.

          by arbiter on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:59:18 PM PST

    •  ignorance and fundamentalism go hand in hand n/t

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:02:23 PM PST

  •  I don't think they understand understanding.

    Or thinking for that matter.

    by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:23 PM PST

•  So that whole seperation of church and state

  it's just part of the damn piece of paper call the Constitution as well?

  Might shock these Christians that there are more Hindus on the planet them.

  by pinche tejano on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:16:59 PM PST

  •  Not true

    Not that Wiki is the best source, but, its religion article says:

    Christianity 2.1 billion
    Islam 1.3 billion
    Non-Adherent (Secular/Atheist/Irreligious/Agnostic/Nontheist) 1.1 billion
    Hinduism 900 million

    So we've got outnumbered 2-1. Not that that's an excuse for these loud-mouthed twits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:21:41 PM PST

    •  That sounds about right

      Hinduism is practiced in India (about 80% of the 1B population) and Nepal, plus small minorities in many other countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, parts of SouthEast Asia etc.). 900 million seems like a good estimate.

      by cacophonix on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:26 PM PST

      •  So...

        There are estimated to be about 900 million Hindu worldwide, about 3 times the entire population of the United States?

        I'm appalled there was a protest.  Guess for some folks that freedom of religion means freedom to be Christian - at least in name.

        by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:30:09 PM PST

        •  Of course,

          freedom of religion to the right is a very one-way freedom.  You have the right to agree with us, or get the f*ck out.

          Methings somewhere, our forfathers are spinning in their graves.  If we could only capture the energy.....

          by Hard to Port on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:36 PM PST

    •  But most of those 2.1 B Christians are not ...

      But most of those 2.1 B Christians are not "Christians" - as defined by Southern Baptists / Catholics !

      And ofcourse a lot of those 1.3B islamic people aren't Muslims either - as defined by Osama / Ayatollahs.

      So, yes, Hindus are the largest (and oldest) religious group !!

      by nataraj on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:02 PM PST

      •  Well, if we leave it up to Sects and Osama...

        ...but I'm not sure that's what I want to do.

        By the by, just about every Catholic and Southern Baptist I know considers me, an Anglican, to be Christian.

        And I wonder, do Hindus have rival sects like we Christians do that might ignore one another's status as Hindus?

        by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:23:46 PM PST

        •  You know that was said tongue firmly in cheek ...

          Funny thing about Hinduism is that it is an "inclusive" big tent religion. Thats the good thing about not being monotheistic.

          So, from thousands of years invaders / immigrants have been absorbed and have now become Hindus. Their Gods have become Hindu gods with mythology constructed around the new Gods and the old.

          That is why you don't see much conflict between say Budhism and Hinduism - Budhist ideas have been largely absorbed by Hindus. Infact ideas of idol worship have come to Hinduism mainly from Budhism and Jainism.

          Unfortunately with monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam that could not be done (since they would not accept Hindu Gods). Otherwise Jesus and Mohemmad would have been saints by now within Hindu mythology.

          Conflicts within Hinduism are mostly caste / language based. But I've not heard of any group being labelled "non-Hindu" ....

          by nataraj on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:25:17 AM PST

  •  Hey but Vishnu could kick both

    Jesus' and Mohamed's butts with two arms tied behind his back!

    by se portland on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:10:41 PM PST

•  Jesus

  would likely have had respect for a culture and religion that was ancient at the time he was born. Christianity incorporates myths from the ancient religions into its own body of work.

  "Flip", the name says it all.You have your Siddharthas..and then you have your  Flips.

  by ohcanada on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:17:20 PM PST

  •  Not so sure about that

    According to the only available accounts of the life of Jesus he was a religious radical who organized a cultlike group which separated from an established religious group. In practice such personalities are rarely tolerant of other creeds, and there is little evidence that this person called for tolerance of other religions, or respected non-monotheistic religions, or even spoke much about non-monotheistic religions. Some believers in the religion which attributes to him its establishment who are uncomfortable with the politics which have for many centuries dominated in its principal insitutional realizations have worked hard to find in those scant hagiographies describing his life evidence for a religious teaching compatible with their contemporary politics. This works in a context such as civil rights because he did teach love and care for the unfortunate, downtrodden, and excluded, but there seems to me very little evidence, if any, that he taught acceptance of or respect for other religions.

    by xylon on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:30:31 PM PST

•  Even though I'm an athiest

  I find this absolutely disgusting.

  by rightiswrong on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:17:33 PM PST

  •  On that note

    do they ever just have a moment of silence for reflection on behalf of atheists?  I think that might be fair.

    by kidfury on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:53:46 PM PST

    •  A moment of appreciation

      for the complexities of the universe would suffice.

      by rightiswrong on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:30:50 PM PST

•  huh...

  ...I didn't know:

  1. Jesus was god.

  2. He made great America.

  by bic momma on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:17:35 PM PST

  •  glad I wasn't the only one thinking that

    especially #1

    by dudemanguy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:34 PM PST

    •  Trinity

      Jesus came down to earth in human form as God's son.  But Jesus is God also, along with the holy spirit.

      by UltraMegaTron on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:17:50 PM PST

  •  Check out LDS writings...the new Eden is in

    Missouri.

    by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:27 PM PST

  •  Thank You

    That was my first thought too. Since when did Jesus become god, not the son of god? Blasphemers, may they burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

    by klk on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:30:15 PM PST

    •  father, son, holy ghost

      the paradox of the trinity and all that.

      by Hey BB on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:32 PM PST

      •  Isn't that catholocism?

        I can't keep all this stuff straight!!!

        by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:12 PM PST

        •  Catholics have the trinity

          as do Episcopalians (Catholicism with half the guilt).

          Christians though, except for these wingnuts apparently, believe Jesus to be the son of God.

          I've never heard a Christian claim him to be God, or claim that Jesus is God's name. Until now.

          Very strange times.

          by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:58:26 PM PST

          •  Er... Catholics and Episcopalians

            are Christians. Honest, I'm not kidding you. Just ask them.

            by Canadian Reader on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:27:34 PM PST

        •  well Benedict recently

          shot down all other Christian religions which don't agree to his papysee (sp); so I assumed that if we were going to have the 'one true' religion defended in the Senate it would be that one...

          Or I could be talking out mah butt..

                (blah blah blah) <-- talking bubble <br>      /
              /
          ( ^ ) <-- bb's butt</p>

          (how do I get the underscore to show?)

          by Hey BB on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:02:10 PM PST

          •  Underlining text:

            word

            u and then /u with the caret thingees around them

            by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:09:23 PM PST

            •  You're really good at that

              I've seen several helpful hints from you on the technical aspects of DKos.

              I guess if I have a question about such things, I just have to look up your comments to find the answer instead of plowing through the DKosopedia.

              You are a veritable one-person tech FAQ!

              Thanks!

              by Brooke In Seattle on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:43:32 PM PST

              •  <blush>

                I used Teh Google for this one:

                Developingwebs.net

                Some I have memorized - others I have to look up.

                by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:50:01 PM PST

              •  Or should I say...

                "I look things up so you don't have to."

                LOL

                by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:51:38 PM PST

  •  Unless you're a Unitarian...

    Jesus is both the Son of God and God at the same time via the trinity.

    by Me on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:12 PM PST

  •  Jesus made Great America? Cool! I love

    roller coasters.

    by darthstar on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:50 PM PST

    •  wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

      by bic momma on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:47:00 PM PST

•  I'm a Christian

  Jesus is supreme, but there are many parallels between His and the Eastern teachings, so Christians shouldn't mock them. Thich Naht Hahn and Marcus Borg: http://www.amazon.com/...

  (We shouldn't mock other religions anyway, parallels aside. It's just wrong.)

  by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:17:39 PM PST

  •  It's not good to mock ANYONE's beliefs.

    I'm an atheist and a humanist, and I think this is an abominable practice. I even criticize those people with the "Darwin" fish on their cars. That symbol is sacred to many people and to use it to ridicule them is offensive.

    Yet another shameful act from my countrymen.

    by davewill on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:48 PM PST

    •  I like the fish

      You mean the Christian fish with legs? I've always found it a nice way of bringing faith and Darwin together.

      by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:00 PM PST

      •  If I thought that was the motivation, I'd agree.

        I've always felt it was intended as mocking or ridicule of creationism.

        by davewill on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:31:25 PM PST

        •  I find...

          ...it depends on the driver. It goes both ways. And I guess perception does matter.

          by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:33:39 PM PST

        •  Yes, it is intended as mockery

          Richly deserved mockery.

          by Boreal Ecologist on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:37:51 PM PST

        •  When did creationism show up?

          I saw those fish with legs back in the 70's.

          I also thought it brought evolution and religion together.

          by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:53:37 PM PST

          •  Hmmm, I first saw one in the mid-nineties..

            shortly followed by the ones with the Christian fish SWALLOWING the Darwin fish.

            by davewill on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:06:09 PM PST

            •  So the Christian fish evolved into having a

              larger mouth. Is that what you're saying?

              ;)

              by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:18:43 PM PST

    •  I've got neighbors with both the Darwin fish and

      the regular fish on their car.

      I need to hurry home and tell them that they're offending themselves.

      We can't be so afraid of offending people that we're afraid of making commentaries about the world we live in.

      I'm not going to just stand around and let those with a religious perspective own an entire debate.

      by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:40 PM PST

      •  Don't get me wrong, DEBATE all you want.

