Metro Jacksonville

Check out this video from our friends at FBC honoring our city council members that voted against the HRO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJxO0D4d9Fo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Well, they'll go down in city history as voting against human rights but at lest they got their names read off at church.

On the upside, for thinking people it's a handy list of council members who need ousting.

Wow, they actually showed up at a church service for this?

Big city, small town mentality.

Do they do this for all city issues?  Can we expect this type of event for the sunsetting of the mobility fee moratorium?

Quote from: stephendare on September 08, 2012, 09:41:29 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 08, 2012, 09:34:34 PM
Wow, they actually showed up at a church service for this?

Im thinking about running against Kim Daniels.

That would be great show.  I'd bring my popcorn.

Your right- it is a Democracy and I am voting agains every spineless one of em.  I have all of their names on my refrigerator and I sent an email to every one of them to tell them they lost my vote- regardless what they do in the future- 

Not sure who the speaker was, but at about 0:27 does he say that they "as a church have been in contact" with the Council members?  If FBC has been lobbying Council, isn't that a violation of their IRS exemption?

Oh, and Stephen, if you run against Kim Daniels, I will contribute.  As thelakelander says, it should be quite a show.  Will you have to move to live in her residence zone? 

Those "at-large" districts are strange - you have to live in a certain area, but the whole county votes for you.

Exactly why church and state don't mix. And another reason Jacksonville is the bottom feeder of Florida.
BTW Jesus would never buy a gun. What losers.

And these people didn't speak for me.

I'm surprised Kimberly wasn't having an exorcism. She sure needs one.

This is another reason I HAVE NO RESPECT for FBC,

Quote from: avonjax on September 08, 2012, 11:14:07 PM
Exactly why church and state don't mix. And another reason Jacksonville is the bottom feeder of Florida.
BTW Jesus would never buy a gun. What losers.

Pretty much. This city is disgusting in so many ways.

And why isn't this in the news?? Oh right, the church wouldn't like that.

Quote from: stephendare on September 08, 2012, 10:04:00 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 08, 2012, 09:47:54 PM

Quote from: stephendare on September 08, 2012, 09:41:29 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 08, 2012, 09:34:34 PM
Wow, they actually showed up at a church service for this?

Im thinking about running against Kim Daniels.

That would be great show.  I'd bring my popcorn.

Bring several bags.  Well see who rebukes who the most. ;)

Stephen,

After hearing Rich Jones chat with you on the WOKV radio the other morning, I highly encourage you to run for city office. I don't always agree with you, but I do think you have something to add to the discourse.

QuotePlease.  Someone.  Run against Lumb.

Stephen, is this your pulpit to discuss your desire to run?

I'd vote for you, hell, I'd even campaign for you to win. I don't always agree with you on your posts and ideas, but I respect that you use what God gave you between your ears and that you use it, which is more than we can say for most council members.

Jack

Just so you know, there were many Christians, in many churches, that supported the ordinance.

^Yes they just don't understand Christianity.  Treat others like you want to be treated.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 09, 2012, 08:33:28 AM
Just so you know, there were many Christians, in many churches, that supported the ordinance.

Greg Anderson of St. Mark's Episcopal voted for the substitute, but unfortunately was among the 17 who voted against the original.  The Episcopal church is usually thoroughly filled with very liberal people, and the only "real" Episcopal church in town is Church of the Good Shepherd in Riverside.  St. Mark's has its share, and I know the priests there are liberal, but with that congregation I'm sure the bill wasn't even mentioned.

Religion aside (we all know everyone in Jax thinks they are soo Christian so screw the Muslims, screw the Atheists, screw the Gays, screw the liberals because Jesus would never have been a liberal) there are only two Democrats out of 19 city council members: Warren Jones and Denise Lee, and they are black so it's almost to be expected.  There are no white liberals and there are even black conservatives on CC.  Now that's a conservative city!  Oklahoma City is starting to look really really progressive in contrast.

It's not even a contest. Oklahoma City is very progressive in terms of investing in itself. Tearing down freeways for more downtown green space, building a San Antonio Riverwalk style canal because they didn't have water downtown, moving forward with funding a streetcar without federal dollars.  Where we make excuses, they implement.

a video about OKC's locally funded $130 million streetcar starter: http://www.news9.com/story/17861428/plans-unveiled-for-downtown-okc-streetcar-system

They evidently know where their bread is butteerred. 

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2012, 10:13:43 AM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 09, 2012, 08:33:28 AM
Just so you know, there were many Christians, in many churches, that supported the ordinance.

Greg Anderson of St. Mark's Episcopal voted for the substitute, but unfortunately was among the 17 who voted against the original.  The Episcopal church is usually thoroughly filled with very liberal people, and the only "real" Episcopal church in town is Church of the Good Shepherd in Riverside.  St. Mark's has its share, and I know the priests there are liberal, but with that congregation I'm sure the bill wasn't even mentioned.

Religion aside (we all know everyone in Jax thinks they are soo Christian so screw the Muslims, screw the Atheists, screw the Gays, screw the liberals because Jesus would never have been a liberal) there are only two Democrats out of 19 city council members: Warren Jones and Denise Lee, and they are black so it's almost to be expected.  There are no white liberals and there are even black conservatives on CC.  Now that's a conservative city!  Oklahoma City is starting to look really really progressive in contrast.

Nice try, but there are 6 democrats on the City Council, five are black and one, Crescimbeni, is white. 

And while many Episcopalians are progressive on LGBT issues, it's a very big and conservative leaning tent, and the issue literally split the church in two a few years ago. There are plenty of "real" Episcopal churches in Jacksonville.

One council member who deserves mention is Richard Clark, a First Baptist member who was a strong supporter of the ordinance. Despite his church's very public stance on this issue and the embarrassing spectacle captured in this video, and the fact he had absolutely nothing to gain from it politically, he still did the right thing. He should be commended for that.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 09, 2012, 10:58:06 AM

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2012, 10:13:43 AM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 09, 2012, 08:33:28 AM
Just so you know, there were many Christians, in many churches, that supported the ordinance.

Greg Anderson of St. Mark's Episcopal voted for the substitute, but unfortunately was among the 17 who voted against the original.  The Episcopal church is usually thoroughly filled with very liberal people, and the only "real" Episcopal church in town is Church of the Good Shepherd in Riverside.  St. Mark's has its share, and I know the priests there are liberal, but with that congregation I'm sure the bill wasn't even mentioned.

Religion aside (we all know everyone in Jax thinks they are soo Christian so screw the Muslims, screw the Atheists, screw the Gays, screw the liberals because Jesus would never have been a liberal) there are only two Democrats out of 19 city council members: Warren Jones and Denise Lee, and they are black so it's almost to be expected.  There are no white liberals and there are even black conservatives on CC.  Now that's a conservative city!  Oklahoma City is starting to look really really progressive in contrast.

Nice try, but there are 6 democrats on the City Council, five are black and one, Crescimbeni, is white. 

And while many Episcopalians are progressive on LGBT issues, it's a very big and conservative leaning tent, and the issue literally split the church in two a few years ago. There are plenty of "real" Episcopal churches in Jacksonville.

I know you love to argue everything I say and it's clear we would probably not get along, but you did a horrible job this time.  Yes I should have better distinguished Democrat from liberal and specified that out of six Democrats only two voted for this civil rights bill, and of course none of the 13 Republicans did.  Tell me though since you have opened a new can of worms, who are the liberals on CC in Jacksonville?  I was not aware there were any, maybe 1-3 tops.

And RE: Episcopal Church, dioceses and concregations representing about 100,000 broke off from a church in the US of 2.3 million.  Just to put the "split" into perspective.  Yes it was scandalous and many a service I attended referenced the split, both before and after, but when you look at the numbers it was no big deal at all.  Congregations as a whole in Jacksonville at least moderately conservative with the most liberal and only truly gay friendly congregation being that of Good Shepherd in Riverside go figure, but most of the priests in Jacksonville are still highly intellectual and are progressively liberal themselves.  This is amplified in the congregations elsewhere.  Of the major Christian denominations, the Episcopal Church in the US is the only one that can truly call itself a liberal church.  It is the Reform Judaism of Christianity, and always has been considering its beginnings as a church so the king of England could divorce his many wives.

Back to topic, since the black community votes almost exclusively Democrat (but not necessarily liberal) do we even count the 5 black CC members as Democrats since it is to be expected?  There is only 1 white Democrat and he repeatedly campaigns on holding true to conservative principles and can't be regarded as a liberal Democrat.  When Jacksonville starts electing members who actually campaign on "progressive" issues like smoking bans, gun control, gay rights, recycling programs, social welfare programs, afforable housing acts, the Mobility Fee, public transportation, etc etc then come back and tell me Jacksonville is actually pretty liberal/progressive.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2012, 10:20:29 AM
It's not even a contest. Oklahoma City is very progressive in terms of investing in itself. Tearing down freeways for more downtown green space, building a San Antonio Riverwalk style canal because they didn't have water downtown, moving forward with funding a streetcar without federal dollars.  Where we make excuses, they implement.

a video about OKC's locally funded $130 million streetcar starter: http://www.news9.com/story/17861428/plans-unveiled-for-downtown-okc-streetcar-system

Oklahoma City is also FAR MORE educated then Jacksonville, within the city limits are:


Southern Nazarene University
A private, 4-year institution, Southern Nazarene University is affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene and located in Bethany, Oklahoma - The school offers Associate, Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees.

Oklahoma Baptist University
Shawnee's Oklahoma Baptist University is a private Christian university established in 1910 and owned by the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma - The school's downtown Oklahoma City campus is located in the Deep Deuce (Historic black area known for it's Jazz roots) area and houses the OBU International Graduate School.

Oklahoma State University - Oklahoma City
There is a branch of Stillwater's Oklahoma State University located just west of downtown Oklahoma City - (OSU-OKC was once known as Oklahoma State University Technical Institute but OU transfer students couldn't spell it) offers over 40 degrees and certificates available.

Oklahoma Christian University
Oklahoma Christian University is a private 4-year institution affiliated with the Church of Christ and located in north Oklahoma City and Edmond - It was founded originally as a 2 year Bartlesville Oklahoma college in 1950 called Central Christian College before relocating to Oklahoma City as Oklahoma Christian University in the late 1950's.

University of Oklahoma
The University of Oklahoma was founded in Norman in 1890 and is one of the state's premiere public 4-year institutions (founded primarily for those that couldn't get into OSU!) - The school is well-know nationally for its academics and Sooners athletic programs as well as a long list of distinguished alumni. Medical School teaching campus on the east side of downtown.

University of Central Oklahoma
The University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond (north side of OKC area) has known many names since opening as the Territorial Normal School in 1890 - UCO is renowned as one of the state's better institutions for education training and is currently the 3rd largest school in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City Community College
Oklahoma City Community College (OCCC) was founded in 1972 and is one of the larger community colleges in the region as far as enrollment - Here's a profile of the school with academic information and details on tuition and enrollment.

Redlands Community College
Redlands Community College in El Reno, Oklahoma was founded in and is - Here's a profile of Redlands Community College with academic information and details on tuition and enrollment. Location just west of OKC.

Rose State College
Rose State College was founded in 1970 and originally named Oscar Rose Junior College after the former Midwest City-Del City Superintendent of Schools - It is a public institution with an open admission policy - Rose State primarily offers associate degrees and university transfer education to a current enrollment of nearly 9,000 as well as on-site courses at both Tinker Air Force Base and the University of Central Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City University
A fairly small, urban private school, Oklahoma City University was founded pre-statehood in 1904 and is one of the more respected universities in the state, ranking as the only one listed in U.S. News and World Report's best master's level institutions in the region - Affiliated with the United Methodist Church, the university is also routinely listed among the best Christian universities.

Langston University - OKC Campus
A land grant historically Black institution of higher learning, (dating from the historic land runs) will continue its rich tradition of developing leaders from a diverse, multi-cultural student body through excellent teaching, research, community service and public and private sector partnerships.

Southwestern College
Midwest City's Southwestern College campus has various degree programs, located in the east side of the OKC metro.

Southwestern Christian University
Bethany's Southwestern Christian College has various degree programs, located in Bethany, a neighborhood on the west side of OKC.

University of Phoenix - Oklahoma City
The University of Phoenix's Oklahoma City campus has various typical degree programs.

Mid-America Christian University
Mid-America Christian University has various degree programs, located in OKC.

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2012, 01:01:58 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 09, 2012, 10:58:06 AM

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2012, 10:13:43 AM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 09, 2012, 08:33:28 AM
Just so you know, there were many Christians, in many churches, that supported the ordinance.

