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? (75)
- 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)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (43)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (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
Freedom from Religion Foundation pleased by Lodi council's efforts to remove Christ references from invocations
The city of Lodi will likely dodge a lawsuit over prayers before Lodi City Council meetings if it continues attempts to exclude references to Jesus Christ in those invocations.
That's the word from the president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which has threatened to sue the city.
The group's members would still like the city to work harder to exclude indirect references to Christianity, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, the foundation's president.
In May, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter saying the city needed to start enforcing its own policy that says prayers must be "non-sectarian and non-denominational." The Madison, Wis.-based foundation staff watched 55 prayers online and found 39 had direct references to Jesus Christ.
Now, the city is calling religious leaders before the meeting to inform them of the rules and ask if they will be able to follow them. Only one leader has refused to come pray.
If the council continues enforcing the policy, the foundation will most likely not continue with a lawsuit, Gaylor said, although she would prefer if the city would eliminate the prayers altogether.
"Our members are mainly atheists and agnostics, and we don't like the idea of government prayer because it excludes and embarrasses us," Gaylor said. "God should not be in government."
She believes, though, that the city can and should be even more vigilant.
The foundation analyzed the most recent prayers at the council meeting and are pleased Jesus Christ was not directly mentioned in them, Gaylor said. But the organization still wants to see the city clamp down on references like "Our dear Heavenly Father" and "we pray all of these things in your name," which were in the prayers.
The foundation asked the city in a letter dated July 23 to have a formal discussion of the policy at a future meeting and ask religious leaders to eliminate any Christian references.
"Prayers offered at government meetings cannot explicitly reference 'Jesus Christ' or imply reference to Jesus by alternatively using 'in your name,' or use terminology associated with a specific religion, such as 'Heavenly Father,'" according to the letter sent by Gaylor's foundation.
The city has received the letter but has not had time to discuss it, city spokesman Jeff Hood said.
First United Methodist Rev. Alan Kimber said it is ridiculous that the foundation finds fault with the prayer he delivered at the June 3 meeting.
Gaylor said the main problem is Kimber said "we are mindful of those times when we have been unduly critical and unresponsive to the call in our own lives to service." She said the sentence covertly references Christianity because Christian leaders often say they had a "calling" to serve.
Kimber said the letter criticizing the prayers is nonsense. He pointed out that calling is not a Christian reference because politicians often say they have a calling to serve and during wartime military men and women feel called to serve the county.
He said he feels his prayer includes all faiths.
"You've gotta make quite sure that your prayers are inclusive for all who would embrace a higher power without naming that power," he said.
Gaylor also critiqued Bear Creek Community Church Pastor Bill Cummins' prayer at the June 17 meeting. By using "Heavenly Father" and "we pray all of these things in your name," Cummins is still referencing Christianity, she maintains.
Cummins is upset that the city has had to spend time considering this issue and believes the group's arguments are ridiculous. "You might as well pray to a Coke bottle, a garage door or some strange object because you cannot say God at all," he said.
Keeping the issue in the public's eye
The council had tentatively scheduled to discuss the issue of prayer at its Aug. 5 meeting. The city moved it to an undetermined date because of pressing city business, including the approval of a contract to provide staffing at the animal shelter and approving the next step forward on a senior housing project, Hood said.
Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt still plans to come hold a prayer meeting at 6 p.m. before the meeting to let the council know that Christians support being allowed to say Jesus in public prayers.
Klingenschmitt founded the national organization Pray in Jesus Name Project, based out of Colorado Springs, Colo.
While she wants the city to discuss the invocation, Gaylor said she thinks it is a smart idea for the city to wait.
"I've been bowled over on how the religious right has honed in on this," she said. "I don't blame (the city) for wanting to take cover."
Local Pastor Eugene Wilburn said he is planning on attending the prayer meeting. Wilburn, of Big Valley Bible Church, believes the foundation's goal is to attack the freedoms of Christians in this country.
