Lack of standard equals chaos

You recently printed another interesting and energetic letter by a retired chemical engineer, Phil Beaver. You have printed several of Beaver’s letters over the years, all passionately protesting religion. I am reminded of Shakespeare’s line in Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

The best I perceive the point made is that he wishes to substitute “justice” for “God” in a new humanistic religion, all the while denying that is what he is doing. As a chemical engineer, he surely applied objective truths and standards in his work or he ended up with a chemical mess — or was dangerous in the practice of his craft.

Yet he offers up no objective standard for the application and practice of “justice,” therefore his proposal is valueless as it stands. E.g. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao were all seeking to impose their subjective standards of “justice” upon all, yet much of humanity stands aghast at the horrors they imposed. Without a single objective standard of “justice” as our goal, we would each be like Don Quixote, charging separate imaginary windmills in different directions. The result is obvious chaos.

Implicit in his letters is the denial of the objective truth of an existing God. I believe there is a preponderance of rational proof of the existence of God and what He is like and what He desires of mankind. I believe that He loves us. Always has. Always will. Yet He is also a God of justice. I believe that someday soon I will see him (I am in my 77th year.). It seems Beaver is of a different persuasion. The first law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, states that both Beaver and I cannot both be right.

If I am wrong, at my death I shall never know it. If Beaver is wrong, he will know so for all eternity. If I am right, I shall enjoy God eternally. If Beaver is right, he will never have the satisfaction of knowing it. Which is the better life bet?

Bert K. Robinson

lawyer

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 12/12/2012

MBW, I have had similar experiences. For example, a teacher finished a Psalm of praise with the statement, "Surely this was written by a Christian." Being the beneficiary of Agathon's witness in Plato's "Symposium," which describes a Jesus of my image, I asked, "What is your definition of "Christian?" thinking my question would lead to the possibility that "Before Abraham I AM," is a literal statement that Jesus revealed himself to some men, like Agathon, in ages past. Alas, the answer was, "Anyone who seeks God is a Christian." Now, that could be a subtle statement that Jesus IS God, but did not seem likely in Protestant class. I conclude that what comes from the body of religious teachers is religious chaos. Not long afterwards, I dropped out.>>>>Another way to account for Agathon's witness seeming like some Bible passages about Jesus is priestly copy work, now known as plagiarism.>>>>Most people are not aware or treat these issues casually.

2) Comment by Triple - 11/12/2012

@ Chem, Humbled by the passion of Christ, based on my studies, their is only wrong and forgiven. To have faith, one must turn a blind eye to reason. The path is steep and rocky fraught with persecution, especially in discussion threads!

3) Comment by chem - 11/12/2012

The writer, as most religious types do, bring up the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, etc. Hitler was a theist. He was never an atheist. He was baptized Roman Catholic. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that faith is the foundation of moral attitudes. Article 24 of the Nazi party platform calls for "positive Christianity". Hitler used religion for the extermination of the Jews, stating that he was acting for the "Almighty Creator". By killing the Jews, he was "fighting for the Lord's work". That was from a 1938 speech. •••• As for Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, their atrocities had nothing to do with atheism, but rather a warped dogmatic belief in communism. They had disdain for the intellectual and any other that did not believe in communism. They looked at the world much as religious fundamentalists see the world -- in black and white. In the holy books, there is no gray area. There is only right or wrong, with wrong being dealt with by death. The same was true of communists. There was no gray area toward their fundamentalist belief in communism, and the penalty for not believing was death. This had nothing to do with atheism.

4) Comment by nimby? - 11/12/2012

DMJ , too many "christians" hear only what they want to hear . it is funny you mention trickster . the cheyenne call him Veeho . he likes to play jokes , he moves my coffee cup in the morning . you probably know him , he is usually responsible for paper jams in printers ...

5) Comment by DMJ - 11/12/2012

if god was real, why does he tell everyone different things about himself? Is he some kind of trickster? Maybe the ancient Greeks were right; they thought gods were petty, jealous and when they got bored, they messed with us. Seems about as good a theory as any. It certainly would explain Louisiana weather...

6) Comment by MBW - 11/12/2012

@ABayouBoy---- Sorry I don't agree that it's a simple as you say. I went to church all the way through college., but as an adult, plenty of other "Christians" made clear that I wasn't going to the "right" Christian church and that I didn't believe the "right" things about God. How can you argue for "objective" standards when even Christians themselves can't get on the same page about what those standards should be?

7) Comment by ABayouBoy - 11/12/2012

@MBW, God is Good, its that simple. That is his message to us all, regardless of our faith. Be good to your fellow man and have a clear conscience. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

8) Comment by MBW - 10/12/2012

God cannot be an objective truth, because nobody agrees on who or what God is....or what God intends....or if there even is one. Somebody has to be wrong.

9) Comment by MBW - 10/12/2012

Seriously, Advocate. Please get a new commenting system with a "reply" feature.

10) Comment by MBW - 10/12/2012

Hypocritical. Mr. Robinson bemoans the lack of "objective standards".....but then when many religious people are presented with objective standards (such as scientific data), they like to pretend that multiple viewpoints are suddenly valid.

11) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

Trying to understand why Robinson would think so far outside my Dec 1 letter and why since 1995 he has never objected to my work, I think I understand.>>>>Back in the days when I wrote "creator" with lower case "c," and stated that my faith is in the truth much of which is unknown (still my favorite statement of my faith), he did not feel threatened. However, my recent innovation, "God's influence," I speculate scares him for reasons only he knows.>>>>The opportunities for such phrases, which separate the issue from God to people's use of God are limited only to the writer's imagination.>>>>I am not the first to do this. For example, in a positive dialogue Plato asked in essence, Does the God define the good or the good define the God? I think Abraham Lincoln referred to man's use of God many times, but was subtle, merely using "God" to express "man's use of God.">>>>Who else used such innovation?>>>>Reaction to "god's influence" in my Dec 1 letter is motivating.

