51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149002 by Bigorra on March 24, 2008 at 10:21 pm

The goal of the producers of this film is to start a viral media campaign, much like Mel Gibson did with the Passion of the Christ, promoting it through non-conventional means. They want everyone talking about it, yet it seems to be the consensus of many reviewers who have actually seen it that it is poorly made and even more poorly reasoned. I refuse to give them their publicity by telling people about Expelled, or what happened to PZ Myers. This has nothing to do with my support for Richard and PZ, but I won't do the work of the Expelled crew for them. If it is mentioned, I will tell others what I know and then refer them to this page and Pharyngula's blog so they can find the information they need (courtesy of this community) to make up their own minds. I'm not doing Ben Stein's promotional work for him. I'd rather promote healthy skepticism.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148874 by Bigorra on March 24, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Richard's comparison of the tactics used by the organizers of the showing to Gauleiters is justified by the context in which the filmmakers placed PZ Myers and himself. His choice of words was meant to highlight their hypocrisy, not to call them names. If the producers of the film had actually made a decent case that the academic world was kicking out the IDiots for their point of view without resort to such fallacious comparisons as Darwinism=Nazism, then no mention of the term would have been appropriate. I do not believe this is a lack of restraint on Richard's part, but a way of saying to Mathis: Before you seek the mote in your enemies' eye, remove the log from your own.

53. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #148381 by Bigorra on March 22, 2008 at 8:23 pm

The effectiveness of the movie will be inversely proportional to the number of people who, after seeing the movie, will take the time to check out the facts. A movie that has the premise Darwinism=Nazism=Genocide is as fact free as anything could be. This movie is ripe to get that critical Coulter/O'Reilly/Vox Day endorsement. No Intelligence allowed indeed.

54. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147588 by Bigorra on March 20, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Comment #147525 by MelM on March 20, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Followed the link and was disappointed by this:

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) recognizes the first weekend of May 2008 as `Ten Commandments Weekend';

(2) celebrates the Ten Commandments as a significant aspect of the national life of the United States; and

(3) encourages citizens of the United States to reflect on the integral role that the Ten Commandments have played in the life of the Nation.

The dynamic duo of Brownback and Lieberman are at it again, not wanting to be shown up by H.R. 888, they want to have "Ten Commandments Weekend." Dave Barry long ago pointed out how much Congress and the Senate waste their time, passing resolutions for things like "National Tractor Mechanic Awareness Day." If this bill passes, I will spend that weekend bitterly reflecting on how the Ten Commandments ruined my graven image business.

55. EXPELLED!

Comment #147575 by Bigorra on March 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Here's another
view from the scene, albeit from another side of the debate. It begs the question of why Myers was thrown out for having no ticket while Dawkins strolled right in.

56. EXPELLED!

Comment #147545 by Bigorra on March 20, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Perhaps they were hoping to change Dawkins' mind, but thought that having Myers' there to discuss and dissent along with him would keep him from seeing the God's Honest Truth. Every creationist knows that atheism is a weak position since Dawkins has been unable to prove God doesn't exist. By simply showing him the revealed truth, he'd change his position and every person on this post would have to blindly follow him, just like we've always done.

Or not.

57. Religion

Comment #146760 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 11:20 am

There are a lot of people who come to this site who are aware of him, but for comedy and thoughts on religion, Pat Condell offers a lot of food for thought and laughs. He can be found at:

http://www.patcondell.libsyn.com/

58. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146756 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 11:12 am

al-rawandi,

There isn't much you could have said.

If it wasn't such a shocking manipulation of reason, you might have asked him why he also killed so many non-believers--to stuff the coffers of hell? Collateral damage? Or why didn't he kill that model who was all over the news? Shouldn't she have incurred divine judgment as a temptress?
What could one say to your friend?

59. Jesus saves

Comment #146749 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 10:59 am

This will appeal to the sorts of clergy who are more interested in revolution than the resurrection. People who believe in God are reared in families where they are taught compassion for others, responsibility for their actions and to have faith that people of goodwill can work together for the greater good. As such, believers are obviously sinners, damned because they clearly do not need divine assistance as much as individuals who don't know or don't care if God exists.