Greg Anderson of St. Mark's Episcopal voted for the substitute, but unfortunately was among the 17 who voted against the original.  The Episcopal church is usually thoroughly filled with very liberal people, and the only "real" Episcopal church in town is Church of the Good Shepherd in Riverside.  St. Mark's has its share, and I know the priests there are liberal, but with that congregation I'm sure the bill wasn't even mentioned.

Religion aside (we all know everyone in Jax thinks they are soo Christian so screw the Muslims, screw the Atheists, screw the Gays, screw the liberals because Jesus would never have been a liberal) there are only two Democrats out of 19 city council members: Warren Jones and Denise Lee, and they are black so it's almost to be expected.  There are no white liberals and there are even black conservatives on CC.  Now that's a conservative city!  Oklahoma City is starting to look really really progressive in contrast.

Nice try, but there are 6 democrats on the City Council, five are black and one, Crescimbeni, is white. 

And while many Episcopalians are progressive on LGBT issues, it's a very big and conservative leaning tent, and the issue literally split the church in two a few years ago. There are plenty of "real" Episcopal churches in Jacksonville.

I know you love to argue everything I say and it's clear we would probably not get along, but you did a horrible job this time.  Yes I should have better distinguished Democrat from liberal and specified that out of six Democrats only two voted for this civil rights bill, and of course none of the 13 Republicans did.  Tell me though since you have opened a new can of worms, who are the liberals on CC in Jacksonville?  I was not aware there were any, maybe 1-3 tops.

And RE: Episcopal Church, dioceses and concregations representing about 100,000 broke off from a church in the US of 2.3 million.  Just to put the "split" into perspective.  Yes it was scandalous and many a service I attended referenced the split, both before and after, but when you look at the numbers it was no big deal at all.  Congregations as a whole in Jacksonville at least moderately conservative with the most liberal and only truly gay friendly congregation being that of Good Shepherd in Riverside go figure, but most of the priests in Jacksonville are still highly intellectual and are progressively liberal themselves.  This is amplified in the congregations elsewhere.  Of the major Christian denominations, the Episcopal Church in the US is the only one that can truly call itself a liberal church.  It is the Reform Judaism of Christianity, and always has been considering its beginnings as a church so the king of England could divorce his many wives.

Back to topic, since the black community votes almost exclusively Democrat (but not necessarily liberal) do we even count the 5 black CC members as Democrats since it is to be expected?  There is only 1 white Democrat and he repeatedly campaigns on holding true to conservative principles and can't be regarded as a liberal Democrat.  When Jacksonville starts electing members who actually campaign on "progressive" issues like smoking bans, gun control, gay rights, recycling programs, social welfare programs, afforable housing acts, the Mobility Fee, public transportation, etc etc then come back and tell me Jacksonville is actually pretty liberal/progressive.

I only take special pleasure in arguing your points when you say false things with a naive air of rectitude. You should take it as a compliment that other people think enough of your intellect to take the time to debate you.

As to your statements, regardless of what you meant, you said there are only two Democrats on the council, when in reality there are six. Additionally, while only two Democrats voted for the unpassable stronger version of the bill, three of them voted for the revised version, along with six Republicans (not none).

As for who's a "real" Democrat, clearly it depends on what your idea of what a real Democrat is, as well as the particular issue at hand. For example, Gaffney had always been progressive on LGBT issues before this vote (he even voted for the stronger version of this bill in committee, before voting against the weaker version later), making his flip-flopping all the more astonishing. In a city that skews this conservative, and with such a fragmented Democratic party, I don't think we'll see really liberal Democrats get elected anytime soon. At the same time, there are plenty of hard-right Republicans who don't consider moderates "real" Republicans either.

The embarrassing spectacle presented in the video above gives a good indication as to why things are as they are in these parts.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 09, 2012, 03:05:57 PM

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2012, 01:01:58 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 09, 2012, 10:58:06 AM

Quote from: simms3 on September 09, 2012, 10:13:43 AM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 09, 2012, 08:33:28 AM
Just so you know, there were many Christians, in many churches, that supported the ordinance.

Greg Anderson of St. Mark's Episcopal voted for the substitute, but unfortunately was among the 17 who voted against the original.  The Episcopal church is usually thoroughly filled with very liberal people, and the only "real" Episcopal church in town is Church of the Good Shepherd in Riverside.  St. Mark's has its share, and I know the priests there are liberal, but with that congregation I'm sure the bill wasn't even mentioned.

Religion aside (we all know everyone in Jax thinks they are soo Christian so screw the Muslims, screw the Atheists, screw the Gays, screw the liberals because Jesus would never have been a liberal) there are only two Democrats out of 19 city council members: Warren Jones and Denise Lee, and they are black so it's almost to be expected.  There are no white liberals and there are even black conservatives on CC.  Now that's a conservative city!  Oklahoma City is starting to look really really progressive in contrast.

Nice try, but there are 6 democrats on the City Council, five are black and one, Crescimbeni, is white. 

And while many Episcopalians are progressive on LGBT issues, it's a very big and conservative leaning tent, and the issue literally split the church in two a few years ago. There are plenty of "real" Episcopal churches in Jacksonville.

I know you love to argue everything I say and it's clear we would probably not get along, but you did a horrible job this time.  Yes I should have better distinguished Democrat from liberal and specified that out of six Democrats only two voted for this civil rights bill, and of course none of the 13 Republicans did.  Tell me though since you have opened a new can of worms, who are the liberals on CC in Jacksonville?  I was not aware there were any, maybe 1-3 tops.

And RE: Episcopal Church, dioceses and concregations representing about 100,000 broke off from a church in the US of 2.3 million.  Just to put the "split" into perspective.  Yes it was scandalous and many a service I attended referenced the split, both before and after, but when you look at the numbers it was no big deal at all.  Congregations as a whole in Jacksonville at least moderately conservative with the most liberal and only truly gay friendly congregation being that of Good Shepherd in Riverside go figure, but most of the priests in Jacksonville are still highly intellectual and are progressively liberal themselves.  This is amplified in the congregations elsewhere.  Of the major Christian denominations, the Episcopal Church in the US is the only one that can truly call itself a liberal church.  It is the Reform Judaism of Christianity, and always has been considering its beginnings as a church so the king of England could divorce his many wives.

Back to topic, since the black community votes almost exclusively Democrat (but not necessarily liberal) do we even count the 5 black CC members as Democrats since it is to be expected?  There is only 1 white Democrat and he repeatedly campaigns on holding true to conservative principles and can't be regarded as a liberal Democrat.  When Jacksonville starts electing members who actually campaign on "progressive" issues like smoking bans, gun control, gay rights, recycling programs, social welfare programs, afforable housing acts, the Mobility Fee, public transportation, etc etc then come back and tell me Jacksonville is actually pretty liberal/progressive.

As to your statements, regardless of what you meant, you said there are only two Democrats on the council, when in reality there are six. Additionally, while only two Democrats voted for the unpassable stronger version of the bill, three of them voted for the revised version, along with six Republicans (not none).

Fair enough, I tend to type really fast and often mean something totally different than what I type (obviously there are 6 democrats on council out of 19 members).  In this case with my reference to the bill and the two members' names who voted for it, it was pretty obvious I simply meant to say only two members who happened to be Democrats voted for the bill.  Help with clarity from your more precise language would be helpful the next time this happens, thanks.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 09, 2012, 03:00:25 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2012, 10:20:29 AM
It's not even a contest. Oklahoma City is very progressive in terms of investing in itself. Tearing down freeways for more downtown green space, building a San Antonio Riverwalk style canal because they didn't have water downtown, moving forward with funding a streetcar without federal dollars.  Where we make excuses, they implement.

a video about OKC's locally funded $130 million streetcar starter: http://www.news9.com/story/17861428/plans-unveiled-for-downtown-okc-streetcar-system

Oklahoma City is also FAR MORE educated then Jacksonville, within the city limits are:


Southern Nazarene University
A private, 4-year institution, Southern Nazarene University is affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene and located in Bethany, Oklahoma - The school offers Associate, Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees.

Oklahoma Baptist University
Shawnee's Oklahoma Baptist University is a private Christian university established in 1910 and owned by the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma - The school's downtown Oklahoma City campus is located in the Deep Deuce (Historic black area known for it's Jazz roots) area and houses the OBU International Graduate School.

Oklahoma State University - Oklahoma City
There is a branch of Stillwater's Oklahoma State University located just west of downtown Oklahoma City - (OSU-OKC was once known as Oklahoma State University Technical Institute but OU transfer students couldn't spell it) offers over 40 degrees and certificates available.

Oklahoma Christian University
Oklahoma Christian University is a private 4-year institution affiliated with the Church of Christ and located in north Oklahoma City and Edmond - It was founded originally as a 2 year Bartlesville Oklahoma college in 1950 called Central Christian College before relocating to Oklahoma City as Oklahoma Christian University in the late 1950's.

University of Oklahoma
The University of Oklahoma was founded in Norman in 1890 and is one of the state's premiere public 4-year institutions (founded primarily for those that couldn't get into OSU!) - The school is well-know nationally for its academics and Sooners athletic programs as well as a long list of distinguished alumni. Medical School teaching campus on the east side of downtown.

University of Central Oklahoma
The University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond (north side of OKC area) has known many names since opening as the Territorial Normal School in 1890 - UCO is renowned as one of the state's better institutions for education training and is currently the 3rd largest school in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City Community College
Oklahoma City Community College (OCCC) was founded in 1972 and is one of the larger community colleges in the region as far as enrollment - Here's a profile of the school with academic information and details on tuition and enrollment.

Redlands Community College
Redlands Community College in El Reno, Oklahoma was founded in and is - Here's a profile of Redlands Community College with academic information and details on tuition and enrollment. Location just west of OKC.

Rose State College
Rose State College was founded in 1970 and originally named Oscar Rose Junior College after the former Midwest City-Del City Superintendent of Schools - It is a public institution with an open admission policy - Rose State primarily offers associate degrees and university transfer education to a current enrollment of nearly 9,000 as well as on-site courses at both Tinker Air Force Base and the University of Central Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City University
A fairly small, urban private school, Oklahoma City University was founded pre-statehood in 1904 and is one of the more respected universities in the state, ranking as the only one listed in U.S. News and World Report's best master's level institutions in the region - Affiliated with the United Methodist Church, the university is also routinely listed among the best Christian universities.

Langston University - OKC Campus
A land grant historically Black institution of higher learning, (dating from the historic land runs) will continue its rich tradition of developing leaders from a diverse, multi-cultural student body through excellent teaching, research, community service and public and private sector partnerships.

Southwestern College
Midwest City's Southwestern College campus has various degree programs, located in the east side of the OKC metro.

Southwestern Christian University
Bethany's Southwestern Christian College has various degree programs, located in Bethany, a neighborhood on the west side of OKC.

University of Phoenix - Oklahoma City
The University of Phoenix's Oklahoma City campus has various typical degree programs.

Mid-America Christian University
Mid-America Christian University has various degree programs, located in OKC.

For comparison's sake, what are the schools in Jacksonville? 

You guys think FBC is the only church that runs this city? you seem to forget the other mega churches such as: Westside Baptist Church, North Jacksonville, New Life Christian Fellowhip, Christ Church, Bethel Baptist, Titus Harvest Dome, Evangel Temple, etc.....it isnt only the members of FBC contacting City Council to influence thier votes.

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2012, 05:07:17 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 09, 2012, 03:00:25 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on September 09, 2012, 10:20:29 AM
It's not even a contest. Oklahoma City is very progressive in terms of investing in itself. Tearing down freeways for more downtown green space, building a San Antonio Riverwalk style canal because they didn't have water downtown, moving forward with funding a streetcar without federal dollars.  Where we make excuses, they implement.

a video about OKC's locally funded $130 million streetcar starter: http://www.news9.com/story/17861428/plans-unveiled-for-downtown-okc-streetcar-system

Oklahoma City is also FAR MORE educated then Jacksonville, within the city limits are:


Southern Nazarene University
A private, 4-year institution, Southern Nazarene University is affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene and located in Bethany, Oklahoma - The school offers Associate, Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees.

Oklahoma Baptist University
Shawnee's Oklahoma Baptist University is a private Christian university established in 1910 and owned by the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma - The school's downtown Oklahoma City campus is located in the Deep Deuce (Historic black area known for it's Jazz roots) area and houses the OBU International Graduate School.

Oklahoma State University - Oklahoma City
There is a branch of Stillwater's Oklahoma State University located just west of downtown Oklahoma City - (OSU-OKC was once known as Oklahoma State University Technical Institute but OU transfer students couldn't spell it) offers over 40 degrees and certificates available.

Oklahoma Christian University
Oklahoma Christian University is a private 4-year institution affiliated with the Church of Christ and located in north Oklahoma City and Edmond - It was founded originally as a 2 year Bartlesville Oklahoma college in 1950 called Central Christian College before relocating to Oklahoma City as Oklahoma Christian University in the late 1950's.