12) Comment by Triple - 10/12/2012

@Chem, thanks for responding, sorry to bother, Triple

13) Comment by chem - 10/12/2012

@Triple: Sorry, do not know a Mrs. Begely. I moved to baton rouge area 14 years ago at age 45. Prior to that I was born and raised in New Orleans, where I lived until moving up here.

14) Comment by Triple - 10/12/2012

@Chem, thinking you and I have something in common, from our past, so this question will make you smile or if I'm wrong, will make absolutely no sense. Here goes, was Ms. Begely responsible for your career in science?

15) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

The only aspect I considered lately is his thanksgiving statement, which I studied among a sampling. It started out much like George W. Bush's, but then deviated a little. Nothing objectionable leaped out at me.>>>>My overall impression is that he is quite flexible. Will try to accommodate any group, yet often is criticized by the far right. But I have not studied the question.>>>>He seems to be a theist, but again, how could anyone tell?>>>>I googled about his attitude toward atheists and found this 2009 report: "President Obama “regularly puts nonbelievers on the same footing as religious Americans,” the Wall Street Journal notes today, recalling especially his inaugural-address shout-out: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” The article, like others before it, cites a 2006 University of Minnesota study of American attitudes toward atheists as outcasts to show how far out Obama’s doubter-outreach is. "

16) Comment by chem - 10/12/2012

Hopefully he's against both.

17) Comment by nimby? - 10/12/2012

and what is our presidents stance on religion and prayer ?

18) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

Good grief! Could it be that InPVille's message is that there is no good will among the mature, religious people? His latest post: "Take away religion and people will find other ways for their illogical minds to cause mischief.">>>>Could his message about the preamble be that it has been not just neglected but in fact suppressed? Is God's influence merely a vehicle for the evil minds of powerful people?>>>>If so, it still does not mean that it cannot be defeated by the people. After all, the people defeated slavery!>>>>This entire thread started with me pointing out that Presidents Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson urged Americans at thanksgiving time, citing God's influence. I objected, saying that God's influence is divisive.>>>>This thread supports my case, and no one in the thread represents more formidable opposition than the most powerful man in the world: the President of the United States.>>>>I am trebly inspired.

19) Comment by Scrooge - 10/12/2012

I'd sure like to attend that meeting, incognito, of course.

20) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

Triple, I hear your frustration. Regardless, this is the season of good will. I look forward to meeting you and the others somewhere sometime. In all my years of writing, I have never experienced such an outpouring of heartfelt opinion, starting with my letter, then Brij Mohan's in favor, then Robinson's opposed, and I am grateful.>>>>As time passes, I will continue to work toward an annual celebration of the preamble to the US Constitution: A time when every American may be inspired to consider its seven goals and what he/she is doing to fulfill or if necessary revise them. It is essential to freedom of theism as well as the other religions.>>>>Anyone who would like to work toward celebration of the preamble could contact me through the Baton Rouge telephone directory.>>>>I would welcome further thoughts in this thread by anyone and would respond.

21) Comment by chem - 10/12/2012

@Triple: Thanks for making my day. It's been a dreary day in the area today and your closing sentence brightened my spirits. It's quite funny: "Have a wonderful non-specific winter Holiday!" How utterly appropriate!

22) Comment by Triple - 10/12/2012

Mr. Beaver, As you know, the style of our prose often betrays our identity. I am almost certain Mr Robinson is receiving your critique, but no proof, so Chem may not accept my assumption. Thanks to you, Chem, InPVille and all the others for a fabulous discussion, thought provoking. BTW, I would gladly break bread with all of you and bless the meal quietly. Have a wonderful non-specific winter Holliday!

23) Comment by nimby? - 10/12/2012

with so many lost souls wandering the earth where will they turn , who will think for them ? an idea , movement , man(or men) , the government ? there will always be a need for some sort of deity , something to worship be it "god" , another person , wealth/possessions or them self .

24) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

InPVille and others, to expand your imagination of better influences than God's influence, study Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Divinity School Address." You will find this paragraph: "Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it, and had his being there. Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, "l am divine. Through me, God acts, through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think." But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages!" Emerson blames Christianity for distorting Jesus' message: be perfect. Emerson goes on to say folks will kill me if I say Jesus was a man, his way of making that statement yet avoiding being stoned. Nevertheless, he was banned from Harvard for thirty years. That essay is part of American theocracy's underground literature, you might say covered over with icing. We the People need to expose the icing and get to work on recovery from the God's influence.

25) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

InPVille, thank you for reiterating your earlier thought: "Take away religion and people will find other ways . . . ">>>>I don't understand why some people harp on "take away religion." After perhaps seven trillion man-years of human experience with religion as most peoples' means of explaining what they don't know and what they hope for, how in the world could anyone imagine a religion "take away?">>>>Such people need to have had a conversation with my wife's late Aunt Margaret, who told me, "Phil, I want religion." Yet, she was one of the most open-minded citizens I have ever met. I read H.A. Overstreet's The Mature Mind (1949) from her shelf.>>>>People who imagine I want responsibility for other peoples' destinies, other might write "souls" are delusional and writing to satisfy their own fantasies.>>>>Perhaps this issue explains Robinson's strange leap to Hitler et. al. in response to my appeal for focus on the preamble to the US Constitution and away from presidential encouragement to rely on God's influence. Is it possible Robinson and others think somehow the influence of God can relieve we, the other people of the world, of the squabble between the theists of the world?>>>>I'm beginning to feel like Chem: let's make some sense, people.

26) Comment by NearBarbarian - 10/12/2012

Atheism is not a religion or political power; it cannot "take away" religion. I know the hackneyed rebuttal: "But Stalin and Mao were atheists and forced people to do away with god!!!" There is no direct correlation between atheism and sociopathy. Just as the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch hunters, and Pope Pious XII do not establish a direct correlation between Christianity and sociopathy. And "imposed atheism" is not atheism because it's trying to replace a metaphysical god with a political one. Contrary to most religious people, those who become atheists do so on because of their own agency, critical thinking, and the like. There is no doctrine, ruling committee, or "lord." It stands to reason, then, that if atheism grew amongst individuals to the point of being a majority worldview, the likelihood of indoctrination of any kind would become increasingly unlikely.

27) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

InPVille, thank you very much. It does not surprise me that LA is No. 1 in "threat" to atheists. The northern entries are intriguing and probably have a historical explanation: Quaker in one case and Roger Williams in another.>>>>What surprises me is the UK source. I have run into this before: better information about this issue coming from the UK or Europe.>>>>With my pretense at being busy with family, survival, reading & writing about the preamble, etc., I do not routinely follow organizations, and as my friends and near neighbors know, I am not a joiner.>>>>I seem to sense some of the buzz words and attitudes I have encountered in this thread in that UK article from a reactionary aspect: interesting.>>>>George Mason and Thomas Jefferson might consider me an atheist, but they would be mistaken: That is a leap of faith I cannot take.>>>>Sorry for musing to myself.

28) Comment by InPVille - 10/12/2012

@prbeav: As I've stated before, I think you have the cart before the horse. Take away religion and people will find other ways for their illogical minds to cause mischief. This might help you in your search. http://churchandstate.org.uk/2011/06/10-scariest-states-to-be-an-atheist/

29) Comment by prbeav - 10/12/2012

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the other six states baring atheists from public office?[ ]With a word search, I found the provision in the Arkansas Constitution under Article 19, Miscellaneous Provisions, Section I, which states, "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court." Logically, Section 2 bans dueling. It is an 1874 document.[ ]Trying to find Chucky's reference, I guess it is an atheist group lobbing for attention to, as InPVille opines, "unenforceable because they are unconstitutional."[ ]InPVille, does this injustice against atheists fall under the affirmative "icing" you referred to in an earlier post, or is it one of the errors of the past that nevertheless affect some people today who are prone to the influence of God?

30) Comment by InPVille - 10/12/2012

@Chucky: "In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said. From a CNN story." -[**]- Did the CNN story tell you the laws were unenforceable because they are unconstitutional? Which they most assuredly are. There are numerous old laws on the books that no one has bothered to remove that have no force today and that no one is going to seriously try to enforce.

31) Comment by chem - 10/12/2012

yes, InPVille. That was a typo. Should have been accept in previous post.

32) Comment by DMJ - 10/12/2012

Really?? So much for "no religious test" for holding office. Ugh.

33) Comment by Chucky - 10/12/2012

In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said. From a CNN story.

34) Comment by MBW - 10/12/2012

If the bible is so objective, why do we have so many different religions and denominations, each with their own interpretation of it??

35) Comment by DMJ - 10/12/2012

"the objective truth of an existing God"? Uh.... if there was an objective truth, then there would be no need for faith, now would there? No one KNOWS god exists; they think or they believe....but no one knows. Anyone, like Mr. Robinson, who claims to know what he couldn't possibly know is not worth listening to, in my opinion. And excuse me...but Mr. Robinson basically admits that the reason he believes in god is because he fears hell. Are we to believe that he is a better person simply because of this? What about those nonbelievers who don't seek supernatural rewards or fear afterlife punishments and are kind and just because that's how they want to be? "Life bet"? What if you're wrong, Bert? What if Allah is the one true god, peace and blessings be upon him? Or....and I'm just throwing this out there....what if our "creator" only lets people into the good part of the afterlife who thought about things objectively and rejected magic, superstition and pseudo-science? You make your bet, Bert. I'll make mine.

36) Comment by InPVille - 10/12/2012

@chem: " As a scientist, and more to the point, as a sentient being, I cannot except anything without proof." Did you mean to write "accept"?

37) Comment by InPVille - 10/12/2012

@prbeav: " your catalog of facts defending God in government reads to me like a failed attempt to defend, for example, slavery . . ." Had the gentlemen who put together the U.S. Constlitution insisted on the immediate end of slavery, there would have been no preamble to the Constitution or any of the rest of the document. Politics is the art of the doable. Ending slavery in this country at the end of the 18th century isn't something that was going to happen.

38) Comment by misterfalcon - 10/12/2012

Great letter. May your days pass swiftly and swifter still so that you might meet your maker sooner rather than later.

39) Comment by chem - 09/12/2012

Just stating facts on the correlation of non-belief and education. Not meaning to step on anyone's toes or put anyone down. Survey after survey shows that as people become more educated, there is a decrease in religious belief and an increase in non-belief. I think that over the last two centuries as education has increased for most people in general, there has been a decrease in religiosity. The latest Pew survey indicates such trends. •••• For the record, I never said that "all" scientist or others with graduate degrees were non-belivers, only a large proportion. On average, perhaps about 65-75% are non-believers in the sciences. It varies depending on discipline, with astronomers, physicists, and chemist having higher numbers, up to 90%. •••• There are certainly well educated people that believe in religious dogma. I'm simply saying that they are a clear minority. •••• I am heartened by the continuing trend of the world becoming less religious as time marches on. The human species does not need such nonsensical stories any longer to be good, ethical, and moral primates. Religion is a relic of the past when ignorance (compared to what we know now) was rampant. We can explain in great detail the phenomena that people in the past could only ascribe to gods.

40) Comment by prbeav - 09/12/2012

Triple, in my forties, I studied the Bible in a class of LSU professors as well as in a morning prayer group of the same but of another sect. In class, I first felt the sting of "heresy" regarding my thoughts. After those stinging words it took me six weeks to return to class. Weeks later, in response to the question, "Why did Jesus die?" I responded that he died because the Rabbis and Pilot decided to kill him. When the class objected, I asked them, "Do you mean to tell me God could not have handled a living Jesus?" Not long after that, I moved on to pursuits more noble to me: reading classical literature and US founding history.-[parag]- Chem can speak for himself, but when he speaks bluntly I take it to mean he takes no responsibility for the reader thinking clearly, but wants the reader to know Chem is thinking clearly. So, I don't take offense at his bluntness. America needs to bluntly face its divisions. Furthermore, Chem has the right to oppose the tyranny of God's influence in civic governance.-[parag]-Mr. Robinsion's quality speaks through his words.-[parag]-There you go again attributing your thoughts about me to my thoughts about me. I shun believing anything. I do believe in love and think it can overcome anything but the influence of God.-[parag]-I do not believe the preamble can turn this country from its negative path to a positive one: I talk not of "rekindling it" but assert that it has never been the focus of the people's attention and should be. My paraphrase makes no attempt to preserve it, but allows me to contemplate what I might negotiate with you as shared goals.-[parag]-Only the people can become We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble.-[parag]-I do not understand why the pursuit of happiness requires anyone to "compete with the best among us."-[parag]-I don't understand what could motivate one man to tell another what his religion is. My religion is that I refuse to make assumptions about my heartfelt concerns: I expect to and work to face reality.-[parag]-Should I have felt you would not feel comfortable breaking bread with me? I hope that somewhere along this path you might recognize me as a citizen and therefore one of your associates. Regardless, citizens cannot convince me we are not citizens together.

