So if campaign staffers for a prominent presidential candidate make hateful and bigoted remarks about Christians that's big news right? Not according to NBC's Meredith Vieira. The Today show co-anchor failed to question John Edwards about his former bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan calling Christianity a "mythology" and depicting Bush supporters as his "wingnut Christofascist base." Instead Vieira focused her questions from the left on Iraq, as first noted here, and his opinion of the dust-up between rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The following are all of Vieira's questions to John Edwards on the February 22, Today show:
Meredith Vieira: "Former Senator John Edwards is campaigning in Texas today. Senator Edwards good morning to you, thanks for joining us here."
[John Edwards]
Vieira: "In addition to the comments that we just heard from you criticizing Senator Clinton for not taking responsibility for her vote, authorizing the war, you also said yesterday, quote, 'We need a leader who is honest, open and decent.' Are you suggesting at all that Senator Clinton is not honest, open or decent?"
[Edwards]
Vieira: "But if Senator Clinton does not say that she made a mistake as you did with the vote would that mean to you that the people cannot trust her as a leader?"
[Edwards]
Vieira: "Let me talk to you a little bit about Congressman Dennis Kucinich and what he said yesterday at that same forum. He voted against the war resolution and he said, quote, 'We had an audition for President in October 2002, and that the President must have,' again his words, 'the clarity of vision, the judgment to make the right decisions on life and death matters.' The implication being that those who voted for the war, war, failed the audition. People like you, failed the audition. Do you, do you agree with that sir?"
[Edwards]
Vieira: "What do you think, sir, of the dust-up between your two chief rivals, Senators Clinton and Obama?"
[Edwards]
Vieira: "Very quickly to Iraq, sir, yesterday Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he will begin to draw down his country's forces in Iraq and this administration called it a sign of success, what would you call it?"
[Edwards]
Vieira: "Senator John Edwards thank you so much for joining us this morning."
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Of course, as a Jew, I stil
February 22, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Mr. KafirOf course, as a Jew, I still wonder whether this ambulance chaser thinks Israel is the most immediate threat to peace in the middle east. But of course that question wasn't vetted before the interview either. I'd like to see a religious Christian in Vieira's place.
Wait, according to the site
February 22, 2007 - 14:45 ET by mclarksonWait, according to the site you linked to, he said Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was the greatest threat, not Israel itself. How is that the same? If I went and bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, I would be the greatest threat to world peace. Seeing as bombing is an act of war and all and thus the opposite of peace...
Then I guess the biggest thre
February 22, 2007 - 15:12 ET by Prester JohnThen I guess the biggest threat to peace to France in 1944 was a possible Allied invasion of Normandy.
Dumbest. Troll. Ever.
February 22, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Mr. KafirDumbest. Troll. Ever.
The news cycle has to move on
February 22, 2007 - 12:46 ET by sanskritgThe news cycle has to move on, right?
Why should anti-Christian big
February 22, 2007 - 13:08 ET by mattmWhy should anti-Christian bigotry raise an eyebrow within the MSM? It's not bigotry to them - it's part of their culture. Not only is it O.K. to hate Christians, it's a requirement.
(This is actually pretty good circumstantial evidence as to the veracity of Christianity)
Christians and religious Jews
February 22, 2007 - 13:57 ET by kathleenirishChristians and religious Jews are beneath contempt within the MSM so what's the problem with the scumbag bloggers? They agree with everything those women posted. No worries, mate.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
I am curious. Not one site
February 22, 2007 - 14:42 ET by mclarksonI am curious. Not one site talking about this has spelled out where these posts occurred and whether it was an Edwards blog or their personal one. Does anyone here know? If it was on an official campaign related blog then it truly is big news. If it was a personal blog that Edwards has no control over then this is a non-issue.
Actually, your point about 'official' blog and 'non-issue' is...
