Fox News And God Proclamation

[Solitaire]

Fox Network Crew Interviews Jones On ‘God’ Proclamation (http://www.greene.xtn.net/index.php?table=news&template=news.view.subscriber&newsid=105083)

A Fox News television network crew was in Greeneville on Monday to
interview Greene County Mayor Roger Jones about a proclamation he
sponsored in September “supporting the recognition of God as the
foundation of our national heritage.”

Oh when a Fox News Crew drops by you know it's gotta be good. :p

[Wolverine]

Your URL lost something in the translation... it's listed as http://link.com/ ;)

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Your URL lost something in the translation... it's listed as http://link.com/ ;)
Path Patched.

[UnrepentantSinner]

“This country has been based on God” from its earliest days, Jones said, and there’s nothing wrong with declaring the facts of history.

The Continental Congress called for days of prayer and fasting, Jones noted. He said “90 to 95 percent of our Founding Fathers had strong [religious] beliefs” that are evident in their writings, public and private

Sigh. The first part of the quote is an ambiguous statement that is correct that religion was a large part of the life of many of the early citizens of our nation, but it's incorrect to say that our Constitution recognizes a deity of any sort (except in the dating of course) or to say that our governmental system is God ordained or created.

He then goes on to support his nebulous concept with a citation from the Revolutionary period (before our "country" per se) and then appeals to the authority of the founders beliefs and not what they enumerated in the Constitution.

Concepts like freedom are not unique to the Bible nor is commerce which were two of the biggest, if not the two biggest concepts this country was founded on.

Sigh.. time to write a check to Citizens United for Separation of Church and State again...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner Concepts like freedom are not unique to the Bible nor is commerce which were two of the biggest, if not the two biggest concepts this country was founded on.

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist. I'm sure Unrepentant knows this but I'm writing for all.

He even wrote his own revision of the Bible leaving out the supernatural parts. This is available from Prometheus Books under the title The Jefferson Bible.

The Declaration of Independence opens thus:

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...

Definitely sounds like belief in God, but it's not the Biblical one, if you ask me. Nor that of early American preachers such as Cotton Mather or Jonathan Edwards. Nothing about witches or being a loathesome insect or anything like that.

As for the Constitution (unamended), article VI says in part:

... no religious Test shall ever be required as as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And the ninth amendment authorizes sodomy. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
He even wrote his own revision of the Bible leaving out the supernatural parts. This is available from Prometheus Books under the title The Jefferson Bible.

As for the Constitution (unamended), article VI says in part:

Also availible on the web (http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/).

And let us not forget how the Constitution opens. We The People - we derive our rights and the justness of our laws and governmental system not from Mt. Saini or a Mandate of Heaven, but from ourselves and our collective social agreement.

[hammegk]

You ignored the phrase " ... they are endowed by their Creator ... "; do you think the founders thought governments 'created' mankind?

The other piece of bs oft cited is in a treaty with Barbary pirates, which imo was an attempt to avoid jihad, not deny "god".

[NightG1]

Originally posted by hammegk
You ignored the phrase " ... they are endowed by their Creator ... "; do you think the founders thought governments 'created' mankind?

The other piece of bs oft cited is in a treaty with Barbary pirates, which imo was an attempt to avoid jihad, not deny "god".

It says "their Creator" not "the Creator". The phrase is deliberately ambiguous. "Their Creator" can mean anything and is left up to the individual to interpret. Nice try Hammy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by NightG1


It says "their Creator" not "the Creator". The phrase is deliberately ambiguous. "Their Creator" can mean anything and is left up to the individual to interpret. Nice try Hammy.

Certainly more on the point than that response.

How would you "interpret" it? Ah, I know; your great great aunt was pond scum some billions of years ago. Good Theory; you "Prove It".

[Brown]

A few comments about the words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

First, our current interpretation of the words "all men are created equal" is quite different from what the signers had in mind. Certainly dark-skinned men were not the equal of white men, nor were the native American savages the equal of white men. And of course, women were not the equal of men. Arguably, when the signers said "all men," they meant "all white property-owning men."