"What you are looking at, this one instance of prayer, is just one instance of what the atheists are trying to do to this county," Wilburn said.
Because the Pray in Jesus Name Project is a national group, Cummins said he will most likely not attend.
"This group does not represent Lodi," he said. "I'm a little reluctant to throw my hat in the ring with a group that is not part of the city at all."
Kimber is worried the prayer meeting will help make Lodi a platform for the extreme views on both sides.
"Are we going to provide a battlefield for this nonsensical, futile debate?" he said.
Other cities have also faced litigation about having prayers before meetings.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based organization, has offered to defend the city against any lawsuits for free if the city adopts something similar to the fund's model policy, which does not restrict what clergy say.
The fund is defending Greece, N.Y. against a lawsuit filed by two of the city's residents who are upset by the city's prayer policy.
The suit was the first time anyone has complained about the city doing prayers before meetings, said Kathryn Firkins, Greece's director of constituent services.
She could not comment further because the city is in the middle of the suit.
Contact reporter Maggie Creamer at maggiec@lodinews.com or read her blog at www.lodinews.com/blog/citybuzz.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:53 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:33 PM:
" Lodian, Lodian, she's legal, she works; OK, OK. she got a few querks. But that doesn't matter, she's still a good girl; so what if she's crazy and makes your hair curl. That makes her a woman, and that's got to be good; even though she can't do all the things that she should. She holds up her end, she's one of a kind; and if you can't see that, you've got to be blind. "
WOW! "
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:20 PM:
weak. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:12 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:08 PM:
" Bob: If all you can do is make libelous comments about various people here, you need to take your little hate party and move on. "
Saint dyan? Uh... not! "
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:06 PM:
" Brian and Lodian: You two need to get a room and stop all this silly foreplay. The sexual tension between the two of you is palpable. The Sam and Diane thing has played itself out. "
Bob: He likes women? Uh, no thank you. "
dyan wrote on Aug 2, 2009 8:18 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 2, 2009 8:09 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 2, 2009 1:23 PM:
Brian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 12:53 PM:
while tapping on the keyboard. I'm not into the layered look. "
Brian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 12:22 PM:
I'm not too sure I can say you're not
one of Lodian's alter egos. That being said, Lodian should already know what I have written here. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:41 AM:
Brian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:19 AM:
Aimee wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:50 AM:
" Lodian, again, I call you out as a hypocrite. You call me a stalker, yet you have no idea of what the legal standard for stalking actually is - it just sounds good to soothe your wounded vanity, doesn't it? You berate me for taking the time to call you out on your many foibles - which you richly deserve.
Then, when I decide to refrain from posting, due to the fact that I have a life outside of the internet (can you say the same?) you claim that I have "turned tail" and run since I refrained from answering your many posts. You obviously just post whatever comes to mind withour fully thinking of the import of your words. This much is obvious. You have a problem making up your mind. "
Brian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:07 AM:
enough time. "
Brian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:03 AM:
" Brian: You and RF look to equally hate other good human beings just because they are different and have different views from your own. "
-This takes the cake. Only an insane
and troubled person would put Hitler
in the category of "Other Good Human Beings". And to say that we shouldn't be critical of Hitler is about as proposterous as one could be. "
dyan wrote on Aug 2, 2009 10:18 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 10:15 AM:
And just because You "say so" does not man you have "won" any debate. Oh, and first you have to actually engage in the debate to have "won". Try it sometime. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 10:11 AM:
" Poor Lodian. Lost another one. "
Lost another what? "
dyan wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:42 AM:
dyan wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:36 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:27 PM:
It's hard for me to think of you in this line of work.
....actually, it makes my skin crawl. "
davidd wrote on Aug 1, 2009 8:23 PM:
Please join us in a counter-rally this coming Wednesday evening and show your support.
