Category Archives: RELIGION

Thomas Jefferson Rebukes The Divinity of Jesus as Myth

In this letter to John Adams from Thomas Jefferson expresses Jefferson’s Deist beliefs–that of a Creator God, but the refutation of the divinity of Jesus:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html

Note the passage:
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”

Of course, take it in context, and read the entire letter. Interesting stuff.

Recent-ish Church Visits

Last year I had the opportunity to vist a few different churches, to check things out. It was during the period that I was looking for a label for myself (why this is necessary, I don’t know. But I guess it’s important for humans to have a sense of communal belonging, so we have labels for groups and ideologies and whatnot, that we can say we belong to. When someone asks me “So what are you?” in a religious/theological context, I’m tempted to just say “Human.” but being a smartass rarely gets you anywhere. And usually not into an intelligent dialogue. So for a while I was calling myself a Christian-Buddhist, since I value most of the lessons Jesus supposedly taught as well as was studying Buddhism. But, I’m really not a Christian and while I really value Buddhist philosophy, I can’t really call myself a Buddhist. So then it was “Freethinker”. Which still applies, but doesn’t really capture my theistic belief.

Anyway, it was also during a period (which really hasn’t quite ended,) when my wife and are were looking for a church family to belong to. Look, I reject religious dogma, but I still highly value the concept of theistic fellowship. Some of my best experiences, even if based on fallacies, were growing up in a strong church family (not blood related family…the family created from the members of my church.) Going to choir practice (yes this may surprise everyone who knows me, but I was in choir,) the youth group, my pastor…. I loved the pastor that was there most of the time I lived in that community. Pastor David Norberry. He even performed our wedding service. He was a very open-minded, liberal man who was willing to investigate any possibility. Mark reminds me a lot of him. highly intelligent, very curious, ultra-friendly, but very devoted to Christianity.

I know, if I reject Christianity why do we want to find a church to belong to? Isn’t that hypocritical? Yeah, I’m working on dealing with that one. I’m going to find it very difficult to be able to sit and listen to a sermon, or go to a Bible study without feeling smug and superior and self-righteous. Not feelings that I like so much. Despise actually. Because what I really want to be able to do is share my thoughts and revelations, but I know it’s pointless and would just lead to negativity.

But, thing is, I want our daughter, 6 years old now, to have a lot of the stability and fellowship and experiences I had growing up. I don’t plan on disindoctrinating her of the stuff she learns in Sunday School, but I will also be teaching her Deist and Freethinking concepts (at proper age levels.) It’s something I’m really struggling with. I’d love her to be able to have similar experiences I had, but, the experiences I had was because I was 100% a believer of the Christian dogma and allowed myself to be manipulated. I don’t want her to be mentally and emotionally manipulated. But…and yet…however…. It’s tough being a parent that wants the best for their child, but at the same time doesn’t want to stifle their deist/theist development process. We’re not exactly what you’d call very liberal parents, we’re not the kind to let her just “be who she is and not stifle her creativity!” BS. Kids need boundaries, they need limits, they need to know that there is right and wrong, OBJECTIVE right and wrong *wink*. Always use your best manners, always think about how other people feel, how would doing X make you feel, that’s the wrong thing to do, that’s the right thing to do, that is appropriate behavior, that is not, etc. We don’t need a church family to teach our daughter moderate behavior, loving and considering others, not to judge lest ye be judged. But, well, I’m getting way off the point of this missive….)

How’s that for the world’s longest parenthetical.

So, back to the church visit stories.

Since I was raised Methodist we went to a local Methodist church. Nice, very nice. Just like the one I grew up in. Lots of wood, lots of room and dark colors. Pews and Methodist symbolism all over. A good example of why Methodism is called Catholic-lite by some. =) Very upbeat and comfortable. However…the service had about a million things going on, and the sermon was only 5 minutes. (Funny how I’m saying that’s a bad thing?) Even as a teen I more appreciated the sermons than anything else. Not just because I really liked our pastor, but because it was a chance to use my mind and think about ideas and concepts. I HATED the chant crurp. The mindless, monotone repetition like a bunch of brainwashed zombies. The hymns, eh. never cared for em. The other stuff, distractions. I looked forward to the sermons, where I would take notes even. As motionless as possible, of course. I was raised that you were to sit perfectly still through church. From as early as I could remember to about age 15, I recall sitting so still, never moving a muscle.

Anyway, so this Methodist church was nice, somewhat contemporary, but harkened back to my upbringing.

