Georgia governor organizes public vigil — to pray for rain
posted at 2:30 pm on November 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well, actually it already has.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who has asked Georgians to pray for rain today, and at lunchtime will convene with various religious and political leaders on the steps of the state Capitol to seek divine intervention in the state’s months-long drought.
Desperate times, it’s said, call for desperate measures. And with Lake Lanier growing grass instead of bass, we’re definitely in desperate times…
“This is a ridiculous, illogical exercise even for people who are deeply religious,” said Ed Buckner, treasurer for the Atlanta Freethought Society. “I would think they’d be offended.”
Buckner, an atheist, is helping plan a “polite and peaceful protest” on the Capitol grounds today, and expects members of both the Council on Secular Humanism and Freedom From Religion Foundation to attend. He objects to the governor, in his official capacity as an elected representative, endorsing a belief system…
“Does the God that Sonny Perdue believes in have to be informed about the drought?” Buckner asked. “Doesn’t he know? Or have the important people not appealed to him yet?”
Here’s the Freethought Society press release, replete with relevant footnoted Biblical quotation. Follow the link to the AJC article and see what one Atlanta rabbi has to say about likelihood of divine intervention. Why, it’s a certainty — eventually. An interesting legal question lurks here about how far Perdue could go before this amounts to an Establishment Clause violation. Praying alone in his office? A-OK. Praying publicly on the steps of the Capitol? Sure, no prob. Issuing an executive order calling for a day of prayer? Questionable, but what about federal religious holidays? Sending around a memo requesting but not requiring the presence of staffers at the vigil? Hmmm. Calling up some religious leaders and having an informal prayer shindig on the Capitol grounds? Off the Capitol grounds? Hmmm hmmm hmmm. Welcome to the wonderful, inexplicable world of First Amendment jurisprudence, my friends!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Being a former Christian Loundry, think about how far you’ve come Loundry. You are now Satan’s servant. You’ve made it your mission in life to battle God’s followers. You spend hours throwing out little thoughts into the heads of Christians, all intent on weakening their faith.
Satan’s angel. Satan’s servant. And for what? A personal agenda? Personal satisfaction? Revenge?
I hope you actually put some thought into that, at least for a minute. Mock me all you want.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Those of you who say you see no problem here have exactly the same flawed thought process as a socalist who see no problem with raising taxes. There can’t possibly be any harm to society by taking only a few dollars from each citizen. The pot of money you have to spend at the end gets more done for society then each of those people would do on thier own. Only that is wrong…it tends to do less. Exact same thing here. If everyone wastes 20 minutes on a useless excercise how much has that hurt society? If you genuinely believe it will accomplish something that is one thing, but who believes that??? That leaves you with only the flawed idea that it is ‘no harm’.
Resolute on November 13, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Hmmm… Altanta now has a 60% chance of rain by tomorrow night.
DaveS on November 13, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Um, I guess this pretty much answers your question and makes a mockery of your comment.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 6:46 PM
That’s funny. You must not have ever worked in gov’t, public schools, etc. Waste 20 minutes. That’s a good one.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Should I jump in the fire…..
nah
terryannonline on November 13, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Not unless you want to be tempted by the demon Loundry.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 6:53 PM
That doesn’t seem very rational…haha, i made funy jok…
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 6:54 PM
When Christ says, “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” it is very important to understand what it means to pray in someone’s name. In Judaism, names are not merely titular; they carry with them aspects of the identity of the one named. When you name a boy Joshua, you are trying to communicate the desire for Jehovah to save, and that your son is going to participate in that salvation. You can see this when Jesus decided to call Simon, Peter. Thus, names in the Hebraic sense cannot be separated from the nature of the one named, either in an ontological sense or economic sense. Now, using Thomas’ Summa we can conclude that God’s will is His nature. This then places the names of God in direct relation to His will. Since it is impossible for us to determine what God’s will is on our own, He has revealed bits of it to us in His word. For instance we know that it is His will for us not to steal. And that it is His will that we love our neighbor as ourselves. Thus, to request that God bless your pilfering, runs contrary to what He has revealed to be a part of His will, and thereby His nature. Therefore you are requesting something not in the name of Christ, but in your name. For it is out of your will that the request was made. This is why, after Christ asked for the cup to pass, He ended with, “Yet not my will but yours.” Thus, there is more to what Christ said than just, I’ll give you whatever you want. Name it claim it, is not an appropriate understanding of that passage.
Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 6:57 PM
James 4
1 What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
Enough said?
boomer on November 13, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Oh, by the way Loundry, is that enough Gospel armor?
boomer on November 13, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Loundry, some people will always judge homosexuals. However, consider this. If I know you are doing something that is going to cost you your life and yet say nothing am I not guilty of your death? We preach the truth because we are told judge not lest you be judged. In that context the judgement is a sentencing. If I do not tell you what you are doing is going to cost you your life then I am sentencing you. We tell you the truth because we care. We don’t want you do spend eternity in that “place of weeping and knashing of teeth”.
I Cor. 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate , nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Some of the Corinthians were in fact homosexuals. They changed their lives so as to live. However, in the end it is your choice. I respect that and if you want to live your life that way I will not hold it against you. It is you who are responsible for it. Please don’t hold our beliefs and lifestyles against us. We can get along fine. We don’t have to hate one another.
boomer on November 13, 2007 at 7:35 PM
The man has courage! This is good! Sounds like some people are afraid it may actually rain!
JellyToast on November 13, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I have a lot of respect for the Christians that I know, especially those who see charity and caring for others as part of their calling.
I don’t doubt your sincerity with regard to the eternal soul of gays, but I’d ask you to consider whether the language that is used to describe homosexuality creates a culture where abuse and discrimination can be justified.
Also, I have friends who are vegan. I don’t mind their suggestions on how I might see things their way. I would, though, be wary of them lobbying for legislation based on their belief that those who kill animals are morally wrong.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 7:51 PM
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Well, first of all there is no call for the abuse of homosexuals in the Bible. In fact it is the opposite. Also I am in no way advocating legislation that would call for the abuse of gays. Though I know this will seem in the eyes of some to contridict the previous sentence, I don’t think homosexuals should have the right to marry. Why, well, Sodom and Gahmorra(sp?). I do have a fear of God and don’t want eternal damnation for myself because I supported that particular right.
boomer on November 13, 2007 at 8:01 PM
boomer on November 13, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I should change that from Bible to New Testament.
boomer on November 13, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Does anyone else find it funny that we revere naitive Americans for their rain dances, but excoriate Judeo-Christian believers for doing the same thing?
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 8:12 PM
I understand and appreciate that, though I think the Bible in Leviticus is rather tough on them.
With regard to Sodom & Gomorrah, believing that God might destroy one of our cities (I’m thinking San Francisco, but the Chelsea section of Manhattan has to also be on the target list) or condemn those who allowed homosexuality to take place can create in some, though not you, the justification for mistreating gays. For some the rationale can be “if God is going to burn them in hell, maybe it is OK for me to try to beat some sense into them”.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Georgia. My prayers are with you.
CrimsonFisted on November 13, 2007 at 8:23 PM
I don’t know anyone who reveres rain dancers.
Just so we’re clear here, I do not see where those cities had anything to do with homosexual marriages. If anything, the example we’re given is one of rape.
I’m not trying to argue with you, but what you’re saying is exactly what Phelps and his church is saying. Clearly that kind of talk has reached some to abuse, not just of gays but of anyone who would allow homosexuality.
I can agree with you here. My only issue with homosexual marriage is that if we’re going to change it so that one person’s morality has nothing to do with what couples can and cannot marry each other, then why stop with homosexuality?
What’s the justification for keeping polygamists from marrying or for keeping anyone who can legally sign a contract from marrying?
Why not just turn it into a contract just like any other contract?
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 8:27 PM
True, but it’s also tough on kids who lie to their parents.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I like rain dances and need the exercise. Also, I like a lot of Christian music from Bach to Gospel.