Second, there was a general consensus at the time that rights of citizens have come from somewhere. In the English view, rights came from the king, who in turn ruled by divine right as sanctioned by the Christian Church. To say that rights of men "are endowed by their Creator" is to deny the English view.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Brown

First, our current interpretation of the words "all men are created equal" is quite different from what the signers had in mind. Certainly dark-skinned men were not the equal of white men, nor were the native American savages the equal of white men. And of course, women were not the equal of men. Arguably, when the signers said "all men," they meant "all white property-owning men."

Or even more arguably, the founders recognized that no agreement would have been forthcoming had those defenders of "ALL Created equal" not compromised.


Second, there was a general consensus at the time that rights of citizens have come from somewhere. In the English view, rights came from the king, who in turn ruled by divine right as sanctioned by the Christian Church. To say that rights of men "are endowed by their Creator" is to deny the English view.
Interesting slant. Do you believe that that removed The Creator from the picture??

[Brown]

Originally posted by hammegk
Do you believe that that removed The Creator from the picture?? The notion that endowment of rights did not come from the king was contrary to prevailing Christian principles, which held that the king's power came from God. In the push for independence, many people were reluctant to challenge what they viewed as the king's divine right to rule. Publications such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" persuaded many that the purported divine right wasn't legitimate.

Some see the reference to the "Creator" as embracing the Christian viewpoint. And yet, independence itself was fundamentally contrary to the Christian viewpoint that the king ruled by divine right.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Brown

Some see the reference to the "Creator" as embracing the Christian viewpoint. And yet, independence itself was fundamentally contrary to the Christian viewpoint that the king ruled by divine right.

Ergo, what persuades you "Creator" is the Xian Creator? By my interpretaion of what I've read I suspect that belief in xianity was not prevalent among the FF's.

[Brown]

Originally posted by hammegk
Ergo, what persuades you "Creator" is the Xian Creator? Hmm? I'm not sure where you came up with this notion, that I was persuaded that the Creator is the Christian creator.

[Silicon]

C'mon,

Everyone knows that Christianity is the only religion with a creation story.

Therefore, if you cite a creator, there's only one possible religion or worldview you could subscribe to, the Christian God!

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by hammegk
...The other piece of bs oft cited is in a treaty with Barbary pirates, which imo was an attempt to avoid jihad, not deny "god".

The piece of bs you refer to is the Tripoli Treaty, Nov 4, 1796, Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Andonyx]

I can't believe I'm about to do this...

But I think I could maybe clarify one of Hammegk's points.

It seems to me as though he's saying either his argument, or the argument of the man being interviewed is NOT that American law and structure is rooted in a CHRISTIAN creator belief, but that there is evidence that it is rooted in SOME belief in a divine creator.

Yes the FFs as he calls them were Deists (in many cases) but not necessarily Christian. So arguing that the constitution does not advocate Christianity is pointless, because that's not the crux of the issue, the issue is wether it advocates SOME sort of belief in a creator.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Yes the FFs as he calls them were Deists (in many cases) but not necessarily Christian. So arguing that the constitution does not advocate Christianity is pointless, because that's not the crux of the issue, the issue is wether it advocates SOME sort of belief in a creator. This sounds reasonable. It sounds wonderfully ecumenical. I suspect many people today would agree with this view.

Historically, however, the view of the "Creator" as viewed by Deists was deemed to be heretical to Christians, and Christianity was unquestionably hostile toward it.

In "The Age of Reason, Part I," Thomas Paine (who also authored "Common Sense") described at length his Deistic view of the Creator, and he further outlined his views as to how Chrisitianity was distinct from the Deist view. The reaction of Christians was not a pleasant "Well, at least we agree that there was some sort of a Creator." On the contrary, Paine received heaps of fury from Christians. In the minds of many Christians, Paine's Deism was indistinguishable from atheism, and Teddy Roosevelt famously referred to Paine as a "dirty atheist."