More information at http://www.LodiUnited.org "
dyan wrote on Aug 1, 2009 7:44 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:34 PM:
It's hard for me to think of you in this line of work. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:31 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:26 PM:
Brian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:11 PM:
" Rhodie: His hate seems to be about equal to that of RF. "
-I can see where RF and I would agree
that our hatred for Hitler is about equal. And the thought that Billy Rubin's attempt to cast a good light on Hitler is about as offensive as it gets. "
dyan wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:50 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:38 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:36 AM:
" Oh. The males reproduce with each other?"
Why do you insist that this is the only way that parents have children and a family? "
dyan wrote on Aug 1, 2009 8:29 AM:
dyan wrote on Aug 1, 2009 8:27 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:49 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:42 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:39 PM:
" Oh. The males reproduce with each other? Thanks for the education. "
Again, let me educate you. It takes more than genitals to create and raise a family. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:01 PM:
" stantaves: Brian has spewed more hate than anyone I have ever seen here on the blogs."
Even He-who-shall-not-be-named? (R.F.?) I wonder what ever happened to him. "
dyan wrote on Jul 31, 2009 2:35 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:22 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:20 PM:
" Thank God there are gay athiests. Their souls are lost and they won't be reproducing. "
Are you reproducing, dyan? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:19 PM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 31, 2009 10:53 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 31, 2009 10:15 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 31, 2009 9:25 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 31, 2009 8:57 AM:
You can either try again or just throw in the towel. "
Brian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 7:55 AM:
Corrupters omit specifics with their
supposed criticism. They make an opinionated statement, and it hangs in the air, as if their authority alone were supposed to make it fact. Then they make a mockery of reality, which is supposed to be fact because they say so.
-On more than one occasion you fit into this. "
Brian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 7:42 AM:
" Brian, the only way to describe your writings is the ranting of a crazy person.
-Pot, kettle, black.
Is this one of the requirements to join the gay atheist club that one must not be a Nazi Symapthizer? Try to think straight so you can at least understand
that "Got Mit Uns" on their apparel was a propaganda tool used by the Nazi's to reel in the unsuspecting, Billy. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 31, 2009 7:08 AM:
I know you're just itching for the opportunity to continue, so; if you are able to collect and compose what passes for you as thoughts, can you please explain how you concluded what I (a gay atheist) must be a Nazi sympathizer?
Remember, try not to rant like a crazy person this time. "
Brian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:41 AM:
No, not yet. Perhaps it will take a stroke of luck to see you post rationally instead of your usual insanity that Lodian and your other followers so anxiously await to read so they can jump for joy and praise you for your unconventional wisdom. It may be unconventional, but far from wisdom. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:21 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:07 PM:"...you rationalize Hitler's propaganda and rhetoric. To put it bluntly, why don't you just go out and sling some S%^t on all Jew's grave..."
Well, it appears Brian may have suffered a stroke. "
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:38 PM:
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" (Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, p. 96, Inside the Third Reich.) "
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:18 PM:
Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
-I suspect Billy will dismiss this as rubbish as he has with all the other
documented truths about Hitler's evil
intentions. "
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:07 PM:
Words cannot describe how you rationalize Hitler's propaganda and rhetoric. To put it bluntly, why don't you just go out and sling some S%^t on all Jew's grave that were slaughtered
in the concentration camps. I can't help but wonder how you feel Hitler was a Christian summoned by God to exterminate Jews because it's his duty
for his people. I suggest you lay low for a while. There are still many descendents of thoses exterminated in the concentration camps and they don't take lightly to your attraction to Hitler. "
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 6:54 PM:
Please describe to us why you are a Nazi sympathizer so us Christians and Jews can have a clear view of your mindset? Oh, and how can you derive from Hitler's speech about his SUPPOSED Christianity that it was something more than propaganda and rhetoric? History has revealed Hitler's intentions as a dictator. But you insist on trying to convince us that he was not a wolf in sheeps clothing. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 4:37 PM:
" iran has daily prayers before all of there goverment meetings! "
And how's that workin' for them? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 30, 2009 11:39 AM:
From a petition to the UN:
"To: United Nations
This petition from citizens of the world asks the United Nations to amend Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to clarify beyond any doubt that to manifest one’s religion, no one and no organization should engage in any type of proselytization and religious conversion activities.
