[Allan from Fallbrook]

So Larry, why can’t spirituality and science co-exist? Some of the world’s greatest scientists and thinkers were spiritual (notice I didn’t say “religious”) and used their scientific explorations as a means to not only better understand their world, but also as a means to seek God.

No less a luminary than Einstein said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are mere details”.

What I find offensive is the notion that somehow one cannot be spiritual and yet still be possessed of a brain. What’s up with that?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

So Larry, why can’t spirituality and science co-exist? Some of the world’s greatest scientists and thinkers were spiritual (notice I didn’t say “religious”) and used their scientific explorations as a means to not only better understand their world, but also as a means to seek God.

No less a luminary than Einstein said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are mere details”.

What I find offensive is the notion that somehow one cannot be spiritual and yet still be possessed of a brain. What’s up with that?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

So Larry, why can’t spirituality and science co-exist? Some of the world’s greatest scientists and thinkers were spiritual (notice I didn’t say “religious”) and used their scientific explorations as a means to not only better understand their world, but also as a means to seek God.

No less a luminary than Einstein said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are mere details”.

What I find offensive is the notion that somehow one cannot be spiritual and yet still be possessed of a brain. What’s up with that?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

I’m pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were more concerned with the rise and dominance of a “state” religion, such as the Church of England, than individual religions or an individual’s choice of religion (which was to be protected).

The creation of the United States followed a period in history where wars of religion wreaked tremendous havoc (the Thirty Years War, for instance). Many of the Founders or their contemporaries (Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine, for example) were very suspicious of state religions, or religion in general. Many, like Jefferson, were also Deists and felt that God had better things to do than meddle in temporal affairs.

I do agree that the idea of separation of Church and State has transmogrified as of late into anything having to do with religion, faith or spirituality is automatically considered anathema and should be banned. The cultural elites on the Left do consider any mention of God, faith or spirituality to be the mark of an unthinking, credulous idiot and I find that tremendously offensive. While my faith and religion (Catholicism) is certainly open to justified criticism, it also boasts some of the greatest thinkers and theologians in history.

As well as some outstanding football and basketball programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

I’m pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were more concerned with the rise and dominance of a “state” religion, such as the Church of England, than individual religions or an individual’s choice of religion (which was to be protected).

The creation of the United States followed a period in history where wars of religion wreaked tremendous havoc (the Thirty Years War, for instance). Many of the Founders or their contemporaries (Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine, for example) were very suspicious of state religions, or religion in general. Many, like Jefferson, were also Deists and felt that God had better things to do than meddle in temporal affairs.

I do agree that the idea of separation of Church and State has transmogrified as of late into anything having to do with religion, faith or spirituality is automatically considered anathema and should be banned. The cultural elites on the Left do consider any mention of God, faith or spirituality to be the mark of an unthinking, credulous idiot and I find that tremendously offensive. While my faith and religion (Catholicism) is certainly open to justified criticism, it also boasts some of the greatest thinkers and theologians in history.

As well as some outstanding football and basketball programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

I’m pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were more concerned with the rise and dominance of a “state” religion, such as the Church of England, than individual religions or an individual’s choice of religion (which was to be protected).

The creation of the United States followed a period in history where wars of religion wreaked tremendous havoc (the Thirty Years War, for instance). Many of the Founders or their contemporaries (Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine, for example) were very suspicious of state religions, or religion in general. Many, like Jefferson, were also Deists and felt that God had better things to do than meddle in temporal affairs.

I do agree that the idea of separation of Church and State has transmogrified as of late into anything having to do with religion, faith or spirituality is automatically considered anathema and should be banned. The cultural elites on the Left do consider any mention of God, faith or spirituality to be the mark of an unthinking, credulous idiot and I find that tremendously offensive. While my faith and religion (Catholicism) is certainly open to justified criticism, it also boasts some of the greatest thinkers and theologians in history.

As well as some outstanding football and basketball programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

I’m pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were more concerned with the rise and dominance of a “state” religion, such as the Church of England, than individual religions or an individual’s choice of religion (which was to be protected).

The creation of the United States followed a period in history where wars of religion wreaked tremendous havoc (the Thirty Years War, for instance). Many of the Founders or their contemporaries (Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine, for example) were very suspicious of state religions, or religion in general. Many, like Jefferson, were also Deists and felt that God had better things to do than meddle in temporal affairs.

I do agree that the idea of separation of Church and State has transmogrified as of late into anything having to do with religion, faith or spirituality is automatically considered anathema and should be banned. The cultural elites on the Left do consider any mention of God, faith or spirituality to be the mark of an unthinking, credulous idiot and I find that tremendously offensive. While my faith and religion (Catholicism) is certainly open to justified criticism, it also boasts some of the greatest thinkers and theologians in history.

As well as some outstanding football and basketball programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

I’m pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were more concerned with the rise and dominance of a “state” religion, such as the Church of England, than individual religions or an individual’s choice of religion (which was to be protected).

The creation of the United States followed a period in history where wars of religion wreaked tremendous havoc (the Thirty Years War, for instance). Many of the Founders or their contemporaries (Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine, for example) were very suspicious of state religions, or religion in general. Many, like Jefferson, were also Deists and felt that God had better things to do than meddle in temporal affairs.