[Michael Redman]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the founders are saying we were created by the Christian God, that does not mean that our nation is founded on God, or a recognition of God. They would simply be setting the stage, describing the world in which they were acting.

Notice that governments are instituted "among men", not by God. And they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from God.

It doesn't matter what the Creator they were talking about actually was. They ascribe no authority, ask no benefit, and give no credit to this creator for any aspect of the governance of man. It could hardly be more clear that they were intending to create a nation governed by principles of humanism, and not religion.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by hammegk


Certainly more on the point than that response.

How would you "interpret" it? Ah, I know; your great great aunt was pond scum some billions of years ago. Good Theory; you "Prove It".
Evasion noted. Why don't you tell me?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by NightG1

Evasion noted. Why don't you tell me?

You are correct that you did not answer, or even acknowledge, my question. Care to, or are you heading straight for .plonk.?

Originally posted by NightG1

It doesn't matter what the Creator they were talking about actually was. They ascribe no authority, ask no benefit, and give no credit to this creator for any aspect of the governance of man. It could hardly be more clear that they were intending to create a nation governed by principles of humanism, and not religion.
Interesting assertion, but just that. "Creator" was mentioned in DofL, remember? You think the FF were "humanists"? Bullsh*t; they would imo have a collective heart attack if they could see the US judiciary pronunciamentos happening today and over the last 45+- years.

Originally posted by Andonyx

It seems to me as though he's saying either his argument, or the argument of the man being interviewed is NOT that American law and structure is rooted in a CHRISTIAN creator belief, but that there is evidence that it is rooted in SOME belief in a divine creator.
Thanks, A.

Er, some other interpretation of my posts is possible for anyone having 6th grade comprehension or better?

I remain amazed & amused. ;)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Silicon
C'mon,

Everyone knows that Christianity is the only religion with a creation story.

Therefore, if you cite a creator, there's only one possible religion or worldview you could subscribe to, the Christian God!

Oh? Aside from Islam and Judaism (duh!), you should check out the relevant portions of Ovid's Metamorphoses (Greco/Roman).

Plenty of other creation stories too. Not necessarily with as much emphasis on the creator.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Plenty of other creation stories too. Not necessarily with as much emphasis on the creator.

I took his silly(er, + con;) ) comments as a joke. Maybe your interpretation is the correct one though. :) Perhaps we'll find out.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by hammegk
Interesting assertion, but just that.It was my assertion, not NightG1's. And it isn't "just" an assertion, it's an opinion based rationally on the facts."Creator" was mentioned in DofL, remember?Yes. I remember, and am referring to that very mention. You think the FF were "humanists"?I certainly said no such thing. I don't care if the Founders were humanists or not. It's irrelevant. They created a nation with a government based on a humanistic foundation, not a religious one. That's what we're talking about here. Bullsh*t; they would imo have a collective heart attack if they could see the US judiciary pronunciamentos happening today and over the last 45+- years.That's just an assertion, and not a particularly interesting one. Even if the Founders were Bible thumping fundies, that in itself lends no credibility to the notion that this country is founded on Christianity, or religion, or the Tooth Fairy. Read the foundational documents, and it is clear that this country was founded on the notion that the sovereignty necessary for the legitimate exercise of governmental power must be granted by the people, and does not flow from some divine source.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Concepts like freedom are not unique to the Bible nor is commerce which were two of the biggest, if not the two biggest concepts this country was founded on.


The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
The notion that endowment of rights did not come from the king was contrary to prevailing Christian principles, which held that the king's power came from God. In the push for independence, many people were reluctant to challenge what they viewed as the king's divine right to rule. Publications such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" persuaded many that the purported divine right wasn't legitimate.

Some see the reference to the "Creator" as embracing the Christian viewpoint. And yet, independence itself was fundamentally contrary to the Christian viewpoint that the king ruled by divine right.