University of Oklahoma
The University of Oklahoma was founded in Norman in 1890 and is one of the state's premiere public 4-year institutions (founded primarily for those that couldn't get into OSU!) - The school is well-know nationally for its academics and Sooners athletic programs as well as a long list of distinguished alumni. Medical School teaching campus on the east side of downtown.

University of Central Oklahoma
The University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond (north side of OKC area) has known many names since opening as the Territorial Normal School in 1890 - UCO is renowned as one of the state's better institutions for education training and is currently the 3rd largest school in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City Community College
Oklahoma City Community College (OCCC) was founded in 1972 and is one of the larger community colleges in the region as far as enrollment - Here's a profile of the school with academic information and details on tuition and enrollment.

Redlands Community College
Redlands Community College in El Reno, Oklahoma was founded in and is - Here's a profile of Redlands Community College with academic information and details on tuition and enrollment. Location just west of OKC.

Rose State College
Rose State College was founded in 1970 and originally named Oscar Rose Junior College after the former Midwest City-Del City Superintendent of Schools - It is a public institution with an open admission policy - Rose State primarily offers associate degrees and university transfer education to a current enrollment of nearly 9,000 as well as on-site courses at both Tinker Air Force Base and the University of Central Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City University
A fairly small, urban private school, Oklahoma City University was founded pre-statehood in 1904 and is one of the more respected universities in the state, ranking as the only one listed in U.S. News and World Report's best master's level institutions in the region - Affiliated with the United Methodist Church, the university is also routinely listed among the best Christian universities.

Langston University - OKC Campus
A land grant historically Black institution of higher learning, (dating from the historic land runs) will continue its rich tradition of developing leaders from a diverse, multi-cultural student body through excellent teaching, research, community service and public and private sector partnerships.

Southwestern College
Midwest City's Southwestern College campus has various degree programs, located in the east side of the OKC metro.

Southwestern Christian University
Bethany's Southwestern Christian College has various degree programs, located in Bethany, a neighborhood on the west side of OKC.

University of Phoenix - Oklahoma City
The University of Phoenix's Oklahoma City campus has various typical degree programs.

Mid-America Christian University
Mid-America Christian University has various degree programs, located in OKC.

For comparison's sake, what are the schools in Jacksonville?

UNF, JU, Edward Waters College, and FSCJ (with several campuses and satellites) are within Jax. The UF also has the Shands campus, and there's Florida Coastal School of Law. Also in the metro are Flagler College and St. Johns River State College, with three campuses and the Florida School of the Arts. Like OKC and elsewhere we also have a wide selection of dubious for-profit colleges.

Overall, Florida has a substantial lack in college options compared to other states.

Quote from: fsujax on September 09, 2012, 05:28:23 PM
You guys think FBC is the only church that runs this city? you seem to forget the other mega churches such as: Westside Baptist Church, North Jacksonville, New Life Christian Fellowhip, Christ Church, Bethel Baptist, Titus Harvest Dome, Evangel Temple, etc.....it isnt only the members of FBC contacting City Council to influence thier votes.

And then there are the two dozen or so pastors, mine (Bruce Havens) among them, who stood up publicly for the ordinance.  Bruce not only stood up for it, but preaches love and acceptance from the pulpit as well. 

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2012-05-09/story/point-view-first-coast-clergy-speak-against-discrimination

As a city with a less-than stellar civil rights history and track record you would think that the City Council would be very focused on changing Jacksonville's culture and perception. The growth and revitalization that city leaders claim to want demands it.

This would've been an easy way to do it -- these protections are in almost every company's employee manual these days (including mine), and have been for many years.

Does anyone have the opinion that the following statement is not true? 

"While at least a dozen other cities have achieved successful revitalization of their inner cores, or at least are well on the way to doing so, the city of Jacksonville has failed to do so after about three decades of recognition of the need to do so."

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 09, 2012, 09:38:17 PM
Does anyone have the opinion that the following statement is not true? 

"While at least a dozen other cities have achieved successful revitalization of their inner cores, or at least are well on the way to doing so, the city of Jacksonville has failed to do so after about three decades of recognition of the need to do so."

That statement is not true. Rather than at least a dozen, in order for it to be accurate it should say "several dozen".

Thanks Steve.  I suppose that the quantity might be more than I had thought.  So...we modify the statement.


"While at least several dozen other cities have achieved successful revitalization of their inner cores, or at least are well on the way to doing so, the city of Jacksonville has failed to do so after about three decades of recognition of the need to do so."

If the statement is true, then we might begin to ponder what characteristic or characteristics in Jacksonville has allowed it to remain without revitalization over three decades.  The fact of failure over so many years allows me to suspect that there is a single obstacle to revitalization, or perhaps at most two or three, which are related, somewhat subtle, somewhat hidden from the casual observer, but significant in their ability to obstruct real progress to revitization of the city core. 

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 09, 2012, 10:24:42 PM
Thanks Steve.  I suppose that the quantity might be more than I had thought.  So...we modify the statement.


"While at least several dozen other cities have achieved successful revitalization of their inner cores, or at least are well on the way to doing so, the city of Jacksonville has failed to do so after about three decades of recognition of the need to do so."

If the statement is true, then we might begin to ponder what characteristic or characteristics in Jacksonville has allowed it to remain without revitalization over three decades.  The fact of failure over so many years allows me to suspect that there is a single obstacle to revitalization, or perhaps at most two or three, which are related, somewhat subtle, somewhat hidden from the casual observer, but significant in their ability to obstruct real progress to revitization of the city core.

I think you are looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. (Ed Ball fans included)

From my observation, Jacksonville's "condition" is more symbolic to years of lost economic power which has translated into poor leadership decisions, some of which have had long lasting impacts.

I think MJ has covered ad nauseum all of the poor, non-strategic decisions that have occurred during Jacksonville's post-war decline, so no need to repeat them here.

It has been made pretty clear that a new level of leadership needs to take place to move Jacksonville towards the future. It just can't be the mayor, it just can't be the council.

Quote from: mtraininjax on September 09, 2012, 06:34:26 AM

QuotePlease.  Someone.  Run against Lumb.

Stephen, is this your pulpit to discuss your desire to run?

I'd vote for you, hell, I'd even campaign for you to win. I don't always agree with you on your posts and ideas, but I respect that you use what God gave you between your ears and that you use it, which is more than we can say for most council members.

Jack

I will wholeheartedly second this , and vote for you and help campaign. :) .   I have held my tongue about First Baptist Church and will pretty much continue to do so. But I don't like this kind of influence from them.

-Timkin

FBC has the money and the masses, so what does the opposition have? Time will tell. So far, lots of hot air on the board, surely someone can step forward and START with some action?

Quote from: spuwho on September 10, 2012, 12:01:10 AM

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 09, 2012, 10:24:42 PM
Thanks Steve.  I suppose that the quantity might be more than I had thought.  So...we modify the statement.


"While at least several dozen other cities have achieved successful revitalization of their inner cores, or at least are well on the way to doing so, the city of Jacksonville has failed to do so after about three decades of recognition of the need to do so."

If the statement is true, then we might begin to ponder what characteristic or characteristics in Jacksonville has allowed it to remain without revitalization over three decades.  The fact of failure over so many years allows me to suspect that there is a single obstacle to revitalization, or perhaps at most two or three, which are related, somewhat subtle, somewhat hidden from the casual observer, but significant in their ability to obstruct real progress to revitization of the city core.

I think you are looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. (Ed Ball fans included)

From my observation, Jacksonville's "condition" is more symbolic to years of lost economic power which has translated into poor leadership decisions, some of which have had long lasting impacts.

I think MJ has covered ad nauseum all of the poor, non-strategic decisions that have occurred during Jacksonville's post-war decline, so no need to repeat them here.

It has been made pretty clear that a new level of leadership needs to take place to move Jacksonville towards the future. It just can't be the mayor, it just can't be the council.

Spuwho, you use the word conspiracy.  The problem is not an intentional conspiracy, but a movement or platform of necessity, which has emerged in the jax political realm and power structure out of the pressures of self-preservation, of survival, of one’s desire to keep what comfort, power, and wealth one has, of one’s desire to perpetuate the mechanism which ensures one’s position of privilege and comfort, even when the mechanism includes an association, mostly insincere, with a church.

I missed it, but Littlepage posted the video to jacksonville.com on Sept. 12:

Quote

The Jacksonville City Council members who voted to deprive the city's gay and lesbian communities the most basic of rights, to not be discriminated against in employment, housing and public accommodations, received their reward from First Baptist Church.

Check out this video of the praise they got for standing "in the gap."

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/406107/ron-littlepage/2012-09-12/watch-first-baptist-church-blessing-council-members

Quote from: mtraininjax on September 13, 2012, 10:29:03 PM
FBC has the money and the masses, so what does the opposition have? Time will tell. So far, lots of hot air on the board, surely someone can step forward and START with some action?

:)  Would you like to start?

Freedom of speech.  The establishment clause calls for no state religion.  It doesn't say religious people are not allowed to have an opinion, or state it. We don't have to agree, but everyone is allowed an opinion.

Separation of church and state isn't in the Constiution.  It's in a letter to a group of ministers in Danbury. The ministers were afraid of a "Church of the United States" to which they would be forced to pledge allegiance or  be persecuted, like happened with the Church of England.  Over the years, we've extrapolated and expanded on that until some of us think believers shouldn't have any say in secular decisions, lest they "contaminate" the process.

That said, I supported 296, and so did a lot of believers of all faiths.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 14, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
Over the years, we've extrapolated and expanded on that until some of us think believers shouldn't have any say in secular decisions, lest they "contaminate" the process.

I'm sorry, but the only people who believe that are far-right theocrats who get bent out shape when non-religious people refuse to follow the dictates of the theocrats religion.

As church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom,

Quote"It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

I've seen plenty of circumstances (in cities with far different religious and political demographics than Jacksonville) where religious people's collective right to speak out on a secular topic was ridiculed and marginalized.  And plenty of circumstances where "separation of church and state" as it was intended (and as most Americans probably understand it, and as Pfeffer probably intends to describe it) is extended to ridiculous extremes such as harrassing elementary school kids for silently praying over their food at lunch time in a school cafeteria. 

I'm sure that is what Debbie was describing as well.  She didn't deserve to get called a far-right theocrat or someone looking to impose dictates on others for saying it, especially as a supporter of 296.  Far-left atheocrats attempt to impose dictates on others just the same as far-right theocrats do.

(Disclosure: I'm a Christian, a supporter of 296, and disappointed in what FBC did.)

Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on September 14, 2012, 02:52:31 PM
I've seen plenty of circumstances (in cities with far different religious and political demographics than Jacksonville) where religious people's collective right to speak out on a secular topic was ridiculed and marginalized.  And plenty of circumstances where "separation of church and state" as it was intended (and as most Americans probably understand it, and as Pfeffer probably intends to describe it) is extended to ridiculous extremes such as harrassing elementary school kids for silently praying over their food at lunch time in a school cafeteria.

When?  Where?

Some people confuse "separation of church and state" to mean "separation of church from state".

Quote from: spuwho on September 14, 2012, 03:28:08 PM
Some people confuse "separation of church and state" to mean "separation of church from state".

This guy agrees with you 100%
(http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/ayatollah-khomeini.jpg)

Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2012, 03:07:14 PM

Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on September 14, 2012, 02:52:31 PM
I've seen plenty of circumstances (in cities with far different religious and political demographics than Jacksonville) where religious people's collective right to speak out on a secular topic was ridiculed and marginalized.  And plenty of circumstances where "separation of church and state" as it was intended (and as most Americans probably understand it, and as Pfeffer probably intends to describe it) is extended to ridiculous extremes such as harrassing elementary school kids for silently praying over their food at lunch time in a school cafeteria.

When?  Where?

I've a book with a number of examples of such distortion of the doctrine in the school context, but not handy.  I will be glad to post some when I have an opportunity.  (I apologize if there is a delay in my sending the citations - Sept. 15 tax return extension chaos and planning a charity walk - but hopefully on prior experience with my sending items to you and following up on posts, you know my word is good and I don't invent such things.)

I lived in Austin for three years, an otherwise fine place where I unfortunately saw many examples of intimidating operations against people with conservative or Christian views in the predominantly left-leaning areas of town - rampant theft and trashing of a conservative/Christian campus newspaper and defacement of its advertisements; burning of a swastika into the lawn of a friend with a religious-oriented political yard sign; defacement of cars with bumper stickers that went against the prevailing point of view; and profane, borderline threatening tirades against opponents of a light rail campaign in a public forum.  (This was the 2000-era predecessor to the much better-designed light rail program Austin has today - the initial version was poorly laid out and inexplicably was going to start with connections between lower-density areas.)

