gdp's Comments

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 18 May 2009 08:01:16 +0000

Your posting seems to indicate the fact that you did not actually read what I had to say. I merely used the link to Wikipedia because it is easier to find and read, and does a good job summing up the findings of the survey. If you want a link to the survey itself, here you go:
http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/mt/mt-search.cgi?searc... /> (go to Part IA – Belonging for the relevant info).

I didn’t realize I was writing a school paper here, or else I would have cited the source directly.

Oh, and by the way, I am not picking facts out of context to support my own claims. I have no “personal moral agenda” as you call it. This really isn’t that complicated, because the point you are arguing against is the result of a statistical survey. Am I misunderstanding the results?

Finally, Christians do not distort or mold; they interpret in whatever manner they deem best, just like every other human being does. If this were not true, then there would be no different sects or beliefs within Christianity, yet there are. It has nothing to do with bending words to do “whatever we want to do” but to applying our own internal moral and logical filters to what we learn. It’s a basic trait of humanity, and not a good one at that.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 11 May 2009 18:41:17 +0000

You are welcome to your own beliefs. In fact, I am happy for you that you feel such. However, I respectfully remind you that these are your beliefs, and cannot be pushed on everyone by statements such as “whether non-believers like it or not.” How would you feel if I were to assert to you that “when people die they just rot in the ground, there is no soul or afterlife, whether Christians like it or not” It would be rather rude and offensive to you, I am sure, and even more importantly, it does not foster discussion or allow for an open-minded debate. Please keep that in mind in future postings.

Respectfully,
Proud Agnostic

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 11 May 2009 18:39:40 +0000

I’d like to make a few points:
1) I am not in any way anti-Christian. I am not anti-Judaism, anti-Islam, anti-Buddhism, anti-any religion. I think just about all of them bring a unique and valuable philosophy to the table. However, I respectfully disagree with your beliefs. In fact, the majority of the world is not Christian, ergo the majority of the world also disagrees with your beliefs to one degree or another.
2) I am not an atheist, but an agnostic atheist. There is a distinction, just as it would be false of me to call you a Jew.
3) Although you are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, that does not make them right or respectful. You could also happen to be anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-women. Although you have the right to your own opinion, it is generally regarded as uncouth and wrong to be hateful or spiteful towards a group of people just because they are different than you. This is no less true with non-believers.
4) I am not my own god, for I do not believe in a god. I believe that I am answerable both to my own set of morals and to those of the society I live in. This has nothing to do with a god.
5) I do not claim to know it all. All I claim is to constantly seek out the unknown, to learn more about myself, others, and the nature of the world around me. As an agnostic, I am open to all possibilities about the universe, but accept none blindly. I believe you are backwards in your statement, for you DO claim to know all through your religion, and accept no alternative ideas that disagree with it. Such close-mindedness does not allow for growth and learning
6) I am unsure of what “education” you have had that is superior to my own, but I would suggest that you try and expand that education, not because it is inferior, but because it represents only one viewpoint in a multitude of them. Even if you don’t agree with others, it is generally a good idea to understand their beliefs and values, and where they are coming from.

Finally, I would just like to remind you that I came to this website seeking to openly and respectfully discuss differences of belief and opinion. Such discussion cannot occur when a person is so utterly convinced of their own rightness that they will not defend their own point of view, nor bother to refute claims against it. So I ask you, if you wish in earnest to discuss your beliefs, please respond to the points I have made in this post, and in the previous ones which you have ignored. Otherwise, do not bother to respond, as it will not serve anyone any good.
Thank you,

PS I appreciate the offer of praying for me, and can only hope it comes in good faith. And no, I will not be praying for you, that would be silly, as I currently do not believe in God. After all, would you pray to Zeus for me, or Odin, or Ra, or Vishnu, or any other of the multitude of gods you also do not believe in? I doubt it, as it is counter to your beliefs. Likewise, I will not do something that is counter to my own. However, I will hope for you, which I at least feel is just as kind.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 11 May 2009 05:58:16 +0000

In addendum, I forgot to mention the arguments against the From Design Argument, which I believe you are referencing. One of the simplest against that is the argument from poor design, which counters with the statement that a supreme being would create organisms with optimal design, whereas many parts of organisms exhibit suboptimal design, thus suggesting creationism is false. Examples of this include;
-The human male’s testes descend from the abdomen into the scrotum during development in the womb. This migration, instead of initial development in the womb, leads to the weak points that cause hernias, which prior to modern medicine, often resulted in death.
-Humans have an appendix, which is completely useless in organisms that cook their food, and since we assume that creationism created civilized man, there would be no need at all for an appendix. Furthermore, it allows for potentially deadly appendicitis.
-The eye is more complex than it needs to be, as compared to invertebrates. The retina is actually inside out, in a matter of speaking. Further, it uses 6 muscles to move instead of the required three.
-Almost every organism except humans can synthesize vitamin C itself, but we cannot due to a faulty enzymes. For this reason, it is necessary for us to obtain this vitamin from our foods.

