On dispelling common misconceptions.

There’s a common misperception among many Christians upset about the various Decalogue monument lawsuits being filed around the country that the plaintiffs in these suits are always atheists or, at a minimum, aren’t Christians. Robert Frey provides a perfect example of this misperception in his response to me the other day when he said, “Moore was simply exercising his freedom of speech and certain of your little groupies didnt like it so they sued.” He was speaking about the lawsuit over the monument installed in the Alabama State Supreme Court building by former judge Roy Moore and the implication in his statement is clear: If it weren’t for you atheists, there never would’ve been a lawsuit. In my reply I pointed out the fact that the three people who enlisted the ACLU in filing the lawsuit were, in fact, Christians. A Roman Catholic and two Southern Baptists, to be exact. Rather than being an exception to the rule this actually turns out to be fairly common yet the perception that it’s always the actions of whiny atheists that bring these lawsuits about is rather rampant.

Take, for example, the fight over a Ten Commandments display in Habersham County, Georgia. One of the two plaintiffs in this case is 70 year old Pastor Bo Turner and he explains that he filed suit because of his belief that the display violates the separation of church and state. Pastor Turner is used to ruffling feathers and has spoken up on a number of issues he’s considered important and this has made him rather unpopular at times. This lawsuit has brought him a chilly reception by many and at least two death threats. A response that is unfortunately all too common which is why so many plaintiffs ask to remain anonymous in these cases.

But Turner has to say what he feels. He said it’s his duty as a Christian to speak out when he sees any injustice done and to try to help fix it any way he can.

  Because he does believe one thing – he believes he’ll face a day of judgment.

  And as his life on Earth faces its divine scrutiny, Turner doubts the questions will center around what he did.

  Instead, Turner’s sure his God will want to know about all the things he didn’t.

Reading the profile on Pastor Turner left me impressed with his approach to his religious beliefs. Among other things he encourages his congregation to think for themselves rather than just blindly follow. For those so inclined, a little searching will net you lots of other separation lawsuits that were filed by Christians rather than atheists which puts the lie to this common misperception.

The reason folks like Robert Frey are so eager to promote the idea that these lawsuits are almost always filed by atheists who hate the Ten Commandments and what they supposedly stand for is rather simple: It’s hard to argue that there’s an anti-Christian motivation behind the lawsuit if the person filing it happens to be a Christian. It’s so much easier to paint atheists as being anti-Christian because most folks tend to think that’s the case already. It’s also easier to cast the argument as being an attack on Christianity rather than an issue of keeping the government unbiased in matters of religion. Folks like Frey are so eager to have government promote their ideological viewpoint as much as possible that they are willing to misrepresent the issue in order to achieve their goals. They engage in deceptive practices and deliberately ignore the facts for what they believe is the greater good of their cause.

This is called “lying” by most people and is referred to in the Ten Commandments as “bearing false witness.” The hypocrisy of violating one of the Ten Commandments in order to try and promote them should be pretty obvious to most reasonable people, Christian or not.

46 thoughts on “On dispelling common misconceptions.

  1. Atheists also get a bad rap in these cases because of the shit-head that lives out here, in my city in fact, Mike Newdow.

    This guy, in many interviews, used his daughter as the reason for his latest lawsuit.  Fact is, his daughter doesn’t even live with him.  She lives with her mother, a devout Christian.  While I may agree that it may violate the division, based on the fact that many religions believe in God, in many forms, I don’t find it as forcing religion on anyone.

    When I was in the 6th grade, there was one boy who didn’t believe and he simply didn’t say the word.  Nobody chastised him for it.  It was just understood that he didn’t believe.  That was it.

    Its too bad when those that get the media attention are the ones with less than honorable motives.

    Oh yeah….. Newdow is also suing to have the laws thrown out that hold the rights of the child higher than those of the parents involved, in child custody cases.  He’s pissed that the court decided that he didn’t deserve 50/50 custody of his daughter.  When he goes around using her as a tool to further his agenda, I can’t blame them.

  2. There need to be more Christians like Pastor Turner. It’s people like him that would make for an interesting roundtable discussion, ya know? We could sit around and make fun of Frey.