On other hand, non-believers teach their children to be unempathetic, irresponsible and told that everybody is a complete bastard who works only for selfish ends against the greater good. As such, Kant's Categorical Imperative has had no positive influence on secular thought or ethics. Anything the children of non-believers do isn't wrong because no Imaginary Man in the Sky is watching and assisting them.

60. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146743 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 10:45 am

al-rawandi,

If someone is too dumb to know where Sudan is, then they are not likely to worry about Darfur. A smarter person who understands what is going on is more likely to be distressed.

This kind of awareness of non stop suffering is pretty detrimental to some people's health.

There is also, I believe, a sort of "get out of jail free" card that the religiously devout carry. They can always fall back on the position that suffering anywhere is God's judgment for some perceived sin or shortcoming. Why help out victims of Hurricane Katrina, since it was the debauchery of New Orleans that caused the event. Once a person takes mental shortcuts like this, no form of outside suffering can directly affect their happiness. It certainly doesn't take much intelligence to carry the automatic fallback position of "God's will."

61. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146734 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #146713 by DamnDirtyApe

Homer Simpson:

Who can stand against the man with the 108 IQ?

(I actually quoted the same thing from Lisa, and removed it when I saw you beat me to it. You blew it up!)

62. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146723 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 10:08 am

WHEN Mercy Ministries says it helps young women with "life-controlling issues", it means in part that it aims to teach them not to be lesbians.

When Mercy Ministries says it helps young women with "life-controlling issues," it means they aim to control their lives.

In line with the Hillsong Church's strict doctrines teaching that homosexuality is an affliction that can be cured, Mercy Ministries is keen to ensure there is no lesbianism under its roof. It issues "separation contracts" to young women who make friends with each other and prevents any form of physical contact between residents.

Mercy Ministries is so paranoid that homosexuality might be "catching" that they refuse to let women touch each other, as would be done if the young women were allowed to comfort each other in light of the terrible problems that brought them to seek help in the first place.

"While I was there, we received much teaching on the evils of gay and lesbian lifestyles," said Naomi Johnson, who spent nine months in the ministry's Sydney house.

As someone with no issues about her sexuality, she was perplexed by the ministry's continuing focus on the issue.

Mercy Ministries is so fascinated by the issue their ministers cannot stop talking about it. Often those who fear the activity do so because they secretly wish that they could take part.

"Sy will bless you with his insights into identity and the heart," the Hillsong website says.

Sy will bless you with his insights into groupthink and the heartless persecution of non-conformity.

After Ted Haggard was "cured" of his homosexuality, minister Tim Ralph who helped "cure" him said Ted was "completely heterosexual." He later said that he mean to say that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side." So is it Satan that is causing homosexuality or is he admitting that everyone has a "homosexual side" vs. a "heterosexual side" and Satan merely swings the balance between the two. Was Tim Ralph admitting that homosexuality is something inherent in certain people, placed there by a kind and loving God?

It is the same thing over and over again from evangelical groups. Since their morality comes from the Bronze Age, they also get their understanding of reality there which leads them to all sorts of drastically (sometimes hilariously) incorrect beliefs. Their vehemence in denying the reality that homosexuality is not a choice stems from their desire to believe that understanding of reality is complete once they have read the Bible, and fear of what they do not understand.

63. Jesus saves

Comment #146682 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 9:20 am

Jesus Saves. Moses Invests.

64. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #146331 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 12:58 am

When contacted for a comment on the protests, a Scientology spokesperson issued a statement that read, in part: "'Anonymous' is a group of cyber-terrorists who hide their identities behind masks and computer anonymity" and it "is perpetrating religious hate crimes against Churches of Scientology and individual Scientologists for no reason other than religious bigotry."

