Hannity falsely claims Obama admin. gives special treatment to atheists
Commenting on a White House staff-level meeting with leaders of atheist groups, Sean Hannity claimed that religious groups "have not received this treatment from the Obama White House." In fact, President Obama himself has met with numerous religious leaders, and the administration's contacts with religious groups include two days of meetings between administration staffers and more than 60 religious leaders.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the February 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: The Obama administration earlier today rolled out the red carpet for a coalition of atheist groups. Now, among the individuals in attendance was Michael Newdow. That's the California man who sued unsuccessfully to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, religious groups, however, have not received this kind of treatment from the Obama White House. Now, last year, the President distanced himself from the National Day of Prayer, cancelling the formal service traditionally held in honor of the day and refusing to attend a Catholic prayer breakfast. So what's going on? Has the administration demonstrated a pattern of hostility towards religion, or is this merely a coincidence?
Feb. 26: Secular Coalition of America leaders meet with Obama admin. officials
McClatchy: Secular Coalition met with Obama staff. On February 26, McClatchy Newspapers reported that leaders from the Secular Coalition for America met "with Obama administration officials from the public engagement office of the White House and from the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Defense" and that "President Obama -- as expected -- did not make an appearance." Prior to the meeting, McClatchy also reported on the scheduled meeting:
The president isn't expected to make an appearance at the meeting with the Secular Coalition for America or to unveil any new policy as a result of it.
Instead, several administration officials will sit down quietly for a morning meeting at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus with about 60 workhorses from the coalition's 10 member groups, including the American Atheists and the Council for Secular Humanism. Tina Tchen, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, and representatives from the Justice and Health and Human Services departments will participate.
Coalition leaders are billing their visit as an important meeting between a presidential administration and the "nontheist" community. On the agenda are three policy areas: child medical neglect, military proselytizing and faith-based initiatives.
Obama has personally met with various religious leaders, groups
Obama has met with Pope Benedict, Dalai Lama, Mormon president, and Jewish leaders. On July 10, 2009, Obama met with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. Obama similarly hosted separate White House meeting with a group of more than 16 Jewish leaders, including two rabbis; Mormon leaders, including Thomas S. Monson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and the Dalai Lama.
Obama White House hosted health care conference call with religious leaders. Obama spoke during an August 19, 2009 conference call organized by a "coalition of more than 30 faith-based groups" to discuss health care reform. The conference call reportedly included "at least 25 faith leaders -- from evangelical Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious traditions."
Obama spoke at February 4 National Prayer Breakfast. At the February 4 National Prayer Breakfast, Obama spoke in front of "an array of religious leaders."
White House office devoted in part to faith-based outreach
WH Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnership exists to "build bridges between the federal government and nonprofit organizations, both secular and faith-based." The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnership (OFBNP) states that its purpose is to "form partnerships between government at all levels and non-profit organizations, both secular and faith-based, to more effectively serve Americans in need."
Faith-based Advisory Council includes many religious leaders. As part of the OFBNP, the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is comprised of 25 leaders from religious and secular organizations. The group has created six task forces to identify the best practices for delivering social services and making recommendations for improving implementation and coordination of government policies related to faith-based and neighborhood organization, and will be releasing its final recommendations in March. The group includes Bishop Charles R. Blake, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ; Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President of the National Council of Churches; Dr. Joel Hunter, senior pastor at Northland, a Church Distributed; Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie, bishop of the Thirteenth Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church; Rev. Otis Moss Jr., pastor emeritus of Oliviet Institutional Baptist Church; Dr. Frank Page, pastor at Taylors First Baptist Church and president emeritus of the Southern Baptist Convention; Rabbi David Saperstein, director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Rev. William J. Shaw, president of the National Baptist Convention; and Rev. Larry J. Snyder, president and CEO of Catholic Charities USA.
Religious leaders repeatedly consulted by White House officials
Politico: "[R]eligious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis." On June 9, 2009, Politico reported:
Also, religious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis - and help to shape decisions on matters large and small. A White House speechwriter working on Obama's Egypt speech called several faith leaders to get their thoughts. After the White House unveiled its budget in April, officials convened a two-hour conference call with religious leaders to discuss how the spending plan would help the poor.