Whatever side of the political aisle one is on, whatever one's faith, there's no excuse for those kinds of tactics.  I do understand why people who lean leftward or are not churchgoers in Jacksonville can feel marginalized or like FBC dominates the city.  Similarly, in certain parts of Austin I knew that a lot of people with a publicly rightward stance were at risk of having their personal property destroyed.

I also see and understand that FBC, or a segment thereof, appears to be attempting to impose its religious points of view on the city.  It doesn't justify calling someone a far-right theocrat for expressing the opinion that religious people should be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  Especially when you are both on the same side on this particular issue (as am I).

(By the way, didn't mean in any way, shape, or form to equate religiosity with one side of the political aisle or the other by way of the Austin examples.)

The point isn't that FBC did anything illegal or unethical. It's that they did something so cynical and distasteful toward such a backwards end - and that a good portion of our City Council showed up to be praised before the congregation in this embarrassing display.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2012, 03:46:45 PM
The point isn't that FBC did anything illegal or unethical. It's that they did something so cynical and distasteful toward such a backwards end - and that a good portion of our City Council showed up to be praised before the congregation in this embarrassing display.

Agreed and I didn't mean to twist the thread in another direction.

Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2012, 03:34:00 PM

Quote from: spuwho on September 14, 2012, 03:28:08 PM
Some people confuse "separation of church and state" to mean "separation of church from state".

This guy agrees with you 100%
(http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/ayatollah-khomeini.jpg)

Fortunately, that is not what the quip means.

The quote doesn't mean the church runs the state, it means the church has a right to comment on the state.

Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on September 14, 2012, 03:38:52 PM
I lived in Austin for three years, an otherwise fine place where I unfortunately saw many examples of intimidating operations against people with conservative or Christian views in the predominantly left-leaning areas of town - rampant theft and trashing of a conservative/Christian campus newspaper and defacement of its advertisements; burning of a swastika into the lawn of a friend with a religious-oriented political yard sign; defacement of cars with bumper stickers that went against the prevailing point of view; and profane, borderline threatening tirades against opponents of a light rail campaign in a public forum.

None of these are an example of the state preventing religious people from participating in the political process.  There are laws against defacing and destroying property, as well as threatening behavior. 

Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on September 14, 2012, 03:38:52 PM
I also see and understand that FBC, or a segment thereof, appears to be attempting to impose its religious points of view on the city.  It doesn't justify calling someone a far-right theocrat for expressing the opinion that religious people should be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue. 

Do not mischaracterise what I said.  Nowhere did I say that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  What I said was that the idea that somehow religious people are barred from participating in the public sphere is a myth propagated by far-right theocrats.  This very bill that you say we all agree on should be proof that nobody is stopping religious people from airing their views.

When someone parrots the blatently untrue wingnut talking point that "some of us think believers shouldn't have any say in secular decisions" then yes, I will call them out on it.

Quote from: spuwho on September 14, 2012, 03:57:31 PM
The quote doesn't mean the church runs the state, it means the church has a right to comment on the state.

No one said otherwise.

Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2012, 04:03:37 PM

Quote from: spuwho on September 14, 2012, 03:57:31 PM
The quote doesn't mean the church runs the state, it means the church has a right to comment on the state.

No one said otherwise.

I apologize, sending me a picture of the Ayatollah saying "he agrees 100%" implies that you meant otherwise.

LOL. That may be the first time anyone ever called me a far right anything.  I've been called a tree-hugging, women's libber, bleeding heart, stinking leftist liberal.  But never a far right theocrat. Maybe if I combine them, I can call myself a centrist.

Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2012, 04:02:18 PM

Do not mischaracterise what I said.  Nowhere did I say that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  What I said was that the idea that somehow religious people are barred from participating in the public sphere is a myth propagated by far-right theocrats.  This very bill that you say we all agree on should be proof that nobody is stopping religious people from airing their views.

When someone parrots the blatently untrue wingnut talking point that "some of us think believers shouldn't have any say in secular decisions" then yes, I will call them out on it.

I think we're just talking past each other here and not arguing on the same point.  I'm not a particular fan of arguing on the topic since we're all in agreement on the bill anyway. 

I didn't think you said that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  But some people do think that they shouldn't.  Those people don't constitute the opinion of the state, but some people do think that way.  I thought that was all Debbie was trying to say, and never thought she was saying that the state is trying to prevent religious people from expressing faith-based beliefs on political issues.  I don't think she deserves to get called a wingnut or a parrot or a far-right theocrat for it, particularly when she has made clear that she strongly disapproves of FBC's actions in this instance and was pro-296. 

My personal examples from Austin were not intended to represent instances of the state intimidating people of faith into silence, but instances of private citizens trying to intimidate people of faith into silence.  This was following up on my comment that "I've seen plenty of circumstances (in cities with far different religious and political demographics than Jacksonville) where religious people's collective right to speak out on a secular topic was ridiculed and marginalized."  I realize I articulated this poorly because I didn't make it clear that I was following up on that, rather than responding to your comment about whether I had examples of circumstances where school administrators overzealously interpreted the separation doctrine to mean that, e.g., nondisruptive private silent prayer is disallowed in schools.  I am aware of some occasions where such things occurred, occasions that struck me as extreme and overzealous interpretations of what separation of church and state is really intended to mean, but as I said, I do not have citations handy, so I started spewing Austin stories that are not instances of state intimidation but examples of private citizen intimidation. 

Sorry I wasn't more coherent. 

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 14, 2012, 04:28:35 PM
LOL. That may be the first time anyone ever called me a far right anything.  I've been called a tree-hugging, women's libber, bleeding heart, stinking leftist liberal.  But never a far right theocrat. Maybe if I combine them, I can call myself a centrist.

That's how insidious propaganda is.  When BS like "Christians are persecuted in the USA" is repeated over and over, even people who may not subscribe to the propagandist's views start to incorporate the BS into their thinking.

(And no, I have nothing against Debbie, I am not inferring that she is easily brainwashed, or that she tortures kittens or any of the other conclusions some of you reading this may jump to.  Just an observation on my part.)

Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on September 14, 2012, 04:41:00 PM
I didn't think you said that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  But some people do think that they shouldn't.  Those people don't constitute the opinion of the state, but some people do think that way.

This is the part I am having an issue with.  Sure some people may think that.  There are also people who may think we should install the Pope as the head of state.  My point is that in spite of what some people may think, our political process does not work that way.  No one in the US is being prevented from engaging the government on behalf of their religious beliefs.  Do they always win?  No, of course not.  But these "right-wing theocratic" types of which I speak would have you believe that since certain religious people don't always get their way, then that must mean they are being prevented from expressing their beliefs.  And it's just not true.

296 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that had the bill passed, there would be a subset of the religious community who would be crying and whining that it was impinging on their religious rights?  Would the new law then be an example of how religious people weren't given any say in a secular decision?  Many of them would no doubt say so, but again, it's just not true.

I'm not sure what we're even discussing anymore. :-) I stand by what I said and the funny thing is Fine Hoe called me out and then agreed with me. Because all I was getting at is that people of faith have a right to express their opinion. It was in response to earlier posts decrying those opinions and asking what happened to separation of church and state. The implication being the church had no right to speak on the issue. So it appears Fine Hoe is calling me out when she agrees with me.

Do I have that right now?

I don't know, had the measure passed it would be said they had no say, but doubtless it would be said they weren't listened to or agreed with. If only that we're true.

Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2012, 04:57:26 PM
But these "right-wing theocratic" types of which I speak would have you believe that since certain religious people don't always get their way, then that must mean they are being prevented from expressing their beliefs.  And it's just not true.

I know the kind of persons of whom you speak and am familiar with the kind of overreaction you're describing.  I don't think that even remotely describes Debbie.  There was absolutely no reason to call her names like theocrat, parrot, and wingnut.

Lol. I give up. Uncle. Thanks for defending me. My feelings were not hurt. I don't fit that well in the convenient pigeon holes people try to shove me into from time to time. If I can't explain myself, I give up and ignore it.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 14, 2012, 05:22:06 PM
Lol. I give up. Uncle. Thanks for defending me. My feelings were not hurt. I don't fit that well in the convenient pigeon holes people try to shove me into from time to time. If I can't explain myself, I give up and ignore it.

I feel ya , Debbie :)

The recent Littlepage Times Union columns about prayer and religion, and the use of the name “Jesus” in city council meetings is interesting.  The promotion of, or act of, prayer in the city council meetings not only assumes that all of the council members are religious, and believe that Christian teachings are significant and worthy of attention at the meetings, but that all of the citizens of Jacksonville are religious, or believe in the Christian system. 

The objectives set before the city council are secular in nature, and therefore to expend time and thought energy engaging any religious practices is not only inappropriate, wasteful, and infringing on the rights of non-religious people, but the practice encourages attitudes and habits not conducive to effective and efficient problem solving. 

Prayer, not only involves a practice viewed as silly and useless by an increasing number of thoughtful and intelligent citizens, but by its very nature, prayer removes from an individual the responsibility to perform effectively when confronted with critical and important problems.  Prayer allows one to shift the burden of life, and the process of critical decision-making, to an illusionary entity most individuals call a god.  This unloading of responsibility promotes and permits lazy thinking, and encourages incompetence in the room, when the need in the room is for intelligence, integrity, and the acceptance of responsibility. 

The promotion of prayer and a religious outlook in a governmental environment is shamefully unproductive, as it also promotes other illusionary thinking, and prepares one for avoiding the important truths in society, and in science and nature.  Prayer, by shutting down one’s inclination to be responsible for one’s troubled predicament, allows one to avoid or postpone a solution to it. 

The mood in the city council should not be religious, prayerful, or pious, but should be attentive to the problems at hand, which are secular in nature, requiring sober thoughts and solutions offered by individuals who accept responsibility, and not thoughts offered by individuals who shirk them, by shifting responsibilities to a god that exists only in their minds.

Prayer tends to absolve one of responsibility, and gives one the opinion that enough has been done to solve a problem.  No! The problem will be solved by intelligent and aggressive attention to it, and not by ridiculous words to a figment in one’s imagination.  The use of prayer increases directly as one is inclined to shirk responsibility, to be incompetent, to be in desperation, or to be desperately religious.   
   
     

  :) :) :)

Quote from: ronchamblin on October 26, 2012, 08:51:03 PM
The recent Littlepage Times Union columns about prayer and religion, and the use of the name “Jesus” in city council meetings is interesting.  The promotion of, or act of, prayer in the city council meetings not only assumes that all of the council members are religious, and believe that Christian teachings are significant and worthy of attention at the meetings, but that all of the citizens of Jacksonville are religious, or believe in the Christian system. 

The objectives set before the city council are secular in nature, and therefore to expend time and thought energy engaging any religious practices is not only inappropriate, wasteful, and infringing on the rights of non-religious people, but the practice encourages attitudes and habits not conducive to effective and efficient problem solving. 

Prayer, not only involves a practice viewed as silly and useless by an increasing number of thoughtful and intelligent citizens, but by its very nature, prayer removes from an individual the responsibility to perform effectively when confronted with critical and important problems.  Prayer allows one to shift the burden of life, and the process of critical decision-making, to an illusionary entity most individuals call a god.  This unloading of responsibility promotes and permits lazy thinking, and encourages incompetence in the room, when the need in the room is for intelligence, integrity, and the acceptance of responsibility. 

The promotion of prayer and a religious outlook in a governmental environment is shamefully unproductive, as it also promotes other illusionary thinking, and prepares one for avoiding the important truths in society, and in science and nature.  Prayer, by shutting down one’s inclination to be responsible for one’s troubled predicament, allows one to avoid or postpone a solution to it. 

The mood in the city council should not be religious, prayerful, or pious, but should be attentive to the problems at hand, which are secular in nature, requiring sober thoughts and solutions offered by individuals who accept responsibility, and not thoughts offered by individuals who shirk them, by shifting responsibilities to a god that exists only in their minds.

Prayer tends to absolve one of responsibility, and gives one the opinion that enough has been done to solve a problem.  No! The problem will be solved by intelligent and aggressive attention to it, and not by ridiculous words to a figment in one’s imagination.  The use of prayer increases directly as one is inclined to shirk responsibility, to be incompetent, to be in desperation, or to be desperately religious.   
   
   

Ron, I agree that using any religion as part of the public decision making process is inappropriate, however, in the Christian tradition, prayer is not intended to shirk responsibility or avoid decisions. While some may use prayer to do so, that tends to exemplify the characteristics of the individual, not necessarily the foundation of their beliefs.

