Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Nathan Tabor :: Townhall.com Columnist
USA Today Rejects Christian Message to President Obama
by Nathan Tabor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


For years Accuracy in Media, the Media Research Center, and other watchdog groups offered evidence of media bias and rampant political correctness that exists in America's newsrooms.

More often than not, blatant bias extends to their coverage of Christian topics and the views of those believers who are involved in the political process. I wish I had a dollar for every time they used the term "Christian Right" to describe conservatives who voice their faith in a living God. And those references to a "Christian Right" by the denizens of our nation's newsrooms can be considered them being kind.

These are the same journalists who are careful to avoid using the terms Islam and terrorism within the same paragraph. These are the same people who, in many publications, ran a photograph of a supposed piece of artwork titled, "Piss Christ," but prided themselves for not running a Danish cartoon of Mohammed with a missile shaped headdress

So anyone keeping a list of examples of news media bias may want to add this one:

This past week I read a public notice in USA Today that their editors were allowing people to write a message to President Barack Obama that would run in that newspaper's Inauguration Day edition. The cost was $15 a line.

"Hmmmm . . . I thought. Good way to get a message to our new president."

So, after much soul searching I wrote and submitted my ad:

"Dear President Obama, 'We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give [an] account of himself to God.' (Romans 14:10-12)"

I had signed it as FFFA.us, the web site address of the Faith, Family, Freedom Alliance, a Christian-based organization I recently founded.

Well, the next day -- just one hour before the USA Today deadline for the Obama messages -- I received a call from someone at USA Today named Jennifer. She claimed that the newspaper could not run an ad signed by "a group."

"No problem. Just use my name, Nathan Tabor," I replied.

Then she claimed she had another problem with my ad: USA Today will not run any ads containing Christian, religious or Bible verses, according to Jennifer.

She asked if I had another message and I replied no and told her how that was the message I wished to send to President Obama. I told Jennifer that I respected him and the office he was about to hold.

Mind you, unlike USA Today routinely referring to President George W. Bush as Mr. Bush, I addressed Mr. Obama as President Obama. And while USA Today -- in concert with other newspapers, newsmagazines and broadcast news programs -- routinely bashed our 43rd President -- my prose contained a positive message, especially since Obama professes to be a practicing Christian who will be sworn in as our 44th President, reciting his oath with his hand atop a Christian Bible.

In closing our telephone conversation, Jennifer promised that USA Today would send me an email explaining why my ad was rejected. After two hours I hadn't gotten it. So, I called Jennifer and she said she would have it out to me in 2 minutes.

That was 2 days ago.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Nathan Tabor organizes and educates Christians on their role in Politics.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Nathan Tabor's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
And this surprises anyone?
Does this kind of media bias and ant-God behavior actually surprise anyone anymore?

It's hardly even "news" anymore... it's just "America".

Brent Riggs
http://www.riggsreport.com

Good for them!
Freedom of the press means that the owners of USA Today decide what they'll print--or not print. Nor are they required to give reasons.

Nathan, start your own paper,
or start a boycott of a selected, vulnerable sponsor. I'll be with you.

Nathan, start your own paper,
or start a boycott of a selected, vulnerable sponsor. I'll be with you. PS Is it only my computer, or has the TH star rating been down for a few days?

Where's the referee?

"In football, referees tell you whether a catch was made in bounds or not. In tennis, linesmen render instant judgment calls on whether a ball landed in or out. In baseball, umpires signal fair or foul.

But in life if often seems as though the game isn't being played fairly and that no one is around to call foul. Flagrant violations of the rules go unnoticed, and so many people are playing out-of-bounds and getting away with it.

Sometimes we do see the harmful effects of playing out-of-bounds (see Psalm 7:15 or Numbers 32:23). But other times the Lord's ruling extends farther than our mortal eye can see. Paul told the Athenians that God "has set a day for judging the world with justice" (Acts 17:31), so we can trust that He will one day set everything right, although we may not see his ruling in our lifetime.

Let us thank God that he is the just Judge over all the earth."

Don't say, "I will get even for this wrong." Wait for the Lord to handle the matter.

Proverbs 20:22


The One Year® Book of Psalms by William J. Petersen and Randy Petersen,, Tyndale House Publishers (1999), entry for January 11

NOTHING like a CHRISTIAN rebuttal to those who issued a rebuttal to a Christian........the MSM is not a credible entity anymore......

The Media and the Fan
Liberals, Democrats et al, the media and an alarming percentage of Americans have decided to return to the "if it feels good do it, do your own thing, peace brother" mentality of the late sixties and seventies.

Barack Obama is the "one" they have been waiting for to return them to the social disconnect of that era. The media has been the instrument of their resurrection.

This isn't the sixties and Islamic extremists aren't the Vietnamese. Liberals have longed for a return to that era since their coup of the Nixon administration. With Obama, they believe they have arrived at last.

While the intellectually naive left basks in their triumph however, Islam will reap the fruits of their ignorance. From Iran to Russia, Israel, China and most likely North Korea, all will push this nation to the limits of tolerance. Obama will not pass the test.

The proverbial fan is about to face its greatest test and if the unthinkable truly comes to pass, the first to pass through that fan should be the media.

Bail Out self protection suppression
USA must feed the need!

I wonder...
Do the writer's supporters here also feel that Koranic verses should be allowed?

Just another example

Just another example of Liberal media filtering information.

I do wonder how and why Liberals think they are so well educated when all the information they receive has been filtered before they obtain it.

This also applies to the education they receive in high school and college. There is no shortage of filtered or misleading information in the Liberla community.

Church... State
I asked my Church if I could present my thesis on Darwin. They said no.

I asked my Church is I could teach a Sunday school class on the Bible as myth. They said no.

Adam and Eve myth? Flood myth? History of other religions? Age of Earth myth?

Wow! These churchies are starting to stomp all over my rights. When does it end. Soon they will be inserting "under God" into the pledge to the Flag and pretending it's been here all along.

inthemajority

Perhaps its because everyone alreadly knows Darin's theory.

In fact every item you listed is pretty much common knowledge.

Next time try coming up with something creative. Something new. Not stuff that is constantly recirculated liberal venues that everybody already knows.

inthemajority
There are several churches and synagogues that sponsor such topics for discussion.

USA TODAY RAG
I love how my hometown here in Illinois threw out the friggin USA TODAY RAGBOXES several years ago. I am one Illinoian who does not support Osama Obama and his USA hating wifey-commie! And the USA TODAY RAG? Pfffffttttt! Never read it much, never will. Bunch of liberal faggots! KUMBAYA my arse!

is Doug Giles aware of this outrage
Mellor from AL - best response

Good for them!
Freedom of the press means that the owners of USA Today decide what they'll print--or not print. Nor are they required to give reasons.
************************************************
now someone please tell my why this is anti-American??

Bryce1
Bryce1 wrote:

"I wonder...
Do the writer's supporters here also feel that Koranic verses should be allowed?"

Bryce1, I suspect that most of the writer's supporters would in fact feel that Koranic verses should be allowed, and also strongly suspect that Koranic verses WOULD be allowed. It is only the Christian verses that would be rejected.

It is true that the paper is free to accept and reject what they wish. It is equally true that this illustrates the predilections so prevalent in today's media.

OK, nomo, here's my theory
"now someone please tell my why [Freedom of the press means that the owners of USA Today decide what they'll print--or not print. Nor are they required to give reasons.] is anti-American??"

Because it doesn't give a special place to their sky pixie. And we all know that the sky pixie made America, its founders, its Constitution, and everything in it despite all evidence to the contrary....

The hypocrisy runs deep with the Mellor
Good for them. They are not required to give reasons for what they do or do not print.

Really?

Good point Mellor. Why then do you demand private publications adhere to your version of atheism? Why do you label people homophobes, etc. that disagree with your views posted here ?.

Oh, I get it, ONLY your views should be respected.

Why do atheists demand equal time from others for their views, yet fail to respect the rights of the opposing view?

What a hypocrite you are MellorSJ2, or SJ Doc, whatever you are tonight.

And by the way there is NO evidence to the contrary God does not exist. Sorry Mellor,

Celebrate diversity
the mantra of liberals, actually means "squash Christianity" and "ridicule conservatives". It is always fun seeing them trying to avoid choking on their own principles.

You could have shortened your headline
to "USA Today Rejects Christians." Frame it any way you wish, USAToday, but we're not as stupid out here as you think we are.

