SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
July 13, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

COC bumps salaries, City chastised by nuns, and Lancaster allows prayer

A trio of interesting stories this morning from the local government/agency front.

First off, College of the Canyons administrators are getting raises….$400,000 worth in fact, even as students face fee and tuition hikes for classes next year and the college reconfigures the way it charges for extension-type courses:

Despite a hefty tuition increase for students, the top dogs at College of the Canyons may be in for a raise.

The Santa Clarita Community College District is poised to approve a 6 percent pay increase over two years for most campus administrators and managers, officials said.

District trustees will vote on the pay package tonight. Like other community colleges, tuition at COC will increase from $26 to $36 a unit this fall.

“It’s fair,” said district spokesman John McElwain. “In these times, I’ll be the first to say it’ll raise an eyebrow. “But it’s to create equity among our employee groups.”

Unlike other faculty and staff at College of the Canyons, most administrators and managers haven’t seen a pay bump in four years, he said.

The nearly $400,000 increase in pay for 76 top officials will put their salaries on par with similar administrators across the state.

COC points out that it has also “shed five top administrative jobs for a savings of $650,000,” which means the College is outlaying $238,000 less overall.

But if giving raises at a time of national austerity and belt tightening makes you raise your eyebrows, what do you think about old school, and I mean really old school, nuns lecturing City Hall, possibly in flawless Latin vulgate? Fellow papist I Heart has more from last night’s Council meeting in which the Latin-loving/John XXIII-hating folks at Newhall’s Queen of Angels church issued a fatwa decree against the City’s Historic Preservation ordinance (which exempts religious buildings but mistakenly included their church on the list of SCV historical properties):

Nearly two dozen parishioners and members of religious orders still took to the podium, arguing that Queen of Angels should not be forced to accept the burdens associated with being designated as a historic landmark. They wouldn’t be so designated, by all assurances, and Kellar asked that a letter be drafted to put this in writing. I didn’t find their repetitive remarks too annoying, perhaps because I’m Catholic (though not the QOA sort of Catholic), but also because they were rightly suspicious of why their church was still on the list of buildings to designate and because they thought other property owners shouldn’t have to endure burdens either

One wonders if OLPH was responsible for the mix-up.

Staying on religion and local government, I just had a vision of Petz’ next push to mix church and state. He successfully compelled the City to remove its irony quotes from “In God We Trust,” but if Lancaster is any indication, he’s behind the curve:

A federal judge has ruled that officials in a Los Angeles County city can open city meetings with a prayer.

U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer ruled Monday in favor of Lancaster officials who approved a policy allowing the prayers in August 2009.

The city also put the question to voters, who passed the policy to allow prayers of any denomination or faith at city meetings.

Mayor R. Rex Parris said Tuesday that the city takes pride in defending the rights of citizens to pray.

Remember R. Rex Parris? Whenever you’re feeling down about the coziness in this town among the GOBN, go and have a look at his glowing, angelic official biography on the City of Lancaster’s site. Parris, you’ll recall, told the AV Press last year that he viewed the City of Lancaster as a growing “Christian Kingdom,” and he’s been pushing for prayer at City Council meetings ever since. Now, a court has said that’s ok, as long as it’s non-denominational prayer.

That’s just the thing we need to make Santa Clarita Council meetings even more interesting and entertaining: prayer.

COC bumps salaries, City chastised by nuns, and Lancaster allows prayer

Comments (90)