There is nothing wrong in the calling of God to direct ones decisions, after all, Christian belief is a relationship based on faith. However, there is appropriateness and respect for citizens that are served through public service. Therefore one's calling on their faith as part of tough civic decision making is probably best made privately.

Thanks for engaging the idea of faith spuwho, as it is similar to praying, in that both ideas are consequences of belief in a god.

There is a momentum of acceptance in our society, call it tradition, which protects those who perform the most ridiculous act of praying from being considered quite odd.  Millions of people doing stupid things out of habit and tradition seem okay for centuries, until time in contemplation by reasonable individuals increasingly exposes the ridiculous nature of it. 

I’m suggesting that the very act of praying, and even the act of having a religious faith, are both consequences of belief in a god, and although these mental exercises tend to remove the stress to the individual praying, and perhaps partially remove one from the responsibility to proceed with active problem solving, these acts do very little for others, and very little to attack the fundamental causes of any predicament or problem which initiated the prayer and the need for faith in the first place.
   

Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 27, 2012, 08:08:45 AM
Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

Amen well Spoken Debbie Thompson!

Even though I may not believe in organized religion, I can and do recognize one's rights to believe and practice whatever religion or faith they may choose.  However, I also recognize that a person has the right to smoke or not.  Yet, we as a society have decided that smoking in public is no longer acceptable.  As one who is old enough to remember, we used to sit on airplanes and smoke with the attractive young stewardesses.  We used to smoke waiting in line for our car tags.  What changed all that?  It is nothing but a simple majority rules.  Once smokers became the minority, society was then able to ban smoking from public places.  The same will eventually happen with public prayer, if the majority so chooses. Until then, we all need to be respectful of the majorities rights.  The those of you in the majority?  You need to remember that you can always be just one person away from being the minority yourself.  Learn to be as tolerant as you insist the current minority to be. Few of you are.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 27, 2012, 08:08:45 AM
Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

LOL - You use "non-believer" like it was a pejorative. 

I'm a "non-believer", by your definition, which appears to be "non-believer in my bizarro imaginary friend myth".  I do, however believe that a 30-45 second blast from a compressed air canister horn is exactly what is called for to clear the mind before making any sort of decision or participating in a meeting with others.  Even in the presence of the Air Horn Non-Believers, who by your reasoning should just smile while I let loose a 140 decibel blast of clarity and divine guidance. 

And of course, there are those for whom being buck naked provides a much greater connection to the universe around them.  So, surely you'd be okay with me pulling my junk out through my zipper whilst performing my Sacred Air Horn Ritual? 

Right?

You see, to us Non Believers out there, your need to have a highly public token conversation with the imaginary disciplinarian in the sky at key moments is as baffling and worrisome as my Air Horn Blast.  But hey, if that's what we each need in order to proceed, well then sure, we should all just tolerate each other.

Right?

Talk to Big Poppa in your head; trust me, he'll still hear you.  K?  And I'll leave my air horn at home and my fly up, and we can all tolerate each others desire to not have to watch each others weird behavior. 

OK?

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 27, 2012, 08:24:53 AM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 27, 2012, 08:08:45 AM
Spoken like a true non-believer, Ron.  I'm going to get all controversial here, as a matter of discussion.  Because I agree with an earlier poster that the City Council could engage in silent prayer prior to a meeting, if they chose.

We Christians believe seeking guidance from the all-knowing, all-powerful God, who called us and the universe into being, is a smart thing to do before wrestling with an important decision, even a secular one.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all worship the one true God, but in different ways.  I’m not a religion major, but as I recall there are Native American tribes who also worship one Creator God. 

Polls show a very large majority of the US population are believers.  And for the non-believers among us, I suppose it's uncomfortable to hear a believer pray.  For many believers, it's uncomfortable to hear another believer not of their own faith pray.

Maybe instead of insisting no one pray out loud in public, we could all instead learn to be tolerant of each other's prayers.  We are more alike than we are different, and we should keep that in mind and be more tolerant of our differences, while still holding true to our own faith.  For the non-believer, learn to be tolerant of those who believe.  Instead of insisting the majority conform to your comfort level, learn tolerance along with the rest of us.   (Evangelical Christians, I’m addressing you too.)

Amen well Spoken Debbie Thompson!

I don't think it's a tolerance issue, Ron has rightly pegged that the types who'll bring it out in a government meeting are inevitably the same ones who are doing it for no ostensible purpose other than pandering, or to grease the wheels of guilt or piety in an effort to achieve some otherwise irrational secular objective. Prayer in the political process becomes a scam upon the voters, where it's most often used to court sentiment or gain acceptance for otherwise irrational views, by creating some false sense of sameness or collectivity, when really we should be focusing on the problem at hand and how best to resolve it for the public good.

There is a very good reason for the separation between church and state, which really says something considering most of the founding fathers were religious men. They did what they did because, whatever one may say about religion, politics have been the same from time immemorial. No doubt they had to put up with some idiot or another spewing falsely pious bullshit to achieve a political goal, eviscerate some enemy, pass some law, etc., and realized the damage it does to the fairness of the process.

You guys are pigeonholing his comments. He's not objecting to religion, he's just saying the obvious, that like bringing a bull into a china shop, or dropping a bunch of mentos into a 2 liter of coke, there is just no legitimate reason to bring certain things together, nothing good comes of it. Bulls and china shops are necessary and useful independently, and I like mentos and I like coke. Just not together. Like everybody else who's human, if you see me mixing things that don't naturally belong together, it's probably because I'm causing trouble.

If Don Redman is so religious, he should STFU already and go concentrate on, what's it now, his 5th marriage, and become a preacher. His political ideals are, well frankly I can't normally determine that he even has a position on any given issue, other than acting angry and bitching about everything regardless of what the issue may be. Kim Daniels is literally an incomprehensible lunatic, I can't understand but about every third word she says, and her only real attempt at writing any legislation was literally incomprehensible even after OGC cleaned it up. And other than trying to funnel a six figure handout to his kid's soccer team while voting to cut firemen's pensions, I don't know that our third prophet-in-chief is any less of a waste of space.

Look at the microcosm of our city council, the three religious panderers are the three biggest idiots on the council. Regardless of your views on religion, I think most of us agree we'd be better off without them. The only reason they are where they are is they use religion as a smokescreen, without it they'd have no common views with you, me, or most other voters. They're just using a belief system to get and keep a cushy job they wanted. That none of them are really any good at. Welcome to the result of mixing politics with religion.

So to put this in a nutshell, when Pinky and I show up naked with air horns at the next council meeting, we're kosher as long as it intangibly comforts me while sharing my viewpoint?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 27, 2012, 11:56:13 AM
So to put this in a nutshell, when Pinky and I show up naked with air horns at the next council meeting, we're kosher as long as it intangibly comforts me while sharing my viewpoint?

I'm just pulling Big Jim And The Twins out through my zipper; it's just more polite that way.  Besides, we'd likely catch cold sitting there buck naked while the various factions impose their weird rituals on each other.  You've got the folks who worship Garbage Can Lid Cymbal Freestyling, the Hare Krishnas will need to do some dancing, a goat has to be slaughtered in a pentagram..  This tolerance stuff takes time. 

Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 12:26:23 PM
Actually Hare Krishnas do not need to do religious dancing before meetings.  They like most religions have a moment of meditation.

The only people who ritually slaughter goats in particular are Santeria and some versions of luciferianism.  And those are on high holy days and during certain prayer rituals that have nothing to do with public meetings, since being flip about something is almost the same thing as having a substantive discussion about it.

I believe that sarcasm and absurdity are valid forms of "substantive discussion" Stephen, in that they help "the believers" see the absurdity of their own positions.  On the other hand, your propensity to arbitrarily criticize and belittle others contributes nothing substantive and like prayer, is best kept to yourself.

 

Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 02:11:19 PM

Quote from: Pinky on October 27, 2012, 01:17:45 PM

Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 12:26:23 PM
Actually Hare Krishnas do not need to do religious dancing before meetings.  They like most religions have a moment of meditation.

The only people who ritually slaughter goats in particular are Santeria and some versions of luciferianism.  And those are on high holy days and during certain prayer rituals that have nothing to do with public meetings, since being flip about something is almost the same thing as having a substantive discussion about it.

I believe that sarcasm and absurdity are valid forms of "substantive discussion" Stephen, in that they help "the believers" see the absurdity of their own positions.  On the other hand, your propensity to arbitrarily criticize and belittle others contributes nothing substantive and like prayer, is best kept to yourself.

hmm pinky.

apparently you only like sarcasm and absurdity when it isnt applied to you. ;)

Naaah bro, I'm fine with it.  What I don't like is your tendency to post snide crap about other's posts instead of sticking to the topic at hand.  For example, this thread isn't about critiquing my posts, or second guessing what rhetorical devices I choose to make my point. 

Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2012, 05:05:38 PM
so you don't think that arguing with a self professed athiest about their innacurate depictions of religious behaviors isnt a bit sarcastic?

Or how about the absurdity of you calling everyone idiots and fools for believing in some form of a creator, but acting all butt hurt when someone jokes about your argument.

Now that my myopic friend, is hilarious.

I never claimed to be making a scholarly dissertation on various religious practices, but was simply showing the likely results of institutionalizing religious practice.  It was absurdity Stephen, intentionally so.  But thanks for your follow-up yap dog response "correcting" me.  We get it Stephen; you're really smart. 

Continuing along the "Wrong Again" theme, I also never called anyone an idiot or a fool for believing in anything, but instead addressed the appropriateness of accepting it's insinuation into public process by trying to show how absurd some practices can seem to others.  Again, deliberate absurdity Stephen.  Forcing me to listen to someone's hypocritical check-in with their god is as absurd as them having to endure a 45 second air horn blast from me; neither have a place in public life.  Get it? 

Well I think somewhere along the way the distinction got lost. There's a difference between being a religious/spiritual person (something nobody is denigrating) and certain people who use it in political contexts to either get what they want, or as a publicity stunt, or worse they employ it as xenophobia's henchman. A'la Don Redman trying to force Parvez Ahmed to say a christian prayer at a city council meeting.

Every mainstream religion teaches humility, if these people are actually that devout about their belief system, then why are they hijacking a government meeting to force a bunch of people to sit around listening to them pray? Is there some inversely proportional secret ratio, like the more inappropriate the setting times the larger the number of people divided by pi equals the better christian you are? Our city council meetings already sound like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0-u85aAYg

Apologize for ruining my own joke, after 5 years I still don't know how to post a video on here.

Thanks Debbie, ChrisUfGator, IILU, Strider, Pinky, and Stephen for your comments on my problem with a god etc. 

I have no problem with any city council member seemingly dozing off before the beginning of a CC meeting, perhaps hiding the act of praying, as long as the act doesn’t consume too much time, and doesn’t disrupt or delay proceedings of the meeting.  But I disagree with the idea of officially having a time of prayer during the meeting, or even in the room before the meeting begins.  Anyone wishing to pray with display can do so outside of the council chamber, at home, in his or her automobile.  To use the time and space in the council to encourage or force prayer, to display one’s religious affiliation, to impose upon the time of others who do not wish to pray, or who are not believers in a god or in the teachings of a revealed religion, is to impose too much control and inconvenience upon those who are not religious.

I realize that the “Christians” believe in certain things, such as gods, and that they “worship” in this, the 21st century, and that the Native Americans believed also in a god of some kind, just as all earlier peoples and tribes believed in all kinds of “things”.  In my view, if one must spend time, space, and energy engaging one’s religion, care must be taken to avoid infringing upon the time and space of others as one does so. 

I should think that, in order to project sufficient sincerity into one’s religious beliefs, into one’s god, as in the act of prayer, one would wish to do so in private so as to engage one’s god and spirituality with a more sacred mood.  Displaying loudly one’s religious necessities seems occasionally as if it is done by some only for show, or to show others that “their” religion is the “right one”, or to perhaps gain confidence in one’s religious package, or perhaps to simply gain the conviction that one is mentally stable, and not approaching insanity.
     
I do not wish to have my time used by others as they perform some religious act, and this includes our governmental assets, which seem to be too often used by religious zealots who forget that some people do not believe in the nonsense which consumes their lives.  Leave me out of the religious nonsense, as I have no time for it. 

Yes, the polls show.  They show that just as it is possible for one or five persons to be deluded, it is possible for millions to be.  To assume that the majority must be right is to forget the lessons of history, which have shown that the majority have frequently been wrong.  To relax in one’s assumptions, to engage the habit of basking in the comfort of the majority is to be part of a flock, a follower, and because of this, one is vulnerable to error, to being duped, wrong, and screwed again.

The idea of tolerance?  The city council environment is secular, with serious objectives affecting all citizens.  There is work to be done, as should be evident by the work that is frequently not done in our council.  To allow the religious, who wish to impose their praying agenda upon the entire council, and therefore indirectly upon the entire city of Jacksonville, is to be presumptuous, and to attempt giving their religious practices a validity that is not deserved.