February 22, 2007 - 14:51 ET by acaiguanaActually, your point about 'official' blog and 'non-issue' is exactly 180 degrees off base.
It certainly is an issue. The posts being referenced were not made on Edward's Official Blog. If that is what you wanted to know, then that is your answer. If you Google the names of the posters, you will easily find all of their posts.
Political opinion and expression is important to anyone's campaign strategy and their personal standards and personal beliefs. If these posters have demonstrated a vile hatred for Christianity or other religous beliefs to promote a political agenda in this country; well that makes their stand an issue, regardless of what forum the posts were made.
To carry your logic further; what Hilllary or any other candidate says outside the Senate or House is not important to their character?
That's where I take your logic.
So, this point is silly, the point that if it wasn't done on and 'Official' blog of Edwards or any other politician; there is no reflection on that politican's judgement as to hiring these people as official staff members.
By hiring these people the politician endorses their point of view.
I would argue that by not denouncing the far-left points of view expressed all over the Internet; the Democrat Party endoreses those points of view.
I call your attention of the recent effort by Pelosi to get Bush to 'distance' himself from Cheney's remark on the obvious, that Democrat actions in the House by Pelosi and Murtha support the Al Qaeda strategy to win.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
But is it that extreme to r
February 22, 2007 - 15:00 ET by mclarksonBut is it that extreme to refer to a religion as mythology and poke fun at its tenats? Christians do it with Islam, Jews with Christians, and Atheists with everyone. Not only that, she is a staffer for Edwards, not Edwards himself. If Edwards had made disparaging remarks then I can see a bit of uproar. But this was an employee on her own time.
I'll take this to a broader question. Should an Atheist run for President? Could one ever be elected? Can Christians accept someone who sees their religion as mythology?
mclarkson - religion is really not the issue here.
February 22, 2007 - 15:14 ET by acaiguanamclarkson - religion is really not the issue here.
I'd sort of like to keep that out of it.
My point to you is that here is a person spewing obviously hate filled accusations, innuendo, direct slurs at an entire group of people, the Left-wing characterization of Christians happens to be the group, that of radical 'creationist' believing idiots that ignore science and want to be in everyone's bedrooms, simply to promote a political agenda.
There is no difference here between these bloggers and someone hiring a KKK Grand Wizard to be on their campaign staff. I'm gonna except Byrd from this discussion too.
Let's face it. To have Pelosi call President Bush and whine about Cheney's comment is bald faced hypocrisy at its worst. To keep these blogger on or to even have hired them is bald faced pandering to a far-left wing kooky universe at best.
Further, it shows how little Edwards understands the Internet. He obviously has no more understanding of the Internet 'generation' and their supposed fund raising ability than the people who write these nuts up, the WaPo and the NYT.
To me it showed incredible lack of judgement and character.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
So you are saying that to c
February 22, 2007 - 16:03 ET by mclarksonSo you are saying that to call one's religion a myth is equal to burning a cross in the front yard of a Black family? I also want to avoid making this about one specific religion so, leaving belief out of it, how is that equal?
I agree that if Edwards believes differently than his staffer he should clarify that her beliefs are not his but that she has a right to believe and speak as she pleases in her own time.
I dunno how you read burning crosses into my post.
February 22, 2007 - 16:09 ET by acaiguanaI dunno how you read burning crosses into my post.
What we are talking about here is hate.
Hate spewing crap from any radical insane group is the same as and leads to burning crosses in the yards of black people.
Yes.
And for you to obscure what I am really discussing with this crap is indicative of your level of discourse and intellect.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
The level of intellect acaiguana
February 22, 2007 - 17:01 ET by SportPoliticsThe level of intellect acaiguana was obvious when spewboy rattled on that no source has pointed out the website where said Christain bashing occurred.
Everyplace I looked intitially had the names, and a few had the sites linked, and wonderboy ( mr IT master himself if you recall ) can't bring it upon himself you use google, without being reminded it is available.