  3. See also the Straw Man logical fallacy.  It is hard to believe people who are supposedly so interested in the issue can set themselves up to be rejected by such a simple flaw in reasoning.  If I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not complete idiots, my only conclusion is that they must not care that much about the issue at hand.

  4. This sounds so third-grade to me. What is it about this kind of Christian who says I am an atheist or anti-christian because I do not agree with them on any given behavior? Les, I read your reasons for it and they seem about right, but is it a level of maturity, intelligence, need for control, the elements of Christianity itself, etc. that puts these people back in third grade mentality? Anyone?

    ~ Also ~
    I don’t want to take this off topic and get into a debate over it, but Goeff Foley wrote something above that made my blood boil. He isn’t the first to say it either. That is, “This guy, in many interviews, used his daughter as the reason for his latest lawsuit. Fact is, his daughter doesn

  5. You ask a very good question, Covie. I don’t think it’s possible to nail down a single answer or two that would explain this behavior in all the people that exhibit it. Speaking in strictly generalized terms I’d say that some of the reasons for it would include issues such as an insecurity in one’s own beliefs, control issues in their personality, problems with diversity in others and so on. I’m sure there are a lot of books out there that go into the psychology of Fundamentalist attitudes, but I have really checked into them myself.

    As for Goeff’s reply there is quite a bit of debate on how much influence or claim a non-custodial parent actually has over the kids in the legal arena these days and as such he raises a valid point. Personally I tend to agree with you on that issue, but I must admit that Newdow isn’t my first choice for someone to take on the challenge that he has and that he has a tendency to be quite Fundamentalist in his attitude st times. I agree with his goal, but I disagree with some of the means he’s using to achieve it.

  6. All good and valid arguments, stated many times over and over again by reasonable people like yourself and other civil libertarians, whether they be Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Pagan or whatever. However, we might as well be talking to a brick. The people that want religion in the government or even the majority of people who don’t see any harm in it, will not ever be swayed by logic of any kind. My aquarium fish have a better understanding of the importance of the wall of separation between church and state. If I was’t an atheist I’d have a bumper sticker proclaiming “God Save Me From a Christian Nation!”

  7. Okay, I see just about everyone has jumped on the bandwagon…I’d like to play the “devil’s advocate” (no pun intended) on this one:

    1) Putting a monument of the 10 commandments in a courthouse is in no way a violation of church and state. Truth be told, this entire nation was FOUNDED on Christianity (don’t even bother arguing this one - history speaks for itself). To rip out Christianity would mean to rip out our entire system of law, justice, and the very essence of what makes America…well…America! The 10 commandments are just a reminder of this (as well as a basis for many of our laws).

    2) This whole thing about the daughter being forced to say the pledge is totally bogus as well…As many of you have said, she can choose not to say it if she wants. But the problem goes even deeper - it seems that most of you are interpreting “freedom of religion” as “freedom FROM religion.” Fortunately, THAT was never promised in our constitution. Otherwise we’d be a bunch of communists.

    Food for thought,

    Jeremy

  8. Jeremy, This country was NOT founded on Christianity! Yes, it was founded BY Christians, but not on making this a Christian nation. You seem to have forgotten that the original settlers were escaping a ‘Christian nation’ because of the bigotry of their fellow Christians and did not want this nation to turn into another Church of England. They did not want this country run by the ‘good book’ [what a contradiction in terms!].

  9. Sorry CubsFan…

    I think the founding fathers of the nation said it best:

    John Quincy Adams “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

    George Washington “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

    It is clear that our founding was for a country tolerant of religious faiths other than Christianity, and even of no faith at all; all were to be welcomed and eligible for full participation as citizens. There would be no official state religion. It was absolutely the intention, however, that the nation be one based on Judeo-Christian principles and under a Judeo-Christian God.

  10. I find it rather disingenuous that you say you wish to play devils advocate (which implies that you’re open to debate) and then make an assertion that you claim isn’t open to debate. Seeing as it’s my website I’m going to debate it anyway.