This is Happening Everywhere
After reading your excellent article I couldn't help being reminded of how my church, my Catholic church that I have been faithful to since I was born refuses to broach the issue of abortion. I have contacted my parish office, priests, deacons asking them to help me spread the word about the Freedom of Choice Act and how damaging this is going to be and how can we stop it. I have not heard one word from any of them. They were silent during the election and remain that way. Well, guess what, freedom of speech goes both ways. I am still going to get my message across to the parishoners with or without their assistance.

Voting Buttons
PS, it isn't just your computer. I wanted to give this one a 5 but the buttons don't work. Sorry Nathan. I want your website to be a success. Let me know how I can help.

Anne Harpen

I guess
scripture doesn't come under the people's right to know.
Anne, you aren't alone, years ago I wrote a church newsletter and got into trouble when I mentioned abortion. I wouldn't back down and the newsletter went poof. I couldn't figure that out until I learned about LBJ's gag order via an amendment to an unrelated bill in 1954 that prevent 'electineering' by tax exempt organizations. We are in deep dodo as a nation because too many of our churches are serving two masters..giving lipservice to the Master and bowing down before the second, the IRS. I wish your priests had taken a hint from the Cardinals and Archbishops who did speak out. The Pastors and Priests who haven't warned their people about the sin of supporting by their votes people who are pushing genocide of the most heinous kind that they are sinning against God and have the blood of those poor babies on their hands just as the abortionist had, those men of the cloth will have a lot of '
'splainin' to do one day. They are responsible for the souls they shepherd.

Why is it the more I hear of our "free"
...press, the more thoughts of Stalin, Mao, CNNs' Iraq, etc. come to mind ? Oh, that's right! I almost forgot.....(obnoxious to-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-one) THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE EMERGENCY FAIRNESS NATIONALIST DOCTRINE INVESTIGATION CORPS & KOMMEN ze here SERVICE or, The E.F.N.D.I.C.K.S. and the hate filled post that this poster was about to post is not going to join the other posts posted here at Townhall, which is itself currently being scheduled for reassignment as a fun and informative place where one can purchase earmuffs and other Trademarked merchandise emblazened with the image of our beloved, The One.

For further assistance, please consult your handy "How to be a good Citizen, now that we are free again" handbook. They are available at Post Offices, Motor Vehicle Departments, Wal Marts, and at all "24/7/365 Voter Registration / Rent & Gas Cash Pick-up" booths throughout Obamerica.

Brent Riggs #1: Spot on! Surprised? NO!

Unfortunately, this shouldn't raise and eyebrow.

Unfortunately!!!!

In less than two days this Marxist will take the oath of the POTUS, and we've yet to see:

~ Transcripts or papers from Occidental
~ Transcripts or papers from Columbia
~ Transcripts or papers from Harvard Law

~ Explanation as to how Bozo could be Law Review editor (without having published)

~ A medical history

~ Certification of eligibility to be POTUS


Instead of doing their job, the MSM journalists have sold their souls (assuming they actually have souls) to the devil.

Chrissy Matthews-BSMNC, states that not only does he have a tingle up his leg listening to Bozo (no doubt the wife is thrilled!) but claims it's up to him make sure Bozo's presidency is a success.

And PBS also claims it's going to ensure Bozo's presidency is a success.

Just Another Example of...
Christian whining.

When Jesus was crucified, he didn't complain. When he was mistreated, he didn't whine. The Bible says "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth" He DID however open his mouth. He opened his mouth to pray that God would forgive his oppressors.

With that example before us, Tabor whines because his message to Obama wasn't carried by USA Today. Where's John Stossil when you need him? I need someone to say "Give me a break".

inthe majority
Our founders feared the majority. They had seen what the majority had done through 1000 years of European history. They knew that with the right leader the majority would take away the rights of all that disagreed with them. So it is happening. If American History were taught we would know that we have used tax payer dollars to apy for pastor salary's and printed Bibles to give to the natives of this country.
They would know that every time a democracy has been tried it has failed because it takes huge numbers of productive persons and calls them illegal. Rome did it to Christians and now America is attempting to do it again.

Inthemajority #10
You certainly have every right to say the sarcastic things you did, but you are NOT "in the majority" by any stretch of the imagination.

MellorSJ
You've got it nailed.

See boys and girls, in a capitalistic society, businesses and customers are free to enter transactions they find mutually beneficial. If, for ANY reason, the transaction is deemed to be not in the best interest of EITHER party, neither is obligated to enter into it.

What is Tabor doing reading USA Today anyway? I mean seriously. It's like complaining of a headache after sticking your tounge in a live electrical outlet.

This is what qualifies as a timely, interesting opinion column? Dave has it correct. GIVE ME A BREAK!

More of the same
Why am I not surprised?
This is just more of the same from today's media.
This is why the network programs routinely depict Christian characters as two-faced hypocrites, yet, gay or minority characters are depicted as morally beyond reproach.


At first I thought
the headline read,

"USA today rejects Christian message..."

...along with the rest of the Industrialized West. Is it any wonder we see the negative cultural indicators increasing since then?

Noticed the teen suicide rates, MellorSJ and friends?


Dave, Mellor, & $ obviously don't get it

But then, pretty much the "rule of thumb" has been, if Mellor is apposed to a column or a post, that columnist and poster are pretty much spot on!

Why are WSJ and Fox News Succeeding When
other media are failing.

As far as I know, the Washington Times is doing well. The Wall Street Jouranl and Fox News are doing well.

Folks can recognize bias and flock to unbiased media sources.

Pravda doesn't have....
An anti-Christian bias. Just ask Dr. Douglas!

The media has the right
to print, or not print what they choose. We have the right to buy or not buy what they print. When 60 % of the people see & believe there is bias in media reporting, anyone should conclude it may just be the reason these liberal media giants are going bankrupt, and good riddance to them.

And about the voting buttons - they aren't active on my computer either.

My only complaint
With this left-leaning media we now have is that they won't admit it--possibly not even to themselves.
The media USED to print ALL the news, and let thinking Americans decide on their own. NOW we are far too stupid or unthinking to ever come to a conclusion--so they LEAD us to the conclusion we are "supposed to have". Have any of you read Judge Napolitano's "A Nation of Sheep"? VERY eye-opening as to what we've become...
Do any of you remember the Atlanta Journal's old slogan? "ALL THE NEWS YOU NEED TO KNOW" NOT all the news, mind you--just what we "needed" to know...And who made that decision? We all know the answer to that.
The great thing about the Internet is that we can simply choose to delete anything we feel we don't "need" to know--or read anything we either agree OR disagree with!
No wonder that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend nearly a dollar a day for biased, partial coverage of the news.
Let the papparatcy (sp) find a REAL job...

Brainless659
"And by the way there is NO evidence to the contrary God does not exist."

Well, we agree! Double negative. Sorry Anderson.

All the more reason...
... for all real Americans, real Christians, and real conservatives to make it a point during 2009 and beyond to financially support ONLY conservative media outlets. Let's stop whining and get to work.

Brainless659
"And by the way there is NO evidence to the contrary God does not exist."

Well, we agree! Double negative. Sorry Anderson.

Liberal Media vs Freedom of Speech
Opening up the opportunity for people to say what they feel, and then repressing the thoughts that they personally disagree with has become the way to stifle speech. That is why the "Fairness Doctrine" is being re introduced. Primarily as a way to silence those opposing veiws. With the thinking that if we disallow bible verse to be printed in our publication, then maybe those who read us will forget about its existance; basically we have them thinking the way we want them to in the first place.
Sence school too many have been taught not to process rational thought, but to blindly accept what they are told as fact; and not to research what the are told, just believe the source. No wonder so many are allowing thenselves to be blindly led. Which leads me to a scripture I read this morning: 2Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but will after their own lusts, shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. That time is now.

In your face
As long as the religious right insists on rubbing their religion like poo in a liberal puppy dog's face, they will be forever scorned.

I thought the verse was obnoxious, condescending and self-righteous.

Using your own sacred text to give someone the finger is just height of arrogance.

Your intentions were not honorable, but rather judgmental and condemning.

my 2 cents
If there is no God, who created the universe? It was a 'big bang" and that's all?

Right

Anderson659
And by the way there is NO evidence to the contrary God does not exist.

I agree with MellorSJ2 that this is a double negative. So please, could any person give me one scientifically provable piece of evidence that would stand up in a court of law proving that God does exist.

Brainless659
"And by the way there is NO evidence to the contrary God does not exist."

Well, we agree! Double negative. Sorry Anderson.

Let's be charitable
(Sorry for the double post earlier.)

Let's be charitable and pretend Brainless659 meant to say "There is no evidence of the non-existence of god."

Then, once again, I'd agree!