I smell lying fool. Drugs are likely at issue as well, IMO. Noone that smart is that dumb. Perhaps the low self esteem resulted in the inability to request a bit of assistance to the texts in question, and it was found easier to declare them inaccessible or purposefully hidden. Ignoring the possibility of laziness combined with the emotional need to jump right in fighting is not to be discounted either.
In the age of internet access, the ignorant whiner remains, now more certain than ever, that others cannot possibly know what they do not themselves know.
Amazing.
Accept?...yes.Vote for?...no.
February 22, 2007 - 15:14 ET by vrwc13Accept?...yes.
Vote for?...no. You see as an "authentic" Christain, one must put one's beliefs in the context of all that one does. It is required of us. So when we vote for some one to represent us, which is by the way what we are doing, their beliefs are very important.
face piles of trials with smiles
I can agree with that. But
February 22, 2007 - 15:58 ET by mclarksonI can agree with that. But would you vote for a truly moral person who believes in doing right for the sake of doing right and only lacks a belief in God? Atheism is not necessarily amoralism.
I wouldn't, but then again we
February 22, 2007 - 16:01 ET by florida_chadI wouldn't, but then again we don't really know what is in a persons heart. Lacking a belief in God would be too big a hurdle for me.
A truly moral person...who on
February 22, 2007 - 16:06 ET by vrwc13A truly moral person...who only lacks a belief in God?
It's God who defined morals, where does the atheist get his?
face piles of trials with smiles
Which God? Zeus? Thor? T
February 22, 2007 - 16:24 ET by mclarksonWhich God? Zeus? Thor? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I would wager that in respect to these Gods everyone here is an atheist. I just go one God further.
For God to create morals he must first exist. Morals benefit humans as a species and without them we would go extinct. While the fables of religion work well to teach basic morality, they are not the origins. The Judeo-Christian God, or at least record of him, didn't exist until 4-6,000 years ago. There were many Mesopotamian gods which predate him by thousands of years. Each had a moral code. Over the millenia those codes got refined into the codes we see today, eliminating that which served no good, adding where needed. Fables and moral plays were built up to show man that which was deemed moral. Even the stories of Moses, said to be written by his hand, were actually written by 3-5 different men centuries later. Claming the Judeo-Christian God as the source of your moral code is just silly.
"Claiming the Judeo-Chri
February 22, 2007 - 16:34 ET by vrwc13"Claiming the Judeo-Christian God as the source of your moral code is just silly"...no its faith. Something apparently your parents, school teachers, and Sunday school teachers did not get across to you as well as the modern day human secularists did.
face piles of trials with smiles
More silliness
February 22, 2007 - 19:56 ET by SportPoliticsMore silliness : " Morals benefit humans as a species and without them we would go extinct. "
So, am I to assume that the animals, without morals, would go extinct as well, and indeed have ? I guess dibbly butt would argue that animals have insticts that keep them alive - but then we are told so is the fight or flight reaction of the human... GRRRRRRRRR
Or, do I go with the darwinian extinctions as proof that extinction comes regardless to the moralless, yet now adore mcclarkson's newly found future prediction of mankind's survival...due to his theory about the fantasy concoction of refined morals based upon a stream of lies about gods ? LOL Another one that can ignore the past and predict the future, with NO EVIDENCE, or worse yet, against the evidence.
I tell ya man, if these people were held to the standard they hold people like Bush to (my favorite philosopher quote for instance), they would be crushed to cinders a thousand times over.
Sir, one minute please
February 22, 2007 - 15:17 ET by tumbler_2007Love is the greatest commitment that any Christian can make. Love is what sustains Christianity in our world. Love is the reason a man of good will embraces Christianity.
For that reason, I would reject all other caricatures of faith, and certainly not vote an atheist into a position of leadership here in America. Call me old-fashioned; but WHAT have atheists ever given our modern world? The greatest, totally horrendous killing-grounds were in atheistic parts of the world. By FAR. Not a good example of love, however imperfect.