41) Comment by Triple - 09/12/2012

This discussion is not for the faint of heart. I have given testimony in earlier discussions about my life experiences which have fostered my faith. Did anyone bother to research Mr. Robinson? Quite accomplished, in fact considered an expert among his peers. During my years, I have had the pleasure to befriend many we'll educated Christians, including a PhD Chemist who held numerous patents. I have broken bread with Medical Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers, Professors and other professionals, all with faith in Christ. Chem can understand the uneducated embracing religion (I'm sure this was well received by the same) and makes assumptions about the educated being less religious based on his life experience, however, my experiences would suggest otherwise. I have had the pleasure to discuss life philosophy with several priest of the Jesuit order, suggesting these individuals are not critical thinkers would be ignorant. We all know the population is moving towards secularism, I would suggest television is the catalyst for this shift, and the uneducated being more prone to broadcast nonsense. He also stated that he cannot except anything without proof, assuming their is a wife, wonder how she proves her love? Guessing faith in another would be required in times of doubt. >> I would also suggest, based on his own definition of religion, Mr Beaver is extremely religious. "The practice of making an assumption about a heartfelt concern", his stated belief that the rekindling and embracing of the preamble will change the country qualifies, and the second requirement,"committing to live according to that assumption", he has stated his mission to inspire people to consider the preamble and he lobbies (in solitude); his commitment. Further more he wants to impose this religion on all of us, making him a tyrant. It seems to me a squandering of energy to single handily rearrange the country, if this is your chosen mission, press on, but make no mistake, you just as soon search for an eagle's nest on the ocean floor. I would suggest embracing another document and pursue happiness, as I have, in this pursuit I can compete with the best among us.

42) Comment by prbeav - 09/12/2012

InPVille, your catalog of facts defending God in government reads to me like a failed attempt to defend, for example, slavery or oppression of women. It's like, it's always been that way, so lets preserve the misery. Or, prbeav, you are proposing revolutionary change and we can't go there.-[parag]-The charade springs from revered tyrannies like those of George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, the authors of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776. See online at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp . After Paragraph I, the document is self-contradictory in Paragraph XVI: "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."-[parag]-First, they say that all men are equal, then they stipulate that all men are entitled to the free discharge of duty to the Creator. But wait. What is this Creator with a capital C? And if we are free and equal, why must our good will be Christian?-[parag]-Being an equal man, I say things and life exist, but I have no idea how that happened and see no evidence that religion is involved. I see nothing in nature that involves divinity or worship and praise. Therefore, the equal man who would impose religion on me is a tyrant, and I will not submit in so far as I can control.-[parag]-As a matter of fact, I oppose the past 223 years of tyranny in the name of God. I don't object to people who find a way to use God to help them, but I do not want it imposed on me. Also, I do not want to bear the burdens that come with such tyranny.-[parag]-I want to overcome the United States government's use of the influence of God to distract the people from fulfilling the preamble to the US Constitution.-[parag]-I want to motivate and inspire the people to become We the People of the United States. Please help.

43) Comment by InPVille - 09/12/2012

Not so strict separation: When the U.S. Constitution was ratified the term establishment of religion had a specific meaning. It meant picking out one specific religious denomination to which citizens were required to give exclusive financial and legal support. -[parag]- George Washington served as the presiding officer U.S. Constitutional Convention before being elected the first U.S. President. When George Washington took the oath as first president of the United States he did so with one hand resting on a Bible. He kissed it afterwards. Since that time, more frequently than not, the president has taken his oath of office with one hand on a bible. Presidents up to Dwight D. Eisenhower did likewise. Eisenhower instead said a prayer. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a bible. After President Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson took the oath of office with one hand on a Catholic missal. -[parag]- The Judiciary Act of 1789 which established the Judicial Courts of the United States included the words "so help me God" to the oath of office for Supreme Court and District Court judgeships. "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=199 -[parag]- Office of the Chaplain U.S. Senate http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm "Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain. During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation. The role of the Chaplain as spiritual advisor and counselor has expanded over the years from a part-time position to a full-time job as one of the Officers of the Senate. The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian." -[parag]- Office of the Chaplain U.S. House of representatives http://chaplain.house.gov/ "History of the Chaplaincy "Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." "The election of the Rev. William Linn as Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Continental Congresses of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain. The early chaplains alternated duties with their Senate counterparts on a weekly basis. The two conducted Sunday services for the Washington community in the House Chamber every other week. Since the election of Rev. Linn in 1789, the House has been served by chaplains of various religious denominations, including Baptist (7), Christian (1), Congregationalist (2), Disciples of Christ (1), Episcopalian (4), Lutheran (1), Methodist (16), Presbyterian (15), Roman Catholic (1), Unitarian (2), and Universalist (1)" -[parag]- I belong to neither an organized or to a disorganized religion. However, my experience with human beings leads me to question the wisdom of putting too much faith in man with or without religion. People are more subjective than objective and by a wide margin. Aristotle was very wrong when he wrote in his Metaphysics that "man is a rational animal". Man is a rationalizing animal. I deem it is not possible to completely weed out bias and preconceived notions. . . think of the uncertainty principle. -[parag]- @prbeav "The human condition is wrought with uncertainty: there are forces we cannot explain." This is exactly the case. For many things we do not have a proof, so skepticism should be the rule of the day. If you do not question whether your understanding is complete enough to be certain any action is best. . . But who actually does that?