I do agree that the idea of separation of Church and State has transmogrified as of late into anything having to do with religion, faith or spirituality is automatically considered anathema and should be banned. The cultural elites on the Left do consider any mention of God, faith or spirituality to be the mark of an unthinking, credulous idiot and I find that tremendously offensive. While my faith and religion (Catholicism) is certainly open to justified criticism, it also boasts some of the greatest thinkers and theologians in history.

As well as some outstanding football and basketball programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: I want to take issue with your last sentence: “The MSM will keep in under their hats until the last possible movement. They want Obama to win desperately and will do anything to help him.”.

I completely disagree. The MSM are there to generate revenues, same as any other business, and there isn’t one of those overpaid, blow-dried, talking heads that wouldn’t toss their own dear Ma under the bus if it would create a headline.

If there was something here in terms of fresh meat, some journalist somewhere would break it. It is what investigative journalists (the few good ones that remain, that is) live to do. And this story would be a doozy.

As far as the RNC knowing, but not spilling the beans because they’d rather face Obama than Hillary: I don’t buy that, either. That strays a little too close to conspiracy theory for me, and the RNC would gut Obama in a second, if only to eliminate him from any possible future contention. This guy is a major force in the Democratic Party and I have to think that the Republicans would kill for a chance to bury him early and forever.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: I want to take issue with your last sentence: “The MSM will keep in under their hats until the last possible movement. They want Obama to win desperately and will do anything to help him.”.

I completely disagree. The MSM are there to generate revenues, same as any other business, and there isn’t one of those overpaid, blow-dried, talking heads that wouldn’t toss their own dear Ma under the bus if it would create a headline.

If there was something here in terms of fresh meat, some journalist somewhere would break it. It is what investigative journalists (the few good ones that remain, that is) live to do. And this story would be a doozy.

As far as the RNC knowing, but not spilling the beans because they’d rather face Obama than Hillary: I don’t buy that, either. That strays a little too close to conspiracy theory for me, and the RNC would gut Obama in a second, if only to eliminate him from any possible future contention. This guy is a major force in the Democratic Party and I have to think that the Republicans would kill for a chance to bury him early and forever.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: I want to take issue with your last sentence: “The MSM will keep in under their hats until the last possible movement. They want Obama to win desperately and will do anything to help him.”.

I completely disagree. The MSM are there to generate revenues, same as any other business, and there isn’t one of those overpaid, blow-dried, talking heads that wouldn’t toss their own dear Ma under the bus if it would create a headline.

If there was something here in terms of fresh meat, some journalist somewhere would break it. It is what investigative journalists (the few good ones that remain, that is) live to do. And this story would be a doozy.

As far as the RNC knowing, but not spilling the beans because they’d rather face Obama than Hillary: I don’t buy that, either. That strays a little too close to conspiracy theory for me, and the RNC would gut Obama in a second, if only to eliminate him from any possible future contention. This guy is a major force in the Democratic Party and I have to think that the Republicans would kill for a chance to bury him early and forever.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: I want to take issue with your last sentence: “The MSM will keep in under their hats until the last possible movement. They want Obama to win desperately and will do anything to help him.”.

I completely disagree. The MSM are there to generate revenues, same as any other business, and there isn’t one of those overpaid, blow-dried, talking heads that wouldn’t toss their own dear Ma under the bus if it would create a headline.

If there was something here in terms of fresh meat, some journalist somewhere would break it. It is what investigative journalists (the few good ones that remain, that is) live to do. And this story would be a doozy.

As far as the RNC knowing, but not spilling the beans because they’d rather face Obama than Hillary: I don’t buy that, either. That strays a little too close to conspiracy theory for me, and the RNC would gut Obama in a second, if only to eliminate him from any possible future contention. This guy is a major force in the Democratic Party and I have to think that the Republicans would kill for a chance to bury him early and forever.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: I want to take issue with your last sentence: “The MSM will keep in under their hats until the last possible movement. They want Obama to win desperately and will do anything to help him.”.

I completely disagree. The MSM are there to generate revenues, same as any other business, and there isn’t one of those overpaid, blow-dried, talking heads that wouldn’t toss their own dear Ma under the bus if it would create a headline.

If there was something here in terms of fresh meat, some journalist somewhere would break it. It is what investigative journalists (the few good ones that remain, that is) live to do. And this story would be a doozy.

As far as the RNC knowing, but not spilling the beans because they’d rather face Obama than Hillary: I don’t buy that, either. That strays a little too close to conspiracy theory for me, and the RNC would gut Obama in a second, if only to eliminate him from any possible future contention. This guy is a major force in the Democratic Party and I have to think that the Republicans would kill for a chance to bury him early and forever.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: Amateur sleuthing aside, why on earth wouldn’t this story have been picked up by the MSM if there was validity to it?

Fact checking is the cornerstone to good journalism, so it begs the question that if the document in question was not valid, and provably so, then this would be the single most compelling story of the election, especially since it would invalidate Obama’s candidacy.

So? What’s the story there? Is there some massive coverup that includes the MSM, or (more likely) is this nothing other than an overblown case of hot air and hyperbole?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: Amateur sleuthing aside, why on earth wouldn’t this story have been picked up by the MSM if there was validity to it?

Fact checking is the cornerstone to good journalism, so it begs the question that if the document in question was not valid, and provably so, then this would be the single most compelling story of the election, especially since it would invalidate Obama’s candidacy.

So? What’s the story there? Is there some massive coverup that includes the MSM, or (more likely) is this nothing other than an overblown case of hot air and hyperbole?

[Author]

Posts