All Comments (249)

Osama Bin Laden, must, above all, be remembered as a former CIA asset, rather than a representative of Islam. Quo Bono? Muslims?

CIA nitpicks. They didn't Fedex money and weapons directly to OBL. No, they financed "the nexus of Hekmatyar and Bin Laden", later known as Al-Qaeda. With pleasure. And they sent weapons directly to OBL associates, even according to Norman Solomon at FAIR describing the media's and Republicans' and Pentagon's Al-Qaeda lovefest of the 80's, supporting the most vicious and violent psychopaths.

Brzezinski's plan, implemented under Carter BEFORE the Soviet invasion, was to LURE the Soviets to INVADE Afghanistan, so then there would be an excuse to drive them out and bog them down. He said so.

Republicans ramped-up this plan, which was backed by the Heritage Foundation and their THREE Al-Qaeda lobby groups (i.e. for "the people of Afghanistan"). The Christian Coalition said it was UNPATRIOTIC to not support the Islamic Radicals, and that any Cong that voted against this did not deserve a seat! Well.

Years later, the Republican Policy Committee -- donning tinfoil hats? -- produced a detailed and footnoted "conspiracy theory" report that said that Al-Qaeda was still running joint ops with the Pentagon and private Pentagon proxy MPRI, and that President Clinton signed off on this. This report was in 1997, and other reports show this continued through 1999, 2000, and even late 2001, AFTER Sept 11. "Osamagate" details this with footnotes, and notes that apparently the RNC itself buried their own report.

The Osamagate article concludes that this evidence does not necessarily prove that Sept 11 was an "inside job", but it DOES necessarily prove that it was not what they told us it was, because you cannot have an "outside enemy attacking you" when you are at the same time running joint military operations with that very "enemy".

However, the sensible overall conclusion is that the GWOT is a complete fraud. What do YOU call it when (allegedly) an 'agent of the Pentagon/CIA' attacked us on Sept 11?

What do you call it when the boldest public pronouncements FOR a bloodbath on American soil (as absolutely necessary to kick-start the GWOT) came from Neo-Con think tanks like PNAC and AEI, as well as other "liberal" think tanks like Brookings, CFR, and TLC? I'll tell you what I call it: POLICY.

nwgukdype lncystqf jhuvpyaw kueqz bhigv lnvcyha yqcohief

nwgukdype lncystqf jhuvpyaw kueqz bhigv lnvcyha yqcohief

nwgukdype lncystqf jhuvpyaw kueqz bhigv lnvcyha yqcohief

I agree with Susan completely.
I will add a complaint most news media that I think masks this religious insanity. When the news broadcast refers to the Iraq killing they call it
"sectarian" war or violence. I object to the term sectarian even though it is correct. My reason is that it tends to hide the word "religious". I'll bet that if a street interview were performed, like the kind Jay Leno does, at least 30 % of the Americans asked would not know what sectarian means.
Therefore, it is important that the source of this kind of violence be recognized as religion. More specifically, it should be recognized as religious FAITH which accomplishes violence because it denies rational thought.

I agree with Susan completely.
I will add a complaint most news media that I think masks this religious insanity. When the news broadcast refers to the Iraq killing they call it
"sectarian" war or violence. I object to the term sectarian even though it is correct. My reason is that it tends to hide the word "religious". I'll bet that if a street interview were performed, like the kind Jay Leno does, at least 30 % of the Americans asked would not know what sectarian means.
Therefore, it is important that the source of this kind of violence be religion. More specifically, it is religious faith which denies rational thought.

The message that reaches lunatics like Bin Laden is, "Eat steel, craven dog!" More seriously, we should take a lesson from the late Gen. McArthur, who dealt with Muslim terrorists by having them executed and buried inside the carcasses of freshly killed pigs, making sure one of the terrorists watched and then released him. The terrorism stopped because Muslims polluted by the bodily fluids of pigs could not enter heaven. So much for promises of virgins!