        But we can debate without mockery and ridicule. Anyway, I'm glad to hear I may be misinterpreting this.

        by davewill on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:52:35 PM PST

        •  Seems to me if they can flaunt their beliefs on

          their vehicles, then I should be able to flaunt my beliefs on my vehicle.

          by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:54:45 PM PST

          •  Sure, paint "DARWIN" in six inch high letters

            across the back of your car if you like. I just suggest that maybe using someone else's religious symbol may not be the most polite way to go about it.

            by davewill on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:59:33 PM PST

            •  Christianity borrowed from lots of other

              religions, symbols being among the least of them...who is being impolite to whom?

              by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:05:08 PM PST

              •  Yep, one of the ways Christianity spread itself..

                was by coopting holidays from the religions that came before. Christians celebrate the sabbath on Sunday instead of the traditional Saturday because Romans already celebrated the Sun God on Sundays. Christmas was placed to coincide with the winter solstice. Easter actually MEANS spring and was already a holiday celebrating spring.

                Of course, two wrongs...

                by davewill on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:11:27 PM PST

                •  And just because a lot of people all believe the

                  same thing doesn't mean that it's the truth.

                  by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:17:18 PM PST

                •  Actually

                  Easter comes from the Anglo-Saxon Eastre, the name of a spring goddess whose feast day celebration predated those of the Christian festival celebrating Christ's resurrection.

                  And December 25 was long celebrated as the birthday of Mithras, an ancient Indo-Iranian god of light and truth, in the Zoroastrian religion. His mother was allegedly a virgin too.

                  by Brooke In Seattle on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:55:16 PM PST

            •  mmmmmm

              I do appreciate where you're coming from,

              but given the history of inquisitions, witch burnings, institutionalized homophobia, and now an emerging Christofacist state, I say I'm done being polite.

              When I was last in NC, I saw big billboards with an image of a cross with a flag draped over it, reading "One Nation Under God."

              They're sticking their foot through my front door.

              I'm done being polite.

              In the words of Rowdy Roddy Piper in "They Live,"

              I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass - and I'm all out of bubblegum.

              by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:08:29 PM PST

              •  "They?"

                You must remember, that stuff only comes from some Christians, not all. Pretend for a moment that it's a racial issue instead of a religious one. If there were a few black folks harassing you, you wouldn't start painting pictures of wide-eyed big-lipped Sambos chowing down on watermelon, and you wouldn't throw the n-word around ruthlessly. You'd remember all the black folks who WEREN'T harassing you, recognizing that it's not because of their race.

                Same with religion. Smart white people, stupid white people. Smart black people, stupid black people. Smart Christians, stupid Christians. So please, don't take the symbols of the respectful Christians who respect you and drag them through the mud just because not every Christian is one of them.

                by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:29:33 PM PST

                •  But for the record

                  I'm ok with the Darwin fish. I'm looking at your broader argument, not the specific example. :)

                  by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:30:07 PM PST

                •  Man, the "they" followed a specific reference

                  to a particular group. It's a pronoun.

                  I'm talking about Christians who put up billboards of crosses with flags draped over them. I say "they." It would be clumsy for me to have to say, "wingnut anti-science, patrio-facist Christians" every time.

                  I get your point, but please don't overreach.

                  by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:07:22 AM PST

                  •  I understand

                    I know you mean those specific Christians. I could have chosen a better subject. The point is just that the wingnuts and the respectful mainliners use the same symbols and some of the same terminology, so you have to be verrrrrry careful when mocking those symbols. I don't think that's overreaching.

                    by Transplanted Texan on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:48:24 PM PST

        •  Sometimes people carry their sense of

          superiority and entitlement so far though that there is little left to do but mock.

          Most Christians can take the Darwin fish.

          It's the ones that are advocating for creationism or "intelligent design" that get all bent out of shape about it. And that's what I like about it. It's self-selecting mockery.

          by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:02:07 PM PST

    •  I disagree

      We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

      -H. L. Mencken

      There is nothing "sacred" about "beliefs," and the number of beliefs which deserve nothing but ridicule far outnumber those that have been thought-out well enough to deserve respect.

      Any number of great thinkers, writers, artists, and revolutionaries would be appalled at how little power for positive change you recognize in the act of mocking the "sacred."

      by Fox1 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:17:55 PM PST

  •  I'm sorry dude, but don't you see how

    that "Jesus is Supreme" comment with no qualifier such as "for me" is just as arrogant and bigotted as the protesters? And you were getting all over Ek's case for a bit of snark . . .

    by Indexer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:27:00 PM PST

    •  Faith

      When a person has a faith - any faith - they believe it to be the absolute truth. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of belief, i.e., fact. I believe Jesus to be supreme, there's no "for me" about it. But I don't take offense or find it arrogant when a Muslim says, "Mohammed is a prophet!" or a Jew says "The Messiah has not come!" I don't request they alter it to be "a prophet to me" or "My Messiah." That's what faith is all about, belief, not opinion.

      by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:29:27 PM PST

      •  How about "My father has many mansions"? n/t

        by Indexer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:33:47 PM PST

        •  Many servants

          One butler

          by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:34:44 PM PST

          •  You know, I kind of like that, unrepentant

            atheist that I am, so you get a rec.

            by Indexer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:48 PM PST

            •  :)

              Thanks. I find the longer two people in this site argue, the liklier something nice is to happen.

              by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:23 PM PST

              •  It's wonderfull what happens when two

                people actually talk to each other, isn't it?

                by Indexer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:55 PM PST

      •  Definitions, last time I looked...

        Belief is not fact.

        Opinion is not fact.

        They can incorporate facts; they can ignore facts.  It's a fact that you can have a belief, and it's a fact that you can have an opinion.  Your beliefs and opinions can be based on whatever you want, but that is not the same for facts.

        That's where the resemblence ends.

        by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:34:12 PM PST

        •  Belief vs. opinion

          Belief is what you thinks is fact but have no scientific evidence to back it up. Fact at least plays into it. Opinion, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the facts.

          Belief: "There is a God." That's either true or it's not true, we just can't use science to figure it out. Opinion: "I think blue is a better color than pink." There's no true or false whatsoever there, provable or unprovable. The facts enter into one, we just can't see how. They don't enter into the other at all.

          Neither belief or opinion is purely objective fact, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

          by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:38:37 PM PST

          •  Neither belief nor opinion...

            Necessarily has to have anything to do with facts, in order to be a belief or an opinion.  Whether they have any relationship congruent with facts, or not, is irrelevant in terms of these definitions.

            You're making up your own definitions, and that's fine as far as I'm concerned.  Belief and opinion, fact and truth, are not at all the same things; that's why we have different words for them.

            Sorry to be pedantic.

            by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:44:09 PM PST

            •  Well, to be fair...

              ...no one here has quoted Webster.

              by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:33:00 PM PST

          •  A nice semantic debate.

            I believe that my mom was my mom and I do have proof.

            If I believed it and had no proof it would have to be faith.

            For the sake of argument, I think faith best fits the definition of a belief with no proof.

            Which is why I find the Fundamentalist obsession with proving Creationism to be so strange. Doesn't it indicate a weak faith on their part since they have to bend science to get it to prove their religious beliefs?

            by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:41 PM PST

            •  I don't know about that...

              All I've been able to find is hearsay. My mom insists on it, but admits I was out her sight for a while right after she gave birth.

              by davewill on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:56:19 PM PST

              •  Perhaps...

                Some genetic testing is in order, if the facts are in doubt?

                My mom insisted I was hers, too, but sometimes I wondered.  (There were entire years when I thought I might have been dropped into my family by aliens, performing some sort of weird experiment.)

                by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:59:38 PM PST

            •  In the Year 2525

              Which is why I find the Fundamentalist obsession with proving Creationism to be so strange. Doesn't it indicate a weak faith on their part since they have to bend science to get it to prove their religious beliefs?

              It's not so much a weak faith on their part as it is a way to sway others and bring them into the fold.

              Despite it being the 21st Century, there are still a lot of folks who don't want to accept that man is descended from a lower form of life. Accepting evolution also means that racists have to accept that man has a common ancestor, which permanently destroys the white supremacy meme. Then they have to accept the Bible isn't factual with its 6,000 year spread -- since there were other cultures outside of the Holy Lands whose existence predates that -- which puts Leviticus and the subjugation of women in jeopardy.

              Like most religions, it boils down to a matter of control and suppression of others.

              by pfeffermuse on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:14:22 PM PST

              •  Agreed in part, except...

                ...most creationists I know, the vast vast majority, are not racist. Bigotted in small ways, perhaps, but not white supremecists.

                by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:33:47 PM PST

            •  Well I'm certainly with you...

              ...about the creationists. I believe God created us all - and I believe He did it with evolution.

              (Oops, should I say capital H "for me"?)

              by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:32:32 PM PST

  •  Maybe start with "I believe Jesus is supreme"

    Because dropping the first two words negates everyone else's beliefs and, yes, mocks them.

    by PatsBard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:58:41 PM PST

•  Oh crap, What savages.

  by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:18:05 PM PST

•  From greendem's diary:

  The American Family Association's legislative lobby held a  conference in September 2006 in Washington, DC. The list of invited speakers included:

  President George W. Bush
  Sean Hannity
  Senator George Allen
  Michelle Malkin
  Gary Bauer
  Zell Miller
  House Maj. Leader John Boehner
  Peggy Noonan
  Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
  Senator Sam Brownback
  Tony Perkins
  Pat Buchanan
  Senator Rick Santorum
  Chuck Colson
  Lt. Gov. Michael Steele
  Dr. James Dobson

  Rev. Don Wildmon

  by canoeist on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:18:24 PM PST

  •  What time do all those cuckoo clocks go off?

