Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (72)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (60)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (41)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (31)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (31)
ADVERTISEMENT
The Rev. Wiley Drake should not be welcome in Lodi
Monday, July 20, 2009 6:43 AM PDT
This letter is in response to Maggie Creamer's article (July 4) on the Freedom From Religion Foundation, of which I am a member.
She notes that the Rev. Wiley Drake, a Southern Baptist preacher from Southern California, plans to come to Lodi in August to promote prayers at city council meetings.
The city and the city council need to know Drake's religious position:
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans for the Separation of Church and State, has made several comments on Drake in his monthly newsletter. Drake (1) prays for the death of President Obama and (2) said his prayers were answered with the killing of the Kansas abortion doctor.
Lynn also states that SBC's top lobbyist in Washington, D.C., told USA Today, "Wiley Drake is far out of the mainstream; in fact, he is in a drainage ditch somewhere."
With the negative baggage that Drake will bring to Lodi, the city council should inform him that he is not welcome to the Lodi debate on the prayer issue.
The debate centers around those arrogant and intolerant Christians who consider Lodi a Christian city. How can this be when by church records the county is more than 50 percent "unchurched?" Not only that, but the American Religious Identification Survey notes that Christian churches have lost 10 percent of their members in the past 10 years, while at the same time the number of non-believers has doubled to 15 percent of the population — over 34 million non-believers. Also, the Pew Forum notes that 30-40 percent of young people are rejecting religion.
Therefore, it seems obvious to me that Lodi is a secular city — period. Prayers should be left to the home and church.
Ralph Matthews
Galt
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 11:36 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 11:35 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 11:26 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jul 27, 2009 11:20 PM:
Rude waiters work hard but I'm not going to reward poor attitude. Excellent waiters deserve positive re-enforcement of their good work.
This kind of goes into our conversation on morality with what is right and wrong. Do you tip someone who has a poor work ethic (rude waiters) so they think how they act is okay or do you leave a small to no tip as a message they need to change? For the record I did tell the waiter why he got no tip from me) So I'm curious Bob, I'm sure you tip the good waiters, but do you tip equally the bad ones as well? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 27, 2009 11:11 PM:
Again Jeff, didn't mean to be insulting and I don't expect or need a response on this just wanted to say sorry. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 27, 2009 10:25 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 27, 2009 8:29 PM:
I've said all I will say on this matter. I'm out.
oh, Bob, I don't believe in tipping; I believe in over tipping. "
dyan wrote on Jul 27, 2009 7:31 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 27, 2009 7:12 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jul 27, 2009 5:01 PM:
Jeff has stated that he lives to honor his family (which is admirable). Dyan is asking why if, according to Jeff, when you die that is it. Let's take a factor out of that. Let's look at Chuck. Chuck thinks just like Jeff but has no family to homor. What is to keep him from doing whatever he wants since he has no one to honor? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 27, 2009 4:53 PM:
One lives life for the good of the now and that is the reason for the good. The other lives life for the future and that is the goal.
Dyan is asking how Jeff can measure his morality if he has no set stick to measure against. Dyan's arguement is that personal judgement as to what is moral can be easily swayed by circumstances and when there is no path for the afterlife then what is the point? Like kayaking, if you are out there paddling it is all fun and dandy, but others like having a fixed goal like the far shore. With personal judgements as to what is moral then, like the first kayaker the original goal may move to meet current expectations and the more you compromie the farther from the original goal you get all the while convincing yourself you are still making progress.
(Cont. 1 more time) "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 27, 2009 4:31 PM:
Dyan. I Hope you don't mind if I take a stab at this one.
Let's use the analogy of a shopping trip. customer A and customer B are both shopping the same store (let's say S-mart foods). Both are looking to get the most out of their shopping trip. Customer A represents Dyan and like minded people who come with a list which has outlined thier shopping needs (life). Customer B has no list but is relying on instinct and savey to meet the needs. Both end up getting the same good (both live moral lives) *but* (and here's the difference I think) A, at check-out time pays for the goods and takes them out (afterlife). But B at check out time says thanks for the experience and leaves the cart full of goods.