Of course there isn't. Just like there's no evidence of the non-existence of pink unicorns.

He might reading the references in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

So what?
Except for their evasive answer, it's hard to get excited about this as long as USA is not accepting any religion-based comments. I'd just as soon not read quotations from the Koran, Bible, Scientology, and every other belief in the world. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place; I thought this was a conservative web site rather than a Christian web site. My apologies if I'm mistaken.

Anne
You said, "But then, pretty much the "rule of thumb" has been, if Mellor is apposed to a column or a post, that columnist and poster are pretty much spot on!"

And you're spot on with your observation!

By the way, I assume you know that MellorSJ2 is an admitted homosexual; in fact, he seems downright PROUD of being so. That's why I'm not surprised at his anti-God and anti-Bible rantings. OF COURSE he's going to have that attitude; he can't very well admit that the Bible is the Word of God because he'd be condemning himself in the process. I have not the slightest doubt that he fears deep down inside, whether he'll admit it or not, that if he were to concede that God really DOES exist, he would know that some major lifestyle changes have to happen in his life - changes he obviously does not want to make. Therefore, if you deny God's existence, you don't have to change ANYTHING.

I wonder if you've also noticed that he seems to specialize in posting on threads on TownHall that have a Christian/God-centered theme, as this one does.

Tom
Conservatism has as its roots a Biblical worldview. (That's what's being "conserved") Liberalism has as its roots an existentialist worldview.

It's hard to separate it from its roots. For that you have to go to a Libertarian sit

Chuck
Excellent reply to Tom!

I was about to respond to Tom myself, then thought better of it and did a refresh, whereupon I saw your submission.

I will merely add this: all one has to do to understand the inseparability of one's beliefs about God with the society one lives in is to see the difference between societies based on, or influenced by, a Judeo-Christian worlview, as ours is (at least for the moment, and I realize that many think this is no longer true or is soon to not be), vs. those which reflected a secular or even atheistic ethos - of which the communist regimes are Exhibit A there. 'Nuf ced.

Vampire @10:15 am
Judgemental? or accouantable. Christians use scripture to hold another "christian" accouantable for their words and actions; normally as a gentle reminder of who they serve and what He expects from us in our daily walk with Him. Construed as obnoxious, condesending or self- righteous; or being used as giving someone the finger through "personal sacred text" shows that it is easier to villify than to understand; complete with personal hatred for scripture in itself. 2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. If then these words seem as rubbing poo in the liberal puppy dog's face; maybe it is because somewhere in the heart, these words are finally ringing true, and accouantability for one actions and feelings are starting to become manifest. Truth cannot be hid, like the darkness cannot hide a flame.

Bruce 10:23
Try reading the "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Here a investigative reporter for the Chicago tribune wants to "prove" that Christ (God) never existed. He was, self admittedly an athiest. He is now a Pastor. Again as my earlier post suggests, following what someone says is true needs to be thoroughly reaserched to make one's own personal understanding. If after you read this and his other thought provoking books (short and to the point) you still feel that there is no God; that will be between you and Him in that same day that the scripture in the article speaks of.

Manna-Feast
In your 11:04 am post, you used THE words that absolutely cause liberals/non-theists heart palpitations: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONE'S ACTIONS!

And I think we'll be seeing this principle in action in full and abundant display starting tomorrow: if Obama makes major mistakes or errors in judgments as president that have major negative consequences for America (especially in the area of national security), you watch how Pravda aka The MSM and liberals in general put the blame for those negative consequences on George Bush, not Barack Obama.

Conservatism
From the dictionary on my computer:

"conservative adjective:
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
• (of dress or taste) sober and conventional : a conservative suit.
• (of an estimate) purposely low for the sake of caution : the film was not cheap—$30,000 is a conservative estimate.
• (of surgery or medical treatment) intended to control rather than eliminate a condition, with existing tissue preserved as far as possible.
• ( Conservative) of or relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party in another country.
noun
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
• ( Conservative) a supporter or member of the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party in another country.

[F]rom the verb conservare (see conserve ). Current senses date from the mid 19th century onward."

Note the lack of any mention of 'god' or 'xian'





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

Standhisground
Additionally, all one needs to do is observe that all the special interest groups made up primarily of God-haters are attracted to the Democrat Party and espouse and promote Liberal policies, while vilifying anything that even remotely represents Biblical influences.

In my opinion, that is what is at the heart of BDS.

USA TODAY! THEY CANT HANDLE TRUTH !
THEY LIKE HARRY POTTER NONSENSE!

MellorSJ
I rest my case.

Faith in government
To be a true secularist, you have to have a real strong faith in a government that for the most part has failed to perform as promised. This is REAL religion.
Faith in God only requires that you believe in Someone who always keeps His promises.

MellorSJ
"a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics."


*sigh* "traditional values" didn't come from the Enlightenment, Mell.

Anne says
"Chrissy Matthews-BSMNC, states that not only does he have a tingle up his leg listening to Bozo (no doubt the wife is thrilled!) but claims it's up to him make sure Bozo's presidency is a success.

And PBS also claims it's going to ensure Bozo's presidency is a success."

So, if the media is going to "make sure" BHO is a success, can we take it that they Made sure GWB was not a success... It seems to me if they can claim the power to do one then they had the power to do the other...

Chuck
Regarding your 11:26 pm post: again, spot on, sir!

Regarding MellorSJ2, as I mentioned to Anne in PA in my 10:48 am post, given the fact that he has openly confessed in prior days on this site to being a homosexual, it's not surprising he has the attitude he does toward the Bible and those who believe in it; to accept it at truth would be an exercise in self-condemnation for him.

As I've asked so many liberals on this site who come on here for the express purpose of insulting we conservatives who come here (as have many other conservatives here as well): if they have such contempt for us, and given that so many of them claim we're now irrelevant, marginalized, have little to no intelligence/common sense, and that no one listens to us anymore, then you wonder why they even want to be among us in the first place by coming to this site. There are plenty of sites they can go to where they can among those who think just like them - and with many of those sites, such as HuffandPuff, DailyChaos, etc., they have the added "blessing" of not having to be exposed to conservative views since those cites rigidly and quickly censor any expressions that run against the grain of liberal thought.

If we're all these aforementioned things that liberals claim we are - and yet they still want to be among us by coming to this site - then what are they confessing about the company of their OWN?

USA Today
I will never buy another copy of USA Today and I invite other readers to do the same--maybe they will understand that.

Manna-Feast
Please go back and read my posting again. Nowhere in my posting did I say that I did not believe the existance of God. What I did ask for was a SINGLE piece of scientific proof that would hold up in a court of law showing that God DID exist. You responded with the usual answer that there is no evidence that God does not exist, a double negative and by doing so you expect someone to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove a positive.

As an example, last night my neice placed a tooth under her pillow. Today she believes in the tooth fairy. I however, could not provide a single piece of evidence that such a fairy exists today or existed when I was a child. So, I am asking you to help me.

Frankie
I think a lot of conservatives are ALREADY doing the same as you regarding USA Today (myself included). They've clearly also done the same with a lot of Pravda aka The MSM output - and liberals don't appear to be filling the vacuum. That's why Pravda aka The MSM is dying. As one conservative poster said on another thread a few days ago, in ten years the New York Times' building will be condos.

USA Today can snub/insult Christians/conservatives all it wants - as can the rest of Pravda aka The MSM. And as we see, it is a business model that ends in extinction. That's one thing about American liberals: they're self-exterminating. They abort their children, so where are the future generations of liberals going to come from? Oh, I forget, don't I: they'll import them from the Third World. Of course, Europe has ALREADY been practicing this model for some time - and it's not producing a Europe that figures to continue to remain a liberal enclave down the road but one that will be an Islamic enclave. And the liberal Europeans know this and are terrified about it: that's why they're at present trying in effect to "sue for peace" with the burgeoning Islamic segment of their populations so that when the Anglo-European liberals are a minority, their Muslim majority won't promptly start slitting their throats as "infidels".

Bruce
There may be no "Hard Facts" that prove the existance of God but there is circumstancial evidence... read "The Evidential Power of Beauty" by Thomas Dubay. Circumstancial evidence is acceptable in American courts and many have been convicted by such evidence.

Bruce in MN
I wonder if you realize the fallacy of your argument that if a court of law upholds something as truth, then it must be truth.

And the jury in the original O.J. Simpson criminal trial acquitted him of the charges. I defy you to declare to the world on this site that you believe that O.J. Simpson was innocent of the charges of murdering Nicole and Ron Goldman simply because it was decided so in a American court of law.