  1. yourwebguruJuly 13, 2011 at 8:56 am
    On college salary austerity: Break out your “thumbs down” buttons! Shared sacrifice notwithstanding, commensurate salaries still need to be considered for top level positions even in this economy. Sorry, that’s the way it is. I’m sure those on their high horses (and low salaries, and having no idea what these jobs entail) will disagree that the ‘fatcats’ don’t deserve it, but these jobs are not easy, and good people aren’t easy to find. These aren’t jobs that you can farm out or split 3 part-time ways (As was suggested we do with the City Manager position). Go ahead, hit me with those thumbs. I’m curious to see how long it takes for my thread to be hidden! On government prayer: *SIGH* Why? Petz rants regularly about the “slippery slope” of having our freedoms eroded by big government intervention, and yet this is the biggest kind of intrusion into our own personal faith and beliefs. Even if the opening prayer is “non-denominational,” it is a public intrusion into privately held beliefs, which are sacrosanct to our own hearts and souls. Prayer is personal, private, and should be kept as such; or at least be shared with those of similar beliefs outside of government venues.
  2. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 9:23 am
    I am not big on watered down prayer, but God can never be put into the box you seem to want him to be. Be careful of what you say. Freedom goes both ways.
  3. Damage Inc.July 13, 2011 at 10:07 am
    How every ecumenical. They will have to allow Buddhist, MUSLIM, Jewish, Scientologist and Christian leader to lead in prayer. Don’t want to put God in a box after all. We will see how long that lasts. HAHA
  4. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 10:34 am
    For the record, Scientologists do not believe in a God so therefore do not pray to a God. Historically, like many religious terms “ecumenical” was originally developed as a Christian term and refers to bringing together the different denominations of Christian churches. Only in the last 40 years has it been used as an so-called inclusive term for “all religions” and then ironically mostly by those who do not believe.
  5. Damage Inc.July 13, 2011 at 3:03 pm
    Point is no religion could be denied the right to lead in “prayer”, If I made up a religion worshipping cheez-its you couldn’t show preferential treatment for a christian leader over my holy cheesiness. I know you think this is some kind of victory… but it will be fun to watch your kind get upset at the first rumor of a Muslim leading prayer. The hypocrisy shall flow.
  6. Mr PerezJuly 13, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    I volunteer to be the first Muslim to lead prayer
  7. InkGigoloJuly 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm
    I would definitely attend to see/hear that. I’ll buy you a coffee .. or a beer .. or any beverage of your choosing after the meeting. Then Petz can take us both to BR31
  8. Mr PerezJuly 13, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    I prefer if we and Petz went to DQ for a Flurry……
  9. Coastal SageJuly 13, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Don’t forget Pastafarians. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523
  10. Damage Inc.July 14, 2011 at 12:01 am
    Had to search high and low for that one… let’s talk about priest sodomizing young boys in this country.
  11. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 7:15 pm
    I do not think it is some kind of victory. The right has already existed for generations, affirmed by the courts. Personally, as I said before, I am not big on watered down prayer.
  12. Damage Inc.July 14, 2011 at 12:02 am
    Wish Wash Wish Wash… take a position Jesus Boy.
  13. TaTonkaJuly 13, 2011 at 9:25 am
    Thumbs Up!
  14. IHeartSCVJuly 13, 2011 at 10:15 am
    Perhaps your comments would be more convincing if they included facts, not vague generalities (“these jobs are not easy”), and 3/4 of your words weren’t spent anticipating responses and preemptively attacking those who criticize you. But what’s most annoying is I have to agree with the decision–they cut other administrative positions and will see net savings, even with the raises.
  15. Timothy Myers SR.July 13, 2011 at 10:25 am
    Will the Mayor remove a person who gets to the podium and prays to God to rain hellfire down on the City Council?
  16. IHeartSCVJuly 13, 2011 at 10:38 am
    If it’s in a quiet and respectful tone, I think that’s fine, but if there’s applause from the audience for Divine Destruction…watch out.
  17. AnAtheistJuly 13, 2011 at 11:50 am
    Which “god” do you think might overcome the “god” that Council trusts? Would not a person doing such a thing be inviting a war of “gods” into our “god” fearing community.
  18. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm
    Considering that this has already gone the rounds of the courts and it was determined that as long as the generic term God was used it is Constitutional. So your argument is kind of stale.
  19. AnAtheistJuly 13, 2011 at 2:14 pm
    I was asking the question from a “theological” point of view, not a “legal” one. But the concept of a “generic” god is quite interesting. One size fits all. A snack to a full course meal? Meating eating, vegetarian, or vegan? Hellfire and/or forgiveness, rebirth or heaven? No one left out… Almost no one…
  20. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    Generic God is pretty wishy-washy, which is why I am not big on watered down prayer.
  21. Damage Inc.July 13, 2011 at 11:57 pm
    Whoa are you for or against allowing Religious leaders of all faiths pray in a public forum. MAKE A CALL… MR. WISHY-WASHY.
  22. Damage Inc.July 13, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    Alpiner you will pray with a Muslim?
  23. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    That is a big theological question. I am willing to pray along side anyone who is sincere in his belief but it cannot be with him because he does not acknowledge the loving God of the Bible.