A lives (shops) a moral life for the end benifit of an afterlife. B lives (shops) strickly for the benifit of the now. Both do the same things, get same goods, but only one leaves life with the goods. Cont. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 4:05 PM:
Why? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 4:04 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 27, 2009 2:35 PM:
By what standard do you judge "goodness"? Is it based on "personal morality?" "
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 1:36 PM:
" Jeff: What's the point of being a "good" person? According to your beliefs, it's all nothing and ends in nothing. Do want you want. It makes no difference. "
Dyan: So, are you saying that "believing" is the only reason to be a good person with morals and values? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 1:27 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 27, 2009 1:26 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 27, 2009 7:10 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 27, 2009 7:09 AM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 27, 2009 6:39 AM:
jeff wrote on Jul 26, 2009 5:15 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 26, 2009 12:48 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 26, 2009 11:45 AM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 26, 2009 7:21 AM:
jeff wrote on Jul 25, 2009 5:11 PM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 25, 2009 4:53 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 25, 2009 3:06 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 25, 2009 3:02 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 25, 2009 3:00 PM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 25, 2009 8:24 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 24, 2009 9:10 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 24, 2009 4:32 PM:
You also incorrectly assume that our purpose can only come from god. while you may feel your purpose comes from god, the rest of us do not.
Now if you feel that I haven't fully understood what you have tried to convey, then perphaps you can try to write it again. "
jeff wrote on Jul 24, 2009 4:13 PM:
interesting, I, in part try to live by a moral code as a way of showing honor and tribute to my family, in particluar my now past grandfather, and our matriarch grandmother. One does not need god to show honor and tribute. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 24, 2009 2:23 PM:
The difference is the same as true Christians vs what I've been calling the Sunday social clubers, the ones that go to church every Sunday only because they fear what would happen if they didn't but have no real conviction, only fear. I don't follow Jesus for fear of Hell but because of conviction of Heaven. Granted, there are those who preach believe in God so you don't go the Hell. And I will argue and fight that stance as passionately as there is no God because it sets up people as the first knight who has no real conviction (and why we see people who call themselves "christian" doing immoral things). Faith is a shield, providing shelter and strength, not a anchor to hold you back. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 24, 2009 2:10 PM:
It is not for the "fear of failure" that Christians (at least the ones I talk to) follow God's covenant, but rather for the glory of success. You (and other here) seem to think that it is fear of being smited that keeps us Christians in line. And I'll admit in the middle ages that was the motivation used. But most Christians I talk to now a days follow God's laws as a way of showing honor and tribute, not fear.
Using a kingdom analogy look at the difference between two knights of the king. One is in service only out of fear that the king may get mad at him if he didn't serve. He does what is asked of him but out of fear, not love. Vs the second knight who believes the king is the best king and is in service because he truly believes the king is rightous.
Cont. "
dyan wrote on Jul 24, 2009 1:23 PM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 24, 2009 1:05 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 24, 2009 12:45 PM:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/07/24/notes072409.DTL&nl=fix "
jeff wrote on Jul 24, 2009 11:45 AM:
of course there will be no reason for morality at that point. I AM DEAD. no reason for food, water, or shelter, either. "
jeff wrote on Jul 24, 2009 11:39 AM:
So you're saying that the only way to have morals is if you can continue in an after-life, to see and judge the things you have done? but if you were immoral in life on earth, who's to say you wouldn't continue to immoral in the after-life.
No, I cannot believe that believing in an after-life is the only way to instill morals. "
dyan wrote on Jul 24, 2009 11:13 AM:
But if this life is it, and you have no memory of it, then for you, at the time of your death, you never existed. Hence, no reason for morality.
Sure. You'll be remembered by some still here. But those memories will be distorted in time and soon, there will be no memories at all. "
jeff wrote on Jul 24, 2009 10:22 AM:
perhaps because you see 'a network or support system as a foundation' only being found in god or religion. and you seem to base your entire arguement of this poor assumption. YOU may need god or religion to define your system, and to instill fear for failure to adhere. I do not. I have a system built by my friends, family, colleagues, my conscience, and even the memories of my now past grandfathers and grandmothers to help me decide what is moral and what is not. "
stantaves wrote on Jul 24, 2009 9:25 AM:
jeff wrote on Jul 24, 2009 9:13 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 24, 2009 8:16 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 24, 2009 8:12 AM:
jeff wrote on Jul 23, 2009 9:59 PM:
you can't seem to rationalize people being good people for the sake of being good people without some external fear.
you must've missed it the first time. I treat people the way I would like, in turn, to be treated. not because of fear, but because of balance. it seems reasonable that life would be in balance if I treated people the way I would want to be treated. it seemed that simple in the first grade, and it seems ever more simple today. "
dyan wrote on Jul 23, 2009 9:13 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 23, 2009 9:04 PM:
Everything is rationalized to fit the situation. the "golden rule,' is a religious concept - whether you like it or not. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 23, 2009 6:36 PM:
While you do what you do, Jeff, simply because it's the right thing to do (whether or not you think someone is watching), if it were not for Brian's fear of divine retribution, he would certainly feel free to follow his monstrous tendancies. "
jeff wrote on Jul 23, 2009 4:57 PM:
I know I want to be treated fairly and respectfully, so I try to reciprocate that fully. I want my family and I to be safe, so I try to support the laws passed to keep all safe. I like the feeling I get when I do good things for people, so I try to do good things for people.