The Scientologists can dish it out but they can't take it, in other words. As a group they had a special task force that specialized in crashing usenet groups and suppressing negative criticism on the web. Tory Christman, an ex-Scientology member talks about it here:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/tory_christman_anti_science_scientology/

There is a small Scientology "church" right down the road from my residence, and I never pass it without muttering something under my breath (a sign of my impending crotchety old age). On Saturday I saw people protesting across the street, and I didn't know why until I saw one of them carrying a "www.xenu.net" sign. They weren't rowdy, but were making circles around the intersection so no passing cars could fail to notice them. That put a big smile on my face, and if I'd known earlier I might have joined them.

65. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146323 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 12:39 am

I remember the episode of South Park where Big Gay Al was kicked out of the Boy Scouts because he was gay. After a protest, and the scout group being overtaken by a militaristic pedophile, he was allowed to return. He thanked the boys for their support, but declined to return because he saw it as the right of the Boy Scouts not to accept him if they didn't want to have him, even though he loved being a scoutmaster. That's the sort of intolerance South Park displays. Perhaps by showing Big Gay Al as a reasonable, kind, intelligent, caring person they were encouraging homosexuality. In fact, they may be showing him in this positive light since everyone knows that being a homosexual is widely accepted and much easier socially than being straight, so naturally anybody seeing Big Gay Al would ask themselves, "Where do I sign up?"
South Park is an equal opportunity offender. Every religious group has been ridiculed. Every social position has been ridiculed. As George Carlin points out, anything can be funny--it depends on the context of the joke.

66. They prayed to cast Satan from my body

Comment #146321 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 12:21 am

In response to the letter from Peter Irvine, Director, Mercy Ministries Australia posted in Comment #146061 by theantitheist on March 18, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Would the details of the program that are disclosed to the client include the experiences of isolation, bullying, constant supervision, dehumanization and proselytizing that the young ladies in the article above relate? Would it include the disclosure that, after joining the program, young women will be told to jump up and down while singing hymns as two members of their counseling staff who "are carefully recruited, hold government accredited tertiary qualifications and continue ongoing professional development" speak in tongues? Would it be disclosed to these young women that they will be punished for breaking undisclosed rules? Would these young women be informed that their "holistic, client-focused approach, addressing physical, emotional and spiritual needs" includes a crash course in domestic engineering, conditional permission to take out the trash and accusations that asthma attacks are exercises in theater?

I believe Mercy Ministry is a cult, based on the practices detailed in the article.

Their use of intimidation is clearly to force the compliance of the women in the program, threatening them constantly with removal from the program (while knowing that these women are usually there because they lack other options). These are desperate women, so this consequence is frightening. A woman who has come to the point where she goes to Mercy Ministries fears dire results from lack of treatment, possibly including their own death. It is a technique of mind control to threaten them with expulsion from the program, as these women see the "help" of the ministry as a last resort. They have no free time, are never left alone and are disciplined if they speak about themselves at all. Over time, this reduces the sense of individuality and increases dependence on the group, making it less likely these women will protest or leave on their own. Constant obedience is demanded of them--nothing can be done without the approval of those "caregivers" who run the show. They are in 24/7 lockdown in the house and given no influence from the outside world, making the group the only source of information, approval and hope. There is punishment when rules are broken, although the rules are arbitrary. Simple activities like brushing their teeth and using the toilet are allowed only by permission of the counsellors. When leadership is criticized, the woman is given more "treatment" in the form of prayer cycles, cleaning and dancing. The use of fatigue, both mental and physical, as a technique of control is a well-established technique of cults, and none of the women who come to this program are well off when they get there. Fatigue leaves them susceptible to emotional and psychological manipulation. In this ministry, it seems that the communication these women have with the outside world is very limited. Inquiries from family members are met by the group leaders with a stone wall of silence, refusal of disclosure or dismissed.

After leaving the group, family members are shocked by the change in the women they have known for years. The women are left socially disoriented, avoiding normal activities for months or years and unable to interact normally with others. Ex-members continue to have guilt over their failure to live up to expectations of ministry. Some are suicidal, which may be what led them to reach out to Mercy Ministries in the first place. They feel guilty over their failure and feel the need, in some cases, to return to the group that has kicked them out.