I wish all Christians could
February 22, 2007 - 15:55 ET by mclarksonI wish all Christians could realize that love is supposed to be the focus but most get lost in hating what they don't understand, i.e. gays, other Christians who believe differently, non-Christians, atheists, etc. A man of truly good will could never embrace such intolerance.
I would disagree about most of the killing grounds being atheistic citing Nazi Germany, the crusades, the entire middle east, and the Inquisition. Now I don't claim all of these to be Christian but they aren't atheist.
As to Atheist contributions I cite the Theory of Realitivity (Einstein), the light bulb (Edison), AC electric power to your home (Tesla), most of quantum physics (Hawking and others), the complete works of Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens), Origin of the Species (Darwin), much of modern philosophy (Nietzsche, Sarte, Sagan), and most of the modern sciences. I could go on but you get the point.
....most get lost in hating..
February 22, 2007 - 15:59 ET by florida_chad....most get lost in hating.......
I don't believe most. Some, not most.
Fair enough. I know those
February 22, 2007 - 16:05 ET by mclarksonFair enough. I know those who hate are often vocal and it gives the impression of most so I will give you that one.
Another point to ponder...not
February 22, 2007 - 16:15 ET by vrwc13Another point to ponder...not all who call themselves a Christian are one. The Bible warns us of many false prophets (speakers, pastors, priests, ministers, etc).
face piles of trials with smiles
Again, true. Not all who c
February 22, 2007 - 16:26 ET by mclarksonAgain, true. Not all who claim the teachings of Christ actually follow them.
mclarkson - as a non-Christian, I don't appreciate your issues.
February 22, 2007 - 16:04 ET by acaiguanamclarkson - as a non-Christian, I don't appreciate your issues.
The vast majority by far the very largest numbers of Christians do not as you so woefully put it:
"...but most get lost in hating what they don't understand, i.e. gays, other Christians who believe differently, non-Christians, atheists, etc."
You have, actually no basis in fact for this broad brush statement. I will agree that there are nuts who are Christians. And some of these nuts are actually in the Public Eye.
But 'most' don't get lost in hating what they don't understand. Your point of view about this group of people in America is pathetic.
I suppose you think most Mexicans are lazy, most blacks are shiftless and no-good, and most Mormons are poligimistic women oppressors.
I really wish you Liberals would pack up your prejudices and go camping with them.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
While I am now an atheist I
February 22, 2007 - 16:14 ET by mclarksonWhile I am now an atheist I didn't grow up that way. I was a Mormon who went to a Baptist elementary. In our religion course we would often have lessons that amounted to "Why religion X is going to hell." I sang and clapped along, until the "Why Mormons are going to hell" week. My own teacher directly told me that my parents were condemning me to hell. Then you have the vile creatins that show up and rally against whatever group they think are going to hell that week, be it the Mormons, Catholics, Church of Whatever, Humanists, gays, etc. You can say I am a bit prejudiced against religion, yes. When hatred comes from a myth, you have to fight the myth.
So, you extrapolate to the whole, individual experience of self.
February 22, 2007 - 16:22 ET by acaiguanaSo, you extrapolate to the whole, individual experience of self.
I don't know how many times I have had people tell me, "I never had anything against blacks until I was forced to (serve, work, live) with them in (one, the other or another) situation."
Prejudice is learned behavior and as my famous brother once told me, "You cannot be prejudiced if you are smart." In other words, you gotta be a little stupid to carry prejudices to the degree that they affect your reasoned analysis of people, groups, actions and interactions in one's life.
So, while you were exposed to some obvious silliness; and obviously chose no belief to any belief; you bring this personal issue to the site and basically smear all of a particular group.