Then we tried the local Unitarian Universalist church. Holy mother of god. Unitarianism was appealing to me at a time I was looking for labels. Being a huge fan of the Founding Fathers and knowing most were deists, freethinkers, and unitarians, I was willing to check it out. Unitarian Universalism is not your Founding Father’s religion! It’s now an amorpheous waystation for every and any belief. On the plus side they don’t judge! They accept all with welcome arms and don’t knock any belief. On the downside, they accept all with welcome arms and don’t knock any belief.
You know, there are some beliefs that really need knocking.

The service was interesting. A traditional, non-denominational Christian hymn here, a song, of…some sort I don’t recall there, a prayer here, a call for thoughts there. Pretty traditional although non-ideological. And the speaker was a guest speaker, a former Protestant minister who spoke about faith and dealing with guilt when bad things happen. It was all…OK I guess. A little weird. Going to a Catholic mass a couple of times was different, this was weird.
My wife and I, I think, were kind of boarderline about it until we picked up our daughter from the childcare center. And she showed us a picture of, I think it was a cockatrice that she’d colored. And the adult kid-watcher was all happy to show us the lesson they learned about…I don’t even remember. And being the moderate, well-behaved adults we are we responded as we’re wont to do in situations like this: complete blankness. We looked at each other and saw each others’ stark blankness, and after 12 years of marriage we knew exactly what the other was thinking: “Oh haaiil no.” We were able to stifle our laughter until we got to the car.

I’m sorry, I’m pretty open-minded, but c’mon. There was no way that I was going to belong to a church that encouraged belief of mythical Greek animals, the power of crystals, or any New Age crurp.

(As I’ve now come to accept that it’s also difficult for me to support unquestioned belief in being swallowed by giant fish, giants that walked the earth, living into the 900+ years, beasts with 7 heads and 12 horns, lakes of fire with horse riding bringers of death with swords for tongues, walls being felled by horn blowing, etc etc.)

Anyway, so we blew THAT taco stand as fast as we could.

Next was a contemporary Lutheran church, who Mark is a member of. (Can imagine Mark cringing at reading that, wondering what I’m going to say. We just had a heated arguement, but that doesn’t change the fact that I love the guy and liked his church. So I continue….) It was interesting. It certainly isn’t the church of the Lutherans from Lake Woebegone! It would have been my perfect church as a teenager. If I recall, just about every song sung was a contemporary Christian pop/rock song. When I was a teen, I was a HUGE contemporary Christian music fan. From the bulwarks of Michael W. Smith and Amy Grant, to lesser know Jamie Page to more hardcore Mortal. (I actually still listen to Mortal’s “Fathom”.) But I haven’t listened to the genre in years. So the only way we even recognized the songs were from watching those TV commercials for CD collections of contemp’ Christian hits. *grin*

Everyone was very friendly, extremely upbeat, and welcoming. Although, while the pastor was lively and excited, if I recall I really didn’t care for the sermon. It was the last in a series regarding the movie “The Passion of the Christ” (a religious sado-masochist’s dream, but I digress.) I wish I could recall it, my wife may still have her notes, but I remember really disagreeing with a lot of what he said. It really made me long for ole Pastor Norberry.

It’s funny. When I was a teen, I would have been all over a service that was upbeat and filled with contemporary music (so long as it also had a meaningful, thoughtful sermon.) But there, I felt uncomfortable. I’ve never been comfortable outside of Church Camp and Youth Group trips, around outward displays of faith like when people raise their hand in the air when they feel “moved.” That always felt staged to me. A little TOO pious and outward. (Although I still cry when I hear “Friends Are Friends Forever” (my wife sings beautifully) and used to feel compelled to say out “Amen!” from the heart when I was a teen and heard someone testify movingly.)
I don’t know. Might be a good place for my daughter to find a good, active church family.

I just felt most comfortable at the Methodist church, with what I was familiar with. Just kind of proves to me that we get indoctrinated with what we’re raised with.

One thing I miss in all new churches, like the Lutheran one and my mom’s new Methodist church as well, is the lack of solidity. In the structure itself. Everything is so stark, so white, so drywall. Padded folding chairs, small speakers (even if they’re better quality,) no or very little stained glass, etc. Maybe some religion IS genetic. *grin* My father’s family was strong Irish Catholic. Maybe I just prefer wood, stained glass, long dark (but comfortable) pews, alters and symbolism, large choir areas and big chairs the ministers and co-ministers to sit in, candles….