  24. Mr PerezJuly 13, 2011 at 10:17 pm
    Says who?
  25. Damage Inc.July 13, 2011 at 11:55 pm
    Whoa… you wouldn’t pray at the Lancaster City Council if a Muslim was leading… Let the Bells of Hypocrisy Begins…
  26. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 9:52 am
    Okay, but questions: 1) How do you tell if the guy next to you is sincere, or any of our council members are sincere? 2)Which Bible, which translation, which compilation? Does the Mormon Bible count? Do other religious scriptures qualify? 3) How about the not so loving “God of the Bible?” You know the one—the one who instructs stoning outside the city walls for all manner of “sins.” Maybe, there should be a resolution before City Council regarding building a City Wall, so we’ll have a place for this stoning to be done. But, please, a prayer first. After all, “In God We Trust.” Sorry about the quote marks Petz.
  27. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 10:10 am
    How is it hypocrisy to respect another’s beliefs, but at the same time stand on my own beliefs? I can respect your non-belief, but does that make me a hypocrite because I believe you are wrong? No. Supporting one’s right to believe is different than supporting one’s actual belief. By the way, you can believe all you want about the God of the Bible, but God sacrificing His own Son for our sake is truly the definition of love. This was done for everyone.
  28. Phil EllisJuly 13, 2011 at 11:56 am
    Shouldn’t that depend on which god is being prayed to?
  29. Timothy Myers SR.July 13, 2011 at 8:58 am
    On Prayer: Being a subscriber to the Old Testament prophets warnings against the “vain oblations” of the corrupt leaders of the people, I would be physically terrified of spontaneous combustion if elected officials broke out in prayer!
  30. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 9:21 am
    It looks like we really are living in “Jimmy Carter’s Second Term.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/12/hurt-welcome-to-jimmy-carters-2nd-term/?page=1
  31. InkGigoloJuly 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm
    Whatever happened to praying in silence(?) .. at least for the Christians: Matthew 6:5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.” Now, followers of the FSM have no such doctrine. So with that thought, I count the days until I can offer the following prayer an SCV CC meeting: Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the onion, and the bay leaves, forever and ever. R’Amen. Peace be with you all.
  32. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 7:34 pm
    The question of how to pray depends on the reasons for it and the heart of the person praying. Boasting through prayer is obviously wrong as Jesus stated, but limiting prayer to inside the church walls or private areas is just as wrong. Talking to one’s Creator takes as many forms as normal conversation. Jesus himself prayed in public and private. Praying and bowing down before the Lord is a form of humbleness/supplication that affirms that there is power in this universe greater than ourselves. I think all our elected officials need to be reminded of this regularly. Silent prayer is fine, so is corporate and public — by the way all are guaranteed rights by law.
  33. InkGigoloJuly 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm
    What is corporate prayer? Praying for profits? Dividends? Deliverance from labor unions? I know of a corporation who had to stop their weekly prayer meetings for employees because the non-religious employees felt they were being discriminated against. But they were Jewish prayer meetings so maybe they aren’t covered in this Christian nation?
  34. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 9:53 pm
    Funny, but I would think that you would know the correct definition. Corporate prayer is simply group prayer, i.e. an entire congregation or group joining together in prayer. As to your other statements, here is a great quote from one of the founding fathers: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” 
– Patrick Henry in The Trumpet Voice of Freedom.
  35. Mr PerezJuly 13, 2011 at 10:19 pm
    So you have Founding Fathers with different opinions on the matter of religion. Who trumps who?
  36. InkGigoloJuly 14, 2011 at 5:04 am
    Well bless me but I’ve never heard that that term before. Yes of course it’s protected. Bully! Rightly so. Pray away .. alone or with friends. I will defend to the death etc. etc. Patrick Henry. Founding Father. Christian. Opposer of the Constitution. Slave Owner. Absolutely one of my favorite quotes trotted out by religious apologists. Probably the single best quote I can give as an example of why the Founding Fathers, while absolutely brilliant in their crafting of our Constitution, should be utterly ignored in a discussion of how it should be applied in the current century. Mr. Perez! How dare you mention that other Founding Fathers had differing religious opinions! Didn’t you know that the term, Creator, appears in The Declaration of Independence providing us with absolute proof of the Christian religious intentions of the FF’s?! Oh, I hope you don’t try and bring up the fact that Jefferson’s original rough draft didn’t include that term. Yes, by all means, let’s embrace the ideas, opinions and lifestyles of our Founding Fathers. All of them. Now .. I’m going to go churn some butter. Carry on.
  37. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 9:22 am
    Gee, who is attacking who? Never said that the founding fathers did not have differing opinions on faith. Obviously several were deists, but the rest were Christian. All believed in God. All believed that this same God had blessed this nation. Not one was an atheist. By the way, Patrick Henry supported the Constitution. Hey here is another quote: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” 