    1) Putting a monument of the 10 commandments in a courthouse is in no way a violation of church and state. Truth be told, this entire nation was FOUNDED on Christianity (don’t even bother arguing this one - history speaks for itself). To rip out Christianity would mean to rip out our entire system of law, justice, and the very essence of what makes America

  11. Looks like you responded while I was typing up my reply. It also looks like you’re a fan of David Barton’s writings on this issue as you’re parroting his viewpoints. Allow me to address the couple of points you’ve raised:

    First, John Quincy Adams was the sixth President of the United States and not a Founding Father as you claim. You’re confusing him with his father, John Adams, who was a Founding Father and not a Christian. A minor point to be sure, but still significant. David Barton cites this supposed Adams quotation in the first edition of his video tape titled Americas’s Godly Heritage and the original source for the quotation appears to be a book of quotations called The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860 by John Wingate Thornton. Finding copies of this book these days is difficult, but those that have state that the book itself doesn’t present this statement as a direct quote of Adams so much as the author’s own conclusion about Adams’ beliefs. It is not enclosed in quotation marks, it is not annotated with footnotes providing information on the date the quote was made nor is there any effort to trace it back to an original source as all the other quotations in the book are, including quotations from JQ Adam’s father. In absence of proper documentation it’s validity is questionable and David Barton dropped it from succeeding editions of his video tape.

    The quote you cite from George Washington is also dubious at best and another favorite of David Barton as it appears in his book The Myth of Separation. Barton later put out a press release that listed this quote, as well as the previous one attributed to Washington, as being “unconfirmed”. This book has since ceased being published though much of it has made its way into a later book titled Original Intent. Minus the bogus quotes, of course.

    The fact that David Barton later admitted he couldn’t trace either quote back to the original source hasn’t stopped these quotes from being popular among folks such as yourself who like to toss them around without any information on when or where there were supposedly said or what writings can be cited to support the claim.

    The truth is that if you actually study up on the quotations of the Founding Fathers than can be verified through their own writings you’ll find that most of them were Deist and not Christian, many held rather nasty opinions about Christianity (Jefferson and Paine were particularly critical) and many were hypocrites in that they felt that religion was, indeed, important as a means of keeping the “masses” lawful.

  12. Jeremy,

    If you look at the actions of the founders, both in the Continental Congress during the Revolution, and in the Constitutional Convention, and during ratification, you will see that above all else they tried to _depoliticize_ religion.

    They wanted to make darn sure that the central government could not make religious decisions for the several states - that would look too much like the British Establishment and, more importantly, the rest of the colonies were terrified that New England folks would try to impose their Congregationalist establishment in the rest of the country.

    So, they said don’t mess.  Justice O’Connor’s recent emphasis on endorsement is a good reflection of the founding impulse - government should not endorse any religion and especially not any particular sect, denomination, or subcategory of religion.

    The whole business about Christianity and the Revolution being linked was present in Sam Adams and some of the folks in the 1770s, and it was present in the 1820s and beyond as former Federalists tried to win the culture wars - it was absent during the 1780s and 1790s.  In other words, everyone BUT the founders bought it.  (and the second generation still beleived in the non-endorsement concept even though they interpreted it as a general Protestant establishment that gave the state power to discriminate against Catholics, Universalists, and minor sects.)  I digress.

    Roy’s Rock is objectionable because it is an explicit endorsement, because it endorses one particular flavor of religion (showing an edited form of the King James Bible), and because it and its installation were a de facto sectarian religious shrine placed at the focus of a presumably non-sectarian public building.

    Ted K.

  13. Maybe Jeremy should read these words from John Adams…

    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

    How ‘bout James Madison…

    “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

    “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

    and of course how could you forget Thomas Paine…

    “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. ”

    “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. ”

    I say…
    Only sheep believe this nation is based on Christinsanity!

  14. I’m disappointed that Jeremy seems to have decided not to come back and enlighten us with his knowledge. He seemed so confident earlier and I was really looking forward to hearing his undebatable historical facts, but it looks like he was just another parrot.