Work on it, my man. Work on it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
mclarkson, sorry you had to e
February 22, 2007 - 16:22 ET by vrwc13mclarkson, sorry you had to endure that. True Christianity is not that at all. I wish I could convince you of that, but you have become a "hard sell". I will pray for you though.
face piles of trials with smiles
I agree with you, that is n
February 22, 2007 - 17:38 ET by mclarksonI agree with you, that is not the true nature of the doctrine. The common thread in all of Christ's teachings was love, peace, and understanding. Sadly, the interpretations and additions of the men since then have warped it in many sects. I am always more than happy to speak with any religious person willing to speak with me peacefully, as you have. Thank you. Just in case I am wrong, prayers never hurt anyone. :-)
So sad. You had a bad moment
February 22, 2007 - 16:23 ET by florida_chadSo sad. You had a bad moment earlier in life and now are prejudiced against religion. You have to know that calling it a myth is hurtful, but you do it anyway. That doesn't seem like the behavour of a "good" person to me.
I'll pray for you tonight.
florida_chad
February 22, 2007 - 16:48 ET by SportPoliticsI won't pray for him Florida_chad, I'm laughing my *** off at him. He whined he had a baptist schoolmarm that told him he was headed to hell, and he hasn't ever gotten over one person trying to convert him, which of course was her "job".
I guess some little kids never grow up and become adults. Isn't this the same guy that whined like heck his Daddy underpaid him for a year as he and his girlfriend/wife and baby lived under Daddy's roof, then he launched out, stole Daddy's clieNts away with the database he had access to, and now Daddy's business is a pile of smouldering ashes....
Yes, it is. The deranged kookball who belittles and attacks his own Dad who was trying to help him, in public, bragging about destroying his business, by stealing the client base. I call that a corrupt loser, and a pathetic traitor, with no sense of decency or thanks for those lending a hand.
I went to his webpage, again, and I see he has a fantasy letter from GWB there( he made up, because he's a lib smart a** equivalent ), where he goes on about Jesus talking to Bush being less than the perfect solution for Iraq. LOL
It's one of those insane freaks,out to ***k anyone he can, including his own Daddy, who saved he, his gfwife - and the baby -from grovelling in the streets, before he stabbed Daddy in the back, and went around bragging about it.
" TOTAL LOSER"
Here we prove the point. G
February 22, 2007 - 17:29 ET by mclarksonHere we prove the point. Going from peacable dicussion to hatred and half truths. Don't you have anything better to do? I am here having a peacable discussion, not attacking anyone and you bring up your incorrect points from the debates of months ago. It is quite old. I am not going to rehash the story of my Dad with you yet again because you can't seem to get the story straight anyway. My website, if you were too stupid to figure it out, is a random, stream of thought humor/life blog. You seem to be so bitter against me and I'm not sure why. So I hold a different opinion than you? La dee freakin da.
mcclarkson
February 22, 2007 - 20:07 ET by SportPoliticsmcclarkson, my recounting of what you said here is accurate, although I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it that way. I understand you screeeched over and over again how underpaid and underappreciated you were, and also attacked your Dad's religion as I recall. I merely took his side based upon what you said, as I recall so did everyone else, some with more than enough kindness given your bragging screed.
Now, you may have a differing opinion than me, or you may not, depending upon the issue. That isn't the problem. The problem is I have an opinion of you, which you so gladly helped form and continue to help form, with your "streaming consciousness" babblings at your profile link, and here.
If you don't want half that taken in when I respond to your silly and infantile postings, I suggest you remove the link and hope I forget.
Nonetheless, it doesn't take the link for me to form my opinion of your lack of fair or impartial commentary, nor to point out exactly why I have viewed your comments as such, which of course you ignored in my prior comment above.
Take it as a lesson inlife, the one that John Edwards bloggers/campaign managers have learned so effectively as they were CANNED.
? Huh ?