–John Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
  38. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 9:30 am
    It is you who is picking and choosing which opinion of the founding fathers to agree with and which one not to.
  39. InkGigoloJuly 14, 2011 at 10:17 am
    Did I say you were attacking anyone? Hmm.. The battle of the quotes no longer interests me. You and I both know there are quotes on both sides of the theist/non-theist aisle. That’s sort of my point. My complete point is this: Our glorious Founding Fathers were not perfect and all-knowing (I’m not saying YOU said they were, please continue). They owned slaves and did not, with the writing of the Declaration of Independence nor The Constitution, abolish slavery. They did have differing religious opinions and BARELY referred to god or God at all in either document relative to everything those documents DID address. So tell me and convince me, why is it that in the defense of religious references in the governance of our country, the faith, or denomination of our Founding Fathers is even relevant in the debate? Things change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. Eventually slavery was abolished. It is you who are picking and choosing which practices our Founding Fathers engaged in to support your belief. The beauty of The Constitution is that it was/is a living document subject to change to reflect the times. You may say that eliminating religion completely from governance is not a good change. Obviously I disagree. But the only thing I’m currently arguing about in this thread, is the use of references to whether or not our Constitution was based on what our Founding Fathers believed (or more to the point, what you believed they believed). So I guess it comes down to this: Can you debate whether or not religious references should be part of our governance WITHOUT making reference to our Founding Fathers? Because to me, that is just plain irrelevant … this 14th day of July in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven.
  40. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 10:05 am
    So religious freedom in the country was granted to us actually by “our founding Christians?” I guess we should all thank Jesus for that… Did you ever read a book called “1984?” “Corporate prayer” may lead to “Wiccan Gives City Council Invocation In Dallas.” Any covens in Santa Clarita?
  41. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 10:42 am
    No — religious freedom in this country was deemed essential by our founding fathers because they knew from personal experience how important God was in their personal lives and the founding of this nation and they also knew how quickly that freedom could be taken away. Yes, belief cannot be forced, it has to be found. They understood that and Christians do too. But for faith to be found, it cannot be excluded from the public square. No founding father ever wanted that to happen, and no current citizen ever should either. The fact that we can even have this debate is because of how wise our founders were. But not one founding father ever disagreed with the fact that supplication to God was just as essential to this nation as it was to them personally. This government “supplication” is what the overall argument is all really about.
  42. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:10 am
    Thomas Paine –“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.” George Washington never declared himself a Christian and on his deathbed uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance. John Adams—Late in life he wrote: “Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” It was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Thomas Jefferson—The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.”
  43. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:14 am
    James Madison— “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, “That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words.” In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally “denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.” When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised “to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God.” Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those “written in the great book of nature.” Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.” He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
  44. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:33 am
    “The concept of supplication is also perfectly at home in a secular context. The supplicant may also be described as a suppliant but the former word is more commonly used. The key meaning is of a request by the lesser person in an acknowledged unequal relationship” I think even supplication before the City Council at a public meeting is improper, but “God”? please, let’s have a little separation of church and state.
  45. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    George Washington 
1st U.S. President :”While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” 
–The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343. John Adams 
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence :”Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.” 
–Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9. “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.” 
– John Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776. Thomas Jefferson 
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.” 
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237. “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.” 
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385. John Hancock 
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence: “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.” 
–History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229. Benjamin Franklin 
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution: “Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.” 
–Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790. Samuel Adams 
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution: “And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace.” 
–As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797. James Madison 
4th U.S. President: “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” 
–America’s Providential History, p. 93. James Monroe 
5th U.S. President “When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good.” 
–Monroe made this statement in his 2nd Annual Message to Congress, November 16, 1818. John Quincy Adams 
6th U.S. President “The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made ‘bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God’ (Isaiah 52:10).” 
–Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 248. William Penn 
Founder of Pennsylvania: “I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God in and to those ages in which they were written; being given forth by the Holy Ghost moving in the hearts of holy men of God; that they ought also to be read, believed, and fulfilled in our day; being used for reproof and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect. They are a declaration and testimony of heavenly things themselves, and, as such, we carry a high respect for them. We accept them as the words of God Himself.” 
–Treatise of the Religion of the Quakers, p. 355. Roger Sherman 
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution: “I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin ar
  46. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 10:36 am
    Alpiner, I just asked a few questions that you are apparently unable to answer. I did not call you a hypocrite. But I understand that many with particular religious beliefs overreact and claim persecution at the first sign that their beliefs are questioned in any way. It is easier than thinking. The last thing I want is an elected official to interview his personal imaginary friend before making a decision ostensibly on my behalf or the behalf of my children. I doubt that you do either, if he believes in a false god, misinterprets scripture, reads a false scripture, is possessed by demons, is insincere in his beliefs, secretly is a “satanist”, or is not a “true” believer. Deuteronomy 13:5-10 —another potential council Resolution
  47. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 11:00 am
    I think I answered most of your statements in previous posts. Obviously, I respect your right to believe whatever you want. When it comes to the Constitution, I think we probably agree on more than we disagree. I fully believe that the five freedoms of the First Amendment are essential to all our liberties and that if we lose even one of them, we lose them all. That to me shows how wise our forefathers were when they drafted it. They understood liberty and where it comes from. As far as a living document, of course it is, the survival of our nation is evidence of that, but the fact that this one document is so wise and true to us Christians is proof of just how active God was in our founding through each founder and his deep beliefs in Him. To a Christian, one’s belief in God is core to all other beliefs he or she may have. It is evident in who we are. And the fact that it is a living document means that we Christians of today have a stake in protecting our rights and defending it, just as our forefathers did.
  48. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:34 am
    Most of our “forefathers” were deists.
  49. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 11:51 am
    Would you like me to count for you? Again though,the point is all believed in God. And all looked to the Bible as spiritual authority. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics . Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists. A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. A few others — most notably Thomas Paine –were deists. John Adams considered himself a Christian, but most scholars include him as a deist because of his unitarian views.
  50. Mr PerezJuly 14, 2011 at 8:21 pm
    I have read differing opinions from many of the Founding Fathers, as I have also seen opposing views from the same person at different times. It seems that they were politicians to the heart and at times pandered to their constituency similar to what you see today. What is to say the majority weren’t Deists/Masons with a Christian background, and just did what they had to, to garner positive public opinion and support?
  51. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Not to be a nag, but I have seen, “I think I have answered most of your questions”, at least 100 times in similar situations. How about some answers. 1) How do you tell if the guy next to you is sincere, or any of our council members are sincere? 2)Which Bible, which translation, which compilation? Does the Mormon Bible count? Do other religious scriptures qualify? 3) How about the not so loving “God of the Bible?” You know the one—the one who instructs stoning outside the city walls for all manner of “sins.”
  52. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm
    Okay, I will answer these specific questions. You probably are baiting me, but I will answer you because I do care and my beliefs are sincere. 1) How do I know if they are sincere? I don’t, but if they say they believe, I believe them. Just as if you say you do not, I believe you. 2)Which Bible?: The Bible. What you are talking about are translations of the same texts. As to other religious texts, the Bible is very clear on that. As far as what is included in the Bible. This was decided long ago after much examination and debate among believers. No ancient text or book has been examined more thoroughly through history as the Bible. Now by me stating this, you will probably label me as being “intolerant” which is far from the truth. True tolerance does not mean accepting all beliefs as legitimate. After all, one who disagrees with Christians does not accept Christianity; he thinks Christians are wrong. Historically tolerance has meant puting up with what you find disagreeable or false. You put up with a baby crying on a plane, similarly you put up with someone’s beliefs without criminalizing him or her. This is tolerance. We believe that since all humans are made in God’s image they deserve respect. Christianity emphasizes grace and humility and God lovingly invites everyone to participate in His family — but never at the expense of His truth. But take a stroll through the New Testament. Read Jesus’ words for yourself.