Manipulation, isolation, domination, intimidation, obfuscation, disorientation, dehumanization--we find them all in the experiences of the unfortunate women who sought help from this organization. If it isn't a fucking cult, then I require reeducation.

67. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146286 by Bigorra on March 18, 2008 at 9:59 pm

The billboard company doesn't have to rent the space to the FFRF if in their judgement it would cause harm to their business. Sorry if the space was their first choice, but it doesn't mean that CBS Outdoor Advertising is obligated to rent the space to them. FFRF has every right to make as much publicity as they can about CBS-OA's decision and call it wrong if they like. There are other billboard companies out there, such as Gannett that may rent them space. Then FFRF could freely post a link to information about CBS-OA's decision right on the billboard. The NY Times wouldn't be obligated to give the FFRF prime space in their newspaper if Ford or 3M was willing to pay more for it. Perhaps Amway (Grand Rapids is the home of Amway) was paying CBS-OA more money than FFRF was willing to pay, to put up their billboard, or others had threatened to pull their advertising when the billboard went up in other markets. While I support FFRF, I would never agree that a private company should have to do anything for them. And if you disagree with CBS-OA, don't buy products from those who advertise with them and let those companies know why you don't shop with them.

68. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146272 by Bigorra on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Sad to hear about Arthur C. Clarke. His influence will long outlive him through the writing he left behind. For this, I thank him.

But why did the author of this article mention the allegations of child abuse when he was cleared by an investigation?

69. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #126667 by Bigorra on February 13, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Exorcists said the people they help can be in the grip of evil to varying degrees. Only a small fraction, they said, are completely possessed by demons -- which can cause them to display inhuman strength, speak in exotic tongues, recoil in the presence of sacred objects or overpower others with a stench.

My colon is apparently possessed by demons and in need of exorcism. Also, I speak French and I recoiled once when I was handed a copy of Watchtower. Unfortunately, no inhuman strength yet, but I was watching ESPN2 the other night and Magnus Samuelsson is obviously possessed.

Comment #125853 by Mango

It's normal for people who attend churches in my area to speak in tongues -- are they all possessed by demons?

That's a good question, Mango. If I understand it correctly, speaking in tongues is divided in terms of good and evil as follows:
1. If you are a Catholic, speaking in tongues is a sign that you are possessed by demons.
2. If you are part of Baptist cults in the Southeast, speaking in tongues is a sign that you have the abilities to take up serpents, drink any deadly thing, and heal the sick by laying on hands. Their justification comes from Mark:

Mark 16: 17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

It's an, ahem, obvious misinterpretation by these folks, as evidenced by the faithful who die cavorting and blabbering as they hold rattlesnakes and copperheads. But they'd say those snakes are a boarding pass to the Rapture Express.

70. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120382 by Bigorra on February 1, 2008 at 2:44 pm

It was the Pope's latest foray into scientific issues. On Monday he warned against the "seductive" powers of science, saying it was important that science did not become the sole criteria for goodness.

Damned seductive science. I met science at the bar last night, we had a good time, science said it really liked me and wanted to see me again. I woke up in the hotel all alone, only to find Gideon's Bible.

71. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117899 by Bigorra on January 29, 2008 at 11:59 pm

This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.

Coming from Vox Day, the accusation that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions is as laughable as anything I've heard that passes for intelligent comment when it comes from the master of groundless assertions himself. The science column posted earlier is full of groundless assertions and incorrect data:

If medical science can justly claim to have saved many lives, it must also take responsibility for the estimated 783,000 annual iatrogenic deaths it now causes every year.

The American Iatrogenic Association (www.iatrogenic.org) cites a study that the average number of in-hospital deaths from medical errors averaged 195,000 for the years 2000-2002, based on a search of 37 million health records. This study was released in 2004 by HealthGrades. Incorrect data anyone?

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/iatrogenic/message/1451

Most inventors are not scientists and most scientists are not inventors; whereas Oppenheimer and Einstein gave us the nuclear bomb, Steve Wozniak gave us the personal computer and Al Gore gave us the Internet.

Al Gore gave us the Internet!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! I can't believe he'd give a Democrat like Al credit for anything, but now, by-God, Al invented the Internet.