    Man what a racket that would make.

    by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:21:17 PM PST

  •  Hmmmmm...

    Senator Zell, Senator Frist, Senator Santorum, Senator Allen.  What do they all have in common?

    by AdmiralNaismith on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:25:17 PM PST

    •  in D.C. madam's black book?

      by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:27:04 PM PST

    •  room temp IQ's and lack of ethics?

      by tony the American Mutt on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:41 PM PST

  •  These nutjobs don't speak for my american family.

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:26:27 PM PST

    •  Those clowns are just another branch of the..

      Taliban.

      by java4every1 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:31:00 PM PST

      •  You think they IM together? n/t

        by Indexer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:31:53 PM PST

        •  I doubt it. After 2000 years they

          still don't get the message!

          by java4every1 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:42:01 PM PST

      •  Bingo!

        by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:58:14 PM PST

  •  All of those nuts in one place, and no one

    got a chance at 'em? Where are the radical atheists when you need one? Wasted opportunity.

    by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:57:31 PM PST

•  For a double dose of good fun.....

  Check out what our good buddies at Freep are saying. Nummy nummy.

  by maxomai on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:18:32 PM PST

  •  Freeper comments...oy vey.

    Barrels of fun with Freepers:

    To: GFritsch
    Multiculturalism, politically-correct crap is what brought us to this disgraceful period in American history. Thank you Liberals and RINOs. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves and the rest of us, who still have a brain, who love our country, support our military, and want a secure future for our children and grand children, are outraged!

    "I think I'm going to faint!"

    Here's a half-assed defense of the Hindu minister. I have to admit it is thoughful, but smacks of cultural naivete. An "Indian Indian" vs. one of "our" types of Injuns? :-/

    Kudos to "Aliska" for at least calling out the rest of the Freepers on their shit:

    I find this sad, troubling and very un-Christian. It's not as if he desecrated a church. I will be honest and say I would be more upset it if were an iman, but I would bear it.
    Maybe it is socialist PC Democrats, but we are an inclusive country now whether we like it or not. My next door neighbor is Indian Indian, has very nice manners, and I have no clue what his religion is, whether he has converted to Christianity or what. So far, he has been a wonderful, friendly neighbor without being overbearing. It is odd and different, yes, but I don't think he would turn me in somewhere rather than come to me about it first, if such were to happen like some of my so-called Christian ones have done in the past when I was struggling.

    If it were in my power, I would be the first in line to apologize to this man for what has happened. What an embarassment.

    And, of course, leave it to some asshole to tell a well-meaning Freeper off:

    To: Aliska

    And I would be right behind you to tell him to f*k off.

    Embarassed and Inclusive? Then include that!

    And here's another smidge of ignorance:

    To: Aliska
    ...but we are an inclusive country now whether we like it or not.
    For thirty years I've eaten at Hindu Indian restaurants and truly love the cuisine.

    However, the Hindus are not plotting to kill us as the evil Koran worshipping muslims are.

    That being said, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and principals and Hindusim is not one of those ethics.

    My physician is now a Hindu...not, thank God, a muslim. But no Hindu holyman has any business praying for my grandfather who, in their opinion, is now a cow, especially in front of that most distinguished body: the lousy senate of the degraded USA.

    by boofdah on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:55:47 PM PST

    •  It looks like FR

      just keeps getting worse and worse.

      I can't believe the person who said, "And I would be right behind you to tell him to f*k off" when he didn't even know the Indian's religion! The Indian could have been a Christian, for all he knew. Why did he want to tell him to fuck off--because he's swarthy?

      How ignorant and vile can people get?

      by Bob Quixote on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:34:21 PM PST

    •  Judeo-Christian ethics?

      Is that what our nation was founded on? If ethics is what we are talking about then how exactly are Hindu ethics different from Christian ethics. I'm curious cause I'm not aware of any real differences.

      by amRadioHed on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:30:20 PM PST

•  Amazing

  there is one God who made this country great, and his name is Jesus

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not this statement blasphemy?

  by offgrid on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:18:33 PM PST

  •  Yes, but the franker the irony,

    the more it is lost to them.

    by revenant on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:03 PM PST

  •  Of course it's blasphemy!

    Everyone knows the Monster, peace be upon his noodles, made this country great!

    by Autarkh on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:21 PM PST

    •  Ramen

      by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:46:41 PM PST

      •  The perfidy and insolence of you Ramenaferians...

        ...never ceases to amaze me.

        How dare you insult the Monster by mentioning the unclean noodles!

        by Autarkh on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:55 PM PST

        •  Unclean?!?

          After baptism in the sacred boiling water, the noodles are anything but unclean.

          by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:03:45 PM PST

          •  Ramen defiles the sacred bath!

            And is unworthy of receiving the blessed marinara!

            by Autarkh on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:11:16 PM PST

            •  Yet...

              Are we not all believers in the sacred nature of pasta?  All noodles are pasta; their goodness and blessing is beyond all doubt.  Are noodles not the greatest sacrament of all?

              Are we not both followers of noodles?  Are not our differences less than our similarities?  Do not our noodles receive similar oils of annointment?

              by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:12:11 PM PST

              •  plus

                a nice imported parmesan does wonders.

                by JLongs on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:56:56 PM PST

  •  son of god, god

    makes no difference to correct, that would take time away form hating gays

    by Progrocks on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:44:25 PM PST

    •  You're right

      My bad.

      It just never ceases to amaze me how many so-called "Christians" don't even understand basic Christianity.

      Of course, the same can be said of most adherents of other religions.

      by offgrid on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:46:38 PM PST

•  They have a lock on God

  God is a fundy, thus nobody else is ever permitted to define him differently.

  The self-righteousness of people like this is incredible. So unlike anything Jesus ever taught, yet they believe they are perfectly following in his footsteps.

  Christianity, like our Constitution, has become unrecognizable in Bush's America.  

  by Ekaterin on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:15 PM PST

  •  God is watching them and she is pissed !

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:27:56 PM PST

  •  Personally, I try to live by the 11th

    Commandment, courtesy J.C., himself.

    by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:00:03 PM PST

  •  Actually, they really don't care about Jesus

    Virtually all of them are Paulians, not Christians. They're not followers of Christ as in students of his teachings. Rather, they are followers of a follower of Christ, who hitched his wagon to the Jesus star train to make a name for himself.

    Saul of Tarsis was a con man and a swindler, and he decided that this Jesus guy was a great way to gain some power. A few letters to the Corinthians later, and suddenly, what Paul said about saving sins and keeping women silent in churches and all that nonsense became the new religion. Jesus himself? Nah. He's just a figurehead. Not around to defend himself anymore, so Paul gets to pretend to speak for him.

    He was really the original televangelist of his time. No wonder the modern swindlers and charlatans love him.

    by Talea on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:30:57 PM PST

    •  Just reading the Bible

      and doing a little research on my own, I always found Paul's writings to be out of place in the New Testament. Does anybody know any books, websites, whatever with info on him? Or any (for dummies type) books on how the Bible came to be in the form that it is? I know about the Council of Nicea, but understand their were many othe councils to determine the contents of the Bible. As a Christian, my beliefs are based on the words of Jesus. Not any particular churches interpretation of them. I would like more info though. Esspecailly non-biased information. I'm not looking for slam the Christians information or damn the rest of the world info. Historical is what I'm hoping to find in a readable form. Thanks to anyone who can help me out! And I apologize in advance because I  did not proofread cuz I just don't feel like it today! besides proofreadinf never does me any good. I never catch my mistakes until they are set in stone.  

      by jennybravo on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:19:09 PM PST

•  Shameful

  just shameful.  I believe our founding fathers would feel the same way.  What have we become?

  by klnb1019 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19:35 PM PST

•  America was founded on religious freedom...

  and I found this display of total disrespect of another American's religious choice to be against all that America stands for.

  While I may not believe in the Hindu religion or even that Jesus died for my sins I do believe that no one has the right to disrespect another American's religious beliefs.

  by duvallbuck on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:20:38 PM PST

  •  They took an oath. Impeach 'em! n/t

    by java4every1 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:29:00 PM PST

•  What can you say to this?

  Nothing really. Attempting to offer a response, an argument of some sort, is a waste of breath. This kind of behavior speaks for itself.

  Outrage and disgust can only go so far. Like most leftists, most kossacks, I suffer from outrage fatigue. I try hard not to get desensitized, but at some point I just have to pull back and shrug. If I did not, if I expressed my disgust every time I read an outrageous news item like this, I'd quite literally go insane.

  by TimKidd on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:21:15 PM PST

  •  What I haven't heard yet, is whether any

    Senator commented. Anyone know?

    by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:01:40 PM PST

•  the sacred what??

  "the sacred chamber of the United States Senate" ????    

  Nothing sacred about the Senate.  Or did I miss the beatification of St. DeLay?  Or perhaps the ordination of Father McConnell?  