Also, what KIND of court, and what VENUE, has to certify the existence of God to satisfy you? An American civil court? A Japanese criminal-trial court? Why not an Islamic court, for that matter? And would it be a court where the verdict is decided by a jury - or by a judge or a panel of judges?

I could go on and on, but you see my point.

re: Manna-Feast
Spoken in the spirit of true arrogance.

It doesn't matter how those who are not of your religion perceive something when quoting the Bible. You are the very definition of sanctimonious.

I stand by my statement, Nathan intended to give Obama the finger using the cover of the Bible.

And we the secular are suppose to be cowed into submission because it is "The Bible" , "Oooh, ooh, we can't say anything because it is the Bible." Bah! Fat Chance that. It was a rude thing to say. Period. Nathan intended it to be self-righteous and sanctimonious in the spirit of flipping Obama the finger.


Don't buy USANews, in motors
and resorts where issues are given away free, protest to management, and email the *free* press and tell them that the US cannot support part of the First Amend. on free press and not on free practice of religion. One goes with the other.

These kinds of decisions are usually not publisher's or senior editors', but someone a little above the mailroom who, in this case, is probably a clerk in classifieds.

You can email USA Today
at Seervice.USAToday.com.

Vampire's Reflection
In ancient Rome, it is reported that as a conquering Ceasar rode in triumphant procession throught the streets of Rome, a slave accompanying him in his chariot would be simulatanepously whispering in his ear, something to the effect of, "Remember that you too are mortal".

In light of this historical precedent, Mr. Tabor's submission seems not only appropriate but of the highest order of political necessity.

Roseanne and Standshisground
Roseanne, I consider all women beautiful so I am not asking for ¨hard proof¨ of that.

Standshisground, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty by a jury. That does not mean he did not commit the crime (which I believe he did).

As to which court, I believe that there should be several Supreme Court decisions defining the existance of God since people are using God in so many different ways. For instance, the God defense: God made me do it! or the opposite of God, the Devil made me do it! Or, the argument that the ten commandments are the word of God and we must follow them even though only a couple, thou shall not commit murder and thou shall not steal are the codified into English law. So, back to my orginal question, what would you propose as a SINGLE piece of provable evidence that God exists?

Bruce @11:58
Should that evidence be of a personal nature or of a learned experience? From a personal experience of God's existance, I can only offer my personal testimony: On 6/30/02 I accepted Christ as my Saviour and was baptised at the tender age of 48. On the next day, after having been addicted to drugs and alch sence 13, I out of habit took a drink and immediatly had the worst "total head" headache Ive ever had, I havent had a drink sence. The following day I took a hit off a joint, and the taste in my mouth was the worst I had ever experienced. God had delivered me from addiction that gripped me for years!!!!I am still sober and do not miss drugs or alch. I accepted Christ (God) through faith and belief, all prompted by the question of my own mortality on 9/11. That heart tug, that told me with a small still voice that there is more if I would only believe, and as I learned the truth, and yes, saw His providence in my Life; I believed. By His Grace, this wretch of a man was delivered and save through His Mercy. It is that simple, one just has to be truthful with himself and ask for the knowlage from Him with a open heart, the rest He WILL DO.

I hope USA Today...
...refunded Mr. Tabor's payment when they declined to take his ad.

Bull pucky, chuck
Tabor wrote: "Dear President Obama, 'We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give [an] account of himself to God"

This is nothing to do being mortal, this has to do with the nauseating xian view that we (and our new leader) should submit to a higher authority. Unseen, unknowable, and ineffable, but mediated through the likes of Mother Theresa, pope Benedict, Jerry Falwell and Rick Warren.

And Tabor has to cheek to add "my prose contained a positive message." Incredible!


say no to this news paper !
dont buy one!

Bruce in MN
Since you've already admitted - the O.J. Simpson criminal-case trial I brought up illuminating this - that even when a court establishes something as a "truth" (in this case, O.J.'s innocence regarding the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman), you personally do NOT automatically accept this as de facto proof that it IS a truth, then there's no point in anyone trying to suggest to you something that would be a "SINGLE piece of provable evidence that God exists", given the fact that you're already disputing the meaning of "provable".

Manna-feast
Congratulations on your new life.

But you simply swapped one addiction with another. That is hardly proof of god. Coulda been the Great Elf.

Happily, your new addiction is not harmful to you, only to others when brought into the public square.


Bruce
Bruce: So please, could any person give me one scientifically provable piece of evidence that would stand up in a court of law proving that God does exist.

Jen: Sure. You’ll be presented with it face to face the minute you leave this earth. You won’t even need a lawyer to interpret the evidence. So just hang tight – it won’t be much longer.

Religious Right has no special rights
America was founded as a purely secular nation. Neither Christianity nor any religion has any legal standing in our Constitution. Therefore no special privelege exists for the Republicans from the Religious Right to foist their rendition of prejudice against government officials.

We have seen the fruits of the Religious Right has created for our nation: from unquestioned support for the AIPAC lobby and support of Israeli State Terrorism against Christains in Palestine and Lebanon, to pro-lfe terrorists who bomb medical clinics and kill Americans, to their push for war with Iraq against America's best interests to whet their armageddon lust to all the bad advice given to Bush courteousy of Rev. Ted Haggard.

See JesusCampTheMovie.com for his hypocracy

Many Religious leaders and religious Republicans have proven time and again that they are not only hypocrits but America's worst sinners:
Sweatty Sinner Swaggert
The Rev. Jim Baker
The Rev.Ted Haggard
The Rev.Jim Jones
The Rev.David Koresh
Mark Foley
The Rev. Pat Robertson
Tim LaHaye
Larry Craig
Newt Gingrinch
Tom Delay
Ken Lay
Henry Hyde
George Bush

These folks are guilty of being: adulterers, meglomaniacs, mass murders, closet homos, drug abusers and fear mongers to pilfer profit.

What gives wicked Republican zealots special privelege to dictate religious demands from a secular government? America just rejected your party because of corruption, incompetence and hypocracy. Remove the log from your own eyes before dictating to your neighbor.

To all you Liberal Aetheists
posting on this thread: I sure would hate to be you on Judgement Day -- you better HOPE you're right!!!

Secular Humanist Institutional Tyranny
The doctrine of the Secular Humanist Scum whose adherents look to destroy our God-given human freedoms of Speech and Religion can be found in the Humanist Manifesto I,II and III. The purpose of this doctine is two-fold. Tyranny and chaos. CAUTION : Anyone caught up in this ideology is soon to be found mentally impoverished and insane.

re: USAconservativemom
Wow! Surprise!
" I sure would hate to be you on Judgement Day -- you better HOPE you're right!!! "

A self-righteous, holier than thou, sanctimonious right winger!

How original!

To MellorSJ2 in AL
You said:

"True conservatives in the Goldwater tradition will only rise again (and get the power to reduce the size of guv'mint) when we rid ourselves of these maniacs. They call themselves "christians" but they are brothers to Osama bin Laden."

The Religious Right is essentially the American Taliban. If these same people were born in Pakistan or Iraq or Afghanistan, they would be become Islamic extremists. They want perpetual war, approve of violence and assasination, use torture against non-Christians, do not believe in universal human rights, are enemies to our Constitution, are opposed to independent thinking and the use of reason, and use fear mongering and bible thumping to justify their prejudice.

The hypocracy of these people is that they enjoy all the modern priveleges and conveniences from science and technology from AC to microwaves to cell phones to airplanes to computors yet insist on having a retarded worldview 2000 years behind the times.

Manna-Feast
A lot of us on this site (including me) have the same kind of testimonies as you with personal experience about experiencing the power of God first-hand (mine doesn't involve deliverance from substance abuse, but I have other testimonies) - but I doubt you'd get someone like MellorSJ2 or Vampire's Reflection to accept them.

Here's an illustrative question: suppose MellorSJ2 were dying of AIDS (and given the fact that he's an admitted homosexual, how do we know he ISN'T), and in the last stages of this disease, and a Christian came to him and laid hands on him and prayed in Jesus' name for him to be healed of this disease (let's say a Muslim cleric and a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk and "clergy" of other religions had all done the same thing before then, with no results) - and the next day, he felt as good in his physical body as though he had never had the disease at all, and then he underwent exhaustive medical tests that showed no trace of AIDS in his body AT ALL. The question is, do you think MellorSJ2 would believe THEN that he had been healed of his disease by Almighty God, whose son is Jesus Christ?

I have a serious doubt that he would.