All of these faults are not only allowable by evolution, but are explained by it.

Sorry, I intended to include this in my initial post.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 11 May 2009 00:56:14 +0000

Faith_Filled,

First and foremost, let me thank you for being respectful and earnest in your postings. I understand you had a lot to ask, and that is fine. I also thank you for not forcing your beliefs down my throat, as others have tried to. To do so is not conducive for a polite conversation about belief. I will do my best, in response, not to push my own beliefs on you, but present them in a way that can be objectively considered.

For some strange reason, the site won’t let me reply to many postings, only to certain ones. I think this is a programming error, and have emailed the admins in an attempt to fix it. However, in the meantime I will only be able to respond via email, which may make my replies a bit confusing, so let me apologize in advance for that. I will try to reply to each of your questions directly.

Thank you again.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 11 May 2009 00:23:08 +0000

I actually had to read several essays from the Federalist Papers for a class at school. I ask you, where in these essays does it say that the Founding Fathers only accepted Christianity? Furthermore, the Federalist Papers were not written by all of our founding fathers, but almost completely by Hamilton and Madison. Other ideas enumerated in these essays include the opposition to the Bill of Rights. Does that make the Bill of Rights unconstitutional, too? Similarly, you are correct, Washington had some rather concrete views of religion. However, that does not make him correct. Although an excellent leader and critical part of the formation of America, he is no god, nor king, nor tyrant, and his views are not automatically correct.
This is indeed a Christian Nation, in the sense that the majority of this nation is some form of Christian. However, this nation is not a theocratic one, there is no national religion, there was never intended to be. This nation, as I have already stated, needs to accept all belief systems, regardless of whether or not they match your own.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 11 May 2009 00:06:07 +0000

Thanks for the offer, but I really don’t need your prayers. True, I do not subscribe to any faith. Are you saying that this someone makes me inferior to you? For your information, despite this crippling disability that I suffer, I am still able to make it through life, feel a sense of direction and accomplishment, and formulate my own appropriate set of morality.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 11 May 2009 00:01:22 +0000

1) I am not “constantly offended” by anything. But your statement is ridiculous, obviously if someone says something offensive, others have the right to be offended. I am not offended by Christians or by Christianity, but by the suggestion that belief in God is required for someone to be a good American.
2) I do not group all Christians together, just as I do not group all Muslims together, and just as you should not group all nonbelievers together. For the most part, I don’t have a problem with mainstream Christianity, but I speak out against the radicals of any and all religions, whether they be Christians or Muslims or Hindus or whatever. I do not “attack” Christians as you say, most of my friends are some form of Christian.
3) Western Civilization is INFLUENCED by Judeo-Christian values, not founded on them. Many of the values you are speaking of were espoused well before the formation of Christianity, and are held by Christians and non-Christians alike. In fact, the original works by Montesquieu were censored by the Catholic Church, as were the works of Locke, another major philosopher our founding fathers drew heavily from.
4) There are tons of facts most Americans probably aren’t aware of. For example, did YOU know that the Ten Commandments are actually NOT on the walls of the US Supreme Court. The only thing that looks like it is a tablet which merely has written on it the Roman numerals I-X, which as stated by the architect of it, was meant to symbolize the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments). Furthermore, our founding fathers had a diverse set of religious beliefs, many of which do not fit neatly into our modern definitions. Yes, several of them were Christian. However, many others were either deists, or influence by deist ideas (the former includes Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Paine, while the latter includes Jefferson, Franklin, and others). These men did not refer to God in the same manner that you do, and were as a result far less divisive about the idea.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 23:25:07 +0000

Wow, your first statement is just incredible. Obviously everyone has a right to be ignorant, but to call me ignorant just because I don’t hold the same faith that you do is stupid. I HAVE actually attended several church sermons, on top of going to a synagogue a few times. I have also read most of the Bible, along with the Quran, and works of several other major religions. I in fact would guess I have a wider and more diverse religious education that you do, and yes, I have read plenty about Christianity. However, I challenge you to name me one FACT about God, because obviously belief in God is not based on fact, but on faith. You clearly need some elementary education if you don’t get the difference. But then again, its your right to ignore facts about…well, facts. That is the choice you get as an American. Good luck in your own life, and consider that there may be plenty of people out there who hold different beliefs than yourself, and are no wiser or dumber because of it.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 22:34:10 +0000