Give them their wish--make them all martyrs! We developed the neutron bomb--let's test it on the known Al Quaeda camps.

duckthup- not only have other small minds in the world had this idea, it was met with an overwhelming yawn-

the cartoons were reprinted from february to september by countries all over the world-
the united states beat them all by printing in over 27 papers!

the pettiness and low malice of it just eventually showed it for the mean provocative thing that it was- (and not especially clever or funny either)

your theory had been put into practice and is a miserable failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons

This situation can be very easily resolved, once and for all. The solution will only require that every newspaper in the free world devote its front page to cartoons, ridiculing Allah (peace on him) and Mohammed (peace on him, too), for a whole month. By the end of that time, all of Islam will have self-destructed in a paroxysm of snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy. WARNING: This will not be pretty.

My only regret here is that I cannot think of a similarly uncomplicated, cost-effective and efficient stratagem to dismantle Christianity... but, oh well... one thing at a time. One only does what one can.

If the Jihadist ever returns, hopefully she will not continue to feed off the flaws of others while not coming to grips with the significant flaws of Islam.

Jihadist's gone? She's bored with atheists and Christians or is it just Ramadan? Too bad. She's worldly and funny. I'll miss her.

Michael,

Are you trying to infer that I am nuts?!? (LOL!)

Well, I am not insane. I might be called crazy, but only because I don't have enough money to be merely eccentric.......

Arminius:

Yeah, I can see having someone tell you you're nuts is insulting - difference in religions or not!

Unless, of course, one is actually nuts - difference in religions or not. :)

GO KATHY!!!!

Hey, to each his/her own. One man's idol is another man's joke. This is a free country, and she can say what she wants. The fact is, she worked hard for what she has, and no one else but her should be 'thanked'. For those that take offense to her statements: what do you care what someone outside of your religion thinks about your religion?

Christianity as a whole takes a very 'we are betterh than thou' stance - indicating that all others should follow them, (i.e. missions, etc), that theirs is the only true religion, etc. It's total crap.

Why should I have reverence for your beliefs, of which I do not share? Respect for your beliefs, but not reverence.

That said, from my history lessons, Jesus was a decent person. It's the rest of christianity that messed it all up.

I think I like Kathy a bit more today.

Tonio and Michael,

Even though I am a religious type, when someone tells me they are an atheist, I reply with something like 'OK' or 'That's fine'. I used to be an atheist, so I know where they are coming from, and do not object. Religion is personal, or the lack of it. And yes, if I, a believer, have an atheist say that I am borderline nuts - yes, that is insulting.

Tonio -

"Freestinker, religious people often pray for non-religious people in another way, one that is deeply offensive. That's where they say "I'll pray for you" or "I'll pray for your soul" when you tell then you don't share your beliefs. "

I completely agree with that. I have had experiences that match that, and even moreso. I've had people tell me I will burn in hell. (my response is "I don't believe in hell either"). I've had people say, "how can you live that way?", " how do you have morals?", etc etc.

I feel it is extremely insulting to my beliefs for someone to say they will pray for me when I've just told them I don't believe in a god. (or gods).

? - what would be the opposite? (atheist saying ??? to a person declaring faith?) I don't think there is one (maybe "you're wrong" that sounds about as insulting...)

Freestinker, religious people often pray for non-religious people in another way, one that is deeply offensive. That's where they say "I'll pray for you" or "I'll pray for your soul" when you tell then you don't share your beliefs.

When religious people pray for me I thank them (for expressing kindness toward me) even though beyond expressing empathy, sorrow, compassion, and hope I personally don't believe that any gods exist to hear or do what the prayers ask. I certainly accept the well wishes but I still do not put much stock in pleadings to imaginary omnipotent puppeteers.

If wishes were fishes, I know where I'd be,
Casting my net in the dark rolling sea;
And if my net's empty when it comes back to shore,
I'll throw it away and go fishing no more.

Ms. Jacoby
Don't you think the problem is with the books the religious books of the proselytizing religions rather than interpretation by some followers? I remark here that not all religions believe that they have the monopoly on truth and that other religions are wrong. So called eastern religions do not take this position. But at least 2 (or may be all three) Abrahamanic religions do. So unless something can be done about these basic position taken by these religions the world will continue to have problems.

Oh sorry That above comment is mine↑

terra

Arminius,

I truly do understand what you are saying. It is wonderful that people would want to help with their prayers. I would accept all prqayers..but you see I would also want my words...my clergy.

Would any other clergy know what Goddess to call to for my healing? It is not just pretty words, but communication to our Gods.