How contradictory can I get, huh? I reject dogma, religion, but I feel most comfortable around solemn and traditional religious environments. Displays of age and stability. Some things are just engrained I guess.

Arguement From Design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

This is absolutely fascinating!

* Premise 1: X was intelligently designed,
* Premise 2: X was not designed by humans.
* Premise 3: The only conceivable beings capable of intelligent design are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).
* From (3): The only conceivable beings capable of designing X in particular are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).
* Recall (2): that X was not designed by humans.
* If God doesn’t exist, then X was also not designed by God.
* Thus if God doesn’t exist, then none of the conceivable beings capable of designing X designed X, in which case X was not designed at all.
* Since God not existing therefore results in a contradiction of (1), God must exist.

however, using a proof by reductio ad absurdum…

* Premise 1: The teleological argument is sound (assumption for reductio)
* Therefore: An intelligent designer exists.
* Premise 2: The teleological argument applies to the intelligent designer, for the designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object
* Therefore: An intelligent designer of the intelligent designer exists.
* Similarly: An infinite chain of intelligent designers exists.
* Premise 3: An infinite chain of intelligent designers does not exist, for this is absurd.
* Conclusion: one of the three premises is false.

Discuss. =)

Murderous God

The God of the Old Testament was a heartless, murderous psychopath, in my opnion.
Just look at this one chapter, Joshua 11
Skeptic’s Annotated
NRSV
NIV

This verse is quite nice:
“For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.”
– Joshua 11:20

And of course, one of my favorite passages dealing with God ordained abortion, curses, and justified male jealosy and wife ownership:
Skeptic’s Annotated Bible
NIV
NRSV

Schitzophrenic? Check out Genesis 6:5 and then 8:21. Whichever translation you like.
He kills all humans and innocent animals because humans are wicked (did He not see this coming?) And then declares that he will not flood the Earth again, BECAUSE men are wicked.

And what’s the moral of the story:
Judges 19
Where the host of a visitor offers up his virgin daughter to appease a mob bent on rape (seems to be a lot of these situations), they take the concubine instead and rape her to death. Then the master chops her into 12 pieces and sends them to the ends of Israel.
Nice.

Addendum added later: Don’t take this as my believing God himself is a murderous psycho, but rather that religion creates and supports behavior and beliefs that admire a murderous psychotic God. I don’t believe God has human traits and fallabilities. Humans have projected our own fear, greed, hate, prejudices upon God. How can you not read stories like these and not think of every other religion where Gods are petty and cruel and act exactly like childish humans with supreme power? The Greeks, Romans, Babalonyans, Egyptians, Pacific Rim native tribes, Maorians, Celts, Goths…the Judeao-Christian God is no different. He’s presented and fashioned with so many human falibilities and weaknesses…we have created him in our image.

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html
Wow! Fantastic. An excellent source for pointing out, verse by verse, the contradictions, injustice, intolarance, and absrudities of the Bible. And there’s a LOT of them!

Now I don’t have to rely on just the ones I remember: The two different orders of Creation, who and what was found at the open tomb and by who and what was said contradicting the oher Gospels, when and where Mary, Joseph, and Jesus went after the birth contradicted among the Gospels, etc.

Plus the whole hypocracy of Bible-thumping judgement against something someone doesn’t approve of, but ignoring the thousands of other rules and commands that are riddled throughout the Bible that Christians tend to ignore or arbitrarily decide don’t apply anymore.

There’s also in-line links to the Brick Testament. God I love that site!

Fear of Hell: Just Good Policy?

As I continue to read, late into this night, I find more Web thoughts that are nearly identical to my own, to whit, this essay on what is hell:
http://universist.org/fearofhell.htm

‘And what is Hell, anyway? According to Wikipedia’s entry on the subject, the Christian concept of Hell or “Gehenna” comes from “Gehinnom,” a Hebrew word for landfills containing dead bodies, which were periodically burned. In the New International Version of the Bible, the word “Hell” doesn’t appear until the New Testament. In the King James Version, Hell appears in the Old Testament numerous times, but as a mistranslation of words such as “Sheol,” meaning “the grave” — a place where everyone goes, both good and bad. Wikipedia also states that ancient Hebrews didn’t believe in the immortality of the soul, a claim that seems to be borne out by Psalm 6:4-5:”Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake. For in death there is no rememberance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?”‘

‘…I think the fear of Hell is mainly due to
social pressure. There are two billion Christians on Earth. How could they all be wrong? The answer is that they could be wrong just as easily as the four billion people who are not Christians. No one worries about going to the Hell of a religion they haven’t been indoctrinated into. Today no one worries about going to Hades, because they are free to examine the absurdity of Greek mythology, and to point out the dubious nature of its sources. Doing the same thing with one’s own religion is highly taboo. The best way to counter the social pressures of religion is to find a community of non-religious people to align oneself with. It is my hope that the Universist community can be an anchor for those who wish to rid themselves of the irrational fear of Hell.’