Your examples are obviously meant to be mocking in nature, and fail to address the real issue. If there was no wiggle room (which was not my quote by the way, but merely a response to someone else who used that term), then how do you explain the numerous different denominations of Christianity who interpret the Bible and other works differently? There are plenty of REAL examples of people interpreting the bible differently, such as the right to divorce, the right of women to be ordained, predestination versus free will, etc.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 22:27:09 +0000

Your statement is ridiculous, not an argument, and frankly offensive. You state that believing in God makes you smart? Where exactly do you get that idea? All you are stating are your own beliefs, regarding them as factual. They are BELIEFS, and are great to have, but they do not give you the right to assume your own superiority. Finally, you’re not contributing to this discussion in any meaningful way.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 22:20:25 +0000

Nowhere in the Constitution does it directly state that the Department of Education is legal, you are correct. However, it is generally believed to be supported by the Preamble, which states that our Union will provide for the common defense and “promote the general Welfare.” Because at least some basic education is imperative to welfare and prosperity in today’s world, it seems reasonable to me that some form of federal oversight is prudent. However, it should be noted that it does not have total control over education, as most educational decisions are done at or below the state level, which I agree is also prudent.
You are further correct in that separation of church and state can at times become a bit complicated, but most such mandates are. There is also some contention about the application of this to the state level. However, the most common argument I have found is that, when applied with the 14th Amendment, which essentially incorporates the Bill of Rights into the level of state law, including freedom of religion.
In regards to your statements about separation:
I cannot fault people for wanting some control over their tax contributions. Likewise, I’d LIKE some control over military policy (don’t ask, don’t tell comes to mind). However, I recognize that I cannot force my own beliefs on everyone, and can only hope that the changes I like come about through proper legal action. I do not say that separation of church and state is correct just because it ‘works for me’ but because it is in keeping with the spirit of this nation, one of freedom from oppression, and from pressing the majority’s belief on everyone. I’m not 100% on what you mean by your next statement (but when they take away a portion….), but I will do my best to respond regardless. What if there was no such separation? Would that mean that what they teach in school would have to apply to all Christians? What if they only taught protestant views? Wouldn’t Roman Catholics be somewhat offended? Would they have to teach the creation stories of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. along with the Judeo-Christian creationism. Finally, and I really don’t mean to sound harsh about this, but I am very adamant about this, creationism has NO PLACE in a science classroom, because it is not science. It is founded on belief and religion, and is not scientifically testable. This is obviously one of the main areas of contention regarding Separation, and I understand if you disagree.

Thank you for laying out a clear argument, and for understanding how one might feel the second principle of this site to be somewhat divisive.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 21:18:31 +0000

Just so I have this right, you are disregarding my entire argument because I suggested you read a link from Wikipedia, a website chock-full of sources and citations? Very open-minded. Not to mention that you have failed to respond to any other point I have made.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 20:00:50 +0000

It is absurd to blame a natural viral epidemic on the US government, especially when this occurred globally. It is further ridiculous to blame the administration for trying to use or fuel the crisis, because the decisions to elevate the crisis level are done internationally by the UN. As a biomedical engineering student, I can tell you that yes, the flu does result in far more deaths, however the world's health organizations were correct in keeping people alert, because people are generally less resistant to the swine flu, it is merely because this strain is far less widespread that it has not caused nearly as many deaths. Would you suggest that medical officials not err on the side of caution by keeping people alert? Finally, in response to your statement about liberals trying to use fear and panic, all I can ask is have you forgotten the Homeland Security Advisory System put in place by the conservative republicans of the last administration? Not only was there no objective criteria for deciding the threat level, but the level has never been at the lowest two settings (low and general risk). It is far easier to argue that the threat level was kept at elevated levels to instill fear and blind following of authority than to suggest that the swine flu was cooked up by liberals. The one thing I will say, however, is that the news media have indeed milked the crisis for ratings, as they do for all crisis ever. If anyone should be blamed, it should be them.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 19:52:07 +0000

You are incorrect about your interpretations of the hudna. First off, it literally means "a calm" and has come to mean a cease fire. Like all cease-fires, they have limited terms and time-limits; the standard is 10 years, following the one originally issued by Mohammad himself. For more accurate info, check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna Christians and Jews are regarded among the Muslim world as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb), not as the derogatory terms you used. Islam states that Judaism and Christianity are to be respected, because they follow previous prophets of the one god. However, they regard them as imperfect versions of Islam, because they do not contain the words of Mohammad, who in their belief is the last prophet of God.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 19:45:28 +0000

