A message to christians.

     Dan claims that he is commanded to spread the warning to people about the "dangers" of not accepting Jesus but that he is under no obligation to try to be convincing in any way. If we are to assume that the christian god is real. Dan's efforts are like a highway worker trying to warn people of a collapsed bridge by wearing a jester's costume, doing a silly dance, falling down a lot and saying "A snake is swallowing the sun, the mountains are turning into giant stone warriors, killer rabbits are invading the city, the bridge is out, gophers are killing people with the lasers in their eyes, and space aliens are kidnapping thousands." Who here would be convinced that such a highway worker was doing his job? No one. He's not warning anyone of anything. He's making it look like a big joke.
     Now, if christianity is wrong, like I believe, it doesn't matter much. On the other hand, you have the story of the separation of the sheep from the goats. In that story, the people on Jesus's (left?) side ask him, did they not perform miracles in his name. Who do you think those people might be? I certainly don't claim to do anything in the name of Jesus. Those people have to come from the ranks of asserted believers. Dan, and those of you who use the same strategy, could very well find yourselves told that he never knew you. Perhaps you had better hope that I am right.

The content of an electronic submission from myself to Sen. McCain.

(The subject isn't a good fit. But none of the choices are.)

I read with some dismay that you are actively trying to dismantle freedom in this country and nullify the Constitutional protections that the citizens enjoy to prevent tyranny in government. Specificly, I read that you authored legislation that would allow a de facto military dictatorship to lock up political dissidents and protesters indefinitely without charge or trial by merely using the codephrase "suspected terrorist." I'm sure that you are aware that the due-process provision of the Fifth Amendment and the speedy trial provision of the Sixth were put in place to prevent the types of abuses that George III of England imposed against the colonists. We do not need people inconvenient to the powers-that-be just "disappearing."

For all the rhetoric that is going around these days, it would appear that the biggest haters of freedom, the biggest terrorists are sitting in the United States Congress or funding the campaigns of those who do. No credible threat to our freedoms currently comes from outside of our country. They can burn all the flags that they want. It means nothing more than a child sticking out his tongue. It is the active dismantling of the freedom of the people that you are engaged in that is the true threat.

     I should note that I don't expect him actually to read it. But it would be nice if he read it and showed some signs of a conscience and/or respect for the Constitution.

Well, I have to give Dan credit in one sense on his blog.

     Most people who blog on "controversial" topics prefer to have an echo chamber and willremove the comments of those who disagree with them (except possibly when they think a comment can be twisted to make the opposition look bad.) Many (e.g. Norman) pre-screen all their comments so their followers will never see any convincing dissent. But Dan allows dissenting comments to stand on his blog. This doesn't mean that I think his beliefs are correct in any way. It just means that he has the courage to let any followers he may have see the opposition without applying his filter first.

Norman, again

     Norman is complaining that non-believers are failing to check the original stories when they say that the stories of Jesus are based on pre-existing myths and that they are "comparing notes with other biased disbelievers." And he includes a couple links to try to make his case "withalliamgod.wordpress.com" and "www.tillhecomes.org." That's right. He encourages his readers to compare notes with other biased christians.

I have stated that formal schooling os usually superior to home-schooling.

     I have stated that, in most cases, formal schooling is superor to home-schooling. My reasoning is simple. The instructors in formal education have more knowledge about their respective fields than the parents do. "This is simply because the instructor must be more advanced in knowledge of the subject than the level of knowledge he wishes to impart to his students."
     It should probably come as no surprise that Dan ignored my stated reasoning and invented some fictitious reasoning claiming that I prefer people to become sheep. The irony is, of course, rather obvious. Dan and his fellow christians brag about being sheep for Jesus.
     Imagination and creativity cannot be taught. They develop on their own. Now, they can be stifled. From what I have read, certain "high performance" private schools do just that. But those are not really in my consideration when I say that the formal education is superior. And the public schools that Dan likes to criticize so much do not do that. But then, I suspect (even still) that Dan home-schools his children to make sure that they remain sheep for Jesus. The public schools will teach things that challenge the bible. I really doubt that Dan will expose his children to any of those things.