The recent "Miracle on the Hudson" is something many of us (which I'm sure includes you as well, and it includes me) believe was a supernatural intervention of God's hand. But you could give all the statistics you want to the atheists and secularists about the odds that all the different things that came together in that incident was a trillions or trillions of trillions-to-one chance, if some mathematicians actually calculate it to be so, of the plane surviving as intact as it did and not one fatality occurring, and they STILL won't believe.

MellorSJ2 and Jen
Mel, you´re too quick on the draw, I was going to say exactly the same thing.

Jen, again, you give me nothing more than what I can give my neice - ie the tooth fairy exists.

Please, there must be someone that has some hard evidence as to the existance of God. Man has been on earth for over 3,000,000 years and the solar system has existed for approximately 13,000,000,000 years. Surely in that time there must be some evidence.

Vampires Reflection 12:18
I am sorry that you feel scripture, used for its intent, in helping a brother In Christ ie. Christian, is arrogant; as the pres elect has said he is. Your comment belies your lack of wanting to assist another in any aspect of their lives. Which if being helpful, caring,and or Loving is sanctimonious as you say, then are we as individuals simply to ignore eachother and allow them to fall if we see that they are going to? Personally, I am of no "religion", but have a personal relationship the living Christ (Christian) Religion is man trying to get to God by his own deeds or "good works"; which it is by Grace we are saved, not by works les any man arrogantly boast. As to your comment about waterboarding Nathan; many through history have given their lives for their belief in Christ, willingly. My question to you is, would you be willing to die for something that you thought was a lie?

Dear USAconservativemom
There are three possibilities:

1. There are no gods. You've wasted Sunday mornings; I'm safe.

2. There is a god and we have displeased him. Neither of us is going to have a good time; but I enjoyed my life while it lasted.

3. There is a god and he is your(*) god. You're safe; and I'm happy never to have to deal with you lot ever again.

(*) I say "your" god, but have not proved yourself to be one of the lunatics that post here, only a believer.

Squeezed out of the "big tent"
"" Vampire's Reflection
In ancient Rome, it is reported that as a conquering Ceasar rode in triumphant procession throught the streets of Rome, a slave accompanying him in his chariot would be simulatanepously whispering in his ear, something to the effect of, "Remember that you too are mortal".

In light of this historical precedent, Mr. Tabor's submission seems not only appropriate but of the highest order of political necessity. ""

I agree with this sentiment, so why not say it in terms that will be understood, and more readily accepted, by people of all faiths (or not)?

First
You're off topic, but you just couldn't help but prove Nathan Tabor's point with your rant. Can you (not "could" you) tell us where Mr. Tabor asked for a special right?

The issue is free speech for some and not for others. Do ya GET that? Any proof of selective free speech by a secular liberal brings the moonbats right out from under the rock. Did it occur to you as extremely odd that your "hyprocracy" spew involves only some (and only) Christians. You forgot the Rev. "God D*mn America" Wright.

Some tolerance for you could be called for, here, since I see you're from MA. Bet you went to public school. Sorry, by accident of birth you never had a chance.

Because that's not Tabor's intent, Tom
.

To USAconservativemom in NV
You said:
"To all you Liberal Aetheists
posting on this thread: I sure would hate to be you on Judgement Day -- you better HOPE you're right!!! "

I'm not an atheist, but am certain that the OT biblical God is a totally false God.

God "Our Holy Father in Heaven who loves us more than we can possibly imagine"
allowed his own best people (The Jews-The Chosen people of The Lord) to be murdered by the millions in Nazi Germany.

God could've snapped his fingers and the Nazi's would've dropped like dominoes.
Instead, God let 6 million of his own best people be murdered through gas chambers and ovens.

Since God did not come to his chosen people in their great hour of need, ignored their prayers and pleas for mercy, why should anyone else rely on him?
God either:
*Does not exist at all.
*Exists but is powerless to help his children of Israel. Satan is more powerful.
*Has no interaction or meddling or awareness of human affairs.
*Exists, see the evil and could stop it, but relishes the misery and suffering and injustice towards His people and is pals with Satan whom he refuses to destroy.

bryce1
I, as a Christian, would have no problem with the posting of most of the Korans verses, although the ones advocating violence and subjugation of non-Muslims should probably be considered inflamatory. Free speech is free speech and as Nathan was willing to pay for the ad, this sort of censorship seems to be unwarranted.

This sort of censorship is far more wide-spread than most people realize. A couple of years ago, our local newspaper (which is a moderate paper, not a liberal tome) ran a series of articles honoring older teachers in our community, particularly those retired and voluntaring in adult literacy. For 50 years, my church has operated a school teaching the foreign-born English and citizenship and we wanted to honor a couple of our teachers, particularly ones who are not members of our congregation, through this series. We were denied because they were teaching through a religious organization. Apparently, it's not voluntarism if you do it for Jesus -- at least that was what the reporter said. I'm friends with the managing editor and I spoke with him privately after the denial. He agreed with me that it was a discriminatory policy, but explained that it comes down from the Dallas home-office and there is nothing he can do about it. Last year, however, I noted an article in that same paper praising a Muslim woman who teaches traditional belly dancing. So, yeah, there's lots of discrimination going on and half the time nobody notices.

To Catherine in AZ
Special priveleges should not automatically be extended to the Religious Right merely because they retain religious prejudice and think that they are "righteous" and everyone else is wrong and going to hell. This is a continual offense of the Religious Right towards Americans.

USA Today is a private newspaper and reserves the right to exclude articles of profanity and inappropriate content. Both those apply to Nathan Tabor's ad request. While its fine for the author to post on an exclusively religious website. No such privelege exists to dictate prejudice to a private secular newspaper.

MellorSJ and Tom
Not that it's really going to matter to you but Obama claims to be a Christian, so the entreaty by Mr. Tabor is appropriate, relevant, and, to one who recognizes Biblical injunctions as being necessary to personal judgement, positive.

It's a Christian thing; you wouldn't understand.

Catherine
I'm actually also originally from Massachusetts, even went to public school for a few years there (and in Minnesota and Michigan as well, which like Massachusetts now are all enclaves of hard liberalism). I graduated from high school, by the way, in Phoenix (go Cardinals, right!); my parents have lived in the Phoenix area for 36 years now. Sure glad that when my dad retired from the military, he got our family out of blue-state America and to a red state like Arizona.

Fortunately, when I was in school in the blue states I mentioned, it was at a time before the liberals had gotten a stranglehold on K-12 education and turned the public schools into an educational wasteland - and worse, a liberal indoctrination center.

Which is why I absolutely do NOT envy children having to grow up today in 21st century America; if I had grown up in such a culture, given that my parents weren't particularly religious, I might well have become, or remained, as flaming a liberal as you see of so many who come to this site.

First
Only in the mind of one detached from reality is an injunction from the Bible considered profane or inappropriate.

Standinghisground 1:14
Yes choices are made by many as to what or even who to believe, regardless of evidence or fact. It is so easy to discount God when a pained heart is consumed by itself. Nevertheless, God wants none to die condemed by false doctrine or pragmatic dis-belief. We live in a fallen world of fallible and inperfect human beings (their actions, words, reactions bear this out). All the while we are villified for our faith and belief and yes knowlage. We testify to what they really want but are too afaid to reach for: Perfect Love. But let us not stop, for their sakes, not ours; that their hearts may oneday, before the judgment of man to come, understand that Love, that Peace and that Hope that defies human understanding. What they dont understand, other "Gods" are dead in the Ground, but Christ is alive, He rose from the Grave to show us that we can too have everlasting life. Let us also remember, our king sits on the white throne, not in the white house.

re: Manna Feast
So, I find it interesting that the person whispering in Ceasar's ear was giving a PRIVATE message and not a public one.

Nathan was writing a message for a Newspaper with the understanding that the audience was not, in fact, Obama, but the public reading USA Today.

If Nathan wanted to whisper privately into Obama's ear he can easily do so by sending Obama a personal email.

But, Nathan knew his message would primarily be read by the general public.

This was not a guidance message to Obama. This was a f**k you to the USA's reading public.

I find the whole thing sanctimonious. Preaching some sermon to Obama in public.

No, Nathan's intent was to flip off Obama in front of the USA reading crowd.

There is no reason to deliver that kind of *personal intent* message in public if indeed he was sincere about the message.

No, Nathan was definitely wanting to flip off Obama.


Par for MSM
When the Holy Scriptures speak.The MSM runs for the hills.It shows them for who they are,and all of us for that matter.For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God,but if we confess our sins he his faithfull and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.Praise the Lord from whom all blessings flow!!!!!Praise him all creatures here below.Praise him above ye heavenly host.Praise him Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.A-Men.
Every knee will bow and every toungue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the Glory of God the Father

Chuck
You said of First, "Only in the mind of one detached from reality is an injunction from the Bible considered profane or inappropriate."