I know I am a good and decent member of this community, and am, I believe, well respected. I do not need a god to define that for me, or a pastor to chastise me when I falter. I have my wife and my conscience that will do that plenty. "
AntelopeCa wrote on Jul 23, 2009 4:48 PM:
As a Christian I support the FFRF in this effort. "
dyan wrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:39 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 22, 2009 9:19 PM:
the scientific study of the human mind and it's functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context. "
dyan wrote on Jul 22, 2009 8:46 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 22, 2009 8:43 PM:
It's something we just make up as we go along? What's being married to a shrink got to do with this discussion? "
voter wrote on Jul 22, 2009 8:38 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 22, 2009 8:11 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 22, 2009 3:15 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 22, 2009 1:40 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 22, 2009 9:17 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 22, 2009 8:50 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 22, 2009 8:39 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 22, 2009 7:55 AM:
jeff wrote on Jul 21, 2009 8:30 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 21, 2009 4:36 PM:
Robb wrote on Jul 21, 2009 12:58 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 21, 2009 9:35 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 21, 2009 6:45 AM:
Tina2009 wrote on Jul 20, 2009 11:59 PM:
anthropis wrote on Jul 20, 2009 11:00 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 20, 2009 8:14 PM:
anthropis wrote on Jul 20, 2009 7:54 PM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 7:39 PM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 7:35 PM:
sam wrote on Jul 20, 2009 7:06 PM:
My "household" is yelling at me to bring up Islamic beheadings. I said "NO"... but I am glad you brought it up. Geez... too funny. "
sam wrote on Jul 20, 2009 7:02 PM:
Are you kidding me? Any politician making a decision based on her/his religious morals is ok? That is crazy. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 20, 2009 6:40 PM:
Oh Cog, if you haven't read it before let me tell you - I never claim to be anything more - or less - than a complete moron.
The answer to your question is an unequivocal "Yes."
My question is, what did your nonsensical statement mean? You said, "...other than taking a stand on moral issues, I would never attend a Church that promoted politics from the pulpit."
Can you rephrase that so it reads properly? The two statements are nonsequiters.
Your other statement, "Having a politician make a decision based on religious morals is not a bad thing" is one of sweeping, grandiose naivete. Are you ready for Nancy Pelosi to outlaw beer sales on Sunday? Are you ready to have fish Fridays part of the penal code? Mandatory animal sacrifices? Public Islamic beheadings?
That was, admit it, an ignorant thing to say. "
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 5:45 PM:
sam wrote on Jul 20, 2009 5:16 PM:
gatemom wrote on Jul 20, 2009 2:37 PM:
anthropis wrote on Jul 20, 2009 2:06 PM:
anthropis wrote on Jul 20, 2009 1:57 PM:
Congress has never enacted a law concerning this issue for the courts to consider. Furthermore there is nothing in our Code of Federal Regulations that addresses the matter, and most importantly the Federal Register has never notified citizens that we are forbidden from praying at a public forum.
Notice is fundamental to American Jurisprudence. "
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 1:46 PM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 1:38 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Jul 20, 2009 1:18 PM:
gatemom wrote on Jul 20, 2009 1:02 PM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 12:52 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 20, 2009 12:40 PM:
From the blogger who said he learned all his Republican values at church. "
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 11:58 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2009 11:48 AM:
That church is the platform of divisive politics.
A perfect description of two thirds of the evangelical churches in America. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 20, 2009 11:09 AM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 10:21 AM:
CaPatriot wrote on Jul 20, 2009 10:03 AM:
Mazie wrote on Jul 20, 2009 9:57 AM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2009 8:48 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Jul 20, 2009 7:46 AM:
The only "arrogance and intolerance" I've been witnessing comes from the desire to limit our rights rather than protect them. No one is forced to pray or worship in any way, including their right not to worship at all.
As for Reverend Drake, I agree - he's not within the Christian mainstream with his belief in imprecatory prayer. As for Dr. Tiller – he was murdered and that should never have happened. But the clinic did close; and I am confident there were many who prayed for that to happen. "
Comments on this story are now closed.