Two-day series of OFBNP briefings in April 2009 hosted more than 60 religious leaders. An April 9, 2009, Time article reported:
Over the course of two days, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships gathered more than 60 religious leaders (and a handful of secular non-profits) at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for the first in what director Joshua Dubois says will be a series of briefings.
[...]
Throughout the two days, council members -- as well as approximately 40 additional religious leaders who were invited to attend the sessions -- sat through briefings by Administration officials on topics ranging from education reform and childhood hunger to energy policy. In a town where "religious issues" are often thought to be limited to hot-button social concerns like abortion and gay marriage, the wide array of information was welcomed by many of those gathered. "This shows us that none of our faiths disqualify us from being concerned about the issues facing our country," said Vashti McKenzie, a bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal church. She added, "We've heard from candidates before elections -- thank you for coming to us after the election is over."
Coalition of clergy members opposed to torture met with administration officials. On June 11, 2009, 33 religious leaders belonging to the National Religious Campaign Against Torture met with "senior Obama administration officials" to discuss the group's call for the "establishment of an independent, non-partisan Commission of Inquiry to investigate the development and implementation of a program of torture by the United States in the years after 9/11."
White House speechwriter reportedly consulted with religious leaders in preparing for Obama's speech in Egypt. On June 3, 2009, US News & World Report reported:
In preparing for the president's speech tomorrow from Cairo, the White House did something it hasn't previously in preparing Obama to engage Muslims abroad: It called on American religious leaders and experts, including many Muslims, for advice.
In a conference call last month, Obama's foreign policy speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, and aides in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships took input from Muslim, Christian, and Jewish figures concerning what the president should say in Cairo. "The White House did a very good job at taking advantage of the available expertise," says Dalia Mogahed, executive director of Gallup's Center for Muslim Studies, who participated in the call.

















Dr Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I presume that lying is now the first resort of the Murdoch Media commentator.
As a South Australian I have long experience of "Mendacious Murdoch" and his approach to shaping events through selective journalism. His father, Sir Keith Murdoch, infamously did the same thing but on a smaller scale. Fox News has led to a whole new era, however, where selective and misleading reporting has given way to outright lies. This has seeped through into the rest of News Limited.
It brings to mind a question - would we consider Pope Benedict a member of the right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group?
As for hate? The closest thing we feel to hate is for brain-washed zombies like yourself who think that rejecting a system that inevitably leads to hate (that would be Religion) is somehow hateful.
---------------------------------------------------------
"I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well."
~Stephen F. Roberts
Sorry, I simply see it as another group of hate-filled people who are intollerant of others. Quite similar to your expression of disbelief that anyone in their right mind could follow any religious beliefs.
How do you account for all your intollerance within this belief system you try to express as being more perfect than anyone else's?
I think it is quite hypocritical of you to call me hateful names while trying to explain why your belief isn't hateful. Do you have a cool quote from stephen roberts for that?
Oh, and religion has nothing to do with your ridiculous "us v. them" game. Some of the most devout Christians I know are liberals and some of the biggest atheists I know are conservatives.
As I said below . . . you are doing nothing good to further the teachings of my Lord and Savior. Christ was not intolerant. Paul, when spreading the Gospel, knew that attacking others and showing intolerance for their beliefs [you made ridiculously false claims against atheism, liberalism, and Islam] was NOT conducive to spreading the Word.
You are being intolerant, Floyd.
"Is that the religion that HATES gays and demeans women, but the left-wingnuts love?"
You're a hypocrite and your comments drip with intolerance and hate.
PS - I'm an Atheist... And not one of the nice guy, flower child, tree huggin' kind. I'm the kind that sees the hate and evil that religion has caused and I want to stomp it out. I'll give you the same amount of tolerance that you give others... None.
Buzz off, troll. Eternity awaits!
I'm no longer a Christian but I do remember the theology.
Jehovah/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit equals the Holy Trinity, who are separate but equal. All of them have always existed, and Christians claim that the Bible was inspired by one of the entities of the Holy Trinity then intolerance in the bible expressed towards those who reject it is the intolerance of Jesus Christ.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
So, bintx, in your view, these versus don't express intolerance by calling others fools, corrupt, abominable, iniquitous, they do nothing good none of them? And that's just a couple of the tame verses. What about the ones where your own family members should be viewed as your enemy if they don't believe in the deity depicted in it?