44) Comment by prbeav - 09/12/2012

I hope Triple and InPVille can do something positive with Chem's wonderful statements of understanding: "I understand the difficulty of letting go something that has been drummed into ones head since childhood. That is the only way religion can continue. Religion must ensure that children are inculcated with their dogma if it is to survive.">>>>One also needs HerbF's focus on appreciating the other citizen's hopes.>>>>If I had not married a woman who relies on a Christian sect that differed from mine, and if she were not true to herself, we would not have been together for the twenty-five years it took for me to appreciate her hopes and dreams. The horror of my memory and guilt in that regard!>>>>Only upon joining her dreams for her was I freed from the indoctrination I was in so that I could discern my preferences for my life.>>>>Thank goodness none of the young women of my sect I courted accepted me.>>>>Turning now to the preamble to the US Constitution, I think seven goals is sufficient. For example, adding FDR's four freedoms would turn goals into the impossible. Belgium's statement of human rights is undeliverable.>>>>If we turn to the preamble as a focus for civic integrity, we must start with the struggle for what it means to each of us and what we would commit to and trust each other for. Appreciation for each others' inspiration and motivation to avoid harmful behavior (for some, religion) would seem obvious.>>>>I have urgently struggled to understand "We the People" as defined in the preamble since 2005 and have earned the paraphrase I shared in an earlier post.>>>>Don't concern yourself with my paraphrase; write one you would commit to and trust us for.>>>>One other point: I do not agree that indoctrination is required for religion to survive. The human condition is wrought with uncertainty: there are forces we cannot explain. Religions could adopt postures like, "This is what we expect and hope for. We appreciate people who with no harmful behavior feel differently. We reserve the right to revise our position as reality becomes evident." I can imagine some people will continue to want religion. I feel certain some people feel this way about their religion as we speak. I would be the last to criticize or deny them.>>>>As for myself, on listing the subjects I recommend for study, I follow John Adams, second president of the United States, whose long list of subjects included neither religion nor a religion.>>>>I reserve the right to be me.

45) Comment by chem - 09/12/2012

Chucky: Yes, as written, one could say god was on a suicide mission, but it is the utter absurdity of that narrative that, for me, makes it unbelievable. The bible, and the rest of the so-called holy books, are poorly written stories that in numerous instances contradict each other. If the bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of god, than that god is not very smart, being unable to keep its stories straight. All religions, except the first attempt, are based on ripped-off material from earlier times. Virtually every area on Earth had some version of the flood, virgin births, and other nonsense. There is nothing mystical, magical, or miraculous about any of the religious stories. Read with a critical eye and a logical open mind, it becomes clear that the stories were written by people who were attempting to make sense of nature, and later, to control people. The stories are hardly the inerrant work of a supposedly omniscient being. •••• I understand the difficulty of letting go something that has been drummed into ones head since childhood. That is the only way religion can continue. Religion must ensure that children are inculcated with their dogma if it is to survive. There is a reason that scientists and others who are more educated are less religious. That is not a knock on other people who may be less educated, it is simply a matter of fact that more education allows for greater independent, critical thinking, which is the bane of religion.•••• As I have said before, I, and no one else, can prove a negative. One cannot prove that something does not exist. But there is absolutely no evidence of any god or any of the other miraculous, supernatural stories in the various holy books. As a scientist, and more to the point, as a sentient being, I cannot except anything without proof. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of oneself and his fellow primates.

46) Comment by prbeav - 09/12/2012

HerbF, you are so in tune to the issue and how to resolve it: (in my understanding of your words) people must care about each others' hopes and dreams and means of motivation and inspiration. (Always with the caveat that they mutually embrace the "no harm" guidance and remain vigilant to enforce the law). In short, no-harm people appreciate each other.>>>Further, since peoples' inspirations vary according to understanding and imagination of how to deal with uncertainty, people cannot find common ground based on their hopes, whether God influenced or not.>>>>Divided America cannot possibly find common ground with the world, but already has the basis for common ground among fellow citizens.>>>>We the People of the United States share the preamble to the US Constitution, but have not in 223 years, mutually focused on its seven goals.>>>>During all these years, our Princes (see Niccolò Machiavelli, "The Prince," section, "CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES"), have cited the influence of God, keeping the people bemused on what divides them (not God, but the influence of God), instead of what would call the people to integrity: the preamble.>>>>Due to the oversight of the dear Americans who brought us to this point, our generation has the opportunity to commit to the preamble and start our posterity on the path to its benefits. Recognizing this opportunity, I am loath to fail.>>>>Let's get started with a major celebration of the preamble on September 17, 2013, Constitution Day. (I'm always verbose but got carried away on HerbF's creative post.)

47) Comment by Chucky - 09/12/2012

Thanks, prbeav -HerbF -NearBarbarian - chem – and other posters ya got me thinking and like it.

48) Comment by prbeav - 09/12/2012

In an earlier post I presented my humble (I share it to learn from your response) yet well earned definition of religion: religion is the practice of making an assumption about a heartfelt concern and committing to live according to that assumption. Physics offers plenty of examples.>>>>To illustrate the personal harm religion can bring, I cite Einstein's "cosmological factor," which he fervently employed to force his mathematical model of the physics of the universe to conform to his assumption that the universe is static. His mathematical brilliance provided him sufficient evidence that his assumption was wrong, but he persisted against the evidence. About twenty years later, Einstein thanked Edwin Hubble for confirm-able, repeatable evidence that the universe is currently 1) dynamic and 2) expanding and for saving him from his worst blunder.>>>>Sooner or later, false assumption yields to reality, and the religious physicist must face his error.>>>>Casual readers or writers with agenda might accuse me of "passionately protesting" physics.>>>>Chemical engineering taught me not to fear physics but to passionately avoid religious physics.