The way I understand it, they were cutting out the middle man, the king. We have inalienable rights given by the Creator. "Inalienable" meaning those rights can't be surrendered to anyone, not even a king.

That is not any kind of endorsement of Christianity or any religion. It is possible to acknowledge a God without endorsing religion.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
It was my assertion, not NightG1's. And it isn't "just" an assertion, it's an opinion based rationally on the facts.

Interesting that we both have the same set of facts, yet interpret them so differently. Such is life.


I don't care if the Founders were humanists or not. It's irrelevant. They created a nation with a government based on a humanistic foundation, not a religious one. That's what we're talking about here.
As you interpret the facts, apparently so, although we could sidetrack into what is a "religious basis".


[B]That's just an assertion, and not a particularly interesting one. Even if the Founders were Bible thumping fundies, that in itself lends no credibility to the notion that this country is founded on Christianity, or religion, or the Tooth Fairy. Read the foundational documents, and it is clear that this country was founded on the notion that the sovereignty necessary for the legitimate exercise of governmental power must be granted by the people, and does not flow from some divine source.
Good straw man, but has little to do with my remarks, does it?


Originally posted by Luke T.

The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south.
Didn't you forget the smilies? If not, again, nice totally unfounded by fact assertion.

[Andonyx]

Hmmm, it seems to me though that if the statment, "endowed by their creators," can be taken as evidence for the association of divine being with the foundation of our societal structures, then by the same token the phrase, "of the people, by the people, and for the people," can be taken as evidence against....

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hammegk

Didn't you forget the smilies? If not, again, nice totally unfounded by fact assertion.

Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville (1835).

From Chapter II:


The emigrants who came, at different periods to occupy the territory now covered by the American Union, differed from each other in many respects; their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves on different principles...

...The men sent to Virginia were seekers of gold, adventurers without resources and without character, whose turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony, and rendered its progress uncertain. The artisans and agriculturalists arrived afterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly race of men, they were in nowise above the inferior classes of England. No lofty conceptions, no intellectual system, directed the foundation of these new settlements....

...the emigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality-they landed in the desert accompanied by their wives and children. But what most especially distinguished them was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. NOr did they cross the Atlantic to increase their wealth; the call which summoned them from the comforts of their homes was purely intellectual; and in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.

The emigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but it corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency which had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the Government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society opposed to the rigor of their own principles, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world, whre they could live according to their own opinions, and worship God in freedom....

...A democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity had dreamed of, started in full size and panapoly from the midst of an ancient feudal society.

Is my assertion founded well enough for you, hammegk?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville (1835).

Is my assertion founded well enough for you, hammegk?

Truly, ROTFLMGDFAO! Got something a little more recent, with some facts, rather than unfounded-by-fact French Idiot speculations?

Or maybe you can find something in the Bible? Or Koran? Or???

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hammegk


Truly, ROTFLMGDFAO! Got something a little more recent, with some facts, rather than unfounded-by-fact French Idiot speculations?

Or maybe you can find something in the Bible? Or Koran? Or???

I take it you have never heard of this book, Democracy in America, or you wouldn't be so quick to scoff. It is one of the most respected and revered political science books ever written. No one of any import, Right, Left or Center, scoffs at it. A true rarity.

And de Tocqueville quotes at great length from documents of the period to back up his statements. Something more recent? What is better than going to the source, hammegk? Nothing.

[Luke T.]

We are, after all, talking about the belief in God in our founding fathers centuries ago. Exactly how do you propose to back that up with something recent, hammegk?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I take it you have never heard of this book, Democracy in America, or you wouldn't be so quick to scoff. It is one of the most respected and revered political science books ever written. No one of any import, Right, Left or Center, scoffs at it. A true rarity.
Other than those who scoff at something mis-named poly-sci. It actually is poly - what - stupid - crap - can - I - get - published.