  53. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    Oops, forgot to answer number 3. What is your definition of a loving God? I think sending his own son to die for our sins so that we can enjoy eternity with him is the loving act that defines all others. As to the comments about stoning and such, context is needed. Much of the Old Testament was written by God as a book of laws to govern his people. Are all laws perceived as loving? Is there not a consequence for actions that break laws?
  54. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    1) Regarding sincerity you wrote: I am willing to pray alongside anyone who is sincere in his belief but it cannot be with him because he does not acknowledge the loving God of the Bible. I think you were referring to a Muslim, or Muslims. So a sincere believer who doesn’t believe in your “god” does not qualify? Apparently your loving God of the Bible is a little narrow minded. 2) Google Bart Erhman. 3) You wrote: “Much of the Old Testament was written by God as a book of laws to govern his people.” Are you not one of his people? Should you not be following these “laws?” Should you not be pressing for those laws to be enforced? If you ran for office, would you not as a believer be required to attempt to get those laws enacted?
  55. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    1) No, my loving God is very much open minded and wants everyone to acknowledge and pray to Him. Question? Would I be narrow minded if I decided not to pray “with” a gentleman next to me if he was praying to the ceiling god? Respect is important. And this I do, but living your faith is who you are. 2) Google William Lane Craig 3) The Old Testament chronicles God moving among his chosen people. The laws of the Old Testament were from God to guide and govern His chosen people. The New Testament shows us how Jesus came to fulfill the law — thus the New Covenant. Since we all fall short, Jesus’ atonement brings us back in relationship with God. He was the final sacrifice. He now lives within each and every believer.
  56. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 4:39 pm
    1) Ceiling god? How do you know that the guy next to you is praying to the ceiling god? If he is do you have to leave the room, move over, or just not pray. And as far as the rest of the answer “WHAT?” 2) Google William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman on YOUTUBE. I have not seen this, but I predict the winner will be determined by the audience make-up. Odds then 5 to 1 Craig. 3) So the old testament was superseded, in part (the parts that no one can swallow these days), by what you think Jesus said in the new testament. And what he said or meant will be known to those who believe in him, and those are the people who won’t go to Hell. Below I have some follow-up questions regarding Hell.
  57. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    1) Pretty obvious to me. Don’t know what you mean by What? 3) Jesus does not supersede, he completes. This is theology that goes back to all the way to the beginning.
  58. Mr PerezJuly 14, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    Which is why I personally don’t “tolerate,” I practice religious pluralism.
  59. PetzJuly 13, 2011 at 2:28 pm
    We would have a reason to bring preacher Yancy back to town.
  60. Timothy Myers SR.July 13, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    I would not stand next to Preacher Yancy during an electrical storm!
  61. FredJuly 13, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    All religions lead to God – Revelation 20:11-15
  62. MikeJuly 13, 2011 at 3:58 pm
    Fred, off-topic, but which dictionary led you to an entry for “ideolog”?
  63. FredJuly 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm
    Several on-line. Search the word. You are correct that the common spelling is as you point out, but the word is used enough among writers that it doesn’t warrant that sic that Jeff gave it. It’s similar to how one spells judgment or judgement or gray/grey.
  64. MikeJuly 13, 2011 at 7:07 pm
    Fred, Several on-line dictionaries? Could you show me one? Here’s a little exercise, have a look at these links: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gray http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grey http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideolog Five of the above are spellings of English words. One is not. Wanna guess? We can try this another way, and just a taste: We google +ideologue +ideolog Every result on the first page uses ideolog in a foreign-language context. Google: +ideolog -ideologue Only one instance on the front page is using it as a variant of ideology, a school project by a Swedish student for his English class. I’m guessing he got a C-. Google “ideologue or ideolog” Google “ideolog or ideologue” Zero results on either. There is no dispute. Google “judgement or judgment” 39,100 results Fred, when you say you read this in a dictionary, were you lying to us?
  65. Damage Inc.July 13, 2011 at 11:47 pm
    Owned.
  66. FredJuly 14, 2011 at 5:50 am
    Man he sure did. Kicked my rear up and down this blog. How humiliating. Well, at least I’ll never, ever spell “ideologue” wrong again.
  67. MikeJuly 14, 2011 at 6:03 am