– Stuart Fulton

Universism

I plan on talking more about Universism more in my “Statement of Personal Belief” to come later. But here’s some thoughts I wanted to share now.

I actually just discovered Universism this evening while do more research on Deism (more on that later too.)
Intriguing…very likely not a direction I want to focus too much on but it has some very interesting ideas. It’s sort of a religion of Uncertainty designed to be embraced by Deists, Atheists, Agnostics, and Pantheists. I’m likely going to stick to just Deism. =)

But, here’s some snippets from the Universist Web site I liked:

“Love your fellow man not because an ancient book tells you to, but because you feel it is right. Do what is right not out of fear of punishment, but out of the joy of helping your fellow man. Love God not so that God will do your bidding, but because you love the universe God gave you to explore. Die not so that you may be martyred or eternally rewarded, but so you may rest.”
– creator if the Universist religion, Ford Vox
http://universist.org/fordvox.htm

“The new battleground is Uncertainty versus Certainty. Faith claims knowledge of absolute Truth; Universists claim knowledge of absolute spiritual and intellectual liberation, of the empowering fact that there is no universal Truth. It is Certainty that drives people to fly planes into buildings, and it is Uncertainty that drives people to fly rockets to the moon. We must protect humanity’s mysteries as we would protect our lives. At our most fundamental level, we wake up in the morning to see what will happen today. Faith is a cancer draining the vitality of the human spirit and our potential and future greatness.”
– creator if the Universist religion, Ford Vox
http://universist.org/120703speech.htm

Deism

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature.”
– Albert Einstein

Amen.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
– Galileo Galilei

Preach on!

I’ll probably put together a little page to fully express my own beliefs–but in the meantime, here’s a pretty good version:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

Immorality in the Bible

Sadly, I’ve been on an acute anti-religion kick the last 24-48 hours. =/
Well, I’m anti-religion in general anyway (again, religion and faith/belief are two very different things.)

But I found this today to be interesting: Instances of God ordered acts of immorality in the Bible.
Also, based on that but a different topic altogether, is an example of the non-omniscence of God being depicted in the Old Testament God saw how wicked the humans have become, as if somehow shocked and surprised and completely unexpected, so regreting his decision he decided to kill everyone but Noah’s family. Doesn’t sound very omnicent and omnibeneficent.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm#menu
Bible supported slavery:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
A few more examples of what was considered immoral today was fine and dandy in Biblical times:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mor_dive2.htm

Evidently, as I’ve always said, morality shifts over time and culture. What was once Biblically ordaned is now considered immoral and vise versa. Who’s to say what exactly is irrefutable law and what’s not so much any more. If a staunch Christian judges someone as sinful because they’re gay, what grounds does he really have when he has decided that other actions and behaviors that were once equally “sinful” are now, even by his own religious community” declared no longer sinful.

It was once ok, and still is if you take the Bible literally as 100% valid today, to have slaves and multiple wives and kill people for not believing as you. Now those Biblical virtues are considered immoral. Morality is fluid and subjective to time and place. And anyone who judges someone as being sinful or “against God” because of some Bible verse is a hypocrite and arbitrary.

Theory vs. Belief- a Film Critic’s Take

Whoa. Nice timing. While my brain is snuggly entrentched in a theory/belief issue phase, I read this review of James Cameron’s “Aliens of the Deep,” by Roger Ebert. (The only film reviewer I ever read, because he’s the one closest to my own opinions, even if that’s only 75% of the time.)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050127/REVIEWS/50114003/1023

“‘Aliens of the Deep’ is a convincing demonstration of Darwin’s theory of evolution, since it shows creatures not only adapted perfectly to their environment but obviously generated by that environment. It drives me crazy when people say evolution is “only a theory,” since that reveals they don’t know what a scientific theory is. As the National Geographic pointed out only a month ago, a theory is a scientific hypothesis that is consistent with observed and experimental data, and the observations and experiments must be able to be repeated. Darwin passes that test. His rival, creationism, is not a theory, but a belief. There is a big difference.”

Preach on, brother!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

Science and Religion, Can’t We All Just Get Along?