  Bless us, Cheney, for we have sinned?

  by hayden on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:21:47 PM PST

•  Domestic terrorist preview

  You can expect a lot more of this kind of lashing out, and in some cases getting violent, as soon as a Democrat takes office in 2009.

  Let's see how the Repubs feel about that warrantless wiretapping program with President Hillary/Obama/Edwards in charge.

  by maxentropy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:22:08 PM PST

  •  absolutely

    Clinton was no great president. But we would do well to remember the hysteria that followed on his election.

    Assuming a Rebublican ass-whuppin' in 2009, we should expect all hell to break loose.

    by Boreal Ecologist on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:24 PM PST

  •  This Is What I'm Really Afraid Of

    There have been far more terrorist attacks in the United States, perpetrated by white, American born, right wing Christians, than by any other group, including Arabs or Muslims.  

    Two years ago I read about an arrest in Texas, that happened accidentally.  There was a group of people living on a farm.  One of their neighbors called the Sheriff, with some minor complaint.  When the Sheriffs got there, they found enough cyanide canisters, and bomb making equipment to "kill everyone in the Superbowl".  This barely made the news.

    by opinionated on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:43:19 PM PST

    •  Yeah I remember that

      Dave Neiwert of Orcinus covered it quite a bit a years back:

      http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/...

      It did make the news in a few spots, but it's true that for some reason it never became a real issue in the public's consciousness. Pretty bewildering, if you ask me.

      Same goes of course for the anthrax attacker.

      by maxentropy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:35:31 PM PST

•  I just got a call from God and He wants us

  to stop using His name in vain.

  by MagisterLudi on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:22:09 PM PST

  •  Then after he got off the phone with you

    he called and said that whole torah/bible/koran thing...well he was kinda drunk when he was speaking to those prophets. Said a lot of stuff just because he thought it would be funny to see us get our panties in a wad.

    Oh, he also said Heston was too tall to play Moses. The real one was shorter and near-sighted and always running his face into donkey's asses.  

    by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:32:26 PM PST

    •  Besides, God said, dinosaur lunch

      is what humans were designed for...but hey! all eternity is like unto a single instant for me, so I screwed up. Sorry!

      by dluebke on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:52:21 PM PST

    •  snicker, snicker, snicker, snicker.

      by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:03:11 PM PST

•  Very disrespectful...

  how would they like it if they're prayers were rudely interrupted?

  by Pam from Calif on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:22:16 PM PST

•  One nation under God

  My big invisible all-knowing all-powerful omnipresent friend can beat up your big invisible all-knowing all-powerful omnipresent friend!

  by ultrageek on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:04 PM PST

  •  As it was added to the Pledge after WWII.."Under

    God" was added sometime in the 50's.  Before that time, I think we were "Under the Consitution."  

    by drmah on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:48:26 PM PST

•  It's amazing how much their beliefs resemble

  the Taliban and "Islamofacists". "No matter what, we must obey God rather than men." I seem to recall an Iraqi citizen stating that while the US wants to enforce the rule of law in their country it wouldn't work because they will follow the rule of God according to the Koran. I somehow don't think these people would see the similarities.

  by TokenLiberal on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:23:31 PM PST

  •  Oh no, that would require self-critical humility

    which is something that your average self-righteous christianist has in very short supply, at best.

    by dluebke on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:54:20 PM PST

•  this is just awful

  not surprising, though.

  by jjellin on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:17 PM PST

•  it's time to launch

  Operation Save America From Operation Save America.

  This is so embarrassing. Europeans must be out there laughing their heads off, glad once again that the New World opened up, serving as a sort of drain suctioning away from their shores great swarms of these gabbling ninnies.  

  by blueness on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:26 PM PST

  •  OSAFOSA

    Kinda rolls right off the tongue. Where do I sign up?

    by klk on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:33:15 PM PST

•  I'm sure Stalker BillO and SeaI Insannity...

  will address this outrage.  Bill and Sean Insannity always stand up for respecting the speech of others.  Well, conservatives like trAnnie Coulter. Somehow I can't imagine them calling out rightards buffoons.  

  by cosmosis on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:50 PM PST

  •  I'm assuming you just misplaced the "tr"

    in an attempt to trademark the "Annie" part and you just accidently used an "r" instead of "m"?  and that last attempt to make up a word?  Didn't work out very well, either.

    by sele on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:47:05 PM PST

  •  Is insulting transpeople...

    ...by insinuating a non-transperson is so evil she must be one of us considered funny where you live?

    Where I live it just considered insulting.  And the people who gave you Recs should be ashamed of themselves.

    by rserven on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:05:53 AM PST

•  "And now anti-Hindu" - woot. nt

  by Little on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:57 PM PST

•  The Popephone is flashing!

  Tell those Pavkovics they've got a one way ticket to aitch eee double hockey sticks!

  by kN3eLb4Z0d on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:25:11 PM PST

•  I fucking hate people

  eom

  by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:26:08 PM PST

  •  Ouch. Remind me to stay out of your way.

    ;-)

    by PerfectStormer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:38:35 PM PST

  •  Naaah. Hate the dumb things people do.

    Because sometimes even the most loathsome of them can surprise you.

    by escapee on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:44:29 PM PST

    •  But, escapee, maybe nhcollegedem

      really DOES hate people.

      by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:06:01 PM PST

      •  not nearly so mcuh

        as I hate 100 comments...

        by nhcollegedem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:13:09 PM PST

      •  If he really hated them

        why would he waste so much time here talking to them?

        by escapee on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:31:33 PM PST

•  The ironic thing is that there is a theory that

  Jesus went to india to study with the yogis
  during his lost years.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  by sadhu on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:03 PM PST

  •  I love this idea

    and I think it makes sense  

    by jjellin on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:35:28 PM PST

•   A Poem For Those So Lost

  Philip Appleman

  O Karma, dharma, pudding and pie,
  gimme abreak before I die:
  grant me wisdom, will & grit.
  Trustworthy, loyal helpful, kind,
  gimme great abs & steel-trap mind,
  and forgive, Ye Gods, some humble advice-
  these little blessing would suffice
  to beget an earthly paradise:
  make the bad people good-
  and the good people nice;
  and before our world goes over the brink,
  teach the believers how to think

  by bookwoman on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:22 PM PST

•  "Christians disrupt Senate"

  What is "headlines we'll never see", Alex?

  by punditician on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:28:33 PM PST

•  I am agnostic

  and very solidly behind separation of church and state.  But I am still more pleased about the fact that the senate invocation could be given under a religion other than Christianity.  Who brought that about?

  As far as the nutjobs who think it's another sign of the end of Amerika, sadly that doesn't surprise me, or even grab my attention much.

  by Riff on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:29:33 PM PST

  •  I think Harry Reid

    invited the cleric in this case.  Not sure when the first non Christian (and non-Jewish) invocations occurred though...

    by peaceandprogress on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:52:31 PM PST

    •  Harry is a Mormon. So if he did the invite, all

      I can say is GOOD ON HIM!

      by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:07:44 PM PST

      •  The gentleman

        giving the prayer was from Nevada, so Harry makes sense.

        by mariachi mama on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:08:17 PM PST

•  Similarity?

  [The Holy Trinity]
  

  • God The Father
  • Jesus The Begotten Son
  • The Holy Spirit

  
  [The Trimurti]
  

  
  

  • Brahma The Creator
  • Vishnu The Preserver
  • Shiva The Destroyer

  by Rimjob on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:30:29 PM PST

  •  no disrespect to anyone

    But the stories all get repeated, the ideas get taken and repackaged.  

    by otto on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:34:33 PM PST

    •  no disrespect to you ...

      but can you quote any expert writings on this ?

      It is well known that many of the Vedic and Hindu myths and stories have common Indo-European myths as the source.

      Stories / ideas in the Hinduism are almost entirely sourced from this common Indo-European myths, invented ingeniously or taken from Indus Valley Civilization.

      So, are you saing the Holy trinity and Trimurti ideas came from IE myths ... in which case why is it not in the Vedas ?

      It is easier to say generic stuff than to proove real sources.

      by nataraj on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:57:35 PM PST

      •  No

        The picture wasn't mine.

        I'm saying that common stories are shared throughout cultures, and they are taken as truth when they rise to the level of religion.  

        My point was that the stories of the Bible are not original. See Gilgamesh.  But, you already knew that, because you have superior knowledge.  

        by otto on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:04:37 PM PST

        •  I understand your point ...

          but I wanted to know whether you had read any specific expert writings on this particular point (trimurti & trinity myths sharing the same origin).

          Ofcourse there are a lot of Greek and Indian myths being similar (to be expected because of Indo-European origins). But Semitic writings (like Bible) having similar myths as IE are rare.

          There has been some speculation / guesswork that Jesus had visited India. But nothing definitive.

          by nataraj on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:22:25 PM PST

          •  I doubt it.

            No specific references. But from my understanding of the Bible and early Church history, the Trinity was more of an intellectual explanation for the nature of/relationship of Jesus and God and the few mentions of the Holy Spirit.
            There was no pre-existing myth of God as Trinity. It certainly isn't a Jewish belief.
            There were several competing theories. The Trinity version won out.