But presenting Vox with his own errors is like having a crap throwing fight with a chimpanzee. The chimp might not care one way or the other, but I don't want to smell like crap. I can't resist presenting him one last time in his own words. He is currently bragging on his forum (I had to peek) about the commentary taking place here, thumping his chest, calling Dawkins and everyone here bitches, and apparently turning poet:

A Dog Named Flea

Assuredly he lacks the spine
To ascertain the big canine.
Should we encounter in debate
He'll meet a most odorous fate.
For in taking him down a peg
I have merely to lift my leg,
And R. Dawkins will slink away
Wet, and wearing Eau de Vox Day.

Look out, Maya Angelou, you've got competition!

I will remember this brilliant poem whenever any person says they take this guy seriously. In his own words, intelligent debate is a pissing contest. I don't need to wait for his book, as the level of reasoning in any randomly selected column on his website shows how little value the book will likely hold. Going forward, I will hold with Aquaria and not give him any more attention. There were just some things I had to share.

72. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117751 by Bigorra on January 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I know who would be on the American list. #1. Britney Spears, #2. Anna Nicole Smith, #3. Lindsey Lohan, #4. Paris Hilton, #5. Hannah Montana, #6-#902 [insert names of previously unknown drunken/vagina flashing/drug addicted celebrity here]...#903. Sam Harris...

Being an American can be discouraging...

73. For the Love of Christ

Comment #115699 by Bigorra on January 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

These kids are having sex every weekend with maybe a different guy, like a lot of my kids. People don't know this, but these kids are abusing their parents. Their parents are abusing them. It's not right! Somebody's got to take a stand. And if it's gotta me be, and I'm looked at as a moron, great!

GREAT!!! But I wonder who this guy is that all the kids, male and female, are having sex with every weekend. Has this mystery guy, perhaps, been punching Jesus? Is he punching him because he gave up flogging by working out three times a week? I'll bet Mark Foley is a generous contributor to his organization.

The quote is from a brief interview (more of an exposition) with Justin "Jesus Puncher" Fatica, found here:

http://www.writersthoughts.com/corsa/Fatica.html

You'll all be happy to know that he is writing a book! Move over Professor Dawkins, you've got a challenger on the best-seller list!

I wondered where his justification for abusing these children originated, so I went to his source of rationalization and self-righteousness, the Bible itself:

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.--Psalms 137:9

74. The devilish church practice of exorcism

Comment #115268 by Bigorra on January 23, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Her Pentecostalist priest, Papa Enoch Boonga, told me with pride how he had driven the demons out. They starved Clarice for four days, whipped her and threatened to burn her, until finally she "confessed."

Then they forced her to admit to everything she had done, and performed a long exorcism ceremony. They only believed it was working when her little body began to judder and howl and curse. I ask Clarice quietly if she really believed she had done all these things. "Yes," she said. "I do."

After four days of starvation, whipping and threats, almost anybody would "confess" to having been responsible for the unfortunate things that have happened to members of her family. What makes me curious is the belief that "threats to burn her" would have any effect on her if she was possessed of a demon. Presuming that the demon would have been from the Lake of Fire (ooh, scary!) it would be more logical if threats of burning would be like inviting it to stay, maybe have a cup of tea (boiling hot, please). Hurting the child's physical body shouldn't be a threat to the demon, it should be able to just mosey on over to the nearest lost soul (keep your eyes open fellow atheists) and set up shop there.

Papa Enoch Boonga and Pope Benedict's reasons for exorcism are horrid excuses for subjugation of innocent minds and an advocation of torture, although "the official Catholic exorcism rites do not involve the physical torture inflicted on Clarice." Exorcism is clearly mental abuse even when performed by a Catholic priest. Meanwhile, Pope Benedict condemns torture while saying at the same time his view are not a criticism of any particular government. Right.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-12-13-pope_x.htm

75. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115103 by Bigorra on January 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Here we have three groups that are offended, Muslims, Asians (a rather broadly defined demographic) and builders. Under what design is a story about pigs offensive to Muslims? If any Muslims are offended, I wouldn't exactly see why. Can a person not say "pig" around Muslims? The prohibition is only on eating pigs. I can accept the fact that if I ever visit Riyadh, there will be no bacon with breakfast which doesn't offend me one little bit. That is just the way they do things and yet another reason I'm happy that I was born and raised in the West. Trying to find ways to be offended, here's all I came up with:

1) The wolf in the story eats two pigs, which would surely brand him as an infidel, then dies by the avenging hand of the third pig who is not, obviously, a Muslim, but acts as the avenging hand of God in consuming the wolf. Perhaps the implication that the third pig acted on behalf of God in striking down the wolf for the murder of his brothers is the problem which offends Muslims.

2) Builders may be offended at the implication that shoddy building practices led to the demise of the two pigs and the wolf. It is unfair to blame the builders because all the housing designs were up to code and the materials met official standards. The extraordinary lung power of the wolf was beyond the tolerance at which these houses could expect to stand.

3) Asians may be offended by the fact that they were included as another group referred to in this story to pad out the logic. I can get pork dishes at local Thai and Chinese restaurants, so I'd like Britain's educational technology group to be more specific so that the Asians that aren't offended by the story won't be offended by being included, which is the main offense I find here.

Sorry if I've offended anybody.

76. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114811 by Bigorra on January 22, 2008 at 11:31 pm

I sent two letters to my Representative, Joe Knollenberg, R-MI who voted for HR-847 as well. As those of you who have read H.R.847 know, the language of that document was nearly innocuous in its' language when compared to the rampant misquotes presented in HR-888. To read this document is to see out-of-context quoting as an art form. Without minimal research or knowledge, it portrays Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt as being in favor of the sentiment of this bill. I recommend the following article as a breakdown of many of the exaggerations and outright fabrications that Rep. Forbes uses in the language of this bill.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/4/24725/53989">

HR-888 is the thin end of a larger wedge, no matter how it is characterized. It is a violation of the establishment clause. It is a federal endorsement of the Christian religion, given the eight mentions of "Christ" and "Christianity" that are peppered throughout the document. The vote on HR-847 was passed through Congress without debate, and with only 6 representatives voting against it. I will post the response I get from Joe Knollenberg here on this website if he chooses to respond, even if it is with a form letter.

To vote to give sanction to the inaccurate statements made in this bill would be little different than saying The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an accurate portrayal of Jewish history. It makes me wonder how Mr. Forbes would do if he came to this website to give write another House Resolution to condemn the views which are presented here. How many times would we then see our own words used with a healthy dose of editing? Take this as an example of how a few strategic periods can change the meaning of a person's words (with apologies to Big John):

I frequently find myself in complete agreement with you, and in general, I am proud to have you as my Representative in Congress. I hope that you will not continue voting in support of un-Constitutional bills such as Resolutions 847 and 888."

I am utterly confident, having brought the matter to your attention, that your detailed knowledge of American history will enable you to recognize that most of the historical claims made in House Resolution 888 are not supported by the historical record.

Here is my edited version (and probably the way the clerks in his representative's office read the letter):

I frequently find myself in complete agreement with you, and in general, I am proud to have you as my Representative in Congress...I am utterly confident, having brought the matter to your attention, that your detailed knowledge of American history will enable you to recognize that most of the historical claims made in House Resolution 888 are...supported by the historical record.

With a few strokes of the pen, I'm sure that Mr. Forbes could even make Richard Dawkins appear to be a supporter.

Peace

77. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #114328 by Bigorra on January 22, 2008 at 12:50 am

Well, all of the talk of coming out of the closet by this Christian, not only shows that they have no shame at appropriating the ideas of others (a response bursting with the pride Jesus would condemn as sin), it also demonstrates what many notice about the most vociferous defenders of Christianity, that they have little knowledge or regard for the Bible. If they did, this campaign not only would not have started, it certainly never will gain momentum, as the basis directly contradicts the "unerring" words of the Bible:

Matthew 6:5-6
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Maybe this will help them keep it to themselves, where Jesus told them it belongs.