The native American belief system and social structure are worth studying, but they ultimately didn’t leave them in a competitive position once Europeans started to arrive. Maybe if they had a “White man go home” dance.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Well since it has not rained yet I’d say they failed but if it rains anytime in the next 10 days there will be 20 million leg humpin’ Jesus freaks screamin’ MIRACLE!
ronsfi on November 13, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Yeah, it is one bad a$$ book.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 8:33 PM
I remember praying for snow days when I was in grade school and there was a test coming up. Sometimes it worked.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 8:35 PM
The day isn’t over yet, but Allah already touched on this anyway. Sometimes the answer to a prayer is just “no.” Christians are comfortable with that and do not take it as a sign of God not existing.
They needed a firm stance on illegal immigration.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Who talks about someone else’s religion like that?
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Thats THE lamest rationalization. You can’t be serious. Are you saying that at 11:59:59 if it rains it’s a miracle but, at 12:00:01 not a miracle?
What if the answer is no but it was going to rain anyway?
ronsfi on November 13, 2007 at 8:48 PM
um, i couldn’t make it through all the comments(yawn!), but did anyone check the weather today? it rained on the TN/GA border. now i don’t know if any rain got down in hot’lanta, but since it’s called “faith”, does that make you wonder about precipitious precipitation, y’all?
JazzBass on November 13, 2007 at 8:48 PM
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Who calls Atheists minions of Satan?
ronsfi on November 13, 2007 at 8:49 PM
For some people, who invest in prenuptial agreements, it has become essentially that.
You and I have chatted about this before and I respect your thoughts a great deal. I think marriage should be sanctioned by a church or within a community. The government makes me license my dog, and license my car. If they want to be involved with licensing my marriage, fine, but they don’t “approve” it. The marriage certificate I have hasn’t conveyed upon me special powers to be a better husband or to guess what my wife is thinking.
But, that’s me. From a policy standpoint, I think the court in New Jersey got it about right when it kicked it back to the legislature and told them to figure out how to give gay couples equality–call it what they want. The legislature is having all sorts of problems figuring out how to do it, but that’s what their paid to do. I hope people eventually support gay marriage but I do think it is best to do it through the ballot rather than the courts.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 8:50 PM
LOL. Very good one.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Why would you care what someone from a religion you don’t belong to thinks about you?
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 8:53 PM
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Hey you started it!
ronsfi on November 13, 2007 at 8:55 PM
?
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Does it matter to anyone that Gov. Perdue has invited leaders from all manner of faiths to participate in prayer?
From the linked article:
I am not a believer in the ‘power of prayer’, but
1) I don’t see how an ecumenical prayer service held by the governor can be construed as government sanctioning of any religion
2) If there is a true drought-ending downpour as a result of this prayer vigil, how do we know which god should get the credit?
HeIsSailing on November 13, 2007 at 8:56 PM
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 8:56 PM
You got me there!
ronsfi on November 13, 2007 at 8:59 PM
That’s not what I’ve said. You’re the one who’s calling a miracle based on it raining today. I’m only saying that if that’s the case, there’s still some time left.
Unless God Himself comes down and says the answer is no, how in the world will anyone get to the conclusion that the answer was no but that it rained anyway?
No one. Loundry was called a minion of Satan because Loundry has made it his mission to harm a Christian’s belief in Christ, basically Satan’s mission.
If someone is doing the work of Satan, then calling that person a minion of Satan, while inflammatory, isn’t really incorrect.
If done through ballots, I just don’t see it passing. Polls are overwhelmingly against gay marriage of any form.
Thank you. The respect is mutual. I do remember talking with you on several occasions, but I couldn’t remember if this was one of the topics. I try not to repeat myself, but I’m not always successful.
Obviously though, you don’t really love her if you can’t figure out why she’s mad at you.
I hate to admit it, but I’ve pulled that one before just not intentionally.
The only real benefit to marriage is that it’s not something you can just walk away from. If you want to dissolve a marriage, you actually have to get a lawyer. But some wouldn’t even consider that a benefit, especially with the divorce rate being what it is.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 9:01 PM
“No one. Loundry was called a minion of Satan”
I can’t square that circle.
ronsfi on November 13, 2007 at 9:04 PM
You said that atheists were called minions of Satan when in actuality, only Loundry was called one and it was specifically because Loundry has the same goals as Satan.
Not all atheists have those goals.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Yes, I think it will take another generation before it happens. The House recently passed a workplace anti-discrimination bill. It is now in the Senate. Hopefully it will pass early next year.