            Three is often an important number in myth, so on that level there may be a relation, but I'd be very surprised by any on a higher level.

            by thejeff on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:19:35 PM PST

•  mcjoan, I continue

  to thank you and so much appreciate your posting this kind of information....it saddens me to read it but it is necessary to know.

  by left my heart on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:32:15 PM PST

  •  Yes, mcjoan, but I still don't know if any

    Senator spoke up! Come on, girl, you got nothing better to do besides swelter in that Seattle heat! We want answers!

    by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:09:50 PM PST

•  "Times of India" notes American intolerance

  (This will be in the newspaper on Friday morning in India. Ugh...)

  Christian activists disrupt Hindu prayer in US Senate

  WASHINGTON: Christian activists briefly disrupted a Hindu invocation in the US Senate on Thursday, marring a historic first for the chamber and showing that fundamentalism is present and shouting in the US too.

  Times of India

  by greendem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:32:26 PM PST

•  Well, Bob Casey shut them up

  Considering who he replaced, that's appropriate.

  by andgarden on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:32:28 PM PST

  •  Santorum would have insisted on

    those nutjobs being given equal time.  I feel sorry for the poor Hindu chaplain - no one should feel threatened  for their beliefs, especially not in the damned US Senate.  

    by Arturo52 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:51 PM PST

  •  you got a link to see this

    cause i would love to or reading about it fine too. thanks

    by SensibleDemocrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:23:48 PM PST

•  Crazy!

  Apparently the Constitution only protects Christians that walk around with their tinfoil hats on.

  by gtghawaii on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:33:32 PM PST

•  What Jesus would have done

    Is really pretty irrelevant.  The relevant question is, what's the right thing, the good thing, the American thing to do?

    This country is founded upon tolerance.  In 1776, almost all of the European countries were pretty poor examples of tolerance.  In the UK, you couldn't vote if you were Catholic.  In Spain, you ran the risk of the Inquisition if you were Protestant.  In Turkey, your life was closely scrutinized and subject to special taxes if you were Christian. Everywhere Jews had few or no rights.

    In America, things were little better.  Nine of the thirteen colonies had established churches: Anglicanism from Maryland South, Congregationalism in three of the New England states.  But the founders of this country were a different generation.  They had to fuse thirteen distinct societies into one, and couldn't let religious bigotry stand in their way.  They brought down the established churches, one after the other, and made America a Free Faith Zone -- you could believe what you liked, as you liked, any religion or philosophy whatsoever, and the government wouldn't intervene.

    It was a remarkable period in history.  Unhappily, it didn't last long.  Fundamentalists of a sort existed then, as now, and they began a campaign to wrest America from its founding ideals.  They couldn't set up established churches; but they could create monocultural communities from which anything strange or new was banned; they couldn't create obvious religious tests, but they could pass laws which tried to impose the practice of certain religious holidays, language, customs on everybody, to let Catholics and Jews and Muslims and atheists and anybody else know that they weren't wanted.

    That's the kind of American some half of the country grew up in and wants to universalize: to let everybody who doesn't belong to the "right religion" know that they don't belong here, that they're not "real Americans".  They don't care that they're flouting the ideals of the founders; they just want to assert their own superiority.  Having little to brag of themselves, intellectually, physically, or morally, they want a law that will declare themselves first-class citizens and everyone else second-class; otherwise they can have no pride.  Because half of America can't look themselves in the mirror, the other half has to suffer.

    Maybe Jesus would have disapproved.  Maybe he wouldn't; things were pretty tense in matters of religion in old-time Israel in the days of the Roman Empire.  But it doesn't matter.  What matters is what's right today.  And for people who have nothing to brag about except membership in an amorphous majority group to kick dirt in the faces of our minorities, religious and otherwise, because they can't feel adequate otherwise, is just wrong: unethical, immoral, and un-American.

  by WIds on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:33:39 PM PST

  •  Sadly

    I'm not sure it's "un-American."  It should be.

    by AllanTBG on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:39:04 PM PST

  •  Still, don't believe Jesus would tolerate

    the hypocrisy.

    by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:13:27 PM PST

•  Congress should open with "America, F$&* Yeah!"

  Followed up by some F-14's roaring overhead with the Top Gun theme playing.

  Forget prayer.

  by paleoamerican on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:34:04 PM PST

  •  freedom ain't free

    it' costs a buck oh-five.

    by pacified on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:36 PM PST

    •  Or...

      ...tree-fiddy.

      by Ari Mistral on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:00:20 PM PST

  •  I hear ya!

    No F-14s though, it would be F-22s. And the Sergeant-At-Arms shoots a shotgun! Why not? God bless America!

    Anyway I am really glad to see competition for "religion of the realm". When it comes down do the wire - what is the difference between these protesters and any other religious hard-liners?

    Christian hard-right == Al-Qeada with SUVs

    by jebidiam on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:31 PM PST

•  I'm anything BUT religious, but

  I'm pretty sure that 12 years of unsuccessful Catholic indoctrination taught me that the Judeo-Christian god's name is God, not Jesus.

  by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:35:07 PM PST

  •  Depends on your language, doesn't it?

    by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:14:25 PM PST

    •  last time I checked these wingnuts were

      speaking English.

      (are you suggesting that there is a language within which the name of Jesus and God are the same?)

      by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:19:06 PM PST

•  Now if only Jesus would turn all

  the oil into wine, watch how fast that bunch would become agnostics.

  by java4every1 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:07 PM PST

•  Dear Operation Save America

  To: [e-mail]
  Subject: I'd like to help
  Dear Operation Save America,

  I'd like to help our beloved United States of America recover from the tremendous injury it has sustained due to the actions of extremists who don't understand what has made this country great.

  Specifically, I am referring to the actions of your organization and all other poisons like it.

  "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."
  ~Luke 6:37~

  I'd like to save America too, but I think you all are going about it the wrong way. Have you read your religious text? I have, and I have learned a great deal from it. Please let me know how I can be of help - it sounds like you could use it.

  P.S. You are forgiven for your organization's irreverent actions in the Senate today.

  by iamkirinlemon on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:37:03 PM PST

  •  your p.s. is priceless...nt

    priceless

    by 73rd virgin on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:05:22 PM PST

•  I thought the name "Flip"...

  was reserved for perverse 50's game show hosts?

  by oderint dum metuant on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:37:17 PM PST

  •  60s and 70s, my dear.

    I remember Mr. Wilson well, and I wasn't alive in the '50s.

    The Devil made me buy this dress!

    by Tracker on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:49:41 PM PST

•  When are Americans going to get

  seriously angry amout the lunatics that are turning the country into a nation seemingly based on hate-mongering and religious lunacy?

  by global citizen on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:37:45 PM PST

•  I'm on the list for AFA and they do a

  newsletter.  They've been complaining bitterly that this HINDU was asked to give the invocation.  They had  a poll about it last week, and I don't have to tell you what the result of that poll was.

  Today I got the newsletter, and their headline was, "Hindu shouted down while offering opening prayer for Senate session"

  "A Hindu chaplain from Nevada was shouted down before and during his prayer to open up the U.S. Senate this morning."

  They failed to mention that it was decoys that they placed in the gallery.

  by nupstateny on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:38:21 PM PST

•  I had no idea they though Jesus was God

  Well, either they're a superb troll group or utterly insane.

  by danger durden on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:24 PM PST

•  I'm an atheist.

  I would never disrespect the beliefs  of others. These so-called Christians need to bone up on ther Bible. They are an embarrasment to our country and what it stands for. Of course, so is Bush!

  by kitebro on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:25 PM PST

•  I'm always amazed at the insecurity of Christian

  fundamentalists...They are so hell-bent on being right that any acknowledgement of another belief system puts them over the edge.  I pity the fuckers as much as I dislike them.

  by darthstar on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:46 PM PST

  •  Mostly agree except

    I do not pity them because they would have no pity for me.

    by calipygian on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:41:30 PM PST

•  As a Christian I'm offended.

  This scene was pure bigotry.

  by Me on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:43:01 PM PST

•  Why are there prayers in Congress?

  Hindu or otherwise? I've never heard of a job where there's a prayer at the beginning of the day. Why is the Congress any different?

  Maybe we can have a fundamentalist Imam in there, preaching about how the infidels' necks will be put to the sword and their souls lowered into the great furnace. That would be pay per view material right there, just to see the reaction of the holy rollers and on FOX. It'd be worth it.

  by marshmallow on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:43:15 PM PST

  •  yeah, funny how "That damn piece of paper" says..

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

    And yet Congress kicks off it daily "business" with a prayer.  

    Nothing about a daily prayer that would lead one to believe the government is trying to advance religion.  Suuuuuuuuure.

    by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:24 PM PST

    •  As said below..

      It's been happening since the first Congress.  I guess the guys who wrote that piece of paper didn't know what they meant ;)

      by Me on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:44 PM PST

    •  What they were against was ONE

      religion. They didn't want a Church of England kind of thing going on. It was not meant to protect the government from all religion; it was intended to protect religion from government (imho).

      But that is what makes this so bad, because the protestors DO want Christianity to be the state religion.

      by se portland on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:23:02 PM PST

      •  you're right abouyt the one religion aspect

        But the way the Constitution is applied, the government is prohibited from promoting ANY religion.  Even if it's promoting 15 of em.

        I don't see how a sanctioned prayer in the Senate is not the promotion of a religion when the Supreme Court has said that a student led prayer at a football game is.