It becomes a matter of control.  It becomes a matter of power, sought by the religious in the city and the core who desire to perpetuate their privileged position in it.  Such is the nature of a church, or a group deluded and consumed by a revealed religion, as ensconced in a church.  There are some in this city core who believe that they are free, that they are independent, and that they wish to remain free from the control or restrictions of any church or religious entities.   

The issue is one of freedom.  Because of the necessity of accomplishing secular objectives in the city council, there is no place for waste and diversions in the form of prayer, or of religious associations, as they are non-productive.  More importantly, these religious activities shift energy, time, and assets in the direction of an imaginary god, when the energy should go to solving the actual problems at hand using the powerful and rational thinking abilities as shaped by nature according to the Darwinian process.

As an addendum, the city core and the people within it, are secular entities, and in order to achieve and live, both must be free.  A church or a religion, besides being an illusionary delusionary fiction, is controlling, demanding, and stifling to the natural and productive capacities of men.  We have, in this city, an octopus, strangling the city core via an overwhelming physical presence, via subtle pressures, persuasions, and controls, and thus preventing a movement toward a complete and finished city, and preventing its natural growth toward vibrancy.

No….. I probably will not attend church tomorrow, but will enjoy very much sitting at the café, having an Americano, and reading the NYT, the TU, and the NYP.  I will be free.   

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-27/story/public-state-sponsored-prayer-has-created-fault-lines

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
Well, if you think about it, every minute of a public meeting is an imposition to someone in the audience.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The thing about public meetings, as such, is that the people who are there want to be there for very specific reasons....they're interested in how their government is working, want to throw their two cents in, have a concern, comment, question etc. Every day, even every hour, something is imposed on someone. Bringing it up in this context, the way you do, is the epitome of mootness.

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
We are all forced to stand an pledge allegiance to the flag, we are forced to listen to other people's opinions that we don't like, don't agree with.

We are forced to wait while votes are taken, forced to listen to procedural argumentation, forced to listen to inappropriate stupidity.....

See my above comment. I'm trying really hard to see what you're getting at. It seems like your argument goes like this: "because we deal with XYZ here, we should be forced to deal with it there"....

Furthermore, your examples are all examples of government action....allegiance to a flag, listening to others opinions (1st Amendment), voting, procedure, etc. The difference here is you're making the argument we should be forced to listen to our representatives and our government endorse, even force, a particular set of religious beliefs on a crowd of people that came not to hear religious values and beliefs being endorsed/forced, but to talk government and civics. Not sure how you can make that analogy with a straight face.

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
Ron, as you know, I have no affiliation with 99% of the religious thought represented at these council meetings.  But I think its fair to say that it is important to recognize that most people believe that their public affairs should be governed by their core belief inasmuch as that is possible.

Why? Why is it so important we recognize that most people believe that their public affairs should be governed by their core beliefs? You can't shouldn't legislate morality, as our nation was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state. Keep church out of state. This is a prime example.

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
It does me no harm to sit politely while people pray.  Just as it does me no harm to sit politely while people at the next table talk endlessly about the vagaries of electrical wiring and the thrilling sequence of events which led their cars to malfunction.

It does you no harm. You. What about other people? I think you're being a tad egocentric here....because you see no harm, nobody should. Insensitive at best. Again, we're talking about governmental meetings, not church. People shouldn't be forced to listen to church when they're attending a state meeting.

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
And while I have the same opinion that you have that government in and of itself is 'secular', upon researching it for a few years, I found no rule or doctrine the separates the religious convictions of townspeople from the governance of the town----as long as any laws passed do not violate state or federal consitutions.

This isn't 1850 and our town isn't made up of 12 people. This is a city of around a million people. These "townspeople" you speak of that sit there legislating are our representatives....how can they adequately represent when they hold "their version" above other peoples beliefs? How many people don't come to these meetings because they don't want to be subjected to the zealotry of their representatives?

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
All of this comes from the notion that we have the right to force people to cease and desist practicing their religious beliefs, and that we have the right to exclude them from our society.  Again---because we chose to attack the symbol of the belief, and not leave any room for disagreement.

This has gotta be the non sequitur of the day.

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
Allowing people to maintain their personal identity while engaging them in discourse is simple respect.  And maybe instead of arguing over religion, we can argue over the things that matter?

The moment of silence seems like a very small sacrifice considering the costs otherwise.

Simple respect? Huh? These are grown people....in a governmental meeting....who cares about their person identity!! How ridiculous!

Not to mention, Stephen, saying this issue "doesn't matter" is a slap in the face to the thousands (millions across the country) for whom this issue does matter. Church and state is supposed to mean something. You seem to be taking the argument that there are bigger fish to fry, so lets just ignore this one for awhile and move on.

I think Ron said it best.

Quote from: ronchamblin on October 28, 2012, 02:11:33 AM
But I disagree with the idea of officially having a time of prayer during the meeting, or even in the room before the meeting begins.  Anyone wishing to pray with display can do so outside of the council chamber, at home, in his or her automobile.  To use the time and space in the council to encourage or force prayer, to display one’s religious affiliation, to impose upon the time of others who do not wish to pray, or who are not believers in a god or in the teachings of a revealed religion, is to impose too much control and inconvenience upon those who are not religious.

In my view, if one must spend time, space, and energy engaging one’s religion, care must be taken to avoid infringing upon the time and space of others as one does so. 

And...

Quote from: ronchamblin on October 28, 2012, 02:11:33 AM
I do not wish to have my time used by others as they perform some religious act, and this includes our governmental assets, which seem to be too often used by religious zealots who forget that some people do not believe in the nonsense which consumes their lives.  Leave me out of the religious nonsense, as I have no time for it. 

Long story short....silence, in and of itself, is an act. Just because nobody is yelling and screaming or preaching during it doesn't make it any more or less a religious act. It's imposing. It's a waste of time. It's unnecessary. Hell, it's even awkward. People don't GO to these meetings to partake in silence. The moment of silence is systematic of the whole issue, that being church and state. Where's the line?

Quote from: ben says on October 28, 2012, 12:33:20 PM
I think Ron said it best.

Quote from: ronchamblin on October 28, 2012, 02:11:33 AM
But I disagree with the idea of officially having a time of prayer during the meeting, or even in the room before the meeting begins.  Anyone wishing to pray with display can do so outside of the council chamber, at home, in his or her automobile.  To use the time and space in the council to encourage or force prayer, to display one’s religious affiliation, to impose upon the time of others who do not wish to pray, or who are not believers in a god or in the teachings of a revealed religion, is to impose too much control and inconvenience upon those who are not religious.

In my view, if one must spend time, space, and energy engaging one’s religion, care must be taken to avoid infringing upon the time and space of others as one does so. 

And...

Quote from: ronchamblin on October 28, 2012, 02:11:33 AM
I do not wish to have my time used by others as they perform some religious act, and this includes our governmental assets, which seem to be too often used by religious zealots who forget that some people do not believe in the nonsense which consumes their lives.  Leave me out of the religious nonsense, as I have no time for it. 

Long story short....silence, in and of itself, is an act. Just because nobody is yelling and screaming or preaching during it doesn't make it any more or less a religious act. It's imposing. It's a waste of time. It's unnecessary. Hell, it's even awkward. People don't GO to these meetings to partake in silence. The moment of silence is systematic of the whole issue, that being church and state. Where's the line?

“If a person wants to be atheistic it's his God-given right to be an atheist.”

Debbie Thompson +1,000
Stephen Dare +1
Ben Says, RonChamblin and Pinky, -1

I love how you militant atheists (so many of you guys in Jax) esteem yourselves as intellectuals and denigrate religious people as simpletons.  We can all agree that Jax City Council is a joke and that their [public] prayers are obviously not working, but just because they don't work for our city council members doesn't mean that others' private prayers haven't been answered. :)

For the record many if not most of who we consider the great intellectuals of human history have been RELIGIOUS philosophers.  Also for the record our world's great schools of philosophy are always linked/joined to theology schools (if the theology schools aren't actually part of the philosophy programs).  Take Princeton's programs, Emory's programs, Oxford's, Cambridge's, Harvard's, McGill's, St. Andrews, etc.

Many of the priests I have met or listened to have been the most well-read, most traveled people I have ever met.  No matter how religious or non-religious I may be, I will always readily take advice from and listen to a good priest, rabbi, monk, or nun.

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:28:10 AM

I think that a little civility in public discourse goes a long long way. 

Allowing people to maintain their personal identity while engaging them in discourse is simple respect. 

Ironic.

Quote from: simms3 on October 28, 2012, 03:40:33 PM
Debbie Thompson +1,000
Stephen Dare +1
Ben Says, RonChamblin and Pinky, -1 

I vote:
Debbie Thompson                           -10
Stephen Dare                                   0  (uncommitted - the sign of an emerging politician)
Ben Says, Ronchamblin, and Pinky   +10

Quote from: simms3 on October 28, 2012, 03:40:33 PM


I love how you militant atheists (so many of you guys in Jax) esteem yourselves as intellectuals and denigrate religious people as simpletons.  We can all agree that Jax City Council is a joke and that their [public] prayers are obviously not working, but just because they don't work for our city council members doesn't mean that others' private prayers haven't been answered. :)

Do you really think that any private prayers have worked?  By what mechanism?  Have you any evidence of any prayers having been answered?  And yes, I do consider some religious people as simpletons.  After listening to many of them, observing their attitudes and relative ignorance about the world, I have no other choice.  Do I consider myself to be an intellectual?  No.  I am just me, whatever I am. I have no choice.

Quote from: simms3 on October 28, 2012, 03:40:33 PM

For the record many if not most of who we consider the great intellectuals of human history have been RELIGIOUS philosophers.  Also for the record our world's great schools of philosophy are always linked/joined to theology schools (if the theology schools aren't actually part of the philosophy programs).  Take Princeton's programs, Emory's programs, Oxford's, Cambridge's, Harvard's, McGill's, St. Andrews, etc.

Check the history.  You will find that most of the great intellectuals, philosophers, and scientists in history were not religious.  To avoid being banned from country, toasted, or guillotined at the hands of the church, many of course offered the position that they were religious.  And because all was controlled by the church in post dark age Europe, universities were at first closely related to theological programs.  Now, in most universities, the secular is primary, and theology is secondary.

Quote from: simms3 on October 28, 2012, 03:40:33 PM

Many of the priests I have met or listened to have been the most well-read, most traveled people I have ever met.  No matter how religious or non-religious I may be, I will always readily take advice from and listen to a good priest, rabbi, monk, or nun.

You left out the baptist preachers and evangelical ministers.  Wouldn't you take advice from them too?  I might be wrong, but the city council seems to be associated more with the baptists than with the others.   

Quote from: stephendare on October 28, 2012, 10:08:55 PM
I do not kid myself that my reliance on science isnt just another form of belief.

Ok, so net time you're sick, in the hospital, etc, which are you going to rely on...the unproven and intangible, or science? The different between belief in religion and belief in science is the latter can be proven and has a method of proof. Religion, on the other hand, is "I believe it, therefore it is!" That's not the "intangible in everyone's life" you speak it, that's being a moron.

How about both, ben says?  If I'm in the hospital, I will rely on what science has learned to try and heal me, while praying to God to help the doctors, and bring healing. 

Science has not learned everything yet.  Only 100 or so years ago, we didn't know why some blood transfusions "took" and some didn't. We didn't know from blood types.  We didn't know about maintaining a clean environment during surgery.  We've come far, but modern medicine is still in it's infancy.  "Modern Science" is being proven wrong all the time.  Medicines we thought would help are being found to have horrible side effects and being removed from the market.  New types of surgery are being developed all the time, better than what we used to have.  But there is still far to go.

So if I choose to exercise my belief in Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen," take a leap of faith, and trust in my faith to help the doctors, why should anyone care? 

And on another note, why should you think it's OK to call me a moron for that?  What's it to you?  :-)

Quote from: stephendare on October 29, 2012, 09:00:09 AM
But science fails us even so.  It doesn't always provide answers, but instead provides a framework of answers.

Like you, I believed that Pluto was a planet most of my life.

Does that make you a moron?

Stephen,

Are you saying that because science sometime fails, religion is an equally good framework?

Furthermore, what's wrong with providing a framework for answers? Sure, we don't know everything about evolution, but nobody can say with a straight face that the theory of evolution isn't a damn good framework for answering those kinds of questions. Providing a framework is more than you can say about religion (please....please don't cite the Ten Commandments or something as a framework!)