Usually, its because there is something I was supposed to do. If I could only remember what it was…
The lawyers usually come in long after a marriage is emotionally over. I love my wife and find life more rewarding by sharing it with someone. Regardless, though, I’m stuck here not because of her and not because of lawyers but because of two young children who will be here until they go to college…and then move back in.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 9:12 PM
The “no one” was in response to your assertion that someone would call atheists minions of Satan. If you did more than cherry pick quotes, you’d see that my response was perfectly in line with what you had asked.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 9:13 PM
If you are asserting that the whole idea of prayer is to get God to change his plan for the world by altering worldy affairs…I don’t think most Christians believe that. That is innately the opposite view of when Christians pray for strength or to see the good side of the seemingy bad parts of his plan for us. That isnt even the example Jesus led. Besides the miracles he perfomed himself, when he prayed he prayed for strength to get through what must be done, not for God to intervene and solve anything. Listen to the words of the Our Father, it is about personal strength of character not begging for divine intervention in worldly affairs. I’m not saying the idea God will change his mind and suddenly make it rain is not found in the Bible or in the history of religions, I just think it is a tiny minority especially since The Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation.
You can appreciate the culture and tradition while pointing out that the philosophy of expecting it to actually be succesful, is flawed.
Resolute on November 13, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Usually, but I actually worked on a case that involved a married couple who were still living together in the same house. There was nothing even unpleasant about their split. In court she just said that they could no longer go on living together as man and wife, and that was it.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 9:19 PM
So, how does the forecast compare to what actually happened? Did meteorologists not know yesterday that it was going to rain today?
DaveS on November 13, 2007 at 9:27 PM
If you feel like this comment applies to you…
There are some atheists and Christians alike who seem to get their egos inextricably wound up in these comment threads. Consider the off-the-handle responses made by some. Would this be acceptable in public or in person? Reading a lot of these comments makes me realize that many of the people commenting are probably meek and voiceless in their own lives. Myspace angst-ridden tweens have nothing on some of the Hot Air commenters.
Most of us are interested in the free exchange of ideas. Others are partisan cheerleaders. Some are trying to get laid. It’s obvious that a some have no friends.
Pick your category; you know who you are.
The Race Card on November 13, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I don’t have a problem with polygamy. It’s really my wife who does. (rimshot please?)
Actually, I don’t see the attraction of polygamy to anyone today since men can occupy the sexual attention of multiple women without marrying them (e.g., Bernie Kerik) and because most men don’t want to have many many children.
One argument against gay marriage is that it is unnatural. Well, polygamy is natural. Some would argue that it is more natural than monogamy. I don’t think natural = legal is a valid assumption.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 9:34 PM
There are a lot of women who would like two or more men. Talk to her again.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 9:42 PM
The true believers are using thier free will to do what they need to to deal with the drought and relying on thier faith that God has a reason for everything.
peacenprosperity on November 13, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I thought that a ton of people moved to Atlanta in the past ten years. Isn’t that what the water shortage is about? Not planning, like overcrowded roads and schools. What’s God got to do with it?
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I’ve decided that if you’re going to be an Atheist who says things about other faiths, you should at least be educated about their faith. So when II Chronicles 7:14 says, “and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land,”(emphasis mine) it says to me that the GA Governor is acting according to Scripture. How can anyone get pissy about that, certainly when it also results in no buildings or landmarks being set on fire?
Spc Steve on November 13, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Point taken. What my baby wants, my baby gets.
Actually, neither of us would want to be married to an additional person. Maybe that is a reflection of the aggravation we cause each other, and the work that goes into maintaining a long-term relationship.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 9:49 PM
But if they are praying to the wrong God, the real one will just get madder and madder.
Doh!
TheSitRep on November 13, 2007 at 9:58 PM
That’s why he invented lightning.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I don’t either. I have however heard the argument that marriage is something the government supports for its own benefit. From that argument it is logical that the government would chose to support marriages which result in children, since those relationships are the most beneficial.