Do you believe that your God would pay attention if you called on Pan or Apollo? Would the Pentacle mean to you what it does to me? Your cross does not mean to me what it does you.

Though all prayers are welcome as far as appreciateing the kindness of the people...

Prayers to us are more then pretty words. They are communicating with our Gods in the most focused and intense way.

Most of the time our elders die alone without their own clergy, because we are Wiccan. We want our own words, our own prayer as well as those of kindness.

terra

to mr. mark

it isnt necessarily the extremists who should be compromised with, and I dont know jacobs well enough to align her with her the likes of aethistic thinkers such as Dawkins or Harris, but religious moderates have come under nearly as much fire as the extremists these days. My point is not that Hitler, or the inner members of the Nazi party who should be negotiated with, but that there was some point in which "moderate" people began to work out an agreement. Moderation is becoming an increasingly dirty word, and it ought not to be. it is moderation that is able to find if not a perfect solution, at least a workable one.

A Hermit,

Again thanks for another reminder as to separation of states. Walls can take many forms. The Czech "wall" apparently is a mutual agreement. Too bad others cannot come to a similar agreement.

And with the koran as the "bible" of Muslims, can we really believe anything they say???

Off-topic, but interesting.

Fundamentals of math and religion in the same course.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/Story?id=3543453&page=1

Daniel,

Just curious..not sure I understand what you are saying to Mr. J. Are you saying that Christians invented the word blasphemy?

thanks,

W-Man

Terra,

This is a bit difficult. I understand that you feel like this prayer was uncalled for by you. But I think that I was in a Moslem/Hindu/Jewish place, and they came in to pray for me, I would be grateful It is the heart that counts - those of us who pray - well, we all are on a path up that Mountain. Many paths, but the top of the Mountain belongs to all.

Daniel, I don't know if fundamentalist Christians invented them since the Arabic (or Farsi, Pashtun, etc.) equivalents are used today in the Middle East, but they have a use when everyone, or nearly everyone, lives in a society that has one religion, especially if church and state are intertwined. Like in Alabama. :)

Daniel,

Yes, agreed. Fundamentalism can be considered as a pathological condition. My 'knee-jerk' comment was in reference to their strict adherence to a set of rules, said rules never to be gainsaid. At heart, all fundamentalists are alike in rejecting all of humanity that does not agree with them. The differences are cultural, as you say - some kill more willingly than others.

Arminius,

I understand your view, and for my daughter it works.

All prayers do work...but, would a Pagan Chaplain be allowed to pray over a Christian in the hospital? In all this country there is ONE paid Pagan chaplain for prisons..and none for hospitals.

It becomes a case of being second class citizens. It was also a case of the rudeness of not asking if it was ok, taking it for granted that it was Christian so of course it was ok.

It is always nice to have people care enough to say a prayer for you. But as much as I appreciate the words and the thoughts behind them...they are not of my religion. The language is different, the symbols are different. They do not mean the same.

It would be like me saying a prayer to my Goddess over you. It's nice, but does not quite do it. Words have power and when you are ill and afraid you need the right words, no matter what faith you hold.

terra

Dear Mr. J

I hear those two words ALOT!!

Blasphemy and Apostasy.

And I am sure tired of it. Isn't it a little like calling someone gay, or fat, just to hurt their feelings? These are the names that fundamentalist Christian have invented with no purpose other than to cause injury and hurt feellings towards their fellow Christians.

I wish someone would quote for me from the Bible why Christians are supposed to do that.

"Two terms that Christians throw around strike me as absurd: blasphemy and apostasy. In both of these terms is implicit a sense of entitlement, of institutional Christianity, which is a politicization of religion, and not relevant to personal beliefs. Christianity is, above all else, personal, and not political or institutional. If someone says something that you find offensive, then that is their right because we live in a democracy. If you additionally think that it is blasephemous or apostasy, so what?"

Yes, although you don't hear those terms much anymore (at least I don't). In a secular, pluralistic society like the US, they don't have much clout since the blasphemer is likely not an adherent to the religion he/she is blaspheming, and we have many apostates running around these days. You can be called a blasphemer by those within the religion of which you are also a member, but not in society as a whole.

In a theocratic society, of course, it's a different matter. That accusation can lead to harsh penalties. Perhaps those in our society who use the terms long for the days of theocracy.