And de Tocqueville quotes at great length from documents of the period to back up his statements. Something more recent? What is better than going to the source, hammegk? Nothing.
Recently someone else quoted from documents from the period & concluded (well, lied) about the prevalaence & use of guns in our history.

However, yes I've read that book. If you take his dissertion as backup for your earlier statement "The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south." we will agree to disagree.

Think about it; do you actually believe that to be a statement of fact rather than conjecture. IMO that assertion is on the face of it unsustainable? ;)


We are, after all, talking about the belief in God in our founding fathers centuries ago. Exactly how do you propose to back that up with something recent, hammegk?
I don't. We both have those source documents.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hammegk

However, yes I've read that book. If you take his dissertion as backup for your earlier statement "The concepts of liberty and equality were brought here by the Puritans, while commerce was brought by the profiteers who settled in the south." we will agree to disagree.



Okey doke.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by hammegk
Good straw man, but has little to do with my remarks, does it?Let’s see if I have this right:

The thread starts with an article where a politician says that our nation heritage is founded on God.

Some people start a discussion including the question of whether the “Creator” in the Declaration refers to any specific deity.

I chime in saying that it doesn’t matter what they were referring to, as they didn’t found the nation on this Creator, or attribute the creation of the nation to this Creator, etc. Instead, they founded a nation on humanistic principles, the most important of which is that ultimate sovereignty comes from within the individual, not from any divine source.

You respond that the founders were not Humanists, and they would not be happy with recent events.

I respond saying it doesn’t matter if they were humanists. They created a government based on humanistic principles, and this thread is about the foundational heritage of the country, not the founders' personal beliefs.

You cry “strawman”. :rolleyes: I guess I should be surpised that you haven't resorted to your typical smarmy insults. Yet.

What the Founding Fathers believed is not our national heritage. What they founded is. And what they founded is a nation not based on God, religion, divinity, or any such notion. It is founded on the idea that people have the sovereign right to rule themselves; a concept absolutely irreconcilable with the notion of a country founded on the authority of a divine sovereign.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

The thread starts with an article where a politician says that our nation heritage is founded on God.
Yup. And for the past 40+ years you have enjoyed a majority of liberal judges who have agreed with your interpretation of the issues.

If that majority is ever replaced with a majority who would prefer to uphold constitutional law rather than make law, I predict interpretations against your position will begin to prevail.

Cheer up; you will also retain the right to bear arms so you can organize, revolt, and start a country more to your liking based on the principle "there is no god other than man".

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by hammegk
. . . uphold constitutional law rather than make law . . .Really, hammegk, I thought you were smarter than that.


Anyway, what does recent jurisprudence have to do with the question at the heart of this discussion? Either this country was founded on God, or it wasn't. And it wasn't.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Really, hammegk, I thought you were smarter than that.
...It doesn't matter if hammy is smart or not, since his utterances are reliably idiotic.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Really, hammegk, I thought you were smarter than that.


Anyway, what does recent jurisprudence have to do with the question at the heart of this discussion? Either this country was founded on God, or it wasn't. And it wasn't.
You are a goof if you think our opinions are relevant to how the question is decided in any meaningful fashion. SCOTUS and the entire Fed court system make the law as we both know.

And you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The only thing your arguments have going for them is that too many of the sitting judges agree with you.



hgc: Were you to agree with me on any position I'd conclude I was wrong and needed to re-think the matter. ;)

That idiotic enough for you?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
...

hgc: Were you to agree with me on any position I'd conclude I was wrong and needed to re-think the matter. ;)

That idiotic enough for you? That would be truly foolish. But given your propensity to argue against all available evidence in defense of cherished notions, I doubt that such a little thing as my agreement will sway you.

[Michael Redman]

Again, Hammegk, what the hell does recent jurisprudence have to do with the history of our nation's founding? That is the topic here, isn't it? Whether or not this country, as the Greenville folks claim, was "founded on God"?