Then again, I don’t support that argument, because I don’t like tying marriage to having children.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Of course there are those who harass and discriminate against homosexuals, but what is your definition of harassment? I don’t believe in harassing homosexuals, but I’m not going to be forced to say that homosexuality is normal. It’s as normal as cooking a 40lb turkey in a stainless steel egg cooker. It’s simply not designed to work that way.
Is a Christian who preaches that homosexuality is wrong guilty of harassment? Are the Boy Scouts, which is a Christian organization guilty of discrimination for not wanting homosexual men sleeping in tents with 10 year old boys? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that the Boy Scouts should be FORCED to allow homosexual Scout leaders, even though their religion forbids homosexuality? Should a Christian be forced to have his/her children taught in school that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, even though their religion and basic belief is that it’s wrong? Who’s imposing their views on others?
This is exactly the point I made above. Who’s imposing their beliefs on others? Perdue and the group of Christians who held a prayer service which was voluntary, or those who want to OUTLAW it and forbid him from doing so? As with the Vegans who would be happy to outlaw the eating of all meat and force us all to live on veggies … Atheists have an unhealthy need to force Christians into basements where they can’t be seen. In fact, there are comments on here which indicate there are some who believe religion should be outlawed all together.
Again I ask … who’s forcing their beliefs on others?
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I don’t believe our right to marry is granted by the state, or that we need to reproduce in order to satisfy the state’s need to build its tax base.
I think marrying who you want is a natural right rather than a legal right and to imply that the state grants us the right to marry our spouse presupposes that the state can take away that right.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 10:14 PM
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man’s compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these
things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man’s heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would
recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God — a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell — except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven — the kind described in the world’s Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
– Mark Twain,
MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Yeah, I probably would do those things as well, if I’d created God. Unfortunately, man doesn’t have that power.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Man has the power to create any kind of God he chooses and usually does.
MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 10:25 PM
If this works, I will try to organize one to prevent Hillary from becoming president.(however, it may be redundant since many of us are already praying for that).
jeanie on November 13, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Marriage itself is a state institution. I don’t find it much different that a driver’s license. In fact, it should probably have more pretesting.
Governments can’t tell you who to be with, but they can say who you can marry. All marriage does is show that the state recognizes your union, but I don’t see how that is a right people should have.
For instance, even in my example of turning it into a contract, there are still laws in place. All involved parties must still be able to legally sign a contract.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 10:29 PM
No, man can create imaginary friends but man cannot create something greater than man. We can’t even create man without using materials we’ve already been provided with.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 10:32 PM
There are legal definitions of harassment. I suppose those would do. My earlier point was just to consider the correlation between calling someone damned for eternity and the possibility that someone else might take that as a free pass for abuse. I don’t have a policy point, but recall reading Laura Ingraham questioning some of the rhetoric she had used before she found out her brother was gay.
That’s a good question. I’m against most sex ed in public schools–I’m actually not a big fan of even having public schools. They should teach that you need to respect the rights of others and that some people are gay.
I don’t. I’m too fond of the stained glass to wish for that. But I’m not an atheist, though I’m a non-theist.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 10:34 PM
What do you mean?
I’ve wondered about that for some time. From what I’ve seen though, she still doesn’t seem to approve of homosexuality. What did she say, if you remember?
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Society would be better if people (like, say, Britney Spears) had to pass a test to get married and have children as they do in order to drive (actually, Britney doesn’t have a license for that either). However, the government recognizes that you have a natural right to reproduce and they can’t take your children away unless you are deemed unfit (Britney, again).
One could argue all sorts of ways that society would be better off if government held the rights and dolled them out to citizens more carefully, but the founders recognizes natural rights of life, liberty and happiness. They were influenced by Enlightenment philosophers who had broken away from the notion of “the divine right of kings”. It’s not the government, but your creator, that gives you your natural rights. I believe one of those rights is to marry who you want–for me it was easy.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Amen! ;-)
baldilocks on November 13, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I haven’t found the original 1997 article on the Washington Post’s site. Here is an article from Time Magazine about Ingraham’s piece.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I could be mistaken I suppose, but that is what I thought I just said.
MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 10:55 PM
I take theism to be the belief in a God that interacts with the universe as opposed to deism where God created the universe but doesn’t answer prayers and make minor tweaks to the lives of men. I could say I’m a deist, but I’m not sure if there is a rule book or dues.