49) Comment by HerbF - 09/12/2012

"“as long as religious beliefs don't influence public policy, I just don't care” Well then care, as all atheist should, the reality is most of your fellow humans believe in divinity and thus act according to their belief system passing judgment and laws and taking actions as they believe is moral, maybe not ethical. If atheist do not take into account that most humans have a belief in a higher power then they are going thru life blinded of what is motivating humanity in large, right or wrong this is true." >>>> Actually, while the United States is still the most fundementally religious western democracy, the non religious are exploding in numbers. When I say I just don't care, that does not mean that I'm unaware that most people believe in a god. Fifty percent of us believe in ghosts. I am a liberal Democrat. And, an atheist. But, many, if not most, of my friends are conservative Republicans, in varying degrees. They are very nice people. I have no problem saying that at all. We simply disagree concerning religion. To say I don't care is simply to acknowledge the old truisms,, "All intelligent people don't agree, and all nice people don't like each other."

50) Comment by NearBarbarian - 09/12/2012

Albert Einstein famously claimed that his "god was the god of Spinoza." As was his custom, Einstein was cleverly claiming to be an atheist. Philosopher Baruch Spinoza was thrown out of Judaism for atheism because he concluded that a life-force permeates everything but does not transcend or lord over it. In a reply to rumors that Einstein believed in god, the physicist wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" (Letter to Joseph Dispentiere, 24 March 1954).

51) Comment by prbeav - 09/12/2012

Not that Einstein handled the influence of God any better than the next person, but I don't think the record shows he thought the God would tolerate chance. Check a selection of quotations.>>>> The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. Albert Einstein, Gutkind Letter (3 January 1954), "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear". The Guardian. 13 May 2008.>>>> Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein, in "Religion and Science" in New York Times Magazine (9 November 1930)>>>> It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. ... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. Albert Einstein, in "Religion and Science" in New York Times Magazine (9 November 1930)>>>> In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. Albert Einstein, quoted in Towards the Further Shore (1968) by Prince Hubertus Zu, p. 156>>>> It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Albert Einstein, quoted in Dukas, Helen (ed.) and Banesh Hoffman (ed.) (1981). Albert Einstein: The Human Side. Princeton University Press.

52) Comment by [e-mail] - 09/12/2012

I'm with Albert Einstein on this one: "Why take a chance?"

53) Comment by Chucky - 09/12/2012

So chem – you would say that God (Jesus) was on a suicide mission to save humanity ?

54) Comment by chem - 09/12/2012

At least with regard to Christianity: God impregnates a virgin with himself, then gives himself to the world, followed by having himself killed to save everyone from --- HIMSELF!!! That is lunacy!!!!

55) Comment by Whatchange - 08/12/2012

here we go again

56) Comment by prbeav - 08/12/2012

NearBarbarian, your comment about the safe betters intruding into the elects' afterdeath is interesting.>>>>Further, God, whatever that is, might be omniscient. If so, when the betters decide their safe bet, the God is aware of the charade. Perhaps Pascal was under the influence of a God that started things then disappeared, and therefore, followers of Pascal's Wager are being duped.>>>>Several participants in the discussion have spoken of their tolerance, even for atheists. This kind of thinking is obsolete. Most people who understand "We the People of the United States," as defined in the preamble to the US Constitution, are intolerant of tolerance. Among citizens no one has a better opinion or holds higher ground: citizens appreciate each other and work together to discover and correct injustice. We the People defend each others' opportunities to live without harm according to personal opinion.>>>>These are revolutionary ideas, but they should not be revolutionary, because they have been here since 1787, at the end of the Constitutional convention. The people who came before us left our generation the opportunity to reform.

57) Comment by NearBarbarian - 08/12/2012

Thanks, @prbeav, for providing historical details which demonstrate that separation of church and state in the US has been a concern of both the religious and non-religious for a long time. @twinkie1cat, I have to second @potkcalb on this one. You and the Bible describe a god that establishes rules to which all are not privy (even when they might think they are), that reveals itself to some but not all (a tendency to which you give voice), that expects all to obey (though it may have already decided someone's fate or can change its mind on a whim), and that requires prayers/offerings/sacrifices (such as you, the presumed elect, praying for who you presume to be the reprobate/infidel). I respect your right to believe in such a god and define religion however you'd like—a right guaranteed by the laws and philosophy on which our society is based. However, I reserve the right to not respect your religion (or whatever you want to call it) or your god—a right also protected by those laws and that philosophy. Atheism is truly not a religion. If you meet atheists who are passionate about discrediting others' religions, they are typically doing so not to become martyrs, gain favor from a "lord," or gain converts; they are typically interested in demystifying and revering the life and world we are so fortunate to experience. Quite a few (I didn't write "all") Buddhists, Taoists, Neo-Pagans," and others are practically indiscernible from atheists on those points--in a mainstream American context. To be honest, the Abrahamic "Mediterranean death cults"--as comedian/magician Penn Gillette calls Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--have demanded historically the most human blood sacrifice for at least 1500 years. This fact certainly does not let Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao of the hook; Hitler (a sometimes religious, sometimes lapsed Catholic) certainly deserves any negative opinion coming his way. But it puts things into perspective. Those who follow the "one true god"--whether they call him "Yaweh," "God/Christ," or "Allah"--have centuries of blood on their hands. More important to this conversation, they want to "give" everyone the Truth (even, as you demonstrate, they're rarely in agreement on what that Truth is). Atheists and some from non-revelatory "paths" ("religion" doesn't quite work for quite a few non-monotheists) are concerned about seeing, discovering, engaging truth found in the universe and natural world around them, in human history and literature, in human relationships, in each and every experience. If they perceive something incorrectly, or if an assumption is disproved, then they welcome correction and new proofs. Correcting, adjusting, and improving oneself are signs of reverence and enjoyment of life—engaging fully the reality in which such a life exists. Such a path might not be "easy” or “perfect," but the "easy"/”perfect” way by many believers requires "handing over" one's life to something that may or may not exist, that may or may not love/hate us, and that may or may not be a sadomasochist. I know: faith takes care of all that. News flash: some neither have nor want a faith that is so often elicited through fear of the unknown, promises of a metaphysical paradise, and threats of extreme violence. Lastly, do true believers really want to have their version of the afterlife overcrowded by people who got there by making the safe bet (Pascal’s Wager)?