It should be further declared that such proselytization and religious conversion activities constitute 1) violence against human dignity, reason and conscience and 2) violation of the fundamental declaration in Article 1 of UDHR that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
To paraphrase a bumpersticker; They can have my Cross when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 30, 2009 11:06 AM:
A showing countries both with and without established religions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion "
what22 wrote on Jul 30, 2009 10:50 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 30, 2009 9:43 AM:
"...As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 30, 2009 9:40 AM:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross..." (cont.) "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 30, 2009 9:37 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 30, 2009 9:36 AM:
Your laughable "proof" of 7:40 AM was simply a two year-old blog by some reader only known as "Tina". If you had scrolled down, an equally legitimate blogger named "Brainstorm" answered the question "Were Catholics persecuted?", "No. After the persecution of the jews began in the 1930s Hitler gave many priveleges to the Roman Catholics by arrangement with the Vatican. They were both on the same side in their hatred of Communism and the Vatican backed Hitler all the way on this policy. Anti-semitism was a long tradition of the Roman Catholics of Europe and most of them had no problem with Hitler's actions against jews."
"...the Vatican backed Hitler all the wya" he says.
Good call, Brian. "
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:51 AM:
Do you still want to advance your twisted notion that the Nazis were tolerant of religon? "
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:47 AM:
What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the 'National Reich Church' drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan...
"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...
"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"
"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika." "
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:45 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:40 AM:
The Catholic Church held a precarious position in Germany. Numberous in Bavaria and the South, they were mostly outnumbered in the rest of Germany. This will anger a lot of Catholics BUT the truth can hurt. Once Hitler was in power he played the Catholic Church. Hitler's legal genius Hans Franks and others engineered several deals whereby the Catholic Church turned a blind eye to the treatment of Jews & Commies/Bolsheviks/Reds and Others (mostly Social-Democrats) and in return confiscted Jewish properties were given to the Catholic Church.
When Hitler did persecute Catholics it was mostly those Catholics who had angered other Catholics and though Hitler did, on the surface, slap down Catholic authority, it was more for show, and overall the Catholic Church made out o-k. To this day people inherently view Catholics as Noble & Pure and so they could not possibly have been Anti-Semetoc Jew haters.
-Billy,
What other attributes of the Nazi party would you like to discuss? Are you going to tell us that the Jews deserved it? How you can derive that
"Got Mit Uns" is something more than just the outright arrogance the Nazi Party was is beyond me. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 30, 2009 6:29 AM:
Oh! By all means, Brian, tell us about your interpretation of the Nazis.
Please, begin with a post for all to see what Hitler had to say about his lifelong Catholic faith. Please describe the religious/political/military attitute of the day. Tell us, won't you, how even the Nazi belt buckles claimed God was with them ("Gott Mit Uns"). Tell us about the actions of the church and Pope Pius XII during the holocaust.
Please, PLEASE begin. "
Brian wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:38 PM:
Did you and your cronies hold a private vigil endorsing the removal of the cross from the great seal of Los Angeles, or did your movement mmake the front page in some liberal publication? "
Brian wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:33 PM:
Need I remind you what materialized in Nazi Germany was gradual? It takes a while for the pot to boil especially
when the heat is gradualy being turned up. This Freedom From Religon Foundation isn't stupid. "
Brian wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:28 PM:
I have not heard of, as you postulate, government prohibition of expression of faith on private property (work areas, you said). Do you suppose agents are snatching crosses from necks or confiscating framed photos of glistening shirtless Jim Caviezel from his role as Jesus from apartment walls? Has this been a common problem within your circle of friends? "
-Billy,
And you wouldn't be cheering in the streets if they did abolish all forms of religious expression everywhere? Come on Billy, your reputation precedes you. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 29, 2009 6:54 PM:
The second half of your lead-in is also self-answering; "..., or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." means you may freely attend mass as often as you like. It doesn't give free reign to turn every public gathering into a compulsory mass.