There is nothing wrong with strict adherence to basic principles. The problem is "what principles?" As long as you are able to look at things sensibly, and accept truths, even that you do not like, and face wisdom, even that is unwanted, as long as you do indeed reserve your mental capacities to think, and not merely to conform, I guess that should be alright.

Daniel,

Yes, agreed. Fundamentalism can be considered as a pathological condition. My 'knee-jerk' comment was in reference to their strict adherence to a set of rules, said rules never to be gainsaid. At heart, all fundamentalists are alike in rejecting all of humanity that does not agree with them. The differences are cultural, as you say - some kill more willingly than others.

TDAY:

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

..religious extremism

....religious confusion

Fundamentalism is more than a "knee-jerk." It is a profound psychological state, not of believing morally, or in good and against evil, but of profound mental conformity of mind to the doctrine at hand. To those engaged in this mental conformity, it is piety and self-entitlement; to everyone else, it may approach a nihilistic rejection of all, that is not subsumed in the mental conformity. This can lead to flying planes into skyscrapers. If the fundamentalist Chritians of America do not seem as bad as the fundamentalist Moslems of the Arab Middle East, it is only becasue they have many moderating influences on them from birth, in our more open society, and Islam does not; other than that, they are dangerously similar; mirror images of each other, in fact.

Only used traffic laws to bring it down to earth, Daniel.

We have believed, for the 28 years we have had children in our home, in teaching each of them the importance of marriage and to abstain from pre-marital relationships that scripture clearly covers. And we believe that strict adherence to things such as these will eliminate many of the ills that so many people experience needlessly in their lives.

This is where I am coming from regarding fundamentalism. Sometimes strict adherence is not a bad thing. Rather, it can keep you from needless heartache and pain.

Daniel,

Well done on both posts.

I happen to be a liberal Christian in the deep South. To me, blasphemy is eating pork barbecue without beer. (LOL) Apostasy - well, what can I say? Eating barbecue with a coke? Ridiculous. If you don't like beer, drink whatever, I won't be offended. Neither will God be offended.

Yes, a fundie does not think, he/she knee-jerks to a set of rules. Belief is not a set place, or even a destination. It is a journey.

Counterpoint:

Okay, I think I see where you're going.

Secular societies, that is those which are not held "in check" to certain behaviors by religion-based law, have more freedom, but all freedom comes with a price. You focus on the higher divorce rate and the decline in "traditional" families. I focus on the increased opportunities for all members of society, regardless of their religion, race, sex, etc., to pursue their hopes and dreams, and the reduction of institutionalized prejudice.

You may see the fundamentals provided by your religious view as all-important. But we live in a pluralistic society, and not every one agrees. I don't see "humans getting in the way," since I view society as a completely human construct.

To me "fundamentalist" means mental conformity to doctrine, in which the main point is the dedication to mental conformity, which is a single goal, under which all other thinking, namely the doctrine, is already mapped out, and nothing to bother about. That is the beauty of fundamentalism, it's so easy, no thinking, no muss, no fuss, just mental conformity. It is not, in fact, a serious religious pursuit, but some kind of pschological state. Obeying traffic laws is not relevant to discussions of fundamentalism, and minimizes the seriousness of the topic.

Two terms that Christians throw around strike me as absurd: blasphemy and apostasy. In both of these terms is implicit a sense of entitlement, of institutional Christianity, which is a politicization of religion, and not relevant to personal beliefs. Christianity is, above all else, personal, and not political or institutional. If someone says something that you find offensive, then that is their right because we live in a democracy. If you additionally think that it is blasephemous or apostasy, so what?

Evolution is pretty much accepted as scientific fact. If any one person chooses not to believe it, that is their choice. It is not a religion or a philosophy to believe in or not to believe in; it is an accumulation of facts and data, available for review, or not.

Among serious scientific circles, there is no controversy about evolution or intelligent design: evolutuion is accepted as true, and intelligent is religious speculation, not science. Intelligent design argues that an intelligent designer must exist, because how could such a designer not exist? You may believe that; that may make sense to some people; fine. But it is not science and it is not proof.

If you ask an atheist, "how can you not believe in intelligent design?" He can reply "Like this: I don't believe it." And your argument is over.