58) Comment by Triple - 08/12/2012

Potkcalb, You state the obvious, but this isn't the first exposure, most postings reveal her character. Let me expand upon her hypocrisy, "I am tolerant of those of other faiths and no faith (except Republicans) because I want to show respect for them as fellow creations of the Almighty (but not conservatives)." With understanding that these posts are informal, this self described intelligent teacher wrote,"They, being human created, have flaws things about them that the people were not listening to God for when they created the faith." A Robert Frost quote seems appropriate,"Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it"

59) Comment by potkcalb - 08/12/2012

You were doing well until you cited "a false religion" twinklecat. Now you have exposed yourself!

60) Comment by twinkie1cat - 08/12/2012

Mr. Robinson makes an excellent point. If Beaver is wrong there are consequences for all eternity. If he is right, then no one will ever know. My relationship with Jesus Christ is not a religion although I am an evangelical Christian and attend church weekly. Religions are man's best attempts to reach God. They, being human created, have flaws things about them that the people were not listening to God for when they created the faith. Jesus Christ is God reaching out to mankind. There are no regulations that God made except Love God, Love others, love yourself. Jesus Christ, himself, said that covers everything and to go out and spread the word. You cannot lose by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior and asking him to forgive your sin and guide you into being the person God wants you to be. It is a transformative relationship that gives you help in navigating the world as man has adjusted and adapted it. I am tolerant of those of other faiths and no faith because I want to show respect for them as fellow creations of the Almighty and not be a stumbling block to their future relationship. And while it makes me sad when I meet an atheist or a person from a false religion or, especially a perversion of Christianity, I pray for their future relationship with God.

61) Comment by prbeav - 08/12/2012

NearBarbarian Mark Douglas McGarvie, in the book One Nation Under Law, sheds some historical light on this, with three themes: 1) “disestablishment in the early republic involved Americans in their greatest ideological debate prior to the Civil War;” 2) “Contract-law doctrine forced churches to accept a corporate form, repositioning them as private entities rather than public institutions.” 3) Nevertheless, “While law could command the separation of church and state through the delineation of public and private spheres, American society struggled for decades to remove religion from public policy and the churches from roles of public responsibility.” George W. Bush tried to undo what had been accomplished with his "faith based policy."

62) Comment by bourbon-soda - 08/12/2012

@Scrooge, thanks. There seems to me to be equal hysteria and scapegoating of differing beliefs from both sides. Also worth noting is what may be selective citation of atrocities committed for religion, with blindness toward those committed by officially non-religious, if not atheistic, states. I think the numbers weigh more heavily on the latter than on the former, though this disparity may be attributed to the artifact of more population available for utopian Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian (the per- capita champions) regimes to slaughter, and more highly effective technology to carry it out. Hitler, whatever his religion, was a piker by comparison, and the Inquisition a comparative pimple.

63) Comment by Scrooge - 08/12/2012

bourbon-soda: Precisely the point. Gratifying that someone gets it.

64) Comment by NearBarbarian - 08/12/2012

Particularly in American, believers and non-believers alike should be concerned about religion in schools established on the foundations of classical and Enlightenment academic standards. Beside the deist, Christian-humanist, and atheist founders, radical Protestants were in fact some of the most vocal proponents of a division between church and state leading up to and during the constitution of the United States.

65) Comment by bourbon-soda - 08/12/2012

There's more than one way to blame God and religion for one's own failings and the ways the world differs from how one would have made it. One can also blame religious people as a bogeyman.

66) Comment by Chucky - 08/12/2012

“as long as religious beliefs don't influence public policy, I just don't care” Well then care, as all atheist should, the reality is most of your fellow humans believe in divinity and thus act according to their belief system passing judgment and laws and taking actions as they believe is moral, maybe not ethical. If atheist do not take into account that most humans have a belief in a higher power then they are going thru life blinded of what is motivating humanity in large, right or wrong this is true.

67) Comment by Scrooge - 08/12/2012

Evidence of the dismal historical state of Louisiana's educational systems, public or private, will be found in jdk944's comments. I realize that may be ad hoministic, but the use of plain, sensible English (presumably) learned as a freshman does tend to help state one's viewpoints clearly. Deplorably written ad hominem attacks tend make a mockery of the writer's own intent and thought. Why is that so difficult to understand? Why do self- limited minds have the need to create a bogeyman to blame for their own failings? I am not speaking of religious belief which is an intensely personal right, but uncertainty in affirming one's beliefs manifested by blame and condemnation for others is antithetical, especially concerning Christianity. "For all have sinned..."

68) Comment by prbeav - 08/12/2012

I have a couple advantages in this debate. First, I understand my thoughts and writing. I have a copy of each letter the Advocate has kindly published. Here’s an example from Saturday, July 27, 1996: “We students of the New Testament do not have the right to harass people of other faiths.” Consider February 27, 1999: “Pleas for mercy and forgiveness yield to virtue and triumph. What if that is what Jesus wanted?” Then August 7, 1999: proposing to improve the religion clauses of the First Amendment to “Congress shall make no law respecting religion.” And February 12, 2000: “My faith is that it is the creator who inspires me to respect responsible, inoffensive people.” Thanks to input from other people, “respect” has been replaced by “appreciation.” On November 5, 2005, the Advocate published my essay with the thesis: “We the people doubt liberty: we would publicly dictate faith and values and impose religion into government.” The essay concludes: “Just government requires leaders who have faith in truth--leaders who subordinate heartfelt religious comfort to responsibly execute due process of law. As long as we fail to elect such leaders, accountability, which always falls on us, will continue to be painful.” That essay was pivotal in my earning the understanding that “We the People,” as defined in the preamble to the US Constitution, govern the people. Thank goodness the Advocate allowed me to share the more developed opinion seven years later and earlier.>>>>Second, my understanding of religion has changed. Once, MY religion was God’s word and my Protestant community helped keep my interpretation of the Bible in conformity. Then, I learned to appreciate my wife’s trust in another Christian sect. Only then, did I enter the freedom to discover my personal preference: I admit to myself that in integrity I do not know about any god and it is alright for me to face my own character. As a result, I have a definition of religion: religion is the practice of making an assumption about a heartfelt concern and committing to live according to that assumption. As a result, I am able to admit self-contradiction and strive to eliminate it from my life. Some people are too willing to let contradiction rule; for example, James Madison, as the reputed author of the US Constitution, declared the then prevailing opinion that freedom of conscience was the most important of three elements of religious freedom. But as a Congressman, Madison compromised freedom of conscience. The urgent need is freedom of thought.>>>>I think it is wonderful that these issues are being debated in Baton Rouge Louisiana today.