Also, Pluto? Really?  ;D

I'm more of a believer that God created the basic framework, and that we are an evolving species.  But not that my ancestors were a one-celled blob floating in primordial slime.  The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven.  It's fine to work on a theory and try to prove it, but any scientist will tell you a theory isn't a fact.   Science 101.  You state a theory (Unproven idea...in other words a belief.  Gasp!  There's that word again) and then you go about trying to prove it.  There are a few hints so far, but nothing that can point to proof that a one celled amoeba (and where did that come from?) evolved into the sophisticated society we have today. 
 
So, you believe, and have faith in, this unproven theory of evolution.  And yet you think I'm a moron for believing is something different?  Hmmmm....methinks the pot may be calling the kettle black.

The two are fundamentally different. We may have thought Pluto was one thing, when it turned out to be another. The false comparison is that Pluto was always there, regardless of what we mistakenly thought it was. You can get a telescope out and look at it, it's a tangible thing. To use your word, this is really the difference between beliefs based on the tangible vs. the intangible. The bleeding edge of science may often blur the line, especially before a theory has been proven and is still just a hypothesis. But then again, we're back to that fundamental difference, aren't we? Science recognizes a hypothesis for what it is, a hypothesis can exist simultaneously with proven fact, it doesn't falsely bifurcate.

I get where some of you guys are coming from, I just don't agree with you. That doesn't make me stupid.  I also haven't called you guys morons for believing differently, like bensays called me.  :-) 

But back to the City Council, as I said in my earlier post, I agree they could pray before coming to the meeting, and not pray aloud in public.  I'm not sure how that would be different, other than you not having to hear them.  It seems to me some of you think they shouldn't consider their faith in decisions at all, but if they prayed at home about decisions before coming to the public meeting, wouldn't they be doing the very thing you decry, except just not in public?

Is it possible to separate ourselves from our belief systems completely prior to making a secular decision?  If we do, won't some of you still be upset because we won't always agree on everything, whether or not our faith enters into our decision making? 

So, we are back to mutual tolerance, aren't we?

Quote
Science and religion are united in a shared sense of wonder

As human knowledge expands, some claim science has the answer to the deep questions in life. But what of the mystery of existence?

Jeff Forshaw

The Observer, Saturday 27 October 2012


As a scientist, I like to feel as if I am exploring a cosmic mystery of the greatest significance. I am awestruck by the beauty that saturates the laws of physics and suppose that what I am doing is rather more than merely helping to solve an elaborate crossword puzzle. Or perhaps I am just too optimistic â€" brashly engaging in an ultimately futile attempt to lift my spirits in the face of a meaningless and eternal oblivion.

Fortunately, I don't spend much time on the horns of that dilemma, although that did briefly change recently when I had the privilege to attend a conference on the banks of Lake Geneva organised by Wilton Park, a forum for international dialogue, in partnership with Cern. The event drew together particle physicists, cosmologists, theologians and philosophers in the name of dialogue and mutual understanding. Some might say that Cern should stick to science but I don't agree. A major reason for the popularity of fundamental physics is that it is seen to tackle some pretty "deep" questions â€" the kinds of questions that really "mean" something â€" and the quest for meaning is not something best left to scientists. With the latest ideas in physics seeming to suggest the possibility of "a universe from nothing" (the title of cosmologist Lawrence Krauss's latest book), the stakes do seem rather high. I think it makes sense to ensure that the theologians are up to speed with the science, but I also think that scientists benefit from contemplating the wider implications of their discoveries.

By overstating science's power and not acknowledging its limitations, we risk fostering the growth of a religion-substitute, with the scientists as high priests. Such hubris not only irritates people, but more significantly it risks promoting the misconception that science deals with certainty â€" and that is the very antithesis of good science. Science, which advances through the weight of evidence, is inherently uncertain. Sometimes, the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be unreasonable to doubt it; at other times, it is equivocal and harder to interpret. There is no doubting that science is supreme in its domain. How a microchip works is not a matter of opinion; equally, we have an excellent grasp of how atoms operate, while the evidence that the Big Bang took place 13.7 billion years ago is compelling. If we want to figure out how something works, then science is usually the tool for the job â€" from the action of an electric motor to what happened at the birth of the universe.

But the questions that science can tackle are nonetheless limited in scope. For most people, the deep questions of science do not shape their lives. For example, science does not touch on whether the universe has any point to it and it cannot even hope to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

In recent years, physicists have begun to anticipate that the matter that composes the entire visible universe might have been created spontaneously â€" a mere consequence of the instability of empty space. Superficially, then, it might seem that we have the answer: there is something rather than nothing because "nothing" is unstable (rather in the way that a pencil balancing precariously on its point is unstable). That is pretty exciting stuff, but it isn't really an answer to the question and, in any case, "nothing" in quantum physics is far from that â€" it is a seething maelstrom of activity, to the extent that one might view the substantial universe we inhabit as the froth on top. Awestruck as I am by the laws of physics, no amount of wishful thinking can allow me to make the mistake of supposing that a law by itself can ever create anything. In addition to being unable to conjure up material existence, the laws of physics cannot create meaning either.

In some people's minds, science and religion stand in stark opposition, but is this really the case? Certainly, years of being a scientist have led me to doubt pretty much everything I thought I knew. Secure and certain knowledge is a rare thing and I am not surprised that scientists often find religious faith hard to swallow. That said, scientists do often act with what seems to me to be something like faith: a faith in scientific truths perhaps or in the humbling significance of nature's beauty. Perhaps "faith" is too strong â€" enthusiastic optimism might be better. Whatever the case, the importance of science lies not only in fighting ignorance and the building of better theories â€" it is important too because of the way it inspires glory and wonder. In that regard, at least, science and religion are united.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 29, 2012, 09:50:32 AM
The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven.  It's fine to work on a theory and try to prove it, but any scientist will tell you a theory isn't a fact.   Science 101.  You state a theory (Unproven idea...in other words a belief.  Gasp!  There's that word again) and then you go about trying to prove it.

Hi Debbie,
You are confusing a "fact", a "theory", and a "hypothesis". In every day language, we may use these terms interchangably, but in science they mean specific things. "Facts" are observed events. A "hypothesis" is an untested explanation of the facts. A "theory" is a tested and proven model that explains the facts. We say that a theory is "proven" when it can be used to explain and predict things. For example, it is a "fact" that snakes have hip bones and whales have tiny rear leg bones. There are currently no other "hypotheses" in biology competing with the "theory" of evolution to explain how these seemingly useless structures got inside these animals. The discoveries of fossilized ancestral snakes and whales with legs, "proves" the theory of evolution.

We are the beneficiaries of thousands of biological and medical researchers that accept the theory or evolution and use it in their work. For example, because bacteria constantly "evolve", we need scientists to keep discovering or inventing new antibiotics to keep us healthy. Other theories we take advantage of every day are germ theory (vaccinations), the theory of electromagnetics (power plants), the theory of gravity (communications satellites), and atomic theory (the lasers in DVD players). No one attacks these theories as "just a theory".

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 29, 2012, 09:50:32 AM
The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven. 

Oh man.....  :o :o :o :o

Do you have an appendix? If not, why not?

Ever seen a dog? Then looked at a wolf?

:o :o :o :o

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2224904/Evolution-sight-traced-700m-years-jelly-fish-developed-ability-detect-light.html
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2224904/Evolution-sight-traced-700m-years-jelly-fish-developed-ability-detect-light.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/cooked-food-diet-primates-brains_n_2033975.html
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/cooked-food-diet-primates-brains_n_2033975.html)
http://royalsociety.org/news/2012/finch-mate-choice-lateralization/ (http://royalsociety.org/news/2012/finch-mate-choice-lateralization/)

Oh my goodness people...you can believe in "science" and have faith.  Science does not prove everything, nor will it, so that is where faith comes in.  I believe in the evolution, relativity, and every other theory that has gained common acceptance and come only a half of a "procedural" step short of nominal proof over the centuries.  I also believe that there is a creator of the universe that set everything into motion.  I believe based on my interpretation of the Bible that if we know what to look for and we have faith, we'll meet our creator upon death.  Does that make me a simpleton?  There is still farrr more that we don't know than what we know/think we know now.  The biggest questions of the universe still remain unanswered and may always be left unanswered.

Sidenote: the argument a few posts up that asks why Christians get treated in hospitals where science/medicine is practiced is idiotic at best.  Only Christian Scientists don't believe in any form of treatment and some consider that sect of Christianity to be a cult (and there have been negligence lawsuits against members who by not allowing proper medical treatment of members have effectively killed their own).

As far as I'm concerned, as long as Jesus isn't currently on earth standing next to me putting his hand on my shoulder and miraculously curing whatever ailments I might have, then I'm going to see my doctors and I'm going to the hospital when warranted.  I would be willing to bet 99.9% of Christians feel the same way, and probably 90+% of religious people all over the globe with access to medical services.

Anyway, none of this has any relevance to the OP.  I just internally laugh at all the atheists and supposed intellectuals and hardcore liberals on this site...you guys should get a hold of the NYT and every other major publication in America and tell them to write a piece about how progressive, liberal, intelligent and non-religious Jax is and to quit running articles that make the place look like country bumpkinville USA because that's just not how Jax really is!  LoL  MetroJacksonville.com is sooo un-representative of the overall political and religious make-up of the city/metro, but at least we are all on the same page as far as most things are concerned and that's a good thing!

Nobody has come up with any legitimate reasons not to be religious.  So far we have all agreed that Don Redman is a hypocrite and bigot.  One argument has been made about the separation of church and state (and it's an incredibly faulty argument at best since there really is no technical separation of church and state and we aren't even discussing the federal government).  Then outside of any arguments, religious people in general have been questioned, sometimes insulted.

Bottom line is that I believe that folks like Don Redman in the City Council are so repulsive, slimy, publicly humiliating, etc that they are influencing people in Jax to renounce religion in the hopes to change the tide in Jax or convince the world that Jax isn't some nutcase filled city.  I bet some of you would have no problem being Catholic or Jewish in SF, where I am now, because there are plenty of left wing, scientific types who are practicing religion out here no problem and this city never takes flak for being a right wing over-religious lunatic town (actually the exact opposite, haha).

Some have expressed disappointment about the continuing prayer in the city council meetings.  I suspect that there are several aspects of this disappointment.  A minor one is the time taken by the prayer.  Another is that some in the council, and the attending public, who are not religious might view prayer as a somewhat ridiculous act, and one that imposes unfairly on their time. 

It’s similar to several people in a room studying, and someone plays somewhat offensive music, imposing it on the others.  I wonder how many times a religious person wishes to pray each day.  One, two, three?  They have all day and night to pray.  Why is it necessary to pray in the council meetings? 

But perhaps the most important aspect is the fact that the prayer act promotes a mood wherein one might wait for solutions via the imagined recipient of the prayer.  Prayer might allow a mood of shifting responsibility to a god in the sky.  The council mood should be one of sober professionalism, as there is much work to do, and the problems are often difficult and complex.  There is no gain in shifting the burden to someone or something else.

I wonder how much the prayer event reminds all within the council that the downtown core church continues to infect the council with its members for the purpose of control, and watching to insure that any issues of interest to them receive the attention deserved.  I recall several events, one being the recent failed attempt for legislation preventing discrimination to gays, which was obviously influenced, perhaps unfairly, by the big church in the core.   

The problems confronting the city council are often serious, are sometimes difficult and complex.  Therefore, all council members working on solutions must be sober, without minds clouded by religious ideas.  Problems are solved with hard work, with decisions based on sober professional thinking, and not on thinking shaped by religious ideas, with hopeful assistance from a god of one’s choice. 

The idea of prayer is very close to simple superstition, to the belief in witchcraft, to astrology, to voodoo, and those engaging it, especially in a work environment, should be ashamed.  There is work to do.  The act of praying in the city council injects a mood suggesting that somebody else is involved, and because he is powerful and all knowing, he can assist.  This kind of thinking allows thoughts and moods suggesting that they must not worry too much, that they don’t have to exert the best effort, that they don’t have to think with discipline on how to solve this problem because the big guy in the sky is with them.   

Perhaps these individuals should stop unloading responsibilities to some imagined god in the sky, and be responsible for their decisions, and their work, so that the council’s objectives can be accomplished effectively and efficiently.

Besides, it’s over.  How much ignorance in the population is acceptable?  The Dark Ages have been gone for hundreds of years.  The fellow Jesus is not coming back.  You’ve been fed a fairy tale.  It’s time to accept the responsibility of living according to common sense and hard work, with sober thinking, without a god in the picture.   I wonder how much more the city could have accomplished if recent years had enjoyed a city council with nobody within it who would insist on praying at the city council meetings? 

Quote from: stephendare on October 29, 2012, 04:29:28 PM
Incidentally I do not have an appendix.  Neither did my dad.

Apparently I share a gene with him and was born without one.