Actually, where he even MORE detached from reality is his ludicrous assertion that "The Religious Right is essentially the American Taliban" (as detached as MellorSJ2 is from reality in HIS assertion that Christian conservatives are brothers to Osama Bin Laden).

Because we're confronted daily with evidences that the vast majority of liberals, even though they may SAY such things, don't actually believe this in practice.

I just heard that some Muslim cleric issued some kind of threat against Madonna - and as a result, she has hired security for her family. Funny, if SHE believed Christians are like Osama Bin Laden, how come she was doing in her concerts recently a mock crucifixion? Given that there are TENS OF MILLIONS of Christians/Catholics in this country (meaning it would be a lot easier for US to get to Madonna, if we were so inclined, than the far fewer number of Muslims in this country), does this sound like the behaviour of someone who believes Christians are as much a danger to her as Muslims? If she does, then she's one of the biggest fools in the world.

And have you noticed that the liberal media and the Hollywood industry go OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid ANYTHING that they think might even in the SLIGHTEST be offensive to Muslims (unflattering references in films, anti-Muslim cartoons, etc.) - yet they have not shown the slightest reticence to offend Christians/Catholics? Again, very strange behaviour on the part of people who would have us to believe that fundamentalist Christians are as much of a danger as fundamentalist Muslims. Unless, of course: they're LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH! Which, of course, they are.

Jennings
Pretty soon, most of the MSM won't simply be "running for the hills", they'll be running for Chapter 7: bankruptcy! Much of it is already nearing the finish line on this "race"!

Manna-Feast
Also, we should remember what Paul wrote in Romans 1:18. That the Gospel of Christ is foolishness - TO THOSE WHO ARE PERISHING!

Vampires Reflection 2:05
Interesting that your response to me contained excerpts from posts I did not write. Although, those posts from which you quote hold a truth also. I am sorry for the resentment you carry towards those who are willing to stand for their faith. But I am glad you have the convictions of your beliefs to stand equally strong, and expouse such. It would however bring a more interesting debate to the table if your convictions were based upon something other than generalities. I discern this from your comments and not from a preconceived notion as to who you are or what you believe. That being said, most of your comments lead me to one scripture, John 15:18-19 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but because I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. The servant is not grater than his lord, if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. Therefore by your posts alone I stand in good company, but I pray that you will come to know the Truth, or maybe even study it(the Bible) so as you can provide a deeper and compelling argument against it. Thank you and God Bless You.

Bruce

Bruce: Jen, again, you give me nothing more than what I can give my neice - ie the tooth fairy exists.




Jen: Obviously, I was just being “cute” in my last post.

There is quite a bit of evidence, but you choose to ignore it. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed. Not to mention, all the names, places, and dates in the Bible add up as well.

There are countless testimonies from your fellow man who say God revealed Himself to them. Read their stories.

You remind me of a boy who demand his parents prove they love him. The parents say, we feed you, we clothe you, we take care of all your needs. We would die for you and couldn’t possibly love you anymore. How could we possibly prove our love is real?

The boy just complains, maybe you are just tricking me? Maybe you don’t really care about me? I could get food and clothes from the local shelter – I don’t need you. Why should I believe you? How can I be sure?

It isn’t that the boy’s parents’ love does not exist. It’s the boy who refuses to admit it. He’s looking for a fight. He’s fighting what he knows in his heart to be true. Why? Who knows? Perhaps, b/c if he admits his parents love is real, then he may actually feel compelled to live up to it – not always an easy task.

Here's what Tabor DIDN'T say
He didn't say that USA TODAY should be forced to print his advertisement.

He didn't say he was going to sue.

He didn't say that lines from the Koran, the Vedas and Upanishads, the Talmud, the Four Books and Five Classics of Confucius, the Book of Mormon, the Sutras, the Satanic Bible, the Principia Discordia, or the collected works of Madalyn Murray O'Hair should be forbidden while only the Christian Bible was accepted.

He simply pointed out that his ADVERTISING message was rejected, as stated by a corporation representative, simply and explicitly because of his beliefs.


Liberal "diversity"
Celebrate Diversity*

* Disclaimer. As used here, "diversity" means gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, Caucasian men (metrosexuals only), women (except those who are pro-life), the differently abled (disabled), atheists, secular humanists, and environmentalists. Christians and conservatives are specifically excluded.

Jen
You're wasting your time with Bruce in MN. He's ALREADY "moved the goalposts" at least twice since his original post asking for scientific proof of God's existence that would stand up in a court of law.

When I challenged him on that standard in my 12:12 post to say that if he was going to accept that if a court of law says something is so, then it's so, then did he accept the verdict of the original O.J. Simpson criminal case that Simpson was NOT guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman - and his reply at 12:38 pm was that he did NOT. Therefore, he already contradicted his original standard - and as a result, "moved the goalposts".

And in that same post, he then demanded MULTIPLE Supreme Court decisions as an acceptable basis of proof. I wonder if he believes therefore that a case that comes up in court should be tried multiple times and, if only THEN is a body of decisions that consistently comes to the same result - guilty or not guilty - results, the "truth" from the court of law on the particular case in question is considered satisfactorily resolved. This would, of course, overturn the constitutional provision about "double jeopardy" - and I'm sure there are VERY few Americans who would accept this as standard practice in our judicial system. So this was his SECOND time at "moving the goalposts".

Ultimately, he couldn't care a whit what OTHERS may say on the issue of the existence of God, no matter how persuasive their testimony, because regardless of what he may say to the contrary, he accepts only HIMSELF as the final arbiter on the issue for himself.

One thing that took me long enough to learn (and I certainly tried doing it enough in past days), and is why I haven't tried doing it on this thread: you can't ARGUE someone into the Kingdom.

Kermudjin in CO
"Christians and conservatives excluded." So very, very true. But, what goes around, comes around. Patience is the answer to all the outrageous B.S. that is going on in our country. That's one important lesson I've managed to learn in my life so far. Signed, Patiently outwaiting all the B.S. down on the Bayou

To Stands His Ground
Rule #l...you're right. Never argue with an atheist. They are always right, always condescending about it, and always convinced they're smarter than the rest of us. And for some obscure reason, always angry about other people's faith. (I admit there must be some exceptions to this.) Signed, Clinging to my guns & religion down on the Bayou

karen
Actually, at one time I was an atheist myself (up until my sophomore year of college) - but I have to say, in all truthfulness, that I did NOT have the anger toward other people's faith in God that the posters you see on this thread do. Not trying to brag on myself, mind you, just simply making an observation - and I also did not have the issue with America reflecting the Judeo-Christian ethos in its laws and culture while I was still in my atheist days that the angry atheist posters you've seen today have as well.

By the way, whenever I've seen atheists come onto this site and spout off about how much better off a people and their nation are WITHOUT the belief in God as a guiding principle in their laws and culture, I ask them why, if that's so, could that not be said of the old communist regimes - and why those societies featured the kind of gross brutality that even the most theocratic Islamic regimes we've ever seen don't even come CLOSE to. Not surprisingly, they avoid the question. If I had the same theistic worldview that guided the communists, I wouldn't want to talk about it, either!

To Stands His Ground
Good thinking! Interesting what you said. I'll remember that. And of course they'll conveniently forget yr question, cause they don't want to answer. Actually, many atheists I've known are communist sympathisers, so they're not going to want to put down communism in any way.

The vote on the inauguralation
Who cares how many attend inaugural

Standshisground
"I ask them why, if that's so, could that not be said of the old communist regimes"

Simple, they practiced their own religion -- Marxist communism. And theocratic communists tend to be just as evil (Jim Jones, Taborites).

No publish? No problem.
I just won't buy USA Today anymore. Or, any other Gannett owned product. Including:

The Montgomery Advertiser, Arizona Republic, Tucson Citizen, The Baxter Bulletin, Desert Sun, Salinas Californian, Tulare Advance-Register, Visalia Times-Delta, Fort Collins Coloradoan, Norwich Bulletin, The Wilmington News Journal, The Delaware Wave, Florida Today, Fort Myers News-Press, Pensacola News Journal, Tallahassee Democrat,FSView & Florida Flambeau, Hagatna Pacific Daily News, Honolulu Advertiser, Rockford Register Star, Indianapolis Star,
Journal and Courier, Lafayette Chronicle-Tribune, Muncie Star Press, Richmond Palladium-Item, Des Moines Register, Iowa City Press-Citizen, Louisville Courier-Journal, Alexandria Town Talk, Lafayette Daily Advertiser, Monroe News-Star, Opelousas Daily World, Shreveport Times, Salisbury Daily Times, Battle Creek Enquirer, Detroit Free Press, Lansing State Journal and many more. See the complete list here:

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






Donjindra's answer has the advantage ...
... of pith. Plus, it's specific to the issue of religion.