I am afraid I see no hate or intolerance in my question/observation (nor from the other posters, actually). I think you are being WAY too sensitive.
You seem to be under the impression that disagreeing with you and expressing the reasons for that disagreement constitutes intolerance. Your idea is extremely simplistic.
I have no religious faith. None of the tales of supernatural beings and occurrences contained in most religions ring true to me. I don't see any real reason to believe in any magical superbeings that could be called deities. When I am asked about my religious beliefs and, specifically, why I don't accept christianity, there is no way for me to explain it without using words like magic, supernatural or superstition. Those words accurately reflect how I see religious stories of miracles and divine interventions. How is that intolerant? Simply because you find it offensive?
Now THAT is an intolerant thing to say.
"Atheism" is simply one persons opinion of a particular topic.
The people that usually spout nonsense about atheism being a worldview, or religion, or whatever usually have an agenda, the agenda being protecting their own absurd beliefs about their own gods. Ignorance works best en masse.
Reinhard
I think that "A..tih..ism" is a "belief" in something that is a belief specifically for you..the individual. It's your free will to believe in GOD or reject the theory about GOD. However, I believe in free will usage for every one. So...man should not fight with man because of his beliefs. Offering Education about what we have as teaching material about GOD...and NO GOD...is essential. It helps with the process of using one's own free will. Therefore "ignorance" could never be used as an excuse for what ever you believe in if you have educated yourself in both theories. Only your final judgement of the accuracies of the research material will reward you with a peaceful decision to use your own free will with trust.
Julianna
And if I also point out that the Egyptian and Sumerian gods predate Yahweh by at least 2000 years, am I also being hateful?
Well, then so be it.
Let me fix that for you:
"Would Christians, Muslims, Jews, [insert religious group of choice here] be considered a right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group? The answer to that one would go a long way in explaining why Obama would talk to them"
There ... that's better.
...Like they know the difference.
In Conservo-world, he certainly can.
They do believe!
Yeah, they believe.
OTOH...
It would constitute malice on my part to assume that much stupidity on theirs...
So... What is it? They can't be RIGHT because they don't even make any sense. So the explainations are limited to... What? Racism and stupidity? OK, IGNORANCE, really, due having been serially misinformed all these YEARS. But why then are they so resistant to new information that shows them how little sense they're making? What justifies their continued clinging to all the obvious lies?
I hate to say "rasicm" myself. Personally, I prefer to blame all the worlds the world's problems on RELIGION. (And yes, I do realize that this is a vice as well!) But seriously... How much stupiudity is it OK to assume before we need to think that there'ssomething more sinister at work?
-------------------------------------------------------
Mister Owl, how many licks does it take to get to the Center...?
(The world may never know.)
But like you say, these people aren't big on nuance...
Atheists, OTOH, harbor no ill will towards gays and treat women with equality. We don't even really hate religion, which says a lot for us, considering the all the harm religion does.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now why don't you take your sandwich-board and go find a street corner to annoy people from?
--------------------------------------------------
Or "liberal" or "evolved" depending on your prefered semantics. ;)
I was actually incredibly surprised when I first learned, well... let's just say, not all churches shared our views.
In my experience there a stong positive correlation between the degree of ones religious zeal, and the degree to which they love their own and shun any others.
---------------------------------------------------
But whatever. Take what you need from it.
Hey Floyd, ever heard of a search engine? Errrrmmmmm Google comes to mind. If you'd take the time to do a bit of searching (avoid Wikipedia for info), you might just learn a thing or two.
So, the President of the United States, our head of State, who represents all the citizens of the U. S. should not meet with athiests; because????????
Here's what I've learned;
Religious people publicly stating their beliefs is simply them practicing freedom of religion as guaranteed in this country. I completely agree with that.
Non-religious people publicly stating their beliefs is an assault on religion and/or God.
Including religion in the public sphere ( In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, government bodies opening with prayer) is simply inclusive and respecting freedom.
Omitting any of these is a promotion of atheism, and a full-frontal attack on people's faith.
It's a double standard I've just sort of accepted over my lifetime. I'll call out any fool who tries to say atheism is a religion, but for the most part, I'm secure enough in my minority status that I don't sweat the other stuff.