It is well known that Chick Publication's is nothing but a conservative venue pushing Protestant Fundamentalism. On several occasions they have had to correct or rescind their cartoons due to obvious inaccuracies. I suggest you read the following section on criticism of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_Publications#C... Regardless, I take it that you believe that, because Muslims do not believe in the trinity, that they do not follow the same God. However, neither do Jews, yet somehow it is widely regarded that both religions believe in the same higher power. Furthermore, the two books you are citing speak about RADICAL ISLAM, not mainstream Islam. The large majority of Islamic scholars disagree with terrorists who use Islam as their rationale, and some go as far as to say that such people are not truly Muslims. The same is generally true of radical Christians and mainstream Christians.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 19:33:42 +0000

Your statement is ridiculous for two reasons. 1) Nowhere does he state that Jesus was a liar, that is something you have inferred. 2) I would assume that you believe Mohammad was a liar. How is that more foolish or wrong than your statement?

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 10 May 2009 19:32:12 +0000

Once again, I am sorry to say I believe you are misinformed, at least to a degree. First and foremost, under standard Islamic interpretations, Jews and Christians are NOT infidels, but Ahl al-Kitāb, or "People of the Book." In fact, due to the Muslim belief in kind language, their leaders have historically punished Muslims who refer to followers of Judeo-Christian faith as infidels. You are correct, however, in that some of the more radical Muslims of today do refer to any and all non-Muslims as infidels, however this is neither mainstream nor accepted by Sharia (Islamic law). Next, in response to your quote about violence against the infidels, I am sorry to say you have fallen into the trap of those who have no accurately studied Islam in a scholarly manner. First, nearly any statement in the Quran that speaks about violence is taken 100% in the context of "defense against aggression" and such action is only to be taken "to stop such aggression." Here is a direct quote portraying how such quotes are taken completely out of context. "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193) Second, I suggest you read the following regarding Islamic criticism of Muslim terrorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Cr... The high points involve the point that armed aggression is a capital offense under Sharia, that attacks against civilians, especially when not at war, is in no way supported by Islam. Third, I wish to point out that you are correct, Islam does support aggressive conversion of non-monotheists. However, as I pointed out in my above message, NEARLY EVERY RELIGION IS USED TO CONDONE VIOLENCE. This is an imperative point that you need to address. For example, consider this excerpt discussing Pope Innocent IV and his views: He also held that he had an obligation to send missionaries to infidel lands, and that if they were prevented from entering or preaching, then the pope was justified in dispatching Christian forces accompanied with missionaries to invade those lands, as Innocent stated simply "If the infidels do not obey, they ought to be compelled by the secular arm and war may be declared upon them by the pope, and nobody else."[18] This was however not a reciprocal right and non-Christian missionaries such as those of Muslims could not be allowed to preach in Europe "because they are in error and we are on a righteous path" Talk about some major hypocrisy. Finally, I am sure you will find that many of the main tenets of Islam are quite similar to those of Christianity, and suggest you examine the Five Pillars.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sat, 9 May 2009 10:11:50 +0000

TheHatGuy has is exactly correct. Quoting scripture here has absolutely no impact on this conversation, and especially this particular reference does nothing but attempt to further cement a divide in belief.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sat, 9 May 2009 08:33:07 +0000

I am sorry Alan, but I am positive that you are mistaken. And I can tell you that I am not a Muslim (which should be pretty obvious), however I do consider myself well-informed. I have read almost all of the Quran, as well as a few books regarding the history, development, and current problems with Islam. There are many followers of Islam that resort to violence and very radical interpretations of their faith, this is true, and such people are generally misguided. However, the same is true of some Christians, both in the past (the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the KKK, the Inquisition) and in the present (hate crimes against gays, bombings of abortion clinics, violence in Ireland). Furthermore, violence is present in just about all the world's religions (Hinduism --> assassination of Gandhi, for example). It is incredibly unfair to label Islam by the radical section of those who practice it, when similar groups have existed in all religions at various points throughout history. Finally, it should be noted that the Islamic world has made enormous contributions to the West, most notably in the keeping and major expansion of the learning of ancient Greece, Rome, and Persia during the Western Dark Ages. The number zero, and our number system; both come from the Islamic world. In fact, many point to this empire for the emergence of many then-revolutionary practices in medicine that form the foundation for our current system. Do not be so quick to judge them.