    You didn’t misspell it, Bill Reynolds did. Instead, you thought you’d score points by trying to embarass Jeff with your heightened “knowledge”. I’m going to guess that you did a quick Google search, but didn’t click on any of the links, and when called on it, you decided to make up a story. Called on the story, you thought it best to dig in and lie to me. It would be far worse to damage your pride than to tell the truth, wouldn’t it?
  68. Damage Inc.July 14, 2011 at 9:59 am
    OWNED AGAIN! Humble thyself in the sight of the MIKE.
  69. Phil EllisJuly 14, 2011 at 9:56 am
    Try the urban dictionary
  70. Capt. GeneJuly 16, 2011 at 6:13 am
    Fred, Mike , off-topic, but which dictionary post of mine led you to an entry for “ideolog” believe I was a “birther” ?
  71. MikeJuly 16, 2011 at 6:50 am
    Oh yeah, that thing. Why would I ever get such a crazy idea? As anticipated, the time where you refused to acknowledge that Barack Obama was born in the United States: THE HIGHLIGHT REEL: Gary B: Once again; can you explain how you got that I am a birther from what I wrote? Mike D: You bristled at the notion that the Arizona law was ridiculous. Perhaps I assumed too much. If you agree with the statement “Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States”, then I apologize. Gary B: I bristled at the attempt to distract from the horse shit coming out of the DNC by using a non sequitur like the Arizona law or some comment made by Limbaugh. Mike D: Nice dodge! Gary B: Ditto. Mike D: How so? I have offered my apology if I got you wrong. Did I get you wrong? Gary B: Please, could you be any more transparent? Your attempt to label me a “birther” is as obvious a distraction technique as your dismissal of anything that happens to be linked at Drudge. Mike D: It’s unfair if it’s not true. Do you believe Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States? Gary B: It’s all true, do you need me to post the links to your posts? Mike D: I’m not following. Gary B: Exactly. Mike D: Let’s start over: Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States: yes or no? Gary B: How funny that Obama, of all people, is indignant that someone has not opened their books.
  72. Mr PerezJuly 13, 2011 at 4:05 pm
    Back on-topic, is that the interpretation of those verses because I didn’t see the literal “All religions lead to God” sentence?
  73. InkGigoloJuly 13, 2011 at 4:14 pm
    ” .. ay, there’s the rub, ..”
  74. FredJuly 13, 2011 at 6:11 pm
    Look at it this way, God is not an ecumenist, yet all men will be judged by him.
  75. AlpinerJuly 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm
    Interesting interpretation of Revelation 20 — the judgement of the dead, perhaps you may want to read it again? I will add this one: John 14:6 “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
  76. Mr PerezJuly 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm
    And what does that mean to you Alpiner?
  77. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 11:01 am
    It means just what it says.
  78. Mr PerezJuly 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm
    Not a real answer per se but I will give you my take on it. In Islam we believe in something called a “Sunnah” or “Example.” It is the way and practice or example, that a Prophet taught to his followers influenced by the revelation by God/Elohim/Allah/Yahweh. To truly believe in the message being revealed, and to serve the Creator, one would attempt to imitate everything about that Prophet. Or at least that is how we believe. Others may think differently and I respect their thoughts. I may be out of the ordinary in thinking that my religion isn’t better than any others, or lack thereof. I just watch my lane and try to keep my ego in check. Something that most religious leaders, past and present, have failed to do.
  79. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:39 am
    Not counting Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, and etc., who at least engage in some form of religious or spiritual practice there at least a billion or so atheists and agnostics living today. Out of curiosity do you believe that these non-believers will burn in Hell? And will they be joined by those who do believe, but do not believe in your particular and peculiar beliefs?
  80. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    Okay, here is what I believe in a nutshell. Yes, I believe that there is life after death for everyone, whether they believe in Jesus or not. We have all fallen short of the perfection of God so we are all sinners. But through believing and following Jesus Christ we have been given a second chance by God to spend eternity with Him. We need Christ to bring us into a right relationship with God both on earth and in heaven. Without Him, we are lost. God does not send us to hell. We do that ourselves with the choices we make. He loves us and wants everyone to spend eternity with Him, this is why Christian missionaries work so diligently throughout the world. I know that through Jesus, I have eternal life.
  81. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm
    Let’s think through this: We are all sinners. Born sinners. If we follow Jesus we get a second chance and spend eternity with him. If we do not follow Jesus, by default we end up in Hell for eternity. (Is that “the separation from God” kind of Hell, or the burning kind of Hell.) But we have choices? (Are those the choices to follow Jesus and your Bible, or do other scriptures and gods count?) If a missionary does not get to one does he still go to Hell? If a missionary, or in my case me by you, does get to someone, and they fail to embrace the correct beliefs, does one go to Hell? Suppose someone behaves well, prays regularly to another god, does good works, do they still go to Hell?
  82. AlpinerJuly 14, 2011 at 6:34 pm