If so, then this question is one that has never, and will never, be taken up by any court in this country. Whether or not this nation is "founded on God" is not a legal question, but a historical one. If this particular occurance ever does end up in court, it will clearly not be to determine if, in fact, this country was founded on God, as these idiots claim, but rather to determine if it is a proper excercise of authority for this governmental body to be making such proclamations.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by hammegk
Other than those who scoff at something mis-named poly-sci. It actually is poly - what - stupid - crap - can - I - get - published.

Do you have any idea how this makes you sound? Any whatsoever? When was the last time you actually read anything in a respectable political science journal? Ever? Try reading ( and thinking about) some of the following before you say inanely assinine things like this.

International Organization
Western Political Science Quarterly
American Political Science Review
Journal of Peace Studies

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
.....That is the topic here, isn't it? Whether or not this country, as the Greenville folks claim, was "founded on God"?

If so, then this question is one that has never, and will never, be taken up by any court in this country. Whether or not this nation is "founded on God" is not a legal question, but a historical one. If this particular occurance ever does end up in court, it will clearly not be to determine if, in fact, this country was founded on God, as these idiots claim, but rather to determine if it is a proper excercise of authority for this governmental body to be making such proclamations.

Kewl; SCOTUS must have made a decision rescinding human nature. I.E. Might does not make right. Whatever.

Originally posted by Thumper
.....
Do you have any idea how this makes you sound? ... blah..blah..blah....

I prefer to stick to reading that make sense, thanks. Help me out here; which political science feature do you contend has made life better on earth -- other than for the politicians' favorites -- in the last 50, 500, or 5000 years.

Hmm, power abhors a vacuum; yeah that works.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely; seems dead on.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun (up from physical strength). Amazing.

Do you also read Derrida for fun? And, have you been in many movies since that James Bond flick?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Translation: No acknowledgement of God = anarchy.
Anarchy + Hal = Hell on Earth.
Acknowledgement of F-250 pickup = Utopia.

Or some such non-sense...

Shouldn't you be raging in mu.nu instead of here?

[Tricky]

Sort of off off topic, but a news article today about Charlie Reina, a former producer at Fox who was fired over a salery dispute has said that Fox News is all about politics. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2209189)

Nothing really surprising in this, since anyone who pays attention knows that Fox is so far to the right that they are in danger of falling into the visiting team's dugout. Here are a few of the things he said:
Everyone there understands that (Fox) is, to a large extent, `Roger's Revenge' against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades.
"Roger is such a high-profile and partisan political operative that everyone in the newsroom knows what his political feelings are and acts accordingly. I'd never worked in a newsroom like that," he said in an interview. "Never. At ABC, for example, I never knew what management or my bosses' political views were, much less felt pressure from them to make things come out a certain way. I'm talking about news bias, and I never experienced it there. At CBS or the AP, if a word got in that suggested bias -- liberal or conservative -- it was taken out.
Of course, Fox had the standard reply;These accusations are the rantings of a bitter, disgruntled former employee.
but Reina was hardly a liberal. He produced specials on Newt Gingrich and a talk show with Cal Thomas. He might be disgruntled, but that doesn't mean he's wrong, just a whistle blower.

[hammegk]

US, can you say adhom hijack?


Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Acknowledgement of F-250 pickup = Utopia.
I'm partial to C3500 Chevy pickups.


Shouldn't you be raging in mu.nu instead of here?
Nah, more action here.



Aslo, here's another adhom (from Fox) re Reina's salon.com hitpiece. http://www.the-hamster.com/oct2a.html

From SHARRI BERG, VP-News Operations, Fox News Channel: Like any former, disgruntled employee, Charlie Reina has an ax to grind. He was employed at Fox News Channel for six years as the Producer of NewsWatch and of many different specials, including shows on MLK, Robert F. Kennedy, John Glenn and Newt Gingrich. During that entire period, we were unaware that anyone at Fox News was holding a metaphorical gun to his head.