Agreed, in part. But make no mistake: atheism, a term I loath, is a LACK of belief system, not a belief system. We are merely RATIONAL. Our refusal to endow the Unseen with super powers takes ZERO energy on our part. But consider how much energy goes into convincing one's self that God exists. Biblical study, church, prayers. But to count yourself among the rational, one need only do one thing: THINK about religion for 10-20 seconds then realize it's all made up nonsense, as fantastical and impossible as Santa Claus, which only children believe in.
But a guy coming back from the dead (Jesus), a guy flying into space on a horse (Islam), a guy parting a sea (Judaism), why that's REAL...except there's just as much tangible proof those things happened as Santa Claus delivery presents to tens of millions of kids in one night. THINK on this bunkum for seconds and you're free of the delusional grip of religion forever.
Randy
It's kind of difficult to get through life if you refuse to ever believe in anything.
That is implied, since religion is heavily endowed in the idea that the supernatural is real.
Randy
Randy, I'm going to try to clear this up, as obviously my earlier posts were misinterpreted.
First of all, I wouldn't say I loathe the term atheism. I'm not religious, and i don't really like the term, but I'll use it as shorthand, for lack of a better word.
Second, I wouldn't say it's a lack of a belief system. It's a belief system based on science and facts, rather than faith and mythology, but still a belief system.
Sorta like AGW.
Randy
A rational person doesn't take a statement out of context, confuse the logic, and pass it off as a counterargument.
Just because we rationalize our lives doesn't mean we are a hate group. We're not a "group" at all, unless someone decides to have a meeting with fellow agnostics and atheists.
And you AREN'T making any sense. I can barely understand your post, other than you are angry, seemingly confused, and I think I detect a hint of scorn.
Nobody is forcing you to give up your beliefs. I personally look at it as "Hey, whatever floats your boat, whatever gets you through your day". I just don't know why you hate atheists so much. How has my lack of belief in the supernatural affected your life at all?
It appears to be true, since EVERY poster replying to ANY of my statements is exhibiting intollerance upon someone who doesn't share their specific beliefs. I wish to thank each and every one of you who helped prove my point.
What the HELL are you trying to say? Atheism has nothing to do with your ridiculous "us v. them" game any more than Christianity does. Most of the Bible professors at our local Southern Baptist University are Democrats. Why? Because it is their belief, based upon their reading of the Bible, that Jesus Christ would NOT have been a Republican in its current incarnation.
Disagreement is not the same as "intolerance." You can say whatever you want to say . . . that doesn't mean I have to agree. Someone who is intolerant would tell you that you have no right to say anything at all.
Get a grip, Floyd, and turn off Fox/hate talk radio.
What do atheists live like, Flawed?
It teaches liberal knowledge
Knowledge is not a lifestyle. Kindly get real.
and everyone knows liberal knowledge is intollerant [sic] of others who don't agree with them.
Since you have pretty much given the opposite of the truth of liberal knowledge, I would have to say that your claim that "everyone knows" it is a bald-faced lie. You have read that little thing about not bearing false witness, haven't you?
Is that what you want your lifestyle to be known as ... intollerant [sic]?
It would be nice if you could spare us the rantings and learn both the spelling and meaning of "intolerant"; the irony is mildly amusing, though.
It appears to be true, since EVERY poster replying to ANY of my statements is exhibiting intollerance [sic] upon someone who doesn't share their specific beliefs.
This is not only wildly inaccurate, but bordering on paranoid. Besides, you've never told us your specific beliefs. Are you a Christian? What denomination? What's your specific belief on the issue of, for instance, predestination and election?
I wish to thank each and every one of you who helped prove my point.
Which would apparently be none of us. Oh well, we can hope, even pray, for better from you next time.
Randy
Where a monotheist believes in one god and a polytheist believes in more than one god, an atheist is simply a nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever. Most of us believe in science rather than fantasy.
Your post intrigued me, and here is why:
"Religious people publicly stating their beliefs is simply them practicing freedom of religion as guaranteed in this country." We both agree.
"Non-religious people publicly stating their beliefs is an assault on religion and/or God." Disagree. Your right to public discourse is protected by the First Amendment.
"Including religion in the public sphere stating their beliefs (In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, government bodies opening with prayer) is simply inclusive and respecting freedom."
Ok, you have two things that you are discussing here. I will attempt the second, first.
Congress begins with an opening prayer. It is a government body. Congress, according to Article I of the Constitution makes its own rules. To my knowledge, it has never been challenged. But, they can toss it if they choose too.
Now the first: "Including religion in the public sphere... is simply inclusive and respecting freedom." Personally,I don't have a problem witth "In God We Trust..." But it depends on how you define the public forum. I am the furthest thing from a Constitutional scholar. However, private clubs, should be exempted. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
"Omitting any of these is a promotion of atheism, and a full-frontal attack on people's faith."
No it's not. My understanding of the first amendment is that people have a right to their religion, or not to have a religion at all.
Non-religious people publicly stating their beliefs is an assault on religion and/or God.
Media reaction:
"Oh no! The atheist are attacking religion again. Save the children, cover their ears!!!!"
If he and the others, who parade themselves across our screens every day, truly believed in their Christian faith, nothing could scare them. All other faiths and unfaiths could be presented and discussed openly because these "Christians" actually believed.
Something tells me that the right's "Christians" are no different than their "Patriots".
Both groups comprise fearful, unsure, cowarly people, who need the comfort of other weaklings to build their own strength.
By those standards, Hannity has a point. By reality standards, another blatant Fox lie that its core audience wants to hear.
I don't think good religous folk are terrified of atheists, we are more terrified at what atheism can do to folks. There are probably close to 50 examples of intollerance already posted here that show what atheism is like. Good religious folk are tollerant of others, no matter who they are, but they aren't tollerant of the lifestyle that caused their conditions. The lifestyle causes the fall, but help is there when those who fall need it. Apparantly, atheism doesn't share that decree. They tend to express hate towards anyone who questions their lifestyle, letting them fall and telling them to stay down there because they don't feel you are worthy of their considerations.
Sorry, Floyd, but the only one I'm seeing on this thread who is unable to accept a difference of opinion is you. You are the one who is intolerant. These folks simply disagree with you. You are unwilling and unable to accept that disagreement.
Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1735
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
Ok, bintx, explain how I am unwilling to accept that you are being hypocritical? Are you granting me equal freedom to share social, political expressions? Or are you the bigoted one who is saying that only I (and those who think like I do) aren't allowed to express their opinions on atheism? Or, are you going to say I am perfectly free to express those opinions, but you don't have to accept them?
The funny thing is that I haven't once said I do not accept your difference of opinion. I have only given my opinion. Which NONE of you have accepted. In fact ALL of you have said my opinion is unacceptable. WHO is being the intolerant one???
Grow up, Floyd. You aren't doing the furtherance of Christianity much good with your intolerance and generalizations. Christ didn't preach intolerance. That's what you are showing here. Even Paul knew better than to attack the beliefs of those to whom he was spreading the Gospel.
I have been on these boards for about four years now, and have always had the same screen name. I am perfectly willing to stand up and identify myself as a fundamental evangelical Christian. I know that there are people of other beliefs, including atheism, on this board.
I have never had any leftist on these boards denigrate me because of my religious beliefs. I believe that bintx and epkklk, both professing Christians, could say the same thing. Everyone has been wonderfully tolerant. (Thank you all, by the way!)
Now do you see why it's so hard to take you seriously when you keep screaming about religious intolerance?
Floyd, have you seen anybody here say that they hate the lifestyle of religion ?
And what do you think atheism can do to folks, Floyd? I ask the question quite seriously ... not with intolerance.
My father taught me that there are 3 things better left undiscussed: sex, religion and politics. While I like discussing them all, I do understand his point. All are VERY personal and very seldom are peoples' minds changed. However, I usually walk away from such a exchange having learned something and am a better person for have participating. Intolerance comes in to play when generalizations are made and people refuse to respect that there are others who do believe differently than they do are wrong.
From what I've read here, Floyd, no one has said that you are wrong in your belief ... they've stated their beliefs which differ from yours. You do seem unable to accept that your beliefs are the right ones and any one who doesn't believe as you is being intolerant of you. I don't see it that way at all.
Along with many others, President Obama has used the term "non-believers", which I find somewhat demeaning and dismissive. I also recoil a bit when it's assumed that I have no faith.
I believe and I have faith. I just don't believe in or have faith in a supreme entity (or entities), mythology or cult-demanded dogma.
Maybe I'll start using a new acronym to describe myself when asked about my "faith" - OWTS (pronounced "outs"). Since my definition of "stupid" is intentional ignorance, OWTS would stand for One Who Tolerates Stupidity.