Good one..... :-)
( that was me praising myself )
I guess some little kids neve
February 22, 2007 - 19:39 ET by florida_chadI guess some little kids never grow up and become adults. Isn't this the same guy that whined like heck his Daddy underpaid him for a year as he and his girlfriend/wife and baby lived under Daddy's roof, then he launched out, stole Daddy's clieNts away with the database he had access to, and now Daddy's business is a pile of smouldering ashes....
SP - I had forgotten that. You are correct and on the money.
mclarkson....you have to remo
February 22, 2007 - 16:07 ET by bassndudemclarkson....you have to remove Hawking and Sagan. They both recognize a creation and a divine intelligence. Einstein was agnostic, not atheist.
Christians do not "hate" gays, atheists ect. They hate the behavior, not the person. No christian want anyone to go to hell. But Jesus, Moses and the bible in its entireity rejects these behaviors and others. Those who claim to be atheist and agnostic are not. Everyone has something they worship. Weather it is God, money, the TV, women or men or cars or whatever. Some worship science, making science their god.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Edison attended a Congregatio
February 22, 2007 - 16:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberEdison attended a Congregational church in Ft. Myers, Florida, where he had a winter home. The church was renamed for him and is now the Thomas Edison Congregational Church. This church was one of those which did not join in the merger whch formed the United Church of Christ. The Second Congregational Church of Greenwich in Connecticut has in its archives a letter from Edison containing suggestions for for protecting their 212-foot steeple from lightning strikes.
Edison's wife was a devout Methodist and, early in their marriage, tried to convert him to her religious views, but failed. As for his personal beliefs, Edison made many statements which indicated disbelief on key topics. John P. M. Murphy described Edison's position as "truculent agnosticism."
Fair enough. Agnostic.
February 22, 2007 - 16:31 ET by mclarksonFair enough. Agnostic.
I thought Mark Twain was a Pr
February 22, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Roger the ShrubberI thought Mark Twain was a Presbyterian, and Darwin was Anglican/Unitarian.
Here is an interesting website, to help you better craft your argument. It might help you modify your list of Athiest scientists to actually consist of Atheists.
Hawking is a devout atheist
February 22, 2007 - 16:36 ET by mclarksonHawking is a devout atheist. Sagan also. Both practice(d) what has been termed "Einsteinein Religion" which is in its simplest terms is a near religious wonder at the universe and the scientific elegance that it is.
mclarkson - you wouldn't understand Einstein at any level.
February 22, 2007 - 17:22 ET by acaiguanamclarkson - you wouldn't understand Einstein at any level.
Not nearly as bright as a lightbulb in the same room.
That arrogance you show is only exceeded by your lame excuse for being another racist prejudiced Liberal.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Racist? Against who might
February 22, 2007 - 17:33 ET by mclarksonRacist? Against who might I ask? I do admit to being a bit anti-religious but that has nothing to do with race. And why the intelligence insults? I am merely looking at Einstein's own words so my own intelligence doesn't even enter into it. A bit testy today aren't we.
Try this racist rant off your website mclarkson - ACA
February 22, 2007 - 19:15 ET by acaiguanaTry this racist rant off your website mclarkson - ACA
"Later that day while I was in the middle of playing CSI:Corpus Christi, two black guys show up asking to speak to the owner. They proceeded to ask my boss, "where's my money" to which his response was "what are you talking about?" They seemed befuddled that he knew nothing of said money and took off. Not before I caught their images on the same camera though. They were in an older model Ford truck and the apparent "leader" had an afro that would make Leon "Ladies Man" Phelps go, "damn that brother has a big fro". This kind of crap really tempts me to take the concealed handgun class.
"It would definitely help if we could skim shit like this off of the gene pool."
Emphasis mine.
Not very pretty.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I would be interested to se
February 22, 2007 - 19:22 ET by Matthew SheffieldI would be interested to see the response to this as well.
you're asolutely wrong
February 22, 2007 - 16:19 ET by tumbler_2007" love is supposed to be the focus but most get lost in hating what they don't understand, i.e. gays, other Christians who believe differently, non-Christians, atheists, etc. A man of truly good will could never embrace such intolerance." ----This is false, through & through. In the worst-case scenario, at least we're called to repentence. You will never hear that call; you'd merely die in your sin.