My bringing this up will add fuel to the misconception that the “battle” between science and religion is two-sided. It’s not, or at least, it shouldn’t be. While religion tries to battle with science because people who base their worldview on religion fear that somehow their life as they know it will utterly change if they accept science as opposed to the religious “truths” they’ve dogmatically been fed and believe. On the other hand, science, in and of itself, is not in competition with religion in the realm of faith. Science doesn’t try to disprove matters of faith, just find answers to the unknown on the material world. Matters of emotion, faith, belief, afterlife, whatever, science doesn’t have any jurisdiction.

Not to say that there aren’t SCIENTISTS with bias and agenda and who try to use science as a weapon against matters of faith, but that’s the fault of the human, not the science.

My belief is that science and religion can coexist, so long as people realize that the two concept play on completely separate ballparks. They’re completely separate sports. Maybe even more than just apples and oranges, more like, apples and pork chop. (Is it time for lunch yet?)
The one tries to find truth in the material world, the other in the spiritual. And conflict arises when people try to use religion as a substitute for science when dealing with the material world. Religion should remain the institution of choice for matters spiritual, and science for matters material. Science cannot disprove the existence of God or a soul or even Salvation, Heaven or hell. It can’t. It won’t. Good science won’t even try. Religion should not be used to explain astronomy, biology, geology, anthropology, genetics, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, etc. Science will always fail if it tries to explain God, Religion will always fail if it tries to explain cosmology. Always have.

There is a HUGE difference between rational, skeptical, scientific “truth” and religious, philosophical, spiritual “truth.” And the problem arises when people think that the two are mutually exclusive. Well, on some levels they are. I mean, science has proven the actual age of the planet as a couple billion years older, give or take a few million, than Biblical literalists calculate. Both can’t be right in this case. But, even though science has proven the occurrence of the Big Bang, that in no way whatsoever is a comment one way or the other on the idea of a creator God having created the mass and instigating the Big Bang. The scientific results, observations, measurements, data, cannot be applied to prove or disprove this, and it’s a messed up , confused, unethical, and foolish person who tries. At the same time, a person of faith, strong believer in a religion, should be able to take this scientific discovery and not feel threatened by it. Accept it as physical existence factual information which in no way changes their belief in the divinity of Christ/ Mohammad/Gilgamesh/Marduk/whoever, or afterlife, or Salvation, or eternal punishment, or whatever.

The idea that the scientific method, and “good” science in general, is simply another philosophy that can be accepted or not accepted as one choses, is incredibly naïve and foolish. How does one chose not to believe 2+2=4? How do you chose to not believe that a dropped object falls toward the ground? How do you not believe that heat applied to a material object excites the electrons to the point of chemical deconstruction causing “burning”? “Good science”, and by that I mean objective, unbiased science based on repeatable and observable empirical data which properly follows the scientific method, has given us an understanding of photosynthesis, of the conservation of energy, of gravity, of smelting metal, allows us to create polymers and preservatives, polio vaccine, antibiotics, the Internet, nature of ecosystems, wildlife conservation, better roads and bridges…I mean, how do you chose to believe in that or not? Science isn’t a philosophy. Science is the method and the tool by which we come to understand the material world we live in and how we can manipulate it. Sometimes for the better (nuclear medicine, plows, genetic based disease treatment,) and sometimes for ill (nuclear weapons, steel swords, genetic based bioweapons.)
Science is neutral. It just is. We give meaning to the results of scientific discovery and developments by applying ethics, philosophy, and even religion to it.

Science develops, self-corrects, grows as it learns more. In little more than a hundred years we’ve gone from a bi-wing plane to the edge of interplanetary travel. Is that progress the result of a philosophy?

Science and religion and philosophy all try to do the same thing: learn the “truth.” But they go about it completely differently.
Science takes a hypothesis, creates a theory, tests it, and changes the theory to match the data.
Religion does the opposite. It takes a theory and changes the data to match the theory. Picks what fits the theory and disregard or alter what doesn’t. Uses faulty logic, assumptions, straw men, circular logic, and spurious logic to sound like rationalism and critical thought when it simply shouldn’t even be attempted.
The logic the scientific method follows has provided awesome advances and developments that just come faster and faster. The “logic” religious literalists and fundamentalists have used for centuries has provided less and less answers regarding the physical, material world and has become more and more suspicious and embattled and debated and less relevant. In a worldly sense. The more they cling with dear life to pseudoscience and shout into the oncoming storm the less credible they are more harm they do to the cause. If people of religion and faith stop, just STOP trying to PROVE faith and aspects of religion and simply accept that science has the answers for the physical world and just focused on the answers for the spiritual world, the world would really get along so much better.