Oddly, that is actually the topic of this thread. So my opinion about the Georgia Governor is that an ecumenical prayer is great and I hope it works. Maybe God is listening more closely than I’ve suspected.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I see your point here, but I don’t see how having a right to reproduce is on the same level as having a right to marry.
There was actually a case where a person was legally told he (or she I can hardly remember the case) could not be in a romantic relationship at all. That’s even going one step further.
And I don’t mean to be picky, but the right is of the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. For me this is a key distinction since a right to happiness would likely be slightly socialistic with citizens never having to worry about where the rent check will come from each month.
Personally, I believe we focus on this too much. Granted I am glad that I was able to marry the man I love, but it hasn’t been so long since marriages were arranged. Somehow they were able to work it out. I’m convinced that insisting on finding “the one” is a large part of the reason for the high divorce rate.
People just become convinced that marriage should be easier without realizing that it’s work. It can be pleasant work, but it’s still work. All worthwhile relationships take a serious amount of effort.
We have a distorted view of what constitutes love.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Man is a marvelous curiosity … he thinks he is the Creator’s pet … he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn’t it a quaint idea.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Allahpundit
There is an interesting corollary here betwen politics and religion.
The approach of conservatives to the Constitution is similar to that of Protestants to scripture – every man has the abilty to read it and judge for himself what it says. The liberal approach is more akin to that of Catholics – only a priestly class may say what the sacred text means and the followers must accept their announcments as final and binding.
So as a conservative, not to mention as somebody familar with the Constitution and the attitude of the founding generation to religion, I have no hesitation in saying the courts are full of it.
flenser on November 13, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Well at least then we know that God is not doing any of the commenting here anyway.
MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 11:03 PM
I live in an area dominated by the Shoshone Bannock tribes. Their traditions are very respected in this part of the country and no one would dare criticize them for exercising those traditions. As a matter of fact they have pageants on the reservation yearly and they are a big hit with everyone.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Surly we can, but it seems to me the vitriol is beyond just stating an opinion that it is flawed.
csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 11:06 PM
You actually got me to laugh on that one.
Let’s not be coy here. You know full well what you said, and your word choice was obvious. The word “God” has a meaning in the English language. Just because you believe God does not exist, that doesn’t change the meaning of the word.
That’s an interesting article. I had no idea she was so vehemently anti-gay before. I’ve only heard of her in the last year or so.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 11:06 PM
You can get laid through this site? I’ll have to come by more often.
flenser on November 13, 2007 at 11:09 PM
You are right. I was typing entirely too quickly.
It also wasn’t long ago that we were ruled by a king who received rights from God and then gave us the ones he wanted. My advocacy for gay marriage is really a function of a more power belief in the limited role of government.
Very much agree with your points about love, marriage and divorce.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Because that was a serious concern of yours otherwise?
That’s a very unique example. Perhaps your anecdote is only representative of your experience and not those of the nation?
Mark Twain is the nom de guerre of Samuel Clemens. There’s nothing surprising here.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I assumed it was just an oversight but since we’re not talking in person responded to it anyway.
And we survived that as well. I prefer the system we currently have, but not even a king can take away my inalienable rights.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Heh.
EnochCain on November 13, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Anyone who can’t see the absurdity of a bunch of wealthy elite in the richest country “evah!” seeking divine intervention to save their putting greens, then you may need to step in front of a bus in order to reaquaint yourself with “Reality”.
ronsfi on November 13, 2007 at 11:50 PM
General question…
Someone – maybe a couple of people – made the comment that AllahPundit just posts entries about religion/atheism, because he knows that they turn into “flame wars”, garnering many, many comments and thus gain the HotAir site a lot of views.
If this is the case, then it would seem that HotAir is turning into the mass media, in the sense that the goal is not good journalism, but to make money and sell advertisement space.
I worried about this when blogs started selling ad space on their sites. I worried that they would start going away from what made them the “alternative media” – good openly biased journalism, which answers to no censors or editors, etc – and start moving towards writing specifically to attract attention.
I certainly hope that this is not the case. I hope that the goal is still good journalism and not making money and selling ad space.