69) Comment by NearBarbarian - 08/12/2012

At least Mr. Robinson has put to rest the myth that his god is a loving, compassionate one. If he gets pleasure out of a god who is angry and sadistic, then he needs to stay far away from children. As a scientist, Mr. Beaver would probably be more than willing to change his mind if Mr. Robinson could present credible evidence instead of belief and pathos.

70) Comment by HerbF - 08/12/2012

Science = logic >>>>> Religion = magic >>>> But, as long as religious beliefs don't influence public policy, I just don't care.

71) Comment by Chucky - 08/12/2012

Anyone who would try to prove a God's existence will fail and I believe is a futile endeavor. The belief of a higher power comes from within the individual that is generated by a power outside the Self. You believe or you don’t and at times vacillate between the two. The number of God's and belief's only show to me that we are made in the creator's image, that all things are possible. Hey, it is esoteric.

72) Comment by potkcalb - 08/12/2012

So Mr. Robinson is hedging his bet. If there is a "God" I wonder what he thinks of wager?

73) Comment by gofigger - 08/12/2012

Mr. Robinson - your last paragraph sums it up quite nicely. Great letter!

74) Comment by potkcalb - 08/12/2012

Mr. Robinson there may be a God, but there is no "objective proof" or "preponderance of rational proof" of one. You are using the language of science to justify the supernatural. No evidence and no theory supports the notion of a god.

75) Comment by chem - 08/12/2012

If one looks at the world today, in every country, it is religious groups that are causing the problems. Islam. Need I say more? The religious right in this country. Do I really need to give examples? Africa, the Balkans, Europe, and so on. And what is peculiar is that it is essentially the monotheistic religions that are behind all of the murders, bombings, and threats. I don't see other religions going on suicide bombing missions. I don't see other religions wanting to kill doctors. I don't see other religions wanting to kill children for misbehaving. I don't see other religions wanting to kill homosexuals. I don't see other religions wanting to remain in the 14th century. Only the monotheistic religions act in this backward, barbaric manner.

76) Comment by jdk944 - 08/12/2012

Well said Mr. Robinson, and then of course you have all the comments before mine of those you have "called out" on this issue. They continue to ONLY state those who were misguided and misled in our history, ie. the crusades, while IGNORING the thousands of examples also in history, thousands of men and women, etc. that have made THIS country great by their firm belief in JEHOVAH God. Those examples and those individuals have done more good than ALL the unfortunate lost souls, like Hitler, who tried to use their "warped" viewpoints to carry our THEIR AGENDAS, not God's!! But they wish not to accept this because it would go against their humanistic views. @prbeav - your attempt to reference one example of our history's foundation to prove your point is sad and laughable. I could COVER YOU UP with those examples where religious WAS AND IS the foundation of THIS COUNTRY, but you have no interest in anything other than your own opinion!! Of which you are certainly entitled to but no matter how much you spout it, it STILL ISNT' TRUE!!

77) Comment by Scrooge - 08/12/2012

Although I do not necessarily disagree with mr. Robinson, the statement that " I believe there is a preponderance of rational proof ...." is contradictory. Faith exists in the absence of proof.

78) Comment by Wallop - 08/12/2012

"....objective truth of an existing God."? Really? What and where is it? (Mr. Robinson doesn't say). While I think that there is objective evidence that everything originated from a single source and so is governed by the same set of rules, there is nothing indicating that this source has a gender, is sentient, and possesses human emotions such as love and anger. And what "objective standard"? Don't most people's views of "god" and what "he" intends differ?

79) Comment by prbeav - 08/12/2012

The above letter is a perfect example of God's influence. Mr. Robinson seems to use it to avoid understanding that I write to oppose the imposition of religion into governance and to call attention to the preamble to the US Constitution as the stated purpose of the American legal institutions.>>>>Thank goodness the Advocate allows people to write opinions.

80) Comment by prbeav - 08/12/2012

>>>> >>>>

81) Comment by Bighug - 08/12/2012

There is a big falacy in Pascal's wager, Bert. You have to be sure you pick the right god out of all those out there. If you think Jehovah is a just god, you either haven't read in the Bible of the things He did, or you have a warped sense of justice, a dangerous thing for someone in the field of law. I suppose we should keep a few hungry bears at the zoo and feed them with children who tease bald guys. I failed to find that proof of god mentioned in the letter. Would it hold up in court, Bert?

82) Comment by chem - 08/12/2012

I guess Mr. Robinson is quite ignorant about the massacres that religions have, and are still, inflicting on humanity. Adolph Hitler was raised a Catholic and quoted the bible in many of his speeches and in his book Mein Kampf. Stalin viewed himself as a god, as did the tzars, so their was indeed a religious component to his horrific deeds. Christianity, up through the 18 century, were burning people at the stake. Earlier, there were, of course the Crusades and the Inquisition, where countless numbers of people were killed and tortured in the name of their god. Even the wackos in the religious right have the same mindset as those christians in the 14th - 18th centuries. And now we have the Muslims, who are behaving as the Middle Age Christians acted, but with much better weapons. We can do without religion and I look forward to the day when people wake up and realize that it is so much nonsense.

83) Comment by gary - 08/12/2012

Bert, God of justice? I guess Katrina and Sandy was part of he/she popping the whip to get those folks in line.