  15. Good grief! I log off the Internet last night at 6:30pm, and at 6:30am this morning people are screaming about me being a parrot and not responding…

    Remind me again, because I might be a little confused…is this a WEBLOG or an online chat tool?!? I’m obviously going to need a little time to read through the mass of responses sometime today and consider a reply.

    But for now, I must leave to finance this Internet connection .

  16. Jeremy, you’re not playing the Devil’s Advocate, you simply being an apologist for theocracy. You’re not alone in this. There are many, many of your fellow apologists spouting the exact same arguments out there. This is made crystal clear to us with your statement:

    “Christians can do whatever they want because what they WANT to do IS right.

    You go on to say:

    You DO have freedom FROM religion

  17. Ah, he has returned. Shame you haven’t provided any of the proofs for your claims as requested, but that’s not surprising. Still, let’s see what we can do with what you have provided.

    Good grief! I log off the Internet last night at 6:30pm, and at 6:30am this morning people are screaming about me being a parrot and not responding

  18. First of all, I’d like to revert back to Pablo’s uneducated and nonsensical viewpoint on the wall of separation (which Jeremy thinks of as a “great example”).  I’ve argued with Pablo in the past, and quite frankly, I lost interest when his last analogy lacked so much in terms of sense that I simply lost interest in the argument.

    The problem with your analogy (which, once again, was almost grammatically incomprehensible) is that there are amendments to the Constitution pertaining to slavery.  Not only is slavery completely wrong, but also we’ve made amendments to the Constitution to make sure that it doesn’t ever find its place in society again.  What I also find humorous is that slavery is used as a comparison, as if the separation of Church and State is a comparable evil.

    But it’s not.  In fact, to have a truly democratic and fair government, the government CANNOT take ANY position when pertaining to religion.  Flat out, that’s the damned rule.  And there’s no amendment concerning the definite separation of Church and State, nor the joining of the two, hence the confusion.  The clause over religion in the Bill of Rights is fairly vague, so we HAVE to revert back to quotations to see what they actually meant, and it clearly shows that they intended a wall be there to separate them for BOTH their sakes.  That’s just common sense, Pablo.

    And if the government starts favoring some religions over others, not only will the other religions catch the brunt of hostility and intolerance in the face of governmental bias, but other programs (like Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative) will completely destroy whatever (if any) integrity the religion originally had with money and power.  Which, by the way, are two evils that you guys are NOT supposed to be abusing, if I’m assuming correctly.  But enough about Catholicism.

    Which once again brings me back to Jeremy, who thinks that the lack of acceptance of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse of the UNITED STATES would lead to “total Anarchy”.  Once again, I revert back to the point that if people need an imaginary (or simply lackadaisical) God to govern their actions, then what is keeping me

  19. Is that what Pablo said?

    I thought he was saying that the intent of the Founding Fathers was irrelevant, as they were, in many ways, a bunch of backwards mofos.  They thought slavery was OK.  And that women shouldn’t vote.  And a variety of other things that contemporary people, in general, believe to be rather “benighted” perspectives.  Even if some of them DID believe America should be a strictly Christian nation, then, why should we feel bound by their intent?

    But maybe I just totally misread his post.

  20. Just so everyone knows, I apologize to the level I went when I wrote that last response.  Don’t worry, Jeremy, I only used that example to prove the point that total Anarchy is a TOTAL overshoot of what I’d expect from a fall from religion.  The fact that he used total Anarchy as a result of this “behavior” made me so mad I just had to illustrate that kind of result.  I could use myself as an example, and I did.  Just don’t call the FBI

    And to nowiser: I suppose that’s what he could have meant, but in all honesty I was using the intent of those people to clarify what they meant in the Bill of Rights, because that’s what I truly believe will uphold the rights of ALL Americans.  Most of those who are using the intent of these people are those who are abusing it, such as those who want prayer in public schools and those who want to say that this country was founded on Christian principles.  But, yes, I would have to admit you could definitely be right on that one.

    But I interpreted the analogy as a comparison between a religiously objective government and one that endorses slavery.  And I really don’t agree with that viewpoint, but, then again, he might not even have it.