Trying to overturn accepted scientific findings about the nature of the world does not promote any arguments regarding the validity of Christianity. It is, in fact, not Christian, but a fundamentalist add-on, which, in my opinion, is just one more thing that undermines the credibility of Christian fundamentalist doctrine, in general.

Anonymous,

Bring your guitar, you will be welcome.

Counterpoint,

From my reading, the term "fundamentalist Christianity" doesn't seem to mean fundamentalist in the general sense. It's used most often to describe Christian doctrine that reflects a literal or nearly literal reading of the Bible. I'm not sure if that would include more extremist flavors of American Christianity such as Dominionism or premillenial dispensationalism.

>>Arminius:
>>Anonymous, you said:

>>"Someone who spends some of their time 'correcting' Christians on the lack of love they show...just showed up in the forum with a dagger."

>>I am well aware of the dichotomy. Please consider it a metaphor, and a rallying of the troops. If we all manage to gather together and make a show of it, it will be singing and dancing, not fighting.

Arminius,

Duly noted. Thanks.

And by the way, all of you, tho I may seem a fundamentalist, and I probably am, I have many friends not unlike all of you. I see you all as sincere, caring human beings and I wish the best for all of you...yea, verily ...wish the best for us all in this home of ours. We may not agree on much of anything...but Id sure like to fire up my Ephiphone Les Paul guitar and join in with the singing and dancing. :-)

All the best to you all

ahh anon,

My dagger only cuts out the bovine excretion.

I am interested in Greek philosophy...did you mean Heraclitus? Why thank you for that compliment. He thought that dullness and stupidity are innate human traits.

Thank you for proving him right.

terra

You obviously did not fully read my post. I did not blame schools. I agree that parents are not ensuring their kids adhere to rules these days. The fundamental family, if you will, is breaking down. That aspect, though, does have something to do with secularism.

Fundamentalism, with regard to religion, can keep a society in check, provided we humans dont get in the way i.e. changing laws meant to keep us all from greif...such as sexual promiscuity, etc
The spread of disease and broken marriages over the past few decades is a sad testimony to our dismissing some of our fundamental views we once held, overall, as a society.

Terra,

My FH and I went to get our marriage license yesterday morning and we were asked to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." My look of shock startled the probate court officer. Sorry, didn't notice the steeple on our way in.

Arminius,

It is quite a substantial stein, being pewter and all. Don't worry, it will be empty. I'll be sitting in the back emptying it until someone gets too close. WHOP.

Anonymous, you said:

"Someone who spends some of their time 'correcting' Christians on the lack of love they show...just showed up in the forum with a dagger."

I am well aware of the dichotomy. Please consider it a metaphor, and a rallying of the troops. If we all manage to gather together and make a show of it, it will be singing and dancing, not fighting.

"thanking a deity suggests that maybe you're significantly better than everyone else, in a divine sort of way ... god's chosen football player, or actor, or comedian."

Excellent point, Jay. While I don't know if that is the celebrity's intention, that is certainly the logical conclusion of such statements. That applies to the belief that all events in the universe are the work of deities - it's logical to conclude that the events are rewards or punishments from the deities, even natural disasters.

Terra,

If the prayers for your daughter were compassionate and well meant, I do not think that there is any reason to be bothered. I am Christian, but if I were in a hospital bed and a Wiccan/Pagan, or a Moslem, or a Jew, or a Hindu came in to pray for me, I would be grateful.

Counterpoint:

If someone wants to adhere to what constitutes "fundamentalism" in their religion, that's their business.

When they try to push their fundamental beliefs onto me or my family, via changes in law or policies, then it becomes my business.

When they try to change the way science is taught in public schools because it conflicts with their fundamental beliefs, then it's also my business (as a citizen very interested in science education and the husband of a teacher).

Speaking of school rules, a lot of the problem arises from the fact that in decades past, parents were more involved in ensuring that their kids adhered to the rules. Teachers have taken on much of the burden of enforcement, and are more often in conflict with parents over what their kids do. Many public schools do have strict rules (including uniform policies, rigid attendance requirements, and the like). You can't put all the blame on schools or on "secularists".

I sense you think that we should have more religion in our schools (your kind of religion I would guess), which goes back to my 2nd paragraph above.

Carefull, all...

Someone who spends some of their time 'correcting' Christians on the lack of love they show...just showed up in the forum with a dagger.