A more general answer has to do simply with power. Some people use religion to gain it (look at the middle ages xians, today's Iran, the pope in South America, etc); some people invent their own (North Korea, Mao, Stalin etc).

But the question is ill-framed. "Communists" and "xians" are not opposites. There can be xian communists--Stalin was trained in an Orthodox seminary. We might just as well compare xians with dictators-with-mustaches.




Just-tex
"I just won't buy USA Today anymore."

Good for you. That is your right, and it is an entirely reasonable response to what you presumably consider a mortal insult.

But what were you doing buying it in the first place? For its colorful pages? For its imaginative chartjunk? For its insightful analysis? For its fifth grade reading level? For its state-by-state 'news'? For its pitifully easy sodoku? Or perhaps for its thoroughly statist editorials?


MellorSJ2
"Stalin was trained in an Orthodox seminary."

Conservative Christians would rather skip over this fact. But it shows that merely posting the Ten Commandments in schools or teaching kids to pray has no effect on the Stalins of this world. Since Christians insist on blaming Stalin's murderous ways on atheism, I ask why it's not due to his Christian upbringing? Both are nonsense but if Christians want to play unfairly I don't see why we shouldn't.

Too Bad...So Sad
Who wants to hear anymore about this fairytale christianity BS?? No longer relevant....Sorry, the truth hurts...hehehehehehe

http://www.republicansexoffenders.com
http://www.freelevi.org

Goofy business decision by USA Today
While a newspaper is free to print or not print what it wants, I don't really understand why USA Today balked at printing this simple statement. Bias against Christians, the dominant group in our society, doesn't ring true to me though. More likely, it seems to me, is that some businesses shy away from nearly all things religious for fear of putting off some people.

No Need for Mainstream Media Anymore
We haven't purchased any newspaper for years. We get our news from Christian Radio and the internet. The same applies to magazines. When I found out that several fashion magazines supported abortion (years ago), I stopped buying them, even though I missed them. If you need to read a newspaper, go to the library, or a fast food restaurant where they offer newspapers. NEVER purchase one. That'll save you a bundle of bucks, too. We've survived quite well without the MSM hysteria.

Hey Robert
Thanks for the freelevi link. ROTFLMAO!

'Atta boy!
I’ve never met anyone more narrow-minded than a self-professed open-minded liberal.

Donjindra
"Stalin was trained in an Orthodox seminary."
"Conservative Christians would rather skip over this fact."
=====

"Those who make trouble in the political arena are not so much atheists as rebel believers. They think Gos did a lousy job; humankind can improve on His creation. ...Ex-seminarians and fallen-away priests make the fiercest revolutionaries, Stalin being only the best-known example"

Tom Bethell, The American Spectator, July 1996

No, we don't overlook that fact. In fact, it is one of the best evidences that the Biblical narrative is the correct one, as reality seems to always conform to its tenets.

"Matt 12:43-45
"When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. Then he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation."
RSV

Donjindra
And this:

2 Peter 2:21-3:1

"For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire."

RSV



Nope, Chuck
"reality seems to always conform to [the biblical narrative's] tenets."

Nope. You just twist your interpretation to fit the facts.

MellorSJ2
Even though I completely disagree with you on religion, I have to give credit where credit is due.

"But what were you doing buying it in the first place? For its colorful pages? For its imaginative chartjunk? For its insightful analysis? For its fifth grade reading level? For its state-by-state 'news'? For its pitifully easy sodoku? Or perhaps for its thoroughly statist editorials?"

Now that was funny!

Chuck @ 8:59pm
Good response. Atheists always like to throw these half-truths out in order to try to discredit Christianity. They do it with Hitler as well, who they claim was a Catholic.

What they don't know or care to acknowledge is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a true disciple of Christ. Jesus Himself said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

standshisground
standshisground, sorry that I didn’t answer sooner but I’ve been gone. I think you better renew your relationship with God regarding your alcoholism and or drug addiction because it isn’t working. You asked if I thought O.J. Simpson was innocent of murder. I said that the jury found him not guilty and that they never found him innocent of the crime of murder. There is a legal difference in the two findings under the law. To be found not guilty it is only necessary that the jury finds sufficient doubt that he did not commit the crime. Because you asked me in your posting if I thought he was innocent and based upon hundreds of hours of watching the trial, I answered you and stated, no I did not feel that he was innocent. In fact in the civil trial where it is only necessary to have a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a doubt as required in the criminal trial, he was found to be guilty and ordered to pay something like $33,000,000. Also, contrary to your comments about double jeopardy there are several courts to try cases in, criminal, civil, tax, etc. In addition, most cases never get to the Supreme Court unless there are conflicting decisions in two or more districts. This post would be pages long if I tried to explain the entire court system to you. But as Jen says, just trust me, there would be hundreds of decisions in hundreds of cases if there was irrefutable proof that God was real.


Andrea
Well, it's the way human pride works.

In any other situation, on a subject with which they are less knowledgable they would stay silent lest they be shown to be uninformed, but with Christians, their pride causes them to think they know more about the Faith than those who are trying to live it.

It's silly, really.

MellorSJ
It's funny how there always seems to be an interpretation to fit every fact, though, isn't it?

Bruce
You said, "This post would be pages long if I tried to explain the entire court system to you".

After reading your 9:35 pm, it's quite obvious that you really have no idea the point I was trying to make in bringing up the original O.J. Simpson criminal trial, so I very much doubt that you could explain ANYTHING to me. I thought I made my point pretty self-explanatory, but I forget that liberals and conservatives don't even seem to speak or understand the same lingua franca anymore. Mine is the queen's English. Maybe if I'd translated my posts to Libspeak, you'd have understood my meaning - but not being a liberal, I'm not conversant in it.

What Mellor doesn't get is that if
the paper didn't specify any restricting conditions ahead of time, then any message on point that did not violate legal (libel) or decency standards should be accepted. At minimum, they are guilty of false advertising in their misleading solicitation for messages. Of course, liberals see no problem with bait and switch - their polticians do it all of the time.

There are no absolute standards of right and wrong to moral relativists. Yes, Mellor, they have a right to be immoral hypocrites. You win.

Dojindra
You said, "Simple, they practiced their own religion -- Marxist communism".

I wonder if you realize you've done what so many other atheists, particular Messrs. Dawkins and Hitchens, do these days: call any belief system you're embarassed to defend because it hits too close to home a religion, even if it carries within it no recognition whatsoever of the supernatural, and therefore conflate it with theistic beliefs.

I wonder how a communist would feel about your calling his Marxism a "religion" - given that its theoretician, Karl Marx, called religion "the opium of the people". It appears that with you atheists, you can STILL find a way to call someone who no more believes in God than you do a practitioner of "religion" nonetheless. I'd always thought that intrinsic in the word "religion" is the allowance of the possibility of the supernatural - but it appears that you atheists are now re-defining THAT word's meaning as well, just as your fellow atheistic liberals have re-defined the meaning of so many OTHER words in the queen's English. Ergo, you've invented Libspeak (which is merely what George Orwell in his book 1984 called "doublethink") - which I just told Bruce I'm not conversant in, and very definitely NEVER wish to be.

Your post calling communism a "religion" only cements what I've always thought about liberals/leftists: you never have ALLEGIANCES, only ALLIANCES.

Rich D.
You said, "There are no absolute standards of right and wrong to moral relativists".

And apparently to such people, in reading the posts on this thread, there aren't even any absolute standards of what constitutes religion, either. Religion to these relativists is something with the actuality or the possibility of the supernatural as its foundation - except, of course, when it isn't.

You should have used an alias
You should have said you name was Michael Newdow. Then they would have not only accepted your message but taken you out to lunch.

4 4
In Chinese, the number "4" is bad luck since "sie" sounds like death in Cantonese.

I read that the next president's official vehicle has 44 on its license plate - being that he'll be the 44th president.

But hey, he is not Chinese to believe in Feng Shui and stuff like that...

He can just rely on his belief in God; but uh, I saw him on YouTube making fun of Sermon on the Mount.


when you quote something from the bible
it helps your cause if you actually understand the meaning and why it was said.


atheists- please read deeper before looking up one quote and using it as an argument

Unbelievable! RichD speaks the truth!
"...if the paper didn't specify any restricting conditions ahead of time, then any message on point that did not violate legal (libel) or decency standards should be accepted. At minimum, they are guilty of false advertising in their misleading solicitation for messages."