Did Mao-Tse Tung or Pol Pot repent? --Nazis weren't a Christian sect, they were led by an atheist and apostate. Stalin murdered more people than any inquisition did, or any crusader; he died an atheist, as did Lenin. Einstein added very little that's GOOD, but at east he was innocent of murder.
Darwin is a fraud, Hawkins is too, Dawkins is and your icon Noam Chomsky is a lunatic. Every notable university founded in Europe exists by efforts of the Catholic Church. So did countless hospitals, orphan asylums and charities. Atheists gave us godless communism and tyranny.
Never said all atheists are
February 22, 2007 - 16:30 ET by mclarksonNever said all atheists are good guys. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in the existance of a deity. Just pointing out that we also aren't the source of all evil.
That much is correct. There
February 22, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Matthew SheffieldThat much is correct. There are plenty of evil people of any religious persuasion (including atheists).
atheism is the denial
February 22, 2007 - 20:23 ET by tumbler_2007Not a lack of belief, Mclarkson. A denial of God.
Which is fine; if you desist from anti-religious argument. When you come at us with your intolerance card, you become fair game.
In this way: "love is supposed to be the focus, but most get lost in hating what they don't understand, i.e. gays, other Christians who believe differently, non-Christians, atheists, etc. A man of truly good will could never embrace such intolerance." --Has it ever occurred to you these aren't things Christians fail to understand? It's precisely a sound understanding of those offenses that burns a believer; knowing that God is not given His glory by a mere creature. I definitely understand, for instance, flagrant moral turpitude of gays and lesbians. You don't seem to. Nevertheless, I woudn't hurt anyone who is in sin. Neither by discrimination nor defamation. I love them even in their sins. WHY? Because I acknowledge my own sinfulness in the sight of God. That's not one of the atheist's virtues. You like living free of any lawmaker. You can pick the scruples you prefer, cast off what doesn't please you. He is giving you leeway in this lifetime; and He gives me the same. You choose to defy Him, I don't.
Atheism isn't a truth expressed but everything ultimately negative. It's tantamount to believing life and death are the same. Life is infinitely superior but atheists deny it denying the Creator. Tantamount to a flea denying the solar system, without which a flea is altogether ludicrous.
much of modern philosophy (
February 22, 2007 - 20:02 ET by Jack Bauermuch of modern philosophy (Nietzsche, Sarte, Sagan)
Sure, those represent "most" of "modern" "philosophy."
Well to atheist lib***ls, apparently.
And of course, Nietzsche and tolerance go together like rabbi and pork.
And, as a matter of absolute FACT, Charles Darwin was not ,and never was, an "atheist."
(I)..."never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". Charles Darwin, 1878.
In fact, when he wrote the Origin of the Species he was, at that point, a Christian.
Darwin, Galileo etc
February 22, 2007 - 20:49 ET by mastersofdeceit" Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived upon this earth have descended from one primordial form into which life was first breathed by the Creator. " Darwin
" It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life. One might as well think of the origin of matter" -Darwin
" To suppose that the origin of the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Darwin
" The glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven."- Galileos letter to Grand Duchess Christina in 1614
" Whence is it that nature does nothing in vain; and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world?"- Isaac Newton
Gotta run.
here mcclarkson
February 22, 2007 - 17:07 ET by SportPoliticshere mcclarkson, mr internet lamer
there is a common thread with
February 22, 2007 - 17:20 ET by buddycthere is a common thread with the msm and liberals. i would have to think that there is a high probability that hatred of christians could be that common thread or at least one of them. it would not surprise me at all if vierira viewed edward's bloggers as wonderful and agreed with them.