Could it be that well known philosopher..Hypocritees

My daughter went into the hospital a couple weeks ago for some investigative surgery. The nurses came in and without asking her or me began praying. It was fine with my daughter, she is Christian. And I just sat there...
But what if my daughter was not a Christian?

What right does anyone have to just pray over you without asking?

My daughter is fine, but that experience really bothers me. What kind of care would I get from those nurses if I said, "sorry I am Pagan".

terra

Andrea,

Welcome to the gathering host! I would suggest a better main weapon than a stein, so get yourself a sword or spear or dagger. But keep a supply of steins to throw - just make sure they are empty first!

Terra, dear Lady,

Get your dagger and shield. My father was born in Ireland, with solid Scot ancestry. Welcome! The host gathers.....

Oohh...can a German join in? I could whop someone in the head with my beer stein!

Arminius,
Mind if a lady with a dagger and shield joins up?

I have a bit of the Irish, from both sides of the tree...along with Greek and Roman.

terra

I believe there are some on this blog who are seeming to portray fundamentalist Christians in more of a extremeist light. Incorrectly I might add.

Even in the case of civil matters, all of us, to a degree, are practicing fundamentalists of the traffic laws, for instance, that all motorists are encouraged to pay strict adherence to. 35mph in a 25mph school zone doesnt cut it. A 'hollywood stop' at a stop sign can get you a ticket.

Fundamentalism, simply defined, is strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.

In generations past, strict and literal aherence to school rules, for instance, constituted a more structured and respectful student body in our school systems. Today, with strictness and adherence to rules being ridiculed more and more by secularists and others, we see our school systems struggling to keep order far more than they had to, say, 30-40 years ago.

There is a fundamental (no pun intended) reason for this.

Jay S, you said:

"Public displays of one's religious beliefs have always embarrassed me. They also seem to be counter to Jesus's teachings on the subject, so they don't strike me as very Christian either.

And you are correct. Check out Mattthew 6.

>>As someone pointed out years ago, when you are rescued from a burning building by a firefighter and you thank god for your survival, aren't you dishonoring the person who put his life at risk to save you?

Another common reality in an example such as this: What if the fireman were a believer also, and he/she joined in with the person he/she rescued in thanking God for His direction and help? Many I have known feel it an honor to have been there to help and wish not to be recognized. It is called humility.

If you win an award, shouldn't you be thanking all the people who helped you get there instead of your imaginary friend?

>>Again, another reality: There are believers who also win awards. Yes, they convey their thanks to those around them who support and help them. Rightfully so and duly noted. But also, the believer who wins an award sees clearly that their talents are not from their own strengths alone, but a gift from God, who is real to them...not imaginary. The eternal giver of life who created the wondrous mechanism of the human body and mind. Something that mankind cannot due. That is why all thanks ultimately belong to God.

Arminius and Tonio: good points.

I guess for some of us on the outside of religion, and I'll speak just for myself, the spectacle of someone thanking god for their accomplishments seems like self-congratulation. Thanking those here on earth who helped you is a humble gesture, but thanking a deity suggests that maybe you're significantly better than everyone else, in a divine sort of way ... god's chosen football player, or actor, or comedian.

Public displays of one's religious beliefs have always embarrassed me. They also seem to be counter to Jesus's teachings on the subject, so they don't strike me as very Christian either.

Daniel,

Very nice post, thank you. We seem to think alike in many ways. Keep it up, please.

Jay,

"If you win an award, shouldn't you be thanking all the people who helped you get there instead of your imaginary friend?"

Was Griffin suggesting that people who thank Jesus at those award shows are simply doing it for show? If so, I could see her point. Whatever her motive, I think it's mistake to automatically suspect her of trying to tear down religion.

Still, focusing on that aspect of entertainment award shows is like criticizing a serial murderer for using an illegal gun. Those shows are massive exercises in self-congratulation and self-gratification by the entertainment industry. Saying they are in bad taste would be giving them a dignity they neither have nor deserve. Monty Python's "British Showbiz Awards" lampooned these pitiful spectacles as well as anyone could.

Jay S, you said:

"As someone pointed out years ago, when you are rescued from a burning building by a firefighter and you thank god for your survival, aren't you dishonoring the person who put his life at risk to save you?"

I would submit that if you thanked God without thanking the firefighter, then you have not really tha