  21. Well, I guess I will have to apologize for my grammar. Unfortunately writing has never been my strong suite. Joshman3d I have never had an argument with you before so I am not the Pablo you think I am. I admit my analogy was not the best and my response was too quickly written and posted, but Nowiser was correct in my post

  22. I think this does help to clarify your thinking on the issue, Pablo. I’m going to try address your main point on how arguing over what the Founder’s intended is moot.

    You are, of course, quite correct that the Founding Fathers weren’t psychic and had no special knowledge of the future. Correct also that they did intend for the government and its laws to be adaptable as time passed and new situations they hadn’t considered presented themselves. There are rules within the Constitution itself on how it could be changed to adapt to the future and the amendment process has been used several times in the past to do just that. Sometimes with mixed results.

    That said, the Founding Fathers had quite a bit of wisdom amongst them and quite a bit of foresight. One of the dangers they anticipated in a semi-democratic system is the possibility that the will of the majority expressed through elected representatives could enact laws that trampled on the individual rights of citizens and the Constitution proper didn’t outline what those rights were. Demand for a “Bill of Rights” was high and, in fact, was necessary to get all of the states to ratify the Constitution. Thomas Paine, if I recall my history correctly, was quite instrumental in bringing this about. Thus the first ten amendments to the Constitution, what we refer to as the Bill of Rights, were added almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified in order to help spell out just what rights individuals had that government could not infringe upon. These ten amendments got their name because they were considered of such importance by the people who enacted them.

    Much like the Bible, however, the language of the time leaves some of the amendment’s true meaning a bit vague. As such it does become important to try and ascertain though the writings of the people involved just what their intent was when they wrote these amendments otherwise you’re left with multiple interpretations of what the amendment means and Christianity itself shows what happens when you get too many varying opinions on what a passage of text means with no way to ascertain from the guy who supposedly wrote the text what his intent was. A good part of how the Supreme Court makes determinations about the constitutionality of various laws is based on issues such as what the framers of the Constitution had intended to accomplish.

    The problem with your comparison to slavery is the simple fact that the Constitution never said anything about the legality of slavery one way or the other until the addition of the thirteenth amendment which abolished it whereas the issue of separation of church and state is addressed right in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.

  23. Les,

        I can see your point, re: why it’s relevant what the founding fathers intended, and to a certain extent, I agree. 
        That is to say, I think most of the people who claim that the Founding Fathers intended America to be a “Christian nation” are actually incorrect.  The fact that some of their supporting quotations actually appear to be fabrications only confirms in me my initial suspicions.
        Pablo’s point—and one which I have made myself, actually, so I have some investment in defending it—is that, even IF people who argue that the Founding fathers intended America to be a Christian nation were RIGHT, that would not necessarily lead, inevitably, to a determination that we should structure our current laws around their intent. 
        I’m somewhat fond of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and it should be pointed out that the BOR is a *minimal* guarantee of certain liberties.  It also says that just because certain rights aren’t listed in the BOR, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t also legally protected. 
        So I concede that the Founders’ intent is important in the establishment clause debate, because their intent happens to be consistent with my own point of view.  If, however, they had established an official state religion, I’d be advocating an amendment.  Just as I think the 2nd Amendment needs to be reworked to clearly state that every private citizen is NOT entitled to stockpile RPGs.

    Gee.  I sound so freakin’ wishy washy.  I’ll just abandon this here, now.

  24. I admit that you have a valid point. I believe I was so extreme in my argument because I have on occasion made arguments on this site or the SEB forums and have never received a response critiquing my position. This has made the whole exercise pointless in my mind as I wrote them in order to strengthen my understanding of the issues through debate. It also became a little frustrating.

    I agree that the Forefather

  25. Les has no authority to say what is and is not a ‘TRUE’ Christian. Since he is an atheist he cannot know anything about truth, even if it stared him in the face. Which it will one day, and which he will deny.

  26. Because “Bill Blass” and “Who ?” are both the same person and that person is Robert Frey. You know, the guy who likes to claim he’s not a lying conman?