Michael in MI on November 13, 2007 at 11:56 PM
But I won’t survive without sleep soon. Good night. Great points. I’m sure we’ll exchange ideas on another thread soon.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Right. Because putting greens are the only things that need water.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I’m going as well. Thank you for the respectful dialog.
Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 12:00 AM
At this point in time the blogs absolutely depend on the mainstream media. (a) the reason for many blogs was to counter what the msm reported (b) the MSM has the resources to actually do research and travel to investigate stories. Blogs don’t have these kind of resources or personnel to do it.
If the MSM ever went away, the blogs would follow suit for the reasons mentioned above. In a twisted kind of way they need each other.
There is a book called “The cult of the amateur” that describes the impact of the web on several aspects of society. Pretty interesting read, particularly about how it could bring on an age of mediocrity rather than enlightenment.
Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 12:02 AM
What about beer? Can you get that here too? And can you have a smoke afterward?
MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 12:06 AM
What ever you clearly NEED to have the last word no matter how stupid it makes you sound. How many have died so far of dehydration? How many are in danger of that even? So what is the crisis? Where is the state organized prayer vigil for our selfless troops far from home? Or those who are suffering in any number of situations on the earth. No there is no “Humanitarian Crisis”. If they run out then we truck it in. The only thing that will die are the lawns.
ronsfi on November 14, 2007 at 12:07 AM
I just wanted to be sure.
Trust, but verify.
- Ronald Reagan
MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 11:59 PM
See above.
ronsfi on November 14, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Good point. If they are going to be taking up God’s time, they should be praying for a cure for cancer or something like that.
MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 12:12 AM
One problem with that theory is that wouldn’t it be easier to just open up registration? A lot more folks would view if they could also comment I would think anyway.
Where are the ads? I don’t see them.
MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Bradky – I must not have explained my point very well. I know that the blogs are dependant upon the mass media for most of their work. Not all of them are however, as I read military blogs a lot and I have learned so much from them sharing their experiences and knowledge of all things military. Including military history and military books they have read, etc.
When I said that blogs were going to become like the mass media, I meant it in the sense that blogs would stop being a medium which expanded upon the mass media stories, giving proper context and background and all the facts that the mass media did not report… and would become like the mass media… which is not driven by good journalism and reporting so much as it is driven by making money and selling sponsorships and such.
Just as editors decide how to use their newspaper space and newscasts decide how to use their air time, so too does AllahPundit decide how to use bandwidth here at HotAir. Is AllahPundit choosing flame war posts over good, important news posts just to increase views to the site in order to sell ad space here at HotAir? Are other blogs doing that now too? Is the journalism of blogs now deteriorating, because, like the mass media, they are choosing the more entertaining and tabloid entry to post instead of the more informative, newsworhty entry to post?
I hope not, because, as you stated about mediocrity rather than enlightenment, I would see that happening with blogs. I came to blogs, because they were an enlightenment as opposed to the media. But if they are now driven by ad space instead of enlightenment, this is very disappointing.
Michael in MI on November 14, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Good point about the registration. Though I believe that is simply to keep the site from being unmanageble in the sense of spam and trolls. Maybe they open up registration every once in a while when they feel they need more views to keep their ad space revenue coming in?
With regards to ads, the ones I see on this page are Verizon Wireless at the top and something called PatriotPost.us on the sidebare.
Michael in MI on November 14, 2007 at 12:19 AM
You make good points. My biggest reservation about blogs, military or otherwise is that the source of information is not always cited and probably more importantly misinformation is passed on from commenters which the site mods can’t possibly keep up with to fact check every single entry.
Three examples of that (a) The perpetuation of the story about Gen Pershing dipping bullets in pigs blood (b) the clinton body count and of course the (c)9-11 truthers
But capitalism being what it is (and I am very pro-capitalist) it is unlikely that most blogs can resist the need to advertise.
Bradky on November 14, 2007 at 12:23 AM
MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Here! Here! I suggest that Michael in MI on November 13, 2007 at 11:56 PM start his own blog and show AP what “good journalism” is all about! Show us all there MIKE!
ronsfi on November 14, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Rain will come to Georgia. Just watch.
SoulGlo on November 14, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »