Saturday, December 30, 2006

Our Fair and Balanced Park Service

The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) have a press release this week that reminds us just where this stuff could have been headed, if we didn't fight tooth and nail every inch of the way:
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’” HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Big controversy: the rocks in the Grand Canyon are real old. No they're not. Yes they are. No they're not -- they can't be, the Bible says God made them a few thousand years ago.

C'mon, even you born-again Christians who follow this blog, you must grit your teeth and cringe when you see this ... don't you? Millions of people from around the world visit the Canyon every year, including schoolkids who have questions. How'd that hole get there? How long did it take? They have questions, and the answers are known.

But instead of giving honest and accurate answers, our government is happy to sell them books that say it was created during The Flood, that the Canyon is several thousand years old.

Look, this isn't a point of debate. The Grand Canyon is not several thousand years old. It's not like we don't know, it's not like we have to base our guess on Old Testament myth. Geologists know how the Canyon got there, they know what kinds of rocks those are, and how old they are, how they were worn down as they were. The Colorado Plateau was lifted up about sixty-five million years ago, steepening the angle of descent of the Colorado River, increasing its ability to cut into the billions-years-old rock. Most of the erosion has happened in the past two million years, and the Canyon itself is said to be five or six million years old. It's no secret, no mystery. Water cuts rock. Go back to your Lao Tse.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of knowledge versus ignorance. It is essentially the same situation we face here in Montgomery County, where we have a small cell of radicals who want to slime gay people based on a couple of shreds of ambiguous scripture, versus the scientific establishment that includes all the major psychological and medical professional organizations in the country.

They would like you to think the question is out -- nobody's really sure if the Grand Canyon came from Noah's flood, or if gay people decide to be that way, in violation of God's will -- and that authorities are debating these things. Oh yeah, evolution, too. They want you to believe that biologists are seriously debating whether evolutionary theory is sound.

People, the question is not out. It took millions of years for the Colorado River to erode that plateau into the Canyon we now see. People don't choose their sexual orientation. Humans are mammals, and part of nature. It's not demeaning, doesn't take anything away from us, doesn't cost anything other than the sacrifice of illusion.

34 Comments:

Blogger Theresa said...

"The Colorado Plateau was lifted up about sixty-five million years ago, steepening the angle of descent of the Colorado River, increasing its ability to cut into the billions-years-old rock. Most of the erosion has happened in the past two million years, and the Canyon itself is said to be five or six million years old. It's no secret, no mystery. Water cuts rock."

Exactly right, Jim. As just about every park glossy billboard/fact sheet said.

I was there this summer. I don't where you got the idea that the park service is hiding this, they most certainly are not. The tour bus folks indicated that it was about a gizillion years old, so did the billboards everywhere...

And NOT selling a book that claims it was created by Noah's flood would be censorship - now wouldn't it ?

December 30, 2006 9:30 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Second of all, this is a stupid article. It sounds like these left wing nuts tried to get a book censored, and were told no, and are now off on some tangent thinking that the park service can't declare how old the Grand Canyon is....

I don't think they know, other than over a couple million years old... I don't recall hearing a particular number, but they definitely did discuss the various rock types, and sediment layers, and how you can tell the approximate age based on it.

So saying - you have to declare an age - unless you allow them +- a couple million billion years, is probably impossible anyway.

I can't believe you are not in favor of free speech, Jim. Censoring a book postulating that the Canyon was created by Noah's flood is denying free speech - for Pete's sake. I picked up a book in the park bookstores called - "Death in the Grand Canyon" written by a previous Park Ranger about all the people who had died there. It was fascinating - though if anything might have offended some parents with small children. We were getting ready to hike it and I was hoping to scare my kids with some passages - I succeeded.

Geez, I can't believe you are defending this position. I thought you believed in free speech ? Do you only believe in free speech when it is a opinion you agree with ? Actually, stupid of me - I already know the answer to that.

December 30, 2006 9:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, you and I have the right to free speech. When the government presents information to the public, they have a duty to ensure that it is accurate and complete.

This book has no business being sold by any government outlet, for both the reason that it violates the Establishment clause, and the reason that it is utter BS.

Instead of removing it, as the Park Service has been asked to do, they said they would "review" it. The review has been going on now for three years. That is, the government decided to continue to promote this material.

It shouldn't be in the Park Service gift shop, and it shouldn't be in the public schools.

JimK

December 30, 2006 10:24 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

"When the government presents information to the public, they have a duty to ensure that it is accurate and complete"

A gift shop doesn't qualify - Jim, that's ridiculous.

The book I bought there, Death in the Grand Canyon, had a lot of maybe not accurate information in it... they were debating whether some lady who traveled down on a raft trip back in 1996 was actually the "Betsy" who was presumed drowned back in the 1930's or 40's (I am not going to go pull the book out) and the first lady to traverse the Colorado through the Grand Canyon by raft. This was all hearsay, of course, he was repeating a story that had been told to him by a raft company owner...

Are you going to say the park service needs to read and censor every book that they offer in the shop just because it happens to be located in the park ? Don't be silly.

It's a gift shop ! They have fuzzy hats and Christmas ornaments and all kinds of books written by all kinds of authors relative to the area and sweatshirts and silly refrigerator magnets about hiking in the canyon, etc.

Plus, at lot of the gift shops aren't even run by the park service, they are run by Xanterra Resorts, which is a private company that manages the hotels and I think the restaurants located at the Grand Canyon and a number of the National Parks.

I didn't check, but it would be interesting to figure out if these folks are complaining about a gift shop run by the park or run by Xanterra.. it might be that all the gift shops are owned by Xanterra - which puts an interesting twist on the whole argument.

December 31, 2006 12:23 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, try it this way. Why would you want your government to be selling books of lies disguised as facts, promoting some particular religious distortion of science (in violation of the Constitution)?

Why do you find that worth defending?

JimK

December 31, 2006 12:35 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Jim, I am making a distinction between a gift shop or a library versus a school.

They can sell a book in a gift shop that says insists the moon is made of green cheese, and I don't care.

I don't want to pay the extra taxes to have to have them monitor everything in the gift shop, and I don't want them to strip it down to the point that they would have to if they didn't have the time to monitor everything sold.

And picking on this particular book is in particular a violation of religous free speech... if that is the standard you are setting, the book I found quite interesting "Death in the Grand Canyon", would also have to go. As well as a number of others, I am sure.

And then you have ruined the gift shop.

The park is huge, and you have to drive about 10/15 miles or so upon entry to get to the rim, so if you censor what can be purchased in the park, again, by your argument, would you also start having to monitor the grocery store, and by the way they run religous services (several demoninations) also on the park, for the convenience of the guests who are staying on the park grounds and would otherwise probably have a 20 minute drive to find a church.

Meanwhile, by the way, the government has used tax payer dollars to fund artwork for a cross drenched in urine.

Did you think that was wrong, or was that ok ?

December 31, 2006 11:30 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I don't mind if the government funds art, it is important not to let that funding become a propaganda tool, and sorry, sometimes an artist is going to do something controversial. Art and science are very, very different acts of creation. Science intends to map knowledge to objective reality; art, you might say, maps knowledge to subjective reality. And there is no guarantee of any correspondence between those two realities (though it is an interesting question).

This is a book sold by the National Park Service at the Grand Canyon. Farther down in this article, the point:“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”

JimK

December 31, 2006 1:52 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

So then you are also suggesting that they start censoring the religous services, monitoring what is sold at the grocery store, and monitoring EVERY book sold at the park ?

Or is it just this one book you want tossed ?

December 31, 2006 3:40 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I actually don't mind if they sell a religious book, or fiction, or whatever. But if they are going to sell a book that pretends to be "science," it should be ... science. It's not hard.

For all I care, they can sell the Bible itself, maybe in that region the Book of Mormon, whatever, with a nice Grand Canyon cover on it -- at least you know what you're buying.

But to sell a book that tells people that the Canyon was made by Noah's Flood, sorry, that's a lie, it's intentionally misleading, people deserve better than that.

Come on, Theresa, that makes you cringe, admit it. You don't believe that ... do you?

JimK

December 31, 2006 4:13 PM  
Anonymous d said...

Theresa said Jim, I am making a distinction between a gift shop or a library versus a school.

They can sell a book in a gift shop that says insists the moon is made of green cheese, and I don't care.


And later added A gift shop doesn't qualify - Jim, that's ridiculous.

Censorship is the antithesis of freedom. If all they were doing was selling the book in the giftshop, I wouldn't care if it was made of green cheese either. But they're not just selling the book. They're muzzling park rangers to keep the best scientific information about the park from the American public and they're trying to convert people to one particular set of religious beliefs held by Bush's faith-based political appointees.

Per the article referenced above, staff at "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees." PEER has asked the Bushies to "allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon," but have been told they must await the Bush Administration's analysis and decision, which has taken three years with no decision yet. And then, when they file an FOIA request, they find out "According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed."

Let's hear it for Bush's Christianist appointees who have no qualms about lying in our faces as if they posess some sort of divine mandate. Does God bless their lies? I don't think so. They just pulled a three year stalling stunt so they could scrape for a few more converts to their beliefs from park visitors being led astray by frustrated park rangers. How pathetic. It reminds me of the Air Force Academy where the evangelical Christian clergy is doing the Bush "I've got God on my side" swagger. And the new procedure at NASA where you have to get political approval before you may publish your own scientific findings. These guys are positively anti-science and then claim all anybody needs is scripture. Baloney! In America each of us is free to worship how we choose; we don't have to be one faith.

The problem here isn't as simple as a book being sold in the giftshop. The problem is that the holier than thou crowd Bush is beholding to is so intent to make everybody else believe what they believe, they will go so far as to keep park rangers from discussing the geology of the park with guests who come the world over to that special place. Unbelievable.

Who let these zealots into our parks? When can we take the muzzles off and let our professional park rangers do their jobs again?

December 31, 2006 8:26 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

"PEER has asked the Bushies to "allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon," but have been told they must await the Bush Administration's analysis and decision, which has taken three years with no decision yet"


Per the article referenced above, staff at "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees."

d -
I don't believe this article. I think it worded cleverly to imply falsehoods.

I was the Grand Canyon, for 2 nights and 3 days this past June. This is within the period they are discussing. They are large 6 foot glass covered informational posters on covered displays at most of the overlooks that discuss the age of the park. I don't remember the posters giving an exact age, but they do discuss the sediment layers, how the grand canyon was formed, and the approximage dating of each type of sediment layer. They also discuss this on the tour buses run by the park service via what sounded like a script. My husband remembers some sign or description that is was formed during the ice age. I remember that the age was in the tens of millions if not billions. So we both got a VERY different impression than what this article is implying. And, the park may not be able to give an "official" age to the grand canyon anymore than Yellowstone could give an "official" age to Old Faithful - they can't estimate it close enough to be comfortable with an official position.

I don't think I asked any rangers about the age, because there were signs all over the place going into it.

If I get time later this week I will call the park and ask. But I think this is a non reputable news outlet - I have direct information that refutes what they are claming.

January 01, 2007 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa's right, as usual. Anyone who has been to a national park in the U.S. knows that they are filled with exhibits explaining the mainstream geological scientists' ideas. If anyone picks up a book giving an alternative explanation, they'll just think, "that's an interesting idea".

They'd be right. So what.

Mainstream scientists have been wrong in the past. When a scientist finds that out, they are rarely embraced by their colleagues. The establishment is usually the last to come around.

January 01, 2007 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Tish said...

About the Grand Canyon Bookstore:

It is operated by the Grand Canyon Association, a non-profit cooperating association that works to further the educational goals of the park. I managed the book warehouse for a Cooperating Association in the National Capitol Region for a while, back in the late 80s, and my husband was the Operations Manager for 9 years.

Cooperating Associations are congressionally chartered and work under restrictions intended to 1.) assure that the items they sell are educational in nature and 2.) assure that the favorable locations they occupy within the park sites and their tax-exempt status do not give them an unfavorable advantage over private, for-profit stores in the area. (We couldn't sell camera batteries or film in any location that had a near-by for-profit store, so we did have film at the National Cemetary Visitor's Center, but did not have it at the Lincoln Memorial, where there was a concessionaire selling film at a kiosk just outside the memorial.) Funds generated by the sales in the cooperating association shops are used for the parks. Where I worked, the regional parks superintendent presented our board of directors with an annual "wish list" of publications (such as Mall maps), repairs, and equipment upgrades and the profits from our sales paid for as much of the wish list as possible. That use of the money is why the associations are tax exempt.

When I left the cooperating association and museum-sales world, there was a lot of argument about things like fuzzy hats and Christmas ornaments and whether they were "educational" enough to include in the inventories. Stores wanted them because customers wanted them. Here in the National Capitol Region, Park superintendents tended not to like them at all. Everything in our stores had to be approved by the park staff before we could put it on the shelf.

I don't know exactly where Theresa shopped, and from what she says, she isn't sure either. I don't know what changes have been made to the rules governing museum sales, but it sounds as though the Cooperating Association shop in the Grand Canyon Park has some leeway about selling the gifty stuff, or that she was shopping in a shop operated by a concessionaire - they have very favorable contracts with the Park Service. Concessionaires DO NOT have to support the educational mission of the parks.

Theresa asked:
Are you going to say the park service needs to read and censor every book that they offer in the shop just because it happens to be located in the park ? Don't be silly.

The answer is essentially, yes. That is exactly how the system is set up to work. The park's interpretive staff is supposed to review all of the books sold in the GCA's bookstore. Furthermore, books sold in the park are supposed to be sold in the GCA's shop, though in practice the concessionaires sell whatever they want to and nobody does anything about it.

A book stating that the Grand Canyon was created by "Noah's Flood" would not be on the shelf in a cooperating association bookstore unless it had been approved by the park superintendent. Therefore, if the Grand Canyon Association is selling a book supporting the biblical flood story, it is offering that book as part of the park's educational mission, with the approval of the park director.

It is not appropriate for our Department of the Interior, through our National Parks system, to take on biblical education as one of its goals. That is not censorship, that is the establishment clause of the first amendment.

January 02, 2007 12:45 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Wow, I'd say that just about answers that question. Thanks, Tish.

Sorry bout that, Theresa.

JimK

January 02, 2007 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A book stating that the Grand Canyon was created by "Noah's Flood" would not be on the shelf in a cooperating association bookstore unless it had been approved by the park superintendent. Therefore, if the Grand Canyon Association is selling a book supporting the biblical flood story, it is offering that book as part of the park's educational mission, with the approval of the park director."

How about educating people that there are those that believe that?

"It is not appropriate for our Department of the Interior, through our National Parks system, to take on biblical education as one of its goals. That is not censorship, that is the establishment clause of the first amendment."

It's hyper-secularization, an experiment about half a century old in this country with not good results. The flood appears in ancient stories all over the globe, not only the Judeo-Christian Bible. The store should promote interest in the park and include any fiction, religious, scientific or other works pertaining to the park which seem to be in demand.

All parks that I've been to, including the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, hold religious services. This simply provides a service to meet the needs of visitors. Same with the book. No one's forced to buy it.

Trying to erase the very mention of religion in the midst of God's creation could have a deleterious effect on the park system in the same way hyper-secularization has destroyed the public schools.

January 02, 2007 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh brother. "Secular beliefs are wrong but *name of religion* beliefs are right." Yeah, we've heard that before and we'll hear it again. The 9/11 hijackers were certain their religion was the only true religion so they committed mass murder and suicide with visions of virgins in their heads.

Thank God in America we celebrate our diversity and allow all religions to peacefully coexist. Those who believe scripture should dictate the laws here in the land of the free are just as wrong as bin Laden.

January 03, 2007 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ellison to Use Thomas Jefferson's Koran
Posted Jan 3rd 2007 8:52AM by David Knowles
Filed under: House, Democrats

You have to hand it to incoming congressman Keith Ellison. The Minnesota Muslim--who has enraged the likes of congressman Virgil Goode (and more than a few readers of this very blog)--has offered a deft rebuke of his critics by announcing that he will be sworn into office on none other than Thomas Jefferson's own personal copy of the Koran. The message is clear. Don't forget that we are a nation founded on the principle of religious tolerance.

Ellison will take the official oath of office along with the other incoming members in the House chamber, then use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom, but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

Brilliant."

http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/01/03/ellison-to-use-thomas-jeffersons-koran/

January 03, 2007 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thank God in America we celebrate our diversity and allow all religions to peacefully coexist."

As of now we do. But if TTF has its way, religions won't peacefully co-exist. They'll be banned from public places.

Right now, a book is being peacefully sold in a book shop in the Grand Canyon with an alternative view that some view as religious. If the totalitarian left has its way, it will be removed and not allowed to "peacefully co-exist".

January 03, 2007 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Minnesota Muslim--who has enraged the likes of congressman Virgil Goode (and more than a few readers of this very blog)--has offered a deft rebuke of his critics by announcing that he will be sworn into office on none other than Thomas Jefferson's own personal copy of the Koran."

What readers were enraged? I didn't read any comments about this.

Say, this isn't more bigotry by a TTFer, is it?

BTW, the "deft" move wasn't Ellison's idea but a guy at the Library of Congress.

January 03, 2007 5:27 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 04, 2007 2:48 AM  
Anonymous warning, facts ahead said...

Bubble boy said "What readers were enraged? I didn't read any comments about this."

So that means it didn't happen -- if he didn't read about it, there was no one "enraged" -- in Anon's world.

Wrong as usual Anon. There was both outrage and praise for Virgil Goode's xenophobic letter, a letter he recently sent to his constituents which expressed warnings about Muslims settling in this country. (You gotta wonder if tax dollars or his campaign paid for that mailing.)

Instead of relying on your mistaken beliefs all the time, you should try to ascertain the facts of a situation.

Read and learn:

http://tinyurl.com/y6hejb

Goode spurs praise, outrage
elex
BY REX BOWMAN
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Saturday, December 23, 2006

From e-mails suggesting concentration camps for Muslims to messages bemoaning that all Virginians look like "a bunch of rednecks," the public is weighing in with mixed opinions on U.S. Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr.'s letter attacking the migration of Muslims to America.

While Goode's political colleagues have mostly kept silent -- a notable exception being Republican Sen. John W. Warner, who gently chided Goode on Thursday -- readers of the Richmond Times-Dispatch have e-mailed reporters; posted voluminous comments on the newspaper's Web site, timesdispatch.com; and phoned in to voice their opinions.

While many expressed shock and horror at Goode's warning that "many more Muslims" could one day hold elected office in the United States unless immigration laws are tightened, others wrote or called to say "Goode for president!" and to express their belief that Islam is not compatible with democracy...

Read and learn some more:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_5252123,00.html

Excerpts from Goode's letter to constituents:

"I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

"We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing persons from the Middle East to come to this country.

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

"The Ten Commandments and ‘In God We Trust' are on the wall of my office. A Muslim student came by my office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, ‘As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, the Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office."

January 04, 2007 7:09 AM  
Anonymous warning, more facts ahead said...

Representative Keith Ellison "can trace his roots in this country back to the 1700s and is a Muslim-convert, was born in America as an American."

http://forums.venturacountystar.com/index.cfm?frmid=12&tpcid=3222

============

Readers sound off on the congressman's anti-Muslim letter

BY C-VILLE WEEKLY READERS

http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064423910&ShowArticle_ID=11042212063517948

January 04, 2007 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bubble boy said "What readers were enraged? I didn't read any comments about this."

So that means it didn't happen -- if he didn't read about it, there was no one "enraged" -- in Anon's world."

Thanks for the warning but none of your "facts" were relevant to the discussion. And here's another one:

You said "readers of this very blog" were enraged by a Minnesota Muslim". You made it up. No one here has said that.

To prove it, you quote news services about e-mails to the Richmond Times. Any proof that the writers of these e-mails read "this very blog."?

Here's your..ahem..misstatement:

"The Minnesota Muslim--who has enraged the likes of congressman Virgil Goode (and more than a few readers of this very blog)--"

January 04, 2007 7:45 AM  
Anonymous Warning, facts ahead said...

Bubble boy continued "You said "readers of this very blog" were enraged by a Minnesota Muslim". You made it up. No one here has said that.

To prove it, you quote news services about e-mails to the Richmond Times. Any proof that the writers of these e-mails read "this very blog."?"


No I didn't "say that" and I didn't "make it up."

Look at the comment above posted by Anonymous on January 03, 2007at 4:56 PM. Note the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the AOLelectionsblog item that was posted there. The blog item is referenced with a URL (http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/01/03/ellison-to-use-thomas-jeffersons-koran/) so you could have checked it out yourself, but we know you can't be bothered with fact checking.

It is a blogger at "aolelectionsblogs" who is quoted as saying "The Minnesota Muslim--who has enraged the likes of congressman Virgil Goode (and more than a few readers of this very [AOLelections]blog)--has offered a deft rebuke of his critics by announcing that he will be sworn into office on none other than Thomas Jefferson's own personal copy of the Koran."

The misreading and misstatement is *ahem* yours.

January 04, 2007 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops!

My apologies, WFA.

I assumed you had something to say when you didn't.

January 04, 2007 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Say, this isn't more bigotry by a TTFer, is it?"

No, it's more Christianist bigotry by a Representative to Congress.

January 04, 2007 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christianist is a bigoted term.

January 04, 2007 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then "Christianist" is an apt term to describe Virgil Goode, who said:

"The Ten Commandments and ‘In God We Trust' are on the wall of my office. A Muslim student came by my office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, ‘As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, the Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office."

January 04, 2007 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shocking!

What if someone were to see those Ten Commandments? The result might better health.

I hate to ask but does anyone know if Muslims object to the Ten Commandments or saying "In God We Trust"?

As far as I know they don't.

January 04, 2007 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's shocking is the utter disregard Rep. Goode has for American citizens who are followers of Islam, one of the world's monotheistic religions. He's sworn to uphold the Constitution which asserts each person's right to worship as they see fit, not as the former majority might prefer. It looks like he's going to "stay the course" of his prejudice and hatred toward Muslims no matter what.

January 05, 2007 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, the fact that he doesn't have Koran related material on his wall means he "hates" Muslims? Oh brother!

I personally agree that I wouldn't want someone taking an oath on a holy book he doesn't believe in, your reaction is typical of leftist hyperbole.

BTW, Do you know any predominately Muslim countries where government officials are free to swear on the Bible? In most of them, it's a criminal offense to own a copy. In the first Gulf War, which we should have never been involved in, our soldiers were allowed to possess them but were not allowed to take them out of their camp.

January 05, 2007 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you know any predominately Muslim countries where government officials are free to swear on the Bible?"

No, and I cherish our freedom to swear on the holy book of our choosing so much that I think we should try to prevent America from becoming just like those countries by only allowing the Bible to be used when an elected official is sworn into office. It's right there in the Constitution..."Article 6, 3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

January 06, 2007 8:15 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "I cherish our freedom to swear on the holy book of our choosing so much that I think we should try to prevent America from becoming just like those countries by only allowing the Bible to be used when an elected official is sworn into office."

That's hilarious! "I cherish this freedom so much I want to see it taken away." What a hypocrite!

January 07, 2007 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmmmm. That's not what I meant.

Maybe I should have said

"I cherish our freedom to swear on the holy book of our choosing so much that I think we should try to prevent America from becoming just like those countries. By only allowing the Bible to be used when an elected official is sworn into office, we'd lose that freedom."

January 07, 2007 6:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home