    Good and fair questions. You ask: “If we do not follow Jesus, by default we end up in Hell for eternity. (Is that “the separation from God” kind of Hell, or the burning kind of Hell.)” Hell is not a place of high thermal output, but being away from the Lord’s presence — cut off from relating to God. Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels. If one rejects God while on earth, he or she will be in a place where God is not just as they wanted. One feels God’s presence on this world whether he or she believes in Him or not. It is a world which He created for us to enjoy. An existence cut off from God is hard to imagine, but horrible none the less. You ask “But we have choices? (Are those the choices to follow Jesus and your Bible, or do other scriptures and gods count?)” Again, the Bible is very clear on this. Jesus came to give us the choice of a life eternal with Him. Death is not the end for the Christian. As far as other gods, etc. There is only one God, the God of the Bible. You ask: “If a missionary does not get to one does he still go to Hell?” Christians hold that faith in Christ and only faith in Christ is the avenue to salvation. But having said that, God will judge those who have heard the truth and rejected it more severely than those who have never heard. Luke 10:14. Many Christians also believe that God does not judge people who have absolutely never heard of Christ but seek God on the basis of whether they’ve placed their faith in Christ. As Evangelical Christian theologian and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig says — “…Rather God judges them on the basis of the light of God’s general revelation in nature and conscience that they do have as per Romans 2:7 — Someone who senses his need of forgiveness through his guilty conscience and flings himself upon the mercy of God revealed in nature may find salvation. This is not to say that people can be saved apart from Christ. Rather it’s to say that the benefits of Christ’s atoning death can be applied to people without their conscious knowledge of Christ — Like Job and Melchizedek who were saved only through Christ but who had no conscious knowledge of Christ. They were not even members of the covenant family of Israel, and yet they clearly enjoyed a personal relationship with God. Similarly, there could be modern-day Jobs living among the world’s population today, but unfortunately most people do not measure up to even these much lower standards.” Again, the only for sure means of salvation is Jesus Christ directly. There is the hope that in the future the church’s message of salvation will cover the entire earth. This is why missions and evangelism is so important to a Christian’s faith. You ask: “If a missionary, or in my case me by you, does get to someone, and they fail to embrace the correct beliefs, does one go to Hell?” Well again, salvation only comes through Jesus. If one rejects Him here, they reject Him there as well. There are consequences to one’s actions. Just as when one embraces Jesus here, he or she will be embraced by Him there. You asked: “Suppose someone behaves well, prays regularly to another god, does good works, do they still go to Hell?” The Christian faith is not based on works it is based on grace. That is what makes it unique. We want to serve because of what He has done for us, but this service is not what gets us to heaven, only the belief in Jesus does.
  83. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    Glad to hear you are not the burning Hell kind of Christian. Frankly, those kind scare me to death. Not for myself, but concern for their children who are apparently taught that their loving god will torture them forever if they don’t get their heads right. But having had long term discussions on line with many Christians, what puzzles me the most is a simple question: How is it that an omnipotent and omniscient god didn’t leave a clearer instruction book than the bible? And how is that so many “true” Christians are true Christians, but those other true Christians don’t have it right? Burning Hell vs. separation from god, being just one example. Regarding Job: do you mean that god and satan are still up there making bets on how badly satan can mess up someone’s life before the give up his belief in a loving god?
  84. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 4:53 pm
    Bonus point questions about Hell: You are saved and go to Heaven for eternity. About 100 years into your stay, you notice that most off your children are not with you. You look down and see them twisting and writing about in Hell. Are you really going to enjoy the next infinity of time with you god? Or will you take every opportunity to make a special pleading and get your children out, especially after their first hundred or so years of suffering? Or perhaps the burning Hell went away with the new testament. I have heard different apologists apologize differently.
  85. Damage Inc.July 13, 2011 at 11:53 pm
    Good to hear! Repent of NOT having lots of sex, drugs and rock n roll and EAT MORE Cheez-its! For it has been said “it is but a moment before the Christians shall whine again be vigilant for it shall be uber annoying” ~ 1 Nabisco 3:16 (translated word for word from the greek) @InkGigol “For tatoos are good for thy soul, let then the ink flow like the nile river” ~ 2 Snackwell 4:32
  86. InkGigoloJuly 14, 2011 at 5:06 am
    Heh heh heh…
  87. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Have you read all of Revelation? The author was clearly off his head, but would have made a fortune in today’s Hollywood. Oh no! Can’t find my cat? Raptured?
  88. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:48 am
    Now I have disappeared. Didn’t think it would happen to me.
  89. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 11:50 am
    Oops! I am still here. Resurrected? Am I Go…? No…Couldn’t be…I don’t think my mother was a virgin…But I’ll start the rumor. Maybe it’ll catch on.
  90. AnAtheistJuly 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    About me being Go.., not about my mother.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support