31. I am part of a burgeoning movement: Conservative atheism. We believe in a strong America without the crutch (opiate) of religion.

Paul at 6:27AM on Feb 10th 2008

32. Ayn Rand and millions of her readers began the burgeoning movement of "conservative atheism" decades ago, but it was Democrats such as Thomas Jefferson and the liberal-minded scientists of his era who led the way out of the dark ages when religion held sway over education. It's called Objectivsim, and is studied widely by both those who subscribe to conservative and liberal values, being a simple reliance on reality, evidence and self, instead of blind faith and unanswered prayers....

Speaking of evidence, I think you are being a bit unfair to Jon Stewart by lumping him in with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the unfair, unbalanced and unashamed propaganda we hear on Fox news, for a number of reasons:

1.) Jon Stewart never remotely claims to be "fair and balanced" no human is so perfect, so the Fox slogan is just another Fox lie - repeated thousands of times each week.
2.) Unlike the Fox "reporters" who blur the line between their opinion and what they call "news", Jon Stewart played Mitt Romney's bipolar remarks for the world to hear, in Mitt's own words. Stewart was so shocked by Romney's speech, he hardly said a word other than "FU".

I have nothing against Romney, since I never thought he would get his party's nomination. Plus I address statements and behavior on their own merits, not the person in total. I'm sure Romney is a very good family person and is very well meaning. But anyone who plays the "France" card, when they were smart enough not to go into Iraq, is insulting our intelligence, and anyone who blames *that* on Jon Stewart is doing likewise.

But more shocking to Stewart and myself is Romney's simplistic lie that Europe is in bad shape because the whole continent denies god's law, followed by his contradictory assertion that terrorists want to blur the lines between man's law and god's law. Either Romney was flustered and didn't know what he was saying, or worse, he knew what he was saying and didn't recognize the obvious contradiction.

Either way, I don't think most thinking Americans would want someone who speaks like that representing the U.S., it's been painful enough enduring Bush's scandals and mangling of the English language for the past seven years.

Chris Aable at 7:40AM on Feb 10th 2008

33. Chris...

I agree with you. And if it appears as though I've "lumped" Stewart and O'Reilly then I apologize for the confusion. However, we can certainly "pair" Stewart and O'Reilly within the arena of pure influence since both men have a direct influence on the political leanings of their respective audiences. And I would say that neither is more important than the other. Yet, both men represent a segment of the American population.

If Stewart can freely fault O'Reilly, Cheney, or Bush for propagating lies then I think turnabout is fair play. And the fact remains, Stewart's team of writers blatantly lied when they claimed this past year that Cheney had invented his own classification for guarding secrets. (SCI is not a Cheney creation. It's been around for decades.)

And while I agree that Fox News misleads people with its slogan of "Fair and Balanced", I don't think that the sins of Fox News should grant the likes of Jon Stewart a free pass on dishonestly.

So, I'll repeat, Stewart enjoys the freedom to mock our government. (I'd have that no other way.) However--as cliche as this might sound--that freedom comes with responsibility. And if Stewart cannot meet the responsibility of at least providing HONEST mockery of a man (Cheney) who provides so many opportunities for that mockery then I have to wonder exactly how low will Stewart stoop to mock other people?

I'd also agree that Romney never deserved to occupy the Oval Office. I can't agree, however, that "FUCK YOU!" is a mature, productive response to Romney political buffoonery. After all, if Cheney had said, "FUCK YOU!" to Stewart after Jon lied about Cheney creating a special classification for his personal use, do you think such a reaction from Cheney would endear him to Stewart's already biased audience?

Paul at 8:41AM on Feb 10th 2008

34. Richelle
Were in the world do's it say that marriage between homosexuals is excepted,no were that I can find.. it's NOT..you say that it is a marriage between two people thats rite, BUT the same SEX. Polygamy is heterosexual marriage between a man and women or women and a man it's not homosexual .

Gerald at 2:22PM on Feb 10th 2008

35. John is normally WAY funnier than that! Maybe he feels bad for Mitt- "Damn Mitt, Mitt..." Where was he going with that?

Caitlan at 9:52PM on Feb 10th 2008

36. Gerald...

You really should do your own homework. But I recognize that you're operating with a severe handicap, so I'll help you out just this once.

Here's your answer to where in the world gay marriages are accepted:

Canada
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Belgium
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Netherlands
The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

South Africa
South Africa became the fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.

Spain
Spain became the fourth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005.

And right here in the good ol' US of A:

Massachusetts

On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. The State of Massachusetts also issues licenses to gay couples from New Mexico and Rhode Island since neither state explicitly forbids such marriages.

I hope this helps you in your understanding of the issue.

Paul at 2:54PM on Feb 10th 2008

37. One thing the GOP has in abundance is its students of the english language. While Bush has remained perrenially perplexed by our common tongue; must be credited with franking quite a few idiosyncartic solecisms, ie, "now the left hand knows what the right is thinking," et al. Mitt Romney shovels out words as robotically as an old time stevedore shoveling coal. He is a practitioner of the GOP school of slapdash conservative non-speak. Aside from his flip-floppery, Romney extolls the providence of god to rule the world and rid it of its terrorist elements while saying we god-fearing citizens will not give in to the fundamentalists that would have us enslaved by an undemocratic god. Ok, it's not funny. This guy actually thinks he's a good American; the crap meister gives this reason for his candidacy- "I love my country," mr and ms electorate, how do like them there heap o beans. Forget the ideas. Don't give away your plans because you don't have any. Tailor your policies to the fashion of the day, doesn't matter what you said the day before. In light of his squirrely deriliction of duty in a political performance, he is awarded the Order of Nonsuch("unequalled')for his capacity for being specious, adeptly disingenuous and obtuse. Mitt could not commit to what he admitted.

boredwell at 3:22PM on Feb 10th 2008

38. Your sympathy for Dick Cheney is touching, Paul. Stupid and mis-placed, but touching.

Captain Negative at 3:53PM on Feb 10th 2008

39. Cheney did, in fact, create a whole new classification for secrecy. It is, "Top Secret/SCI."

No lie there, Paul. So maybe you are the one who should, "STFU."