To the extent that they are a "public carrier," this would be true. They can't refuse to accept an ad from a black or gay person, for example.

But that's not what this is about. Tabor wrote: "So anyone keeping a list of examples of news media bias may want to add this one," and then proceeded with his tale.

Far more likely scenarios are:
* Jennifer is a lowly clerk who was uncomfortable for whatever reason
* Jennifer is an anti-xian bigot
* Her boss is either of the above, and she was merely doing as she was told
* Any number of variations on this theme, up to
* The corporation has a policy of not running ads quoting books of fiction
* The corporation has a specifically anti-xian bias

Now, what did Tabor do with his call from Jennifer? Not a thing except wait for two days for an email!

If *I* had sincerely wanted to run the ad, I'd had asked to speak with her supervisor. And if that didn't work, with the supervisor of the supervisor too. I'd have demanded a written explanation (along with her last name and employee ID) NOW.

But no. Tabor leaps to the conclusion it's all about news media bias against xians!

You're being played, sheeple.

Fabius Cunctator
"Never, does MellorSJ2 make any positive statement of his own beliefs", you said of him.

Given that the man is an admitted homosexual, I'm not sure what "positive statement" you can make of THAT. Somehow I don't expect him to say, "I am a proud and practicing sodomite!"

Simple semantics
It's all about semantics, Fab, you fool.

If you ask me if I know how the universe came to be created, I'd say I don't know. The best evidence so far (of which I am aware) is the "big bang."

If you ask me whether this can possibly be the work of a Creator (I'll give you the capitalization this once), I'd have to say, again, I don't know. Maybe it's "god", or maybe it's the Lie algebra, E8.

If you ask me if Jesus Christ existed, I'd say, probably.

If you ask me if he was resurrected, I'd say I wouldn't rely on hearsay evidence 70 years after the fact. For such an extraordinary assertion, extraordinary proof is required.

If you say "I assert 'god' axiomatically," I say, fine. But that doesn't mean I accept your axiom. It needs to be useful.

Each of these statements can have its terms defined so that we agree on their meaning and then we may proceed logically from there. As you see from the above, if you were to say that an unknown and all-powerful force (I use the noun loosely) created the universe, I'd agree with you. When you conflate that concept with fairy tales about resurrection, I'd say you're deluded.

It's all about defining your terms: semantics. When you assert the presence of god axiomatically, it is not proof of god's existence. That's the "semantics" of the word "axiom."

I am a proud and practicing sodomite.
What of it?

Sorry boys and girls..
... but I have a flight to catch.

Standing up in court?
The absolute best proof of God, Jesus Christ, has already stood up in court and been condemned for doing so.

But what we fail to understand is that it's, not Jesus but, ourselves that are on trial. God's letting us judge him for now. But on that very basis he will judge us.

Good art judges the critics and not vise versa.

Mod Mark
Thanks! No birds.

A lovely morning... but it's going to get hot: 35.

FabFool has lost the plot
"Jesus Christ is a person who lived based on proven historical evidence, as I posted on another thread this past week. Do you want to prove the contrary? Let us see your evidence?"

If you had two brain cells to rub together, you would see that in post #145 I wrote: "If you ask me if Jesus Christ existed, I'd say, probably."

You should also know (but like Brainless659 you pretend not to) that you cannot prove a statement like "there are no black swans", or "a certain dipshit carpenter never existed." Both may be found on a planet circling Alpha Centauri.

Fab Cun't continues his foolishness with "[I] gave the historical evidence for the fact of Christ's resurrection." No you didn't. You provided hearsay, written years after the fact. You may believe it to be to be true, but as evidence, it is singularly unconvincing.

And then to top off his idiocy, FabFool writes: "Don't you realize that you are an object of pity?" Pity all you want. Just keep your slimy mitts off my civil rights.







Fab Cun't doesn't even pick up a piece
and then says it's my move?

Silly Fab.

More childish behavior from Fab Cun't
Let's review shall we?

Fab makes a number of claims. I ask for evidence. Fab provides hearsay. I say "that's hearsay." Fab says I have provided no rebuttal.

Sorry Fab. One doesn't "rebut" hearsay as evidence. One dismisses it.

Dismissed.

Win? Funny.... I didn't realize it was
"Smellorsj2 is so deluded that he thinks that people can't read the thread."

People can--and they shall draw their own conclusions.

"He offered no rebuttal based on evidence to my
evidence on the life and Resurrection of Jesus."

I repeat: one does not bother to rebut non-evidence.

"But he says that I did not win the debate."

I said no such thing. You claimed victory. I pointed out you weren't even playing.

"He thinks that he is a school teacher passing out a grade to a student that he does not like."

You're a mind reader now too, eh?

"What am I "dismissed" from; your class?"

I doubt you could even get in.

"Sorry Smellors, you lost; miserably."

More wild claims without a shred of evidence.

Tut tut.

One more time, with feeling
"one does not bother to rebut non-evidence."

If you have any evidence, other than hearsay reported decades after the fact, let's hear it.

When you've done that, you can provide evidence that he was the son of your misogynistic genocidal god, rather than, say, allah, or the Great Elf.

And when you're done with that, let's try showing that the blatherings of this god should be adhered to in this secular state. After all, we let shellfish eaters (and even mushroom eaters--may the Great Elf be praised!) marry...



Wait!
I've seen that post before!

Points then? Zero. Points now? Fewer.

The atheist sodomite proud of it-Mellor
MellorSJ2 says:

"I am a proud and practing sodomite:"

Gee, who would have guessed that. Funny how you refer to believers as "religious nutters."

Mellor/ SJ Doc who uses atheism to justify his homosexuality. Talk about circular reasoning. Basing your whole life on a deviant sexual premise, and then trying to justify it to everyone else by claiming God does not exist.

Fabius dinged your bell. I am surprised the air card on your lap top works in the mens restroom at the park.

I will not refer to you as SmellorSJ2, however since you are a proud and practicing sodomite,

"Mud helmet Mellor" would be more appropriate.

From now on you are Mr. Mud helmet.





In case you get banned, "MellorSJ2"
I'd like for you to think it was me who did it.

Hey Mud Helmet- Mellor that would be you
Did you here that scientists have found a new gender bending cause?

Pollution. Causes defects in sexuality including homosexuality. Perhaps Mellor at an early age someone dipped you in something really obnoxoious.

At your advanced age and senility holy water has no chance to reverse the process. Here, read about it,:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1121283/Gend er-bending-chemicals-rivers-grow-potent.html

In any event,it can be used as an excuse in your case.

My! My!
And here come the nutters!

Mr. Mud Helmet MellorSj2

Thank you for referring to me as a religious nutter.

I take that as a compliment of the highest order.

I became a religious nutter after decades of reading postings from fruitcakes such as yourself. After awhile the choice became clear.

Nutter? Or Fruitcake?

Nutter any day for me. Sorry fruitcake.

2spothipshot
"In case you get banned, "MellorSJ2" "

And what would your basis for that be, hmm?

Freudian slip!
I wrote: "here come the nutters!"

Brainless659 wrote: "to me as a religious nutter."

Note the extra word. 'Nuff said.

Mud Helmet Mellor- on being banned
The other poster has retired for the night.

But, since you asked,

"What basis"

That is easy. He is trying to save what remains of your intellectual credibility. Personally I think it is already long gone, but hey, give the guy credit for trying.

Your obnoxious psycho rants are legendary. But aside from your obvious mental issues, nothing should ban you from TH in my eyes.

Everyone here needs entry level amusement such as yourself. Pseudo intellectuals, that would be you Mud Helmet Mellor, are just way too easy.

So, by all means, continue with your amusement.

Ah yes, Anderson the pornographer
What?

You're sad. Go back to your porn sites. Habla?

Ah Yes, Mellor Mud Helmet
"Anderson the pornographer"

Mellor Mud Helmet utters a verbal Onanism.

Too much of the Logo channel will do that to brains that have damage from too much anti-androgens in the water.

Mellor, hey, not to be personal, but did your parents have any children that lived?

Out law lobbest
No more lobbying in Washington period and and any legislator that caught doing so should loose all rights as a congressman.No job, no medical bennys and no retirement plan.THOES THAT LOBBY FOR PRIBVATE INTEREST GROUPS SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL FOR ROBBING THE PUBLIC.
Don't cozie up to this one,we must be able to trust government. As it stands now we don't.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.