I have not heard of, as you postulate, government prohibition of expression of faith on private property (work areas, you said). Do you suppose agents are snatching crosses from necks or confiscating framed photos of glistening shirtless Jim Caviezel from his role as Jesus from apartment walls? Has this been a common problem within your circle of friends? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 29, 2009 4:49 PM:
animalfamily1 wrote on Jul 29, 2009 1:25 PM:
Pat Maple wrote on Jul 29, 2009 11:06 AM:
Mazie wrote on Jul 29, 2009 9:42 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:52 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:22 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:18 AM:
When one stops believing in God, instead of believing in nothing they believe in anything. "
Brian wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:12 AM:
How quaint.
May God have mercy on their soul. "
momintum wrote on Jul 28, 2009 5:22 PM:
"In God We Trust" was a latter-day motto adopted in 1956, at the height of the "Red Scare."
A brief examination of the consequences where religion combined with state is more than obvious is in the Middle East. I urge you to not pursue or contribute to the mayhem that breeds from this marriage. To promote the agenda of any one religion alienates all others. As superstitions melt into the past and are catalogued within the annals of Ancient History please permit society to move forward into a more harmonious concept of reason and logic.
Thank You for Your Time, "
dogbark wrote on Jul 28, 2009 2:59 PM:
Thus wrote the founders. Yet the people still were suspicious and so before they, therough their state legislators would ratify the constitution, the PEOPLE demanded the amendments we know as the Bill of Rights, one of which is that the government shall NOT establish a state religion. "
OK, break's over, gotta go back to work. Render unto the boss... "
dogbark wrote on Jul 28, 2009 2:56 PM:
dogbark wrote on Jul 28, 2009 2:50 PM:
alf wrote on Jul 27, 2009 10:27 PM:
jbhiker wrote on Jul 27, 2009 5:11 PM:
BOMBOVA wrote on Jul 27, 2009 3:12 PM:
i don't think this is about white cloud and dark cloud thinking, as that has been with history since recorded civilization. i am not sure what judge would find responsibility and concensus in the argument of this statement:
"Our members are mainly atheists and agnostics, and we don't like the idea of government prayer" as it uses the inclusive word "we" in the statement.
From what i have come to know from reading the news here, is, that people that care and love the City of Lodi, sure make it a fine place to live. Thomas G. yvr.ca "
Pat Maple wrote on Jul 27, 2009 12:07 PM:
What church do you go to???
Asking for something isn't a crime... you ARE given a choice..yes or no. YOU choose. For that reason you do not have to grab for your wallet.
I am not religious but I do recognize the good in these people and see the good things they do. Give credit where credit is due. "
jbhiker wrote on Jul 27, 2009 8:01 AM:
Pat Maple wrote on Jul 27, 2009 6:31 AM:
Hate: murderers
Intolerance: Protesters at churches
Bigot: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views..too many to point out...
Worse: Idi Amin, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Baby Doc and on and on.
What someone said or did centuries ago may have an effect on us today but it does not govern us...that is OUR job. Should we go back to the caveman? Even they killed each other. Our society has fallen into the "yeah...but..." syndrome. Today, this moment, is the only thing that I control. "
davidd wrote on Jul 27, 2009 12:07 AM:
And while many of today's wars weren't religiously-founded, they were certainly founded by religious people.