        Just how many parts of our government don't have to respect the Constitution?  I'm losing count.

        by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:29:10 PM PST

  •  The Congressional prayer...

    dates back to the opening of Congress as well as the chaplain.  Hard to argue with the guys who voted in the Establishment Clause in the first place to say that this is a violation of it.

    by Me on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:43 PM PST

    •  Of course those originally guys

      also said a "negro" was worth 3/5 of a white guy.

      And women?  Forget about em.

      So really, is an "originalist" argument something that we really want to rest current practice on?

      by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:54:18 PM PST

      •  I think it's helpful

        But that said, I also think it's a harmless tradition, which tempers my views.

        by Me on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:01:30 PM PST

        •  well

          as the clip shows, the tradition was "harmless" until the brown people started bringing "their" "god" to the Senate chamber.

          I'm sure Hindus around the country feel very much a part of the American fabric this evening.

          Harmless.  Heh.

          by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:07:43 PM PST

          •  The prayer itself wasn't the harm.

            Which I am sure was of great pride to the Hindu practitioners.  It was the nuts who protested it that caused the harm through their bigotry.

            by Me on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:19:11 PM PST

            •  No prayer

              no nuts to shout about it.

              by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:20:55 PM PST

      •  Sigh

        I really hate the 3/5 trope, because people never seem to understand it. Let me ask you something.

        If one side wanted to count a "negro" as a full person, which side would you think it would be? The North, right?

        Nope.

        The South wanted to count slaves as full people, to increase their representation in the House. The North didn't want to count them at all, so as to decrease the South's representation and thus increase, relatively, the effective influence of each Northern representative.

        And it wasn't applied to "negros", but to slaves. There were free black people in the North even at the time of the founding.

        (Neither side wanted 3/5. That was a compromise.)

        by dconrad on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:15:21 PM PST

        •  you are correct

          My comment wasn't a disparagement of the South, it was an indictment of an entire generation, that, great as it was in so many ways, was also incredibly blind to basic human rights in many others.

          Considering that slavery included no whites (although there was indentured servitude, but those bound to it were counted as "Full" persons") the 3/5 compromise was certainly a racist policy.

          by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:20:28 PM PST

          •  Yup, and I wasn't defending the South

            Just trying to get historical facts out there that are frequently misunderstood. Most would probably think that it would be the North that would have wanted everyone counted, and the South that wouldn't.

            Also, my other point wasn't that slaves weren't black, just that not all blacks were slaves.

            by dconrad on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:10:32 PM PST

      •  yup

        they weren't perfect.  But it is still silly to pretend they were anti-religion and since the majority of people in this country are religious, beating your head against the wall trying to remove fairly meaningless acts from public life seems like a waste of time and effort.

        by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:20:06 PM PST

        •  who's beating their head?

          But I won't call any interjection of religion into government "meaningless." Every religious act by government subverts the idea that our government is of no religion and promotes no religion.

          by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:22:41 PM PST

          •  well said. n/t

            by inertiac on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:43:49 PM PST

        •  Meaningless acts

          Meaningless acts like the Congressional prayer and the words `under god' in the Pledge of allegiance create a context in which the free expression of creed or absence of creed is more difficult. The Congress explicitly favors religion over non-religion by opening its acts with a religious gesture, and I think that gives religion a place in lawmaking that it does not deserve.

          For whatever it is worth, it is mainly the religious who view these acts as meaningless, sometimes as a way of defending their continuance, while the non-religious accord to them somewhat more significance.

          Finally, that a majority want something is not an argument for the something. A majority supported the Iraq war, and a majority were badly wrong in that.

          by xylon on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:37:03 PM PST

    •  It's a bad idea

      As evidenced by this unfortunate event. It may or may not violate the Establishment Clause, but either way, it's time to get rid of it.

      by dconrad on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:09:30 PM PST

  •  That would be an instant classic, hell

    I'd actually tune into Faux News just to watch them start speaking in tongues and handling snakes trying to purify themselves of the Imam's invocation.

    by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:14:07 PM PST

•  mcjoan! Don't you dare get me started on this!!

  Christianity, more often than not, in the 21st century, does NOT live up to the definition of its name!

  The idea behind freedom of religion is lost on these dumbasses.  In order to keep their religion free from meddlesome assholes, they must cease in being meddlesome assholes when it comes to the religion of others.  Mr. Rogers 101!

  by JuniperLea on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:44:05 PM PST

  •  But...

    ...said assholes believe Mr. Rogers was a commielib wuss.

    by Ari Mistral on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:59:02 PM PST

    •  Maybe I should have said...

      Captain Kangaroo 101... he was a war hero, you know.  

      by JuniperLea on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:38:41 PM PST

      •  Marines, right?

        And a Dartmouth grad! Hoo-ah!

        (or to be politically incorrect, wah-hoo-wah!)

        by Ari Mistral on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 04:36:26 AM PST

•  I'm so glad we've solve all the REAL problems

  and have time to get violent and argue about whose Magic Sky Wizard is supreme and such.

  Remind me please, what good comes from religion that I can't get from a large dose of chocolate?

  by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:45:51 PM PST

  •  chocolate and...

    there's something else that produces the same chemical effect...

    wink wink, nudge nudge... say no more!

    by Hey BB on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:56:37 PM PST

    •  A nice brisk walk?

      I'm sure you mean a nice brisk walk.

      Couldn't possibly imagine anything else.

      by fromer on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:00:08 PM PST

      •  cold shower

        abstain from comment, abstain from comment, abstain from comment.

        IT IS FOR PROCREATION NOT RECREATION!!!

        by Hey BB on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:04:15 PM PST

  •  Shoot.

    All you need to do is join my Star Trek club. :D

    by Ari Mistral on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:58:16 PM PST

•  Reminds me

  what a good idea would be to reintroduce creationism to the public schools.

  As long as they teach the Aztec version....

  by dluebke on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:45:57 PM PST

•  Jesus would make a whip out of chords

  and chase the money changers out. (I think the Hindu would be safe)

  But there might be some senators in a whole lot of trouble!

  Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, John 2:8

  Sidenote: Heh. Ironically I found a nice lil page with some interpretations:

  Source:  public christian

  He was expressing outrage at the misuse of religion in the service of greed, and at the abuse of the common people for the same purpose.

  by Hey BB on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:47:35 PM PST

•  I looked at their website

  And it was hard to distinguish the comic Landover Baptist from Operation Save America.

  "These precious moms have brought sheer terror to Satan’s little kingdom in Bridgeport, Connecticut." This caption from a photo of an antiabortion group.  Cute.

  They won't abide Plan B, smoking, drinking or the very thought that Wal-Mart is "straying" from Sam Walton's version of King Jesus.  Vision? Version? Who the hell knows?

  These people think they are the last small hope before the rapture occurs. Typical radical thinking- that they are a select group of the special people club and are sooo persecuted.  The rest of the world  just doesn't understand the truth, so they say.

  I looked at the clip of the Hindu prayer and listened to those goofballs shouting and interrupting.  What was it about Jesus saying Blessed are the peacemakers?  I don't think he said, Blessed are the assholes who irritate the crap out of those around them and give my religion a bad name.

  by offred on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:48:03 PM PST

  •  I sent them an e-mail saying that

    if their God is offended by a Hindu giving the invocation in the Senate then he is a weak-ass God indeed.

    by calipygian on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:56:55 PM PST

  •  No.

    It's "blessed are the cheesemakers." At least, that's what I heard.

    by Ari Mistral on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:57:32 PM PST

    •  Those who make cheese are so much

      more reasonable.

      A guy I worked with when I was an electrican (there are a lot of colorful folk on a construction site) found the perfect substitute for the Lord's name in vain:

      "Cheese and Rice!"

      Say it five times fast, and you'll never piss God off again by screaming at his son.

      by snafubar on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:28:00 PM PST

•  Isn't there some piece of paper somewhere

  that guarantees the freedom of religion?

  :::::

  by nowheredesign on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:48:34 PM PST

•  Hate Speach

  were they arrested?

  by ca democrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:26 PM PST

  •  because they are the "right" radicals

    I really really doubt it.

    by jebidiam on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:58:09 PM PST

•  I wanna hurl.

  by Chas56 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:49 PM PST

•  Zed still peachs

  Hey there, guy.

  Rabbi Zed.

  I would just like to take a minute to perform a puja.

  Holi is the flag cloverally.

  Redneck, redneck, redneck, redneck, redneck.  You live in the desert with Winona Ryder and Ronald Reagan Junior but think we're wrong.

  Serbia is groaning at everyone.

  It has the impression Flip Benham is a monstrous dictator.

  Flip Benham saves their lives from homicide by the terrorists.

  Change the channel to something without the line.

  by Save The Iriomote Cat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:50:58 PM PST

•  Jesus is God

  I'm surprised so many people in this thread are confused about this. Even if you're an atheist like me you should know this stuff. Of course Jesus is God. He's also the Son of God. God is also Jesus. And the Holy Spirit. They're all wrapped together. There was some confusion over this a long time ago but a whole lot of people were killed and tortured so we have it the way it is today. Unless you're a Unitarian...

  by marshmallow on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:51:40 PM PST

  •  yea but

    This is no reason to hold back on shooting firearms in the air in the Senate chamber - when necessary of course. Only when the BS level gets too high.

    by jebidiam on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:09:28 PM PST

  •  nicely done--you know more about it

    than a lot of Christians.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:09:32 PM PST

  •  And I am.