    Apparently Robert feels the need to make “puppet” posts and doesn’t consider it to be deceptive. He also appears to be clueless that I track the IP address of people who post comments to my blog. Oops. Caught in the act of lying. Hardly what one would expect of a “TRUE” Christian.

  27. Ooohh! Robert is so dang clever! Who would have dreamed that you could post anonymously on the intarweb?

    He must be a hacker god, that super-smart and kewl Robert Frey!

    (Don’t worry Robert - IP Addresses are tools of Satan, but your Jebus Armor™ will protect you from those nasty non-believers if you simply click your heels and say “There’s no place like home.”)

  28. Brent is correct, just did an nslookup for this site…
    the first digit is 6,
    add the 2nd and 7th to get 6,
    add the 3rd and 4th digits to get 6,
    conveniently ignore the rest and you end up with 666,
    Les, you naughty :devil:

  29. Oh yes, it hurts so much to be ridiculed by raving atheists. As if I don’t know that you most likely track IPs. Well isn’t that a surprise, oh the wizardry will never end. You are truly experts in your field. Too bad it’s all based on lies, misconceptions, ignorance, lack of vision etc. Your master is so cunning in fooling you, not I.

    How do you think I found your original posts? Duh.

    Worry? Why should I worry? I’m very secure in my faith and my place in this world, and beyond. You apparently are not, which is most likely why you must attack those who are. You just can’t stand the truth that there may be something more to life that you’re, and will continue to, missing out on.

    “Jebus armor” ? Are you too Atheist to even type the word Jesus ? Or is that just your admission that you have trouble with grammar AND biblical concepts?

    And since when is using a pseudonym tantamount to equivalence to a lying conman ? If that is true, then at least Les is a Hypocrite i.e. “StupidEvilBastard” @ yahoo. O Les, we’ve caught your ‘friend’ Brent calling you a lying conman now. It’s funny how this debate with atheists pans out. LOL.

    Brent: Do you use IM, or ICQ or any other service wherein you do not use your full real name ? Oh of course not. You couldn’t be the master of what you accuse others of.

    Brent: “Elevating Christianity above all other religions and philosophies is not only wrong, it

  30. Isn’t Jebus Armor from some Gaming site? I think it defends against orcs, Mr Frey.
    Oh and posting using one name, then a few minutes later using another sounds a bit shifty to me…

  31. See? Told you he’d be back. People as mentally damaged as he is can’t stay away from any place he gets some attention whether the attention is positive or negative. What really cracks me up about him is he thinks he’s been “debating” us. Not only is he unclear on the concept of dishonesty, but also on the concept of what a debate is.

  32. Like I said before, if you feel you’ve been libeled then feel free to sue me. Otherwise you’re just whining now.

    As for proving my remarks, well, all the proof anyone needs is right at your website. Let alone the fact that you’ve been caught lying right here on SEB. Between the two I couldn’t ask for more evidence. To top it all off you’ve done a wonderful job of revealing what a complete ass you are just in your responses so far. I may not know what a “true” Christian is, but I do know it ain’t you.

  33. Hey Frey, just to let you know:

    When you openly brag about how completely and utterly close-minded you are and present it as a strength, the rest of us are too busy contemplating your stupidity to actually formulate an interesting arguement. (smartass wink!)

    We don’t WANT to infiltrate your camp.  Quite frankly, all the bonfires with everybody singin’ Kumbaya, holding bibles in mindless prayer while the world eventually eats itself alive with ignorance, don’t seem too inviting.  Especially with idiots like you to represent them.

    Oh, and by the way pablo:

    My deepest apologies.  No, seriously, I think I must have confused you with someone else.  But in all honesty, I really didn’t know what you were saying.  Sorry if I misunderstood.  Words laugh at me when I’m tired and angry, and I cannot help but retaliate by swinging a large stick at ‘em.  Durn words.

    And on a happier note:  Frey, you suck.  Stay in your coccoon and stop yelling out at us if you don’t want to view things with an OPEN mind, or if you want to label us all as “raving Atheists” while your fundamentalist bullshit outwieghs any of MY arguments in their pig-headedness.

  34. That’s cool, Joshman3d. I have to admit my first comment was more rambling than a coherent statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.