Appendix's aren't a genetic trait. Whether your dad had one or didn't have one is insignificant. If you're born without one, thank evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Possible_functions
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Possible_functions)

Quote
The human appendix is a vestigial structure. A vestigial structure is a structure that has lost all or most of its original function through the process of evolution. The vermiform appendix is the shrunken remainder of the cecum that was found in a remote ancestor of humans. Ceca, which are found in the digestive tracts of many extant herbivores, house mutualistic bacteria which help animals digest the cellulose molecules that are found in plants. As the human appendix no longer houses a significant number of these bacteria, and humans are no longer capable of digesting more than a minimal amount of cellulose per day, the human appendix is considered a vestigial structure. This interpretation would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost. See the sections below for possible functions of the appendix that may have evolved more recently after the appendix lost its original function.

Quote from: ronchamblin on October 29, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Some have expressed disappointment about the continuing prayer in the city council meetings.  I suspect that there are several aspects of this disappointment.  A minor one is the time taken by the prayer.  Another is that some in the council, and the attending public, who are not religious might view prayer as a somewhat ridiculous act, and one that imposes unfairly on their time. 

It’s similar to several people in a room studying, and someone plays somewhat offensive music, imposing it on the others.  I wonder how many times a religious person wishes to pray each day.  One, two, three?  They have all day and night to pray.  Why is it necessary to pray in the council meetings? 

But perhaps the most important aspect is the fact that the prayer act promotes a mood wherein one might wait for solutions via the imagined recipient of the prayer.  Prayer might allow a mood of shifting responsibility to a god in the sky.  The council mood should be one of sober professionalism, as there is much work to do, and the problems are often difficult and complex.  There is no gain in shifting the burden to someone or something else.

I wonder how much the prayer event reminds all within the council that the downtown core church continues to infect the council with its members for the purpose of control, and watching to insure that any issues of interest to them receive the attention deserved.  I recall several events, one being the recent failed attempt for legislation preventing discrimination to gays, which was obviously influenced, perhaps unfairly, by the big church in the core.   

The problems confronting the city council are often serious, are sometimes difficult and complex.  Therefore, all council members working on solutions must be sober, without minds clouded by religious ideas.  Problems are solved with hard work, with decisions based on sober professional thinking, and not on thinking shaped by religious ideas, with hopeful assistance from a god of one’s choice. 

The idea of prayer is very close to simple superstition, to the belief in witchcraft, to astrology, to voodoo, and those engaging it, especially in a work environment, should be ashamed.  There is work to do.  The act of praying in the city council injects a mood suggesting that somebody else is involved, and because he is powerful and all knowing, he can assist.  This kind of thinking allows thoughts and moods suggesting that they must not worry too much, that they don’t have to exert the best effort, that they don’t have to think with discipline on how to solve this problem because the big guy in the sky is with them.   

Perhaps these individuals should stop unloading responsibilities to some imagined god in the sky, and be responsible for their decisions, and their work, so that the council’s objectives can be accomplished effectively and efficiently.

Besides, it’s over.  How much ignorance in the population is acceptable?  The Dark Ages have been gone for hundreds of years.  The fellow Jesus is not coming back.  You’ve been fed a fairy tale.  It’s time to accept the responsibility of living according to common sense and hard work, with sober thinking, without a god in the picture.   I wonder how much more the city could have accomplished if recent years had enjoyed a city council with nobody within it who would insist on praying at the city council meetings? 

We already covered that territory, Ron. As long as Pinky and I are intangibly comforted by our religious belief in showing up naked and blowing air horns at council meetings, then Stephen is perfectly fine with it. He argues for absolute tolerance. Of course, under that view, left unanswered was how we're going to have time for the actual council meeting by the time we're done with all the various prayers, the goat gets slaughtered in the pentagram, we read some old testament and sacrifice a chicken, maybe break out an e-meter or two, apparently you better find a comfortable seat cause this religious tolerance stuff is going to take some time.

Quote from: stephendare on October 29, 2012, 04:21:07 PM

Quote from: ben says on October 29, 2012, 04:08:49 PM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 29, 2012, 09:50:32 AM
The theory of evolution is just that so far...a theory.  It's unproven. 

Oh man.....  :o :o :o :o

Do you have an appendix? If not, why not?

Ever seen a dog? Then looked at a wolf?

:o :o :o :o

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2224904/Evolution-sight-traced-700m-years-jelly-fish-developed-ability-detect-light.html
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2224904/Evolution-sight-traced-700m-years-jelly-fish-developed-ability-detect-light.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/cooked-food-diet-primates-brains_n_2033975.html
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/cooked-food-diet-primates-brains_n_2033975.html)
http://royalsociety.org/news/2012/finch-mate-choice-lateralization/ (http://royalsociety.org/news/2012/finch-mate-choice-lateralization/)

hmm.

Well  lets reverse the flow on that.

Can you still electroshock the gay out of people?  You know....scientifically?

(http://santitafarella.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/electric-shock-for-homosexuals-from-horizon-spring-1972.jpg?w=640)

Do Frontal Lobotomies really help out with 'mental disturbances'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/António_Egas_Moniz

Are people poor because they are genetically unable to compete with their better bred white competitors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Can people still detect personality traits based on bumps on their heads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Should we 'breed out' the 'inferior'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

What you've posted is probably the perfect example of religion perverting what should be a secular endeavor, so it's somewhat ironic. But I won't argue your point, which is valid. Obviously, science at times has confused fact with hypothesis. But the point about religion and science being fundamentally different is unaltered and true, science allows for the coexistence of fact, theory, and hypothesis, religion simply conflates fact with hypothesis while enforcing a social structure wherein its members lack the moral authority to question it. While, again, I'm not denigrating believers of any particular faith, I strongly question what good that does when brought into a purely secular government function.

Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2012, 08:54:36 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 30, 2012, 08:45:28 AM

Quote from: ronchamblin on October 29, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Some have expressed disappointment about the continuing prayer in the city council meetings.  I suspect that there are several aspects of this disappointment.  A minor one is the time taken by the prayer.  Another is that some in the council, and the attending public, who are not religious might view prayer as a somewhat ridiculous act, and one that imposes unfairly on their time. 

It’s similar to several people in a room studying, and someone plays somewhat offensive music, imposing it on the others.  I wonder how many times a religious person wishes to pray each day.  One, two, three?  They have all day and night to pray.  Why is it necessary to pray in the council meetings? 

But perhaps the most important aspect is the fact that the prayer act promotes a mood wherein one might wait for solutions via the imagined recipient of the prayer.  Prayer might allow a mood of shifting responsibility to a god in the sky.  The council mood should be one of sober professionalism, as there is much work to do, and the problems are often difficult and complex.  There is no gain in shifting the burden to someone or something else.

I wonder how much the prayer event reminds all within the council that the downtown core church continues to infect the council with its members for the purpose of control, and watching to insure that any issues of interest to them receive the attention deserved.  I recall several events, one being the recent failed attempt for legislation preventing discrimination to gays, which was obviously influenced, perhaps unfairly, by the big church in the core.   

The problems confronting the city council are often serious, are sometimes difficult and complex.  Therefore, all council members working on solutions must be sober, without minds clouded by religious ideas.  Problems are solved with hard work, with decisions based on sober professional thinking, and not on thinking shaped by religious ideas, with hopeful assistance from a god of one’s choice. 

The idea of prayer is very close to simple superstition, to the belief in witchcraft, to astrology, to voodoo, and those engaging it, especially in a work environment, should be ashamed.  There is work to do.  The act of praying in the city council injects a mood suggesting that somebody else is involved, and because he is powerful and all knowing, he can assist.  This kind of thinking allows thoughts and moods suggesting that they must not worry too much, that they don’t have to exert the best effort, that they don’t have to think with discipline on how to solve this problem because the big guy in the sky is with them.   

Perhaps these individuals should stop unloading responsibilities to some imagined god in the sky, and be responsible for their decisions, and their work, so that the council’s objectives can be accomplished effectively and efficiently.

Besides, it’s over.  How much ignorance in the population is acceptable?  The Dark Ages have been gone for hundreds of years.  The fellow Jesus is not coming back.  You’ve been fed a fairy tale.  It’s time to accept the responsibility of living according to common sense and hard work, with sober thinking, without a god in the picture.   I wonder how much more the city could have accomplished if recent years had enjoyed a city council with nobody within it who would insist on praying at the city council meetings? 

We already covered that territory, Ron. As long as Pinky and I are intangibly comforted by our religious belief in showing up naked and blowing air horns at council meetings, then Stephen is perfectly fine with it. He argues for absolute tolerance. Of course, under that view, left unanswered was how we're going to have time for the actual council meeting by the time we're done with all the various prayers, the goat gets slaughtered in the pentagram, we read some old testament and sacrifice a chicken, maybe break out an e-meter or two, apparently you better find a comfortable seat cause this religious tolerance stuff is going to take some time.

As long as it all gets done in a moment of silence you should be clear.

Silence and moment being the two key words.

What if my faith (like Don Redman's, apparently) subscribes to that weird inverse ratio I pointed out earlier, where my prayers must only count when done at the most inappropriate time in front of the greatest number of people, with bonus Jesus points if it happens when I'm trying to sway voters? Isn't the only fair solution to just say "this is secular, take your prayers to church"?

No, the debate got going because of comments by our secular government officials, of which a small number (3) of council members insist on forcing the audience to sit there and listen to them pray. Not silently, not privately. They also routinely inject their faith into council meetings, as happened repeatedly with Parvez Ahmed and the recent attempt at a human rights ordinance. There are those of us who feel the meetings are secular, and have long since passed the point of being offended by this behavior.

Nobody is pigeonholing anything, the behavior that initiated the discussion was indeed backwards and mean spirited. Science is a red herring. Government is a secular enterprise, the consequences of mixing the two are obvious, and I am unsure as to why the obvious solution, in terms of both getting work done effectively, and in terms of fundamental fairness to all, isn't simply saying that government functions are secular, leave your religion out of it. Whatever religion that may be.

Quote from: stephendare on October 29, 2012, 04:21:07 PM

Well  lets reverse the flow on that.

Can you still electroshock the gay out of people?  You know....scientifically?

Of course it can't be done, but the entertainment value would be priceless, especially if the victim were an atheist.  :D

Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2012, 12:17:26 AM
Meh.  This just seems uninformed about the nature of prayer within the context of most religious faiths, Ron.

Also it seems deliberately offensive to Christians, which seems beneath you.

Sorry about the delay in getting back.  Praying to some entity seems rather foolish.  It is a superstitious act.  If my honesty results in flattery, all is good.  If honesty is offensive,  all is good.  Honesty is paramount.

Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2012, 12:17:26 AM

Besides what does it matter to you how many times a person 'prays' per day?  Especially if the one time you are exposed to it, its done in silence? 

If one feels pressured to pray every half-hour, then their wish to pray in city council is more qualified and perhaps more acceptable.  My argument was to assume that one might wish to pray only perhaps three or four or five times per day, in which case the praying person might not feel obliged to pray at city council, as there are many other hours in the day and night for prayer.  Why choose the two or there hours in city council to pray? 

Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2012, 12:17:26 AM

Would you similarly fret about the number of times people remind themselves of truisms like "Be Responsible for living according to common sense and hard work"?
How many times a day should they think this too themselves?  How many times are they allowed to say it out loud? 
And isn't it ridiculous to try and quantify that for someone else? 

Whether the praying is in silence or not, it imposes on the comfort, convenience, and time of others, and infringes on their right to enjoy a nonreligious and sober environment, free of superstitious acts.  Because of the importance of achieving objectives at the council meetings, and recognizing that their is much work to do, a responsible mood should exist.  The council meetings should be neutral, allowing no nonreligious ceremonies, and no religious ceremonies.  The council meetings are secular in purpose.  Therefore all time, words, and energy should be applied to the secular agenda.  Religious ceremonies, if one needs them, should occur outside of governmental meetings, as they promote a less than objective mood, which only impairs effective and efficient solutions to problems. 

Of course the thoughts about living and working according to good common sense and hard work is within the minds of those engaged in projects or meetings, requiring no need for speech about these thoughts.  Prayer, especially because it should be a private and personal thing, should also be silent and performed without infringing on the time and agendas of others.  When there is work to do, all things other than work should cease.  There is a time for prayer, but it isn't at governmental meetings.

As I mentioned, those wishing to have prayer at the city council meetings, do so not out of great need, but to exert a measure of control, to show those present that they, their kind, have infected the area with some aspects of their religion.  All the while, they are making a fool of themselves in front of rational and sober individuals who have no time for the superstitions of the religious.  If we are to proceed with aggressive objectives in the downtown core area of this city, there should no longer be room for the circus of church control and good old boy politics.