I know, I know - that term has a whiff of superiority to it, but it's a lot better than GYHOYA (pronounced "gee-hoi-ya") - Get Yuz Heads Outta Yuz Asses.
This upsets me, too, but I think atheist is just as bad a label.
People who don't believe in astrology aren't called "non-astrologists", nor are people who reject slavery called "non-slaveists". But when you reject the antiquated notions of Bronze Age tribesman, you are an "a-theist". Sorry, true believers of mystical nonsense, but I am merely "rational", and that requires no special label.
Randy
Is there a catchy name you can use that expresses the intollerance your group has of others different than you? I would use hypocrit, but I think liberals have the market on that label cornered.
Randy
I am a devout Catholic. Bintx is also a Christian.
Why is it that neither of us feels the need to accuse anyone on this thread of "intolerance"? Are you assuming that we're all atheists, because we're not.
Haha, I've heard that before, Mr. M. I once found a wallet with some money in it, and returned it to the nearby address on the ID inside. The home was decorated with religious knick-knacks, yard signs, front door plaque, window stickers, and as the front door opened, all over the interior walls.
The owner of the wallet took the opportunity to point out that God was working through me, and all thanks were due to His intervention, and she wanted to pray with me.
I told her I wasn't a believer, and this was just a case of some guy returning her property, no miracles involved. She seemed almost angry that I was taking credit. She also seemed a little confused. She questioned me a bit, not seeming to understand why I would bring her money back if it wasn't going to help me get into heaven or stay out of hell.
I guess it's good that some people have religion to give them a reason to behave.
Could it be because religion tends to be based on fear?
I guess your cute little story shows that atheists are mind-readers AND intollerant. No wonder so many folks don't trust atheism.
As a Christian, I find your intolerance of others offensive.
But, personally, I don't care if I am offensive to you. That's why I don't prescribe to the liberal theology (like so many of you do). I am perfectly willing to let others have whatever opinion they want. However, if they expect me to shut up when I disagree with their opinion, then they are being hypocritical and ... yes, intolerant.
And, I will repeat . . . the only intolerance I've seen on this thread is coming from your posts. You don't want anyone to disagree with you. Grow up, Floyd.
I suspect that God wouldn't be any too pleased with that!
It'd be great if you could point out any evidence of anybody being untollurant, rather than just continuing to chant it over and over, but I won't hold my breath.
Two things: 1- How can you KNOW that God didn't have a hand in letting YOU find the money and return it?
I can't possibly know that. Nobody can. Do you think I should have submitted to the woman's request to honor her God because neither of us knew that He was involved ? Seems sort of silly. Do you let people force you to acknowledge as truth anything that you can't prove is not the truth ?
2- You can read her mind and say specifically she wanted you to agree that your good deed was going to get you into Heaven?
I never said that she wanted me to agree (any further than praying with her). I only said that her questions showed that she didn't really understand why I would return her property if there was no magical prize in it for me.
You seem to have some really fundamental confusion on this topic. I'd recommend reading over the comments again when you've settled down a little.
So what is the stink? ? ? The President did NOT meet with any of these people. He did, however, meet with religious groups. Of course, Atheistism is a philosophy, not a system of beliefs.
I can understand why he doesn't, of course, politically. This story, as it stands, is a one day distraction, if that. No telling what kind of legs it would have if he'd actually met with the "godless."
While meeting with them would have had him standing with Washington, and I personally would have applauded it, it might be pragmatically unwise in what one hopes is the final push to get health care reform enacted. Those yokels are going to attack him no matter what he does, but this isn't the time to give them extra ammunition.
Hannity, you look a fool yet once again.
Special treatment is reserved exclusively for those who profess a belief in spooky incompetent father figures.
Randy
Just trying to figure out who I should be hating the most, here.
Your text to link here...
I find it amazing that any religious group actually BELIEVES that they can be stopped from "praying" in school. Oh maybe they can be stopped from making a "public display" of their "prayer", but stop them from "praying"...
I further find it amazing that any "acceptable" religion can provide a "benediction" or "opening prayer", let a wiccan or "atheist" try and OMG we can't have that. Even better try a satanist....
Religion, like "sexual "preference"" is a PERSONAL matter...
My religious beliefs (or lack of) are none of ANYONES business. It is offensive that they would be questioned by ANYONE...