So what if science proves some events of the Bible as fictional? Does God suddenly go POOF?! Is the creator of the universe so weak and fragile that He’s harmed by a little scientific contradiction? What, in a spiritual sense, changes when we find out the story of Noah isn’t possible?

I ask this: What is the true purpose of fighting tooth and nail to prove religion as historically/scientifically viable and accurate? What is gained? I assume for one: converts. The misassumption which has existed since the beginning of religions is that if you can PROVE your religion is “true” then more people will believe your religion over another. And another reason: self-assurity that what you believe is the “correct” belief. If you can PROVE your religion as being factually “accurate” then you will have no doubt about the three big mysteries of life all religions try to solve (and should stick to) : How we got here, why we’re here, and where we go when we die. Every human, consciously or not, wonders this, and fears it. We’re presented with an answer in the religion we were lucky enough to be born into and as humans, we prefer stability. Answers. Certainty. And to have a belief structure that gives us metaphysical, spiritual meaning that may somehow not be 100% “accurate” fills us with fear and doubt and uncertainty. And so we humans fight, both figuratively and literally, to PROVE our belief system in order to alleviate our own doubts and fears about this great unknown.

By why can’t people accept that science provides the answers for the physical world and religion provides possible answers for the spiritual and that they are not the same and shouldn’t overlap and compete?

Values

OK, no, I’m not going to stop ranting about it. I can think of nothing else since, but the hypocrisy of America.

The more than half of the people who voted Tuesday who stated “values” as the reason they voted for Bush, can you not see the hypocrisy? Are you so blinded by one issue that you can’t see everything else that’s going on around you?

Exactly what “values” do you support in Bush?

Is it his greed and cronieism by instilling Cheney’s former Texan oil company as the only oil company to work in Iraq, with no competition?

Is it his arrogance and blind stubbornness by continuing to do the same thing in Iraq despite the billions of dollars it’s costing and thousands of lives?

Is it his tunnel-vision that made him not care a whit about al-Qeida before 9/11, hiring the former Reagan envoy to Iraq as his Secretary of Defense, before “terrorism” was an issue, and then giving up on al-Qeida after doing all he had to in Afghanistan to make an appearance before continuing on with the invasion of Iraq which he had planned before 9/11?

Is it his lack of compassion and care for his own Americans by giving lip-service to education and then cutting funding for education, cutting funding for his own “No Child Left Behind”, even before the Iraq war?

Is it his desire to help the rich by giving the biggest tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%, while supporting sending middle and lower class jobs to other countries?

Is it his lack of care for his citizens by being the 1st president in 100 years to have a net job loss during his term? Higher unemployment? Cutting the pay to military even in the middle of a war?

His dishonesty by lying and encouraging the intelligence community to lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to get us into war? His blind arrogance in starting a war without help from the world so that we can pay 90% of the cost and 90% of the “coalition” death toll? And help us become one of the most despised countries in the world even among the industrial nations?

Which of those values are so important to you? Are you so blinded by his “born again Christian” words that you ignore the actions? Are you so supportive of his trying to alter the Constitution to legislate his morality that you simply don’t care that education is the worst of any industrial nation? Don’t care that thousands are being killed needlessly and because of lies and deception? That our economy sucks and that millions of Americans don’t have health care while drug companies in Bush’s back pocket are getting richer?

The words mean more than actions??
Your hypocrisy makes me sick!

Someone actually said to me they were voting for Bush because “Someone needs to look out for us Christians.” What the heck kind of arguement is that for voting for President??
YOU look our for your faith. GOD for crimeny’s sake looks out for the faithful. Your preacher, pastor, rabbi, pope looks out for the faithful. Not the President. The President is supposed to look out for his country’s economy and safety. That’s it. And this president has screwed up or economy and has made us the enemy of the fundamental Islamic world. And hated by non-Muslems as well. Has painted a giant bull’s-eye on our country. You thought we were at risk before invading Iraq? You actually think you’re safer now that we’re even more hated by more Islamic groups and fanatical organizations than ever before??!

This “Christian” president doesn’t look out for you. He couldn’t care less about you. He cares about his Texan buddies. His rich fellows. His personal and special interests. The people lining his family’s pockets. His family “legacy.” He couldn’t care less about Christian values so long as he and his friends get richer, and America becomes a powerful world-wide empire.