Captain Negative at 4:47PM on Feb 10th 2008

40. Executive Order 13292 was a sneaky little "because I say so" which gives Cheney the presumed authority to declare anything "secret." Anything he wants.

Captain Negative at 5:34PM on Feb 10th 2008

41. Richelle,
It would not matter what I say to you.You would still think that homosexuals are excepted in the eyes of the Lord.Have a Great Life Take Care Peace Out.

Gerald at 8:36PM on Feb 10th 2008

42. Paul, just like with my argument about belief in god, you are putting words in my mouth and assuming things that I've never written about. This time I will place my qualifiers with ** around them to minimize misunderstandings. I don't blame you for this, communication is a tough thing, obviously, because we all tend to filter it in through our own biases and predispositions. I used to teach Psychology and Sociology at CSULA and when requesting a summary of a *brief* lecture, I would of course get a hundred different *filtered* interpretations of the same exact lecture.

#1 I never mentioned Cheney.
#2 I never indicated the *slightest* approval of Jon Stewart's use of the phrase, "F**k You".
#3 Stewart is a *comedian* - and I *assume*, (admittedly) that most if not all people *might* know that. O'Reilly claims to be a sincere "professional" in a "no-spin zone" - Stewart's job is quite the opposite of O'Reilly and the team of Fox "news" "all-stars" - another freaky slogan that is not quite befitting of journalism as I was taught.
But since you mention Cheney (I didn't) Jon Stewart's "FU" comedy bit becomes more clear - it was *DICK CHENEY* who told a congressman *FU* in the hallowed chambers of the House floor - in front of women, no less.

So *perhaps* Stewart was playing off of the irony of Cheney's eloquent response to a Democrat who only wanted to shake Cheney's hand. There is a big difference in such crude behavior - Cheney is our Vice President, representing *all* of us (or at least he is supposed to) - Jon Stewart is a known comedian.

Let me repeat my qualifier - *perhaps* -because you seemed to have missed just about every single qualifier in my posting about religion....

...speaking of which, I appreciate that you pride yourself on clarity, but by way of many examples of your misrepresentations of what I posted consider this:
I never stated that the world would be better without religion as you implied - I *speculated* that I *believe* repeat - *believe* it would be, based on current and past holy wars. I doubly *qualified* that by stating that *no one* can perfectly predict the future, so by definition the future remains in the realm of *faith* not *fact*.

I subscribe to Atheism not only because of the *general* hypocrisy I've observed for years in *many* of my fellow Church-goers, but because I *think* its intellectually dishonest *for me* to accept things wholesale without more elaborate evidence than ancient holy books, billions of unanswered prayers and alleged "miracles".

Thus, my subscription to Atheism is not just about that, but a whole lot of things, including a *faith* in a *degree* of human potential, with no belief in a "god" needed for that. I could change, if there is ever clear evidence presented, that's why atheism, Christianity, believing in Thor, etc., is not *who* we are, but *what* we subscribe to. Big difference here, because it underscores the fact that we humans can be as flexible as the information we choose to apprehend, or we can suspend judgment until we have independently variable evidence, or just plain evidence.

I know that you get a lot of ad hominem attacks about your intelligence in this and other forums. But as a defender of your faith, do you think you could defend it much better by not lowering your argument to the same level of the "your another" fallacy and address critical statements on their own merit?

I appreciate your very civil responses to my posts, but please stop putting thoughts and words in my mouth that were never there. I don't reply to name-calling from either side of the debate, as its pointless and erroneously sum-totals people who we now little about. Thus, you won't see it from me nor my blogs dating back for years. If someone lies, I address the lie on its own merit. Someone would argue that a lie makes a person a "liar" - by that definition, then, we would all be "liars". We all say and do "stupid" and "brilliant" things sometimes, but a few statements don't make us either "stupid" nor "brilliant" in total. Outside of biological constraints labels are lies. We are not our positions - these are only things we subscribe to. When you give positive evidence for your god who was floating out there for trillions of eons and years before he decided to play heaven and hell with us "relatively powerless little creatures" (as someone else put it) then I will be happy to change my subscription.

Chris Aable at 11:39PM on Feb 10th 2008

43. Chris Aable and Paul

Thanks for adding more substance to this topic and having a 'discussion' in a respectful manner.

It's nice to see this when it is so easy to go overboard when online. I know I've been guilty of it before.

Ken at 12:16AM on Feb 11th 2008

44. I don't think that Paul telling me to, "STFU" constitutes a "respectful manner." From what I've seen, there is much "respect" coming from Paul. Pomposity, yes. Respect, no.

Captain Negative at 1:35AM on Feb 11th 2008

45. P.S. The part of my post referring to religion was mostly intended for Chris Hawk, not Paul. My apologies for not making that more clear.

Chris Aable at 6:40AM on Feb 12th 2008