    Unitarian, that is. Not God. ;D

    by Ari Mistral on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:56:56 PM PST

•  What did Mahatma Gandhi say ?

  Here is something interesting (and humorous) he said ... "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

  How true in this case.

  by nataraj on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:52:13 PM PST

  •  to "what do you think of western civilization"

    he said that "it was a nice idea."  He was a wise and brave man.  Too bad there isn't anybody alive in America of that calibre to lead us out of our current mess.

    by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:17:56 PM PST

    •  Brave is right.

      It is very easy to convince people with "eye for an eye" rhetoric. Jungle justice is natural to humans - that is why people with hatred have always commanded such easy following. But getting people to follow your non-violent ideas is difficult - that is why Jesus, Budha and Gandhi are great. Too bad followers of Jesus didn't / don't always appreciate this aspect of Jesus.

      by nataraj on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:25:42 PM PST

      •  Albert Einstein said something to the effect

        that in 100 years (or more I can't remember) people would look back and not believe such a great man walked the earth.  Testament to his greatness from another enlightened and peaceful man.

        by rrheard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:48:30 PM PST

•  Disgusting, heartbreaking and

  infuriating.

  But I’m guessing a Hindu would object to what I would have done had I been in the gallery. Let’s just say they wouldn’t have needed the Sergeant at Arms to escort those intolerant bastards out.

  I want my damn country back.

  by The Eyewitness Muse on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:53:42 PM PST

•  I'm a Christian, but

  don't know why they were all up in arms about Jesus.

  Doesn't Congress have rabbis giving the opening prayer without disruption?

  by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:55:42 PM PST

  •  google is my friend

    Guest chaplains are allowed to give the opening prayer twice a month, and some of them have definitely been rabbis.

    In 1860, Rabbi Morris Jacob Raphall became the first Jewish clergyman to pray at the opening of a House session.  In 1961 Rabbi Arnold S. Turetsky of New York was the first to introduce Hebrew into the Congressional Record.

    a quick search also found these other names:

    Rabbi Gary P. Zola

    Rabbi Paul Silton

    Rabbi Levi Shemtov

    Rabbi Melvyn May

    I assume these rabbis did not pray in the name of Jesus Christ, and further assume these fundy wignuts (but I repeat myself) didn't object, shout out or otherwise protest.

    In 1992 Imam Wallace D. Mohammed was the first Muslim to offer the opening invocation.  Every now and then some nut on C-Span will claim that Allah is not the same God as the Christian God--I know these folks hate education but can't they even get the facts about the Abrahamic religious traditions right?

    Even cooler than that, Answers.com says that a Native American holy man brought his peace pipe to open a Senate session in 1971.

    All I can ask is PLEASE don't judge all Christians by the actions of these wingnuts!  Progressive Christians like me do exist!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:33:29 PM PST

•  Second time I am writing this today:

  Oh fer fuck's sake!!!

  It is activities like these that make me want to support Freedom FROM religion even more than freedom OF religion!! And I really hate to think like that as I know that so many wonderful people do get so much out of their faith and I so want them to have the freedom to express that. But this insane desire to CONVERT and FORCE a specific faith on others is just so...UN-Christian!! GO AWAY. PLEASE.

  by SanDiegoDem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:59:18 PM PST

  •  one out of three

    I feel the same as you but apparently about 30% of the US will never listen to reason. We should take advantage of these fools. After 2008 let's form a "God's Army" that will be promised to "do God's wrath" but actually they will build public works.

    Heh.

    I guess that is pretty hitler-ish. Ok, no-go for that. But still, they seem pretty easily led. Yes? No?

    by jebidiam on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:22:24 PM PST

•  I'm going to throw up.

  That's one of the most disgusting statements I've ever seen. "Sacred Chambers"? "Remind the Hindu that there is one God who made this country great, and his name is Jesus"?

  by mike3k on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:00:11 PM PST

•  And he gave such a nice prayer. I feel

  so bad for him. Can we do something nice for him? Send him some flowers or something?

  by flumptytail on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:01:09 PM PST

  •  Maybe we could organize a Save the Hindu,

    Save the World movement, flumptytail. I keep hearing something like that about a cheerleader or some such. In all seriousness, there should be some way that we could apologize. Any ideas anyone? An appropriate web site?

    by mcmom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:21:55 PM PST

  •  Because of this

    More people will see his prayer than would have other wise.
    Nice job there, Operation Save America

    I know I mute C-SPAN if I am watching when they have an invocation.

    by EvilPaula on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:46:01 PM PST

•  Shoes of the Fisherman

  The movie, Shoes of the Fisherman, made a great statement.  The protagonist, became Pope after having been parish priest imprisoned in the Soviet gulag.  He escaped the Vatican one evening, having felt the need to get out among "normal" people.  He was in a pharmacy when a physician came hastily in anxiously looking for medications.  The pope (played by Anthony Quinn) engaged the Dr. in conversation.  She was about to make a call on a family whose patriarch was dying and needed medical attention.  He insinuated himself and went along.  The family had gathered around the old dying man.

  The pope moved closer and began to administer last rites.  A family member was able to catch the pope's attention to tip to him that this family was Jewish, not Catholic.  He very seamlessly continued, delivering the appropriate Jewish rites, much to the comfort of the family.

  Had he been a "good Christian" like Rev. Flip, this priest’s  response would have been different, but in my estimation Jesus’ response, were he there, would much more closely resemble that of the Pope in the movie.  

  It's clear from history (not reinvented history) that the founding fathers, some deists but none very religious and all careful to separate church and state, would be in agreement.

  I think the hijacking of Christianity began just about the time it became knows as "Christianity" and continues today.

  So many religionists seem intent on drawing boundaries around themselves and being "exclusive." Careful analysis of what was recorded about the late J. Christ of biblical fame pretty much demonstrates him to be virtually all inclusive.

  by AllanTBG on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:07:29 PM PST

•  One of the Many Ironies

  ... of this is that his prayer didn't contain anything a Christian clergyman couldn't or wouldn't have said.

  And I bet the Rev. Flipper Billy Joe Jim Bob likes to pick up rough trade in public restrooms.

  by fergusblackdog on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:14:41 PM PST

•  With "Christians" like these, who needs enemies?

  First off, why a prayer in the first place, that too from a minority group in the US? Shouldn't The Senate be free of religion? I am concerned that this ignorant family's actions will make its way through the internets and create more furor.

  Tolerance is something this family has obviously never learned. Some wise man said, "tolerance of what you like is easy, but to tolerate what you don't like is the mark of a learned person".

  What we all need is freedom from religion.

  by technolinguist on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:19:49 PM PST

•  As A Left-Wing Christian

  ... I'm very embarrassed by this.

  by K Bomb on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:25:16 PM PST

  •  And we salute you as the beginning of the road

    to heal this devision.

    Only when more people like yourself recognize that such ultimate orthodoxy can only lead to the complete splintering of this country, can we find a way to keep us one solid tree.

    As an atheist, I will also strive to politely ask those extremists of my breed to put down the megaphones and stop bitching about inane minutia such as the pledge of allegiance and see if we still cant find one country where we can all live in peace.

    by snafubar on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:23:47 PM PST

•  As a Catholic, I say bring on the light! Forget

  the pope.

  by JugOPunch on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:25:57 PM PST

•  God told me

  To kick your *ss! Isn't that what got us into Iraq?

  by paleo101 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:29:32 PM PST

•  For some people

  the Dark Ages never ended. But then again, I'm with Tom Paine who was way ahead of his time, and still far ahead of ours.

  He opposed slavery in the 1700s and thought the our country should outgrow the childish notion of religious superstition.

  by Rayk on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:38:58 PM PST

  •  His book

    The Age of Reason is both fantastic and available on-line.

    Please, take Rayk's (and my) advice and read a little Paine. Paine is good for the soul, or didn't you go to Catholic school?

    by evilpenguin on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:49:40 PM PST

•  These "Christians" are un-American

  there is one God who made this country great, and his name is Jesus.... When one stands up in the face of gross idolatry being allowed in the Senate, in the chamber of the United States Senate, it is incumbent on a Christian to stand up and speak the truth. No matter what, we must obey God rather than men.

  That heathen Thomas Jefferson, who knew nothing about how America could be great, said of differing religious opinions: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

  by Rayk on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:41:33 PM PST

•  Aaaaaannnddd shit like this is why

  I pulled the plug on "christianity" as a belief system and joined my local UU (Unitarian Universalist) group. Couldn't be happier since I did.

  by Oregon guy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:42:39 PM PST

  •  Applause!

    Same here...and sorry: I have nothing but contempt for these people and what passes for a lot of Christianity  in this country.

    by Ari Mistral on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:55:37 PM PST

  •  Hail, fellow UUer!

    by Pandoras Box on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:02:49 AM PST

•  You know...

  ... the sooner America marginalizes those deceptively named "Christian" groups that pervert and twist the Bible for political gain, the better off America will be. This is just more proof alongside the abortion clinic bombings and the "Christian" politicans that don't practice what they preach. Am I right, or am I right?

  by ferrarimanf355 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:50:31 PM PST

  •  I say every church in America

    should have to pass a yearly review by a panel of impartial observers (by which I mean atheists, of course) in order to maintain their status as a church or religion, with all the perks and benefits that implies.