I would love to hear some of your examples of "hate, perversion, intollerance, bigotry and worse [that] comes from the non-believers". Please enlighten us. "
Pat Maple wrote on Jul 26, 2009 6:28 PM:
Percentage wise the hate, perversion, intollerance, bigotry and worse comes from the non-believers. We seem to forget that many religious sects do a LOT of GOOD around the country and world...food, shelter, education, jobs and much more. Lighten up. "
Pat Maple wrote on Jul 26, 2009 6:18 PM:
I do believe that the FFRF is doing nothing more than an end-around the law by taking it directly to court. Maybe we don't need lawmakers any more...just judges!!! Wait! That is the Libertarian belief...sue your neighbor for your beliefs.
T&C that's what it is coming to.
dvd: That rhetoric sounds a bit like the reasoning used to root out communists a few years back! Personally, I want to hear about all of them...the better you know them the less likely you will conflict. Check on the meaning of Deist.
English: Right on! It's like being educated all over again. Just listen and ask questions afterwards. Or do like I did in class come in late and sleep!! "
jbhiker wrote on Jul 26, 2009 9:41 AM:
BINGO! Add War, murder, self-rightousness and bigotry. "
davidd wrote on Jul 25, 2009 8:35 PM:
Few non-believers are offended when people pray around them, or even for them. Some are, yes.
Followers of non-Christian religions, on the otherhand, are probably much more offended and even uncomfortable.
The problem is that this is a public meeting to discuss city issues. It's not a church. People attend the meeting to speak their mind about civic issues or hear what is happening.
To many people, religion reminds them of hate, intolerance, perversion, and worse. It is not something anyone should have to endure just to attend a meeting.
The FFRF, and many of its supporters and non-Christians in this community just want the council meetings to focus on council business. I don't think that's too much to ask. "
Mad Dog wrote on Jul 25, 2009 5:58 PM:
englishteacher wrote on Jul 25, 2009 4:41 PM:
The biggest concern is whether or not this organization has the legal right to file lawsuits on behalf of potentially offended people. We also need to remember that it is not illegal to offend someone. She does not speak for the majority! Take it from someone who is NOT religious, prayer in City council meetings do not offen me one bit. Pray on! If I don't want to hear it, I will just choose not to listen! "
davidd wrote on Jul 25, 2009 3:56 PM:
"I want them (Atheists) absolutely miserable!!"
Another statement that is entirely Christian, and not at all Christ-like.
I'm sure your diety is proud. "
davidd wrote on Jul 25, 2009 3:54 PM:
The members of the FFRF, including the local members who are here in Lodi, plus the many other Atheists and non-Christian members of our community, are simply trying to ensure that city council meetings do not cater to a specific religion.
The FFRF has never said that people shouldn't be able to pray, nor are they trying to "remove God" from anyone's life.
But, just as many Christians don't want to hear prayer about Allah or Zeus or Xenu, the rest of the community doesn't want to hear prayer about Jesus. And at a city council meeting, no one should have to hear either. "
oldmanriver wrote on Jul 25, 2009 3:10 PM:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The question is, if your city council was praying to Allah, would you have the same reaction. "
ordinarycitizen wrote on Jul 25, 2009 2:06 PM:
Mazie wrote on Jul 25, 2009 12:00 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Jul 25, 2009 11:32 AM:
This is nothing but an attempt to get this matter in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. They know very well that those activists will uphold any decisions from lower courts that attempt to thwart our Constitutional rights. It will then be up to the U.S. Supreme Court to make the final decision.
Unless a more rational justice retires or otherwise leaves the Court while President Obama and a liberal Senate is in power, they will reverse the 9th Circuit.
The question is are we willing to acquiesce to these people or for once do we stand up for our rights and refuse to cave in? The choice isn't theirs, it's ours!! In fact, I support Mazie's idea – who's willing to join with others to have a pray-in outside of our own City Council? The time is now to begin. "
Mazie wrote on Jul 25, 2009 8:21 AM:
T & C wrote on Jul 25, 2009 8:10 AM:
englishteacher wrote on Jul 25, 2009 7:14 AM:
CaPatriot wrote on Jul 25, 2009 7:09 AM:
Mazie wrote on Jul 25, 2009 6:45 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.