We had our "values" rally in Washington this spring. Why can't they?

Yeah, yeah, I know, we're right and their wrong. We have the country's good at heart, whereas they are deluded by their belief in a fictitious god. We are actually trying to comply with the Constitution, whereas they are trying to re-write it. Our focus is on common beliefs, theirs is on division. We empathize, they hate.

It's probably good that they get together in a nice neat little group so we can keep a watchful eye on them.
My recent post God and Government

I scanned the comments, but didn't read them in any depth. I got the gist of it.

There is both arrogance and insecurity in his proselytizing while trying to "give away" his free gift of his GC model along with "the Word".

The arrogance is is the assumption that if only people could see and know what he knows, they would be as good, or smart, or lucky as him. The assumption behind that is that at present, they aren't. Whatever they currently believe or don't believe is somehow less worthy, and only he has the truth. Everyone who doesn't agree is working with falsehoods. That's a common attitude in Christians, and Muslims, I've noticed. And it's arrogant.

The insecurity comes from what I can only suspect, but it makes sense. Deep down, somewhere in the rational recesses of his mind, those recesses that he has had to repress in order to believe what he believes, what he says explicitly doesn't jive, doesn't fit, with everything else he believes. It can't, if rationally looked at, but he doesn't use reason to come to those beliefs, so his rational mind is in conflict with his irrational beliefs. And the best way to quiet those nagging doubts? Get others to believe. If everyone believed what he did, there would be no one to call him on it, no one to say "hey, that's stupid". So he proselytizes.

My $.02.

What you need to stock up on is rebuttals to the anticipated claims that lesbians, abortionists and Democrats are the reason God sent Isaac. Cue Pat Robertson.
My recent post Akin To Ignorance

You're a better man than me, vjack, if you do so. While the percentages seem in favor, the poll on a atheist blog would almost be guaranteed to be in favor of a forum. But the numbers don't seem all that high, and a forum, to be interesting and worthwhile, needs volume.

Also, you'll need moderators willing to spend their time ...ummm..moderating. Forums have a nasty tendency to devolve into flame wars without some moderation.

Don't want to be a naysayer, but some sober reflection is in order.

If someone criticizes me for being too outspoken, or criticizes my atheism for being obnoxious, honestly? I stop listening. It's not a valid criticism of an idea. If you are going to criticize me or the ideas behind my atheism, criticize them for being wrong. Show me I'm not right. Otherwise shut up.

And if you do criticize me for being wrong, back it up with evidence or sound argument. Don't tell me I'm wrong because of the tone of my voice, the stridency in which I speak or write, or because you think I'm a dick. When I hear that, your opinion becomes irrelevant to the argument, and I move on.
My recent post Top Ten Creationist Arguments

Actually, I hope Newt is the nominee. The Republican primaries only tell us who Republicans will vote for, but in the general election, I can't see his past being so well ignored. He has far too much baggage. Obama has a better chance against Newt than Romney, since Mitt can change his colors like a chameleon to please a far broader spectrum of the electorate. Newt pleases only one - the crazies.

And for all those reasons, you're probably right in your prediction.

My recent post is Sexual Hypocrisy which is also about Newt.

Live by the sword;die by the sword. Matt 26:52. If you are going to live as if only one book is relevant to your life, then you have to assume that the same book counts the misses along with the hits.

Fans of good jurisprudence might remember Witold Walczak as the ACLU attorney involved in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.

My recent post is Guns, Redux

That was worth it for your top graphic alone. ;)

Not being a big sports fan, I can never understand this cult of personality that surrounds quarterbacks. Either they do their job and lead their team to win games (notice "lead their team", not simply "win games" - it takes a team) or they don't. Frankly, I feel sorry for Tebow, because of his pathetic need to display his religiosity while doing his job. It's as if he knows he's not that good, so he does his Jesus Schtick to deflect discussion of his inadequacies.

Can you imagine what a Judge would do if every time I showed up in court, I "Tebowed" before the trial, then forgot the Rules of Evidence?

I would love to see the rule book that demands that all atheists present a monolithic front. There is a place in the national dialogue for in-your-face, rude atheists, and for friendly atheists, and for a broad spectrum of everyone in between. Some will convince one recipient of information, the other will convince others. Hopefully, the end result is more atheists.

Hemant went through this on another post, with a local director of the AA who I know personally. The one thing we should not be criticizing atheists about is their speech, if we also believe in free speech. If you don't like the tone, let the listeners decide. That's what free speech is all about. Criticizing each other for speech makes atheists look like the hypocrites, when we turn around and criticize theists for their hypocrisy.

My recent post is Romney Strikes Out