    I assure you, we would be scrupulously fair.  Seriously.  But we would weed out the crazies like this bunch.  I suggest the review panel should debate on whether the group in question does anything to improve, in a tangible way, the lives of their members.  And of course, they can't be hypocrites.

    by Kingsmeg on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:45:24 PM PST

•  Concerned Women for America's state,emt

  Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America Policy Director for Cultural Issues, told LifeSiteNews.com, "The fact that the Senate would have a Hindu priest give the opening prayer in the senate just shows how far our nation has deviated from the original vision of our founding fathers." He continued, "The historical record is clear and indisputable that she was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that our founding fathers were Christian men, and that our nation is a Christian nation."

  "It begs the question, which one of the million or so gods that the Hindu religion recognizes was this gentleman praying to? Which one were the Senators supposed to recognize when they bowed their heads to pray?"

  by greendem on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:53:00 PM PST

•  I was raised catholic

  and turned radically anti organized religion and now find the Hindu religion to be the closest thing to my personal beliefs! I think most 'organized religions' require you to obey with out questioning a human usually male authority figure and makes you use ancient texts as a explanation of the universe.A perfect mindset for blind obedience and pig ignorance, the evangelical part makes them even more dangerous. If these people had there way we would be back in the middle ages where they seem to be trying to take us now.

  by shaharazade on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:55:06 PM PST

•  Don't y'all remember the Rev. Flip Benham???

  He is the guy who converted Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) to speak against abortion

  *just a note.  After hearing Norma McCorvey speak and read more about her, she does not appear to have been a strong person, and someone else should have been used for the test case...she was used by everyone.

  by EvilPaula on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:56:45 PM PST

•  "Lead us from the unreal to the real..."

  Beautiful words, and so appropriate at this time and at this moment.

  Far, far better to have this - if religion we must - than to have those yokels in the background howling like desert dogs.

  by The Raven on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:09:24 PM PST

•  It's astonishing

  that in the ten thousand years or so that civilization has existed, so many people haven't learned that it's possible they might not know absolutely everything.

  by MyBrainWorks on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:15:46 PM PST

•  GOP - just lost the mega-Hindu vote!!

  after having lost the Latino,
  after having lost the Black,
  after having lost the Women,
  after having lost the Jew,
  after having lost the Gay,
  after having lost the Native American,
  ...,
  Wait a minute, who's left? umm..
  there's GWB
  there's Cheney
  there's Sara Taylor
  there's Miers
  there's Lieberman
  there's Flip Benham...
  and a few more rats you can count on your fingers and toes..

  by LibertyGuard on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:41:58 PM PST

•  Yoohoo. In cas you didn't know it Rev. Benham,

  there are about a billion Hindus praying in India right now.  Better get on a plane and get busy.

  by illinifan17 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:08:02 PM PST

•  I'm still waiting

  for the Senate to have a minister from my church (FSM) to lead prayers...of course, we'd probably have to toss out those worshipers of that horrible Invisible Pink Unicorn...

  by onanyes on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:11:01 PM PST

  •  Re:

    I must be a pantheist, as I revere both the Invisible Pink Unicorn, (PBUH) and the FSM

    rAmen

    by EvilPaula on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:44:49 PM PST

•  This is pretty sad

  This one is sad to me on a lot of levels, and not just because I'm of hindu descent...btw, I'm also Jewish and can point out that we never use the term "Judeo-Christian" ;)  - it came up in that "Concerned Women of America" quote earlier.

  Maybe it's best that things like this happen in public with the camera's watching and we can publicly shame more religious moderates into distancing themselves from such people....

  by catsynth on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:47:29 PM PST

  •  Re: Hindu prayer

    I didn't see anything in that very non-denominational prayer that my Christian mother or my Jewish daughter would object to.

    These fundies are just bigots.

    by Anthony Segredo on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 07:08:53 PM PST

•  Jesus wouldn't have cared.

  Fundies just don't pay any attention to Jesus.  WHy should they suddenly start now?

  I wonder if this doofus knows that Hinduism is actually monotheistic, that all the gods are merely aspects of the One manifesting itself to finite humans.  Probably not. They don't know much about the history of their own damned faith (ask them abotu Nicea sometime or the doctrine of election; msot will look at you blankly) so why should they know about anyone else's?

  by irishwitch on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:05:23 PM PST

•  This diary is too mild a response.

  Start calling these people what they are:
  sick, obsessed, presumptuous assholes.

  by Wildthumb on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:09:35 PM PST

•  So,

  when will the U.S. Senate get an Asatru prayer?

  Or are only some non-Christian religions worthy enough to be considered major religions, but not others?

  And who makes that decision, and why?

  Just wonderin'.

  by canyonrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:44:52 PM PST

•  What Christian right?

  There is nothing about these people that is either Christian or Right. Jesus Christ commanded his followers to love and forgive their neighbors and family. The "Christian Right" in this country preaches hate and fear. The word "Right" is most commonly defined as "Correct". What is correct about religious bigotry and fearmongering?

  I've said it before and I'll say it again:

  There is No Such Thing as the "Christian Right"

  by drewfromct on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:03:51 PM PST

•  Christianity defies Democracy freedom and liberty

  At the end of the day we are faced with a fundamental (and irreconcilable) contradiction of the thinking of Christians in this country.

  They incessantly brag that this country was founded on the principle of freedom of expression; yet having achieved that freedom to express their beliefs they believe the concept has fulfilled it's purpose and can (and should) be denied to anyone else who does not feel the same way.

  There is no easy way to reconcile with a person who feels that God is personally making sure that only they have the right answers, but unless we find a way (and the sooner the better) we are going to tear this country apart.

  by snafubar on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:18:54 PM PST

•  They'll sing a different tune...

  ...when Shiva kicks their asses.

  I'm sorry about that. I'm not really that insensitive. But as someone who thinks all of these belief systems are just that: beliefs, not realities, I find this depressing.

  I think we invent religions for the same reasons we invent governments and we make up stories. Our brains just aren't up to snuff. And I don't hold any more with atheists who claim that they are "above needing the crutch" of religion. They have their own crutches as well.

  For most of us, the primary crutch is how we ignore the fact that each day, each time the earth turns our face back to the sun is one day closer to our own inevitable death. That's right: you are going to die. And so am I. And so is President Bush and Dick Cheney and the frozen head of Walt Disney.

  Now it may be true that we have a spirit. A soul. And it may be called to sit at the right hand of Jesus, or cast into a lake of fire, or it may return as an animal (I'm hoping for a dog. They are so much better than we are) or we may simply vanish from the universe like a candle flame that has wicked its last drop of wax.

  Do these people really think that being rude to someone is going to make the difference between heaven and hell?

  I also resent the statement that the US Senate is a "sacred chamber." It is most emphatically a secular chamber (if not quite a profane chamber) and it had best remain so.

  Of all the stupid things we get bent out of shape over as we are busy ignoring our headlong rush to our own deaths (did I mention they are inevitable?), this has got to be one of the most stupid. Right up there with acne and "So You Think You Can Dance?"

  Some things I have done instead of insulting foreigners or sticking my nose into othe people's bedrooms that have brought me more pleasure than either, without necessarily bringing enlightenment:

  1. Bake cookies.

  2. Pick horse manure out of our horse's stalls

  3. Pick pea pods

  4. Washed hands between 2 & 3

  5. Sang a song

  6. Pet Freja, my Great Dane

  7. Made love to my wife

  8. Nothing (and nothing is really something. Try it!)

  9. Talked to a stranger until he was my friend

  10. Repeated the word "bacon" out loud until it lost all meaning

  11. Listened to a thunderstorm

  12. Ate my own cooking

  And that's just a dozen. I keep doing such things and I find I'm much happier. I'm just guessing, but I suspect I'm much happier than Rev. Flip and his followers.

  by evilpenguin on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:47:37 PM PST

•  It is reported in the Gospels that

  Jesus said that there is none good save God alone.

  Good Christian is an oxymoron, a total contradiction in terms.  

  Even though the United States, the Repugnant Party and the Religious Reich hold the copyright on the word good these days.

  by grada3784 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:01:24 AM PST

•  Proving yet again...

  ...'Christians' are assholes...

  by jack rance on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 04:33:43 AM PST

•  Obeying the written word

  They are claiming to follow the Ten Commandments.
  The first commandment, before translation, names God.  It's not Jesus Christ. (Supplement with John 3:17)
  The Roman Emperor Theodosius decreed that Christians would no longer observe the Jewish Sabbath but would worship on the Lord's Day, Sunday.
  The Pope accepted this in return for the Pagan office of Pontifex Maximus, previously held by the emperors includung Nero and Caligula.  These actions are recorded in the open Vatican chronicles.(It is often remarked that in Spanish, Saturday is still Sabado, the Sabbath)
  The commandment, usually accepted as banning idol worship, bans all man made images, sculpture, paintings, grandmas portrait.
  Those who wish to impose their own (or any) theocratic ideologies on the rest of us should know what they are doing first. Even then, it is still unconstitutional.

  by Bahrfeldt on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 04:50:37 AM PST

•  Um, Jesus isn't God in any religion I know of.

  Part of the holy trinity is something I've heard.  Son of God, heard that too.  Not God though.  Is this a new strain of Christianity?

  by genethefiend on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:20:58 AM PST

•  Jesus called

  He told me these people were fucking assholes, and he was embarassed for them.

  by Stop It on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:51:20 AM PST