Earlier this year, Mr. Reina objected to an adjustment in his assigned duties -- duties which he was qualified to perform and paid to do. That very inaction is what affects morale and sends the wrong message to the entire newsroom. If you asked any of the people he refered to as "grunts" but we refer to as "producers," "writers," "desk assistants," they resent his characterization. One of them said this morning, "Charlie actually NEVER had a job in the newsroom. He worked out of some space up on 17 or 18 reserved for overpaid feature producers on career life support. The 'grunts' knew him mainly as one of any number of clueless feature producers who would call the desk at random and ask 'do we have...' The kind of calls where after you hang up you say to the phone 'go f-k yourself.' In fact, its not editorial policy that pisses off newsroom grunts -- its people like Charlie."

How could Mr. Reina have worked at this company for six years if the picture he paints of life at Fox News is true?

Mr. Reina's premise about "the memo" is unfounded. People are proud to work here. They are proud of the product we produce and understand our daily and future goals. Among many, many others, Mr. Reina's memo has a glaring omission, in that Fox News Channel has a very low turnover rate and very high morale. In other words, people who work here WANT to work here.

Are we having fun yet?

[Solitaire]

Resolution hails God's role in government (http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_2409079,00.html)

Like a bad yeast infection - it spreads.

He said he's received 100 to 150 calls from across the
country wanting a copy of the resolution that Greene
County commissioners passed in September.

Ah, the slippery slop.

Harmon countered, though, that "Yes, our country was founded
on God. If you look on our money it says 'In God We Trust.' "

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Like a bad yeast infection - it spreads.



Yeah, keep p*ssing off 75% of the (normally docile) US population, and you may eventually get something you didn't want (but was brought on by your own actions). :D

[Thumper]

Originally posted by hammegk
I prefer to stick to reading that make sense, thanks. Help me out here; which political science feature do you contend has made life better on earth -- other than for the politicians' favorites -- in the last 50, 500, or 5000 years.

Hmm, power abhors a vacuum; yeah that works.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely; seems dead on.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun (up from physical strength). Amazing.

Do you also read Derrida for fun? And, have you been in many movies since that James Bond flick?

And, once again, you show your ignorance of the purpose of science. Science is not normative. It does not seek to create a 'better' world. It does not examine 'should' statements. It seeks to create theories which explain, undertstand, and predict phenomena.

Your mind is obvously closed to this subject. My apologies for trying to expand your knowledge.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Thumper


...Science is not normative. .....It seeks to create theories which explain, undertstand, and predict phenomena.
Agreed; now what does political science even postdict, let alone predict? Just 1 good example???


Your mind is obvously closed to this subject. My apologies for trying to expand your knowledge.
Yeah, my bulls**t detector has a hair trigger and has given false positives. Enlighten me.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by hammegk
Kewl; SCOTUS must have made a decision rescinding human nature. I.E. Might does not make right. Whatever. OK, now you're not even pretending to respond to my posts. Why do you even bother to quote them?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
OK, now you're not even pretending to respond to my posts. Why do you even bother to quote them?

It was a response. You just don't like to think so since it doesn't agree with your desire to apply logic to analyze (illogical) human behavior.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by hammegk
It was a response. You just don't like to think so since it doesn't agree with your desire to apply logic to analyze (illogical) human behavior. I desire my communications with other humans to conform to some logical framework, it's true. I happen to think that this is a requisite for meaningful communication. I fail to see the point in posting thing to a bulletin board for others to see, if it isn't to initiate meaningful communication. Maybe you just like the fact that other people acknowledge your existance. Whatever it is, I'm done playing with you.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
...I'm done playing with you.

There, there; ask mommy for a sugar tit. :rub:

[hgc]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I desire my communications with other humans to conform to some logical framework, it's true. I happen to think that this is a requisite for meaningful communication. I fail to see the point in posting thing to a bulletin board for others to see, if it isn't to initiate meaningful communication. Maybe you just like the fact that other people acknowledge your existance. Whatever it is, I'm done playing with you. Finally giving up on "The Riddler?" hammy's gems are of no value in any rational discussion.