Today's rant is about search engines. Like everyone else, I use them daily. I've been using Google (along with everyone else in the world except Microsoft) since they were in beta testing. At that time, I found them to be far more useful than Yahoo! as Yahoo! at that time was an OR search (basically useless, and even if you told it to perform an AND search, it would *STILL* give you OR results), whereas Google was a far more useful AND search.
What do I mean? If you enter 2 or more search items, like "sewing machine" (no quotes) - the Yahoo of the day would give you hits for "sewing" and others for "Machine", whereas Google would give you hits for pages that only had both (or all) terms given.
Fast forward to today. To the best of my knowledge, there is STILL no general purpose search engine that allows you to specify wildcards, such as "Greek Danc*" which would give hits on "Greek Dance", "Greek Dancing", "Greek Dancers", etc. WHY THE HELL NOT?! I suggested this to Google years ago...
They're getting too smart for their own good. If I Google "Reversew" (no quotes), Google returns results for "Reverse". I have to enclose "Reversew" in quotes to get Google to pay attention. Annoying but livable - BUT - the damn thing STILL gives hits on the word "Reverse". STOP DOING MY THINKING FOR ME - THIS IS USELESS.
So, I should use a different search engine you say? Great - I've tried. Bing, Yahoo!, Ask, all perform similarly. They're not half as useful as they were 3 years ago.
Sigh...
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Well, it could have been worse I guess...
At least it wasn't San(c)torum in the lead in S.C. I'll take Gingrich over Santorum, but only by a nose. I'm actually moderately surprised Santorum didn't do better - South Carolina is in the Bible belt after all.
All the Republicans can give me are (mostly fat), bloviating Bible thumpers. This is supposed to defeat Obama? They just DON'T GET IT. They'll thump that damned book, losing elections all the way, while the Democrats sink us into a Socialist quagmire.
Pure disgust.
All the Republicans can give me are (mostly fat), bloviating Bible thumpers. This is supposed to defeat Obama? They just DON'T GET IT. They'll thump that damned book, losing elections all the way, while the Democrats sink us into a Socialist quagmire.
Pure disgust.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Thank Goddess! Maybe...
Thank Goddess the most rabid of the Bible thumpers got their collective heads handed to them on a platter in the New Hampshire primary. The "least worst" Romney took the lead - although I'd still rather have the second runner up, Ron Paul, out of the remaining field. The guy makes sense - a LOT of it. Its the economy, stupid. Its also individual liberty - what a concept for a Republican (OR a Democrat)!! Its NOT spending American money and lives on other countries either.
I would like to think that this is a result of people finally figuring out the Dominionist, theocratic game. I sure hope so. It does seem that the Republicans are getting rejected more and more because they're still preaching the same, old, tired, message of less freedom for everyone.
But we'll end up with Romney. I don't like the Mormon church and their meddlesome politics, and I certainly don't agree with Mormon theology. However, they're no worse than, and possibly better than the Catholics. And most certainly better a Mormon than a Baptist or other Talibanesque fundamentalist.
I'll vote for Paul given the chance - with California's new anti-party and party-hated open primary law. Problem is, the primaries need to all be held on the same date just like the general election is - otherwise many people end up having their choice made for them by the earlier voters. What's wrong with this picture? More party driven BS as far as I'm concerned.
I would like to think that this is a result of people finally figuring out the Dominionist, theocratic game. I sure hope so. It does seem that the Republicans are getting rejected more and more because they're still preaching the same, old, tired, message of less freedom for everyone.
But we'll end up with Romney. I don't like the Mormon church and their meddlesome politics, and I certainly don't agree with Mormon theology. However, they're no worse than, and possibly better than the Catholics. And most certainly better a Mormon than a Baptist or other Talibanesque fundamentalist.
I'll vote for Paul given the chance - with California's new anti-party and party-hated open primary law. Problem is, the primaries need to all be held on the same date just like the general election is - otherwise many people end up having their choice made for them by the earlier voters. What's wrong with this picture? More party driven BS as far as I'm concerned.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
And so it begins...
Ok, the prelim results are in from the Iowa Circuses/Caucuses...
Leave it to Iowa to support a Bible thumper - they selected Huckabee last time. Fortunately, this fact didn't end up meaning anything.
So Santorum ("Sanctorum") and Romney are in a dead heat, with Paul a close third. The good news is that Gingrich and Perry are reduced to also-rans - which is encouraging, but hardly definitive at this point.
Santorum who sprang up seemingly from nowhere, is even a worse theocrat than Perry - thump, thump, thump, thump, thump, that damned BOOK.
Romney is the guy no-one likes. His strong numbers here are mostly votes against someone/everyone else - the least of all evils. But... I'd rather have Ron Paul - he at least GETS IT: its the economy, stupid! Although I'm not sure I agree with him on things like national defense, although his apparent isolationism has quite a few merits.
I loved the "man on the street" interviews - people saying Romney isn't a Christian, blah, blah. Whatever - they all look pretty much the same from an outsider perspective, but I'd take a Mormon over a Baptist any day of the week. I'd really rather have a Pagan, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Native American, or even an Atheist over any JCI adherent, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
We've GOT to get rid of that Socialist Liberal in the White House, but we sure has hell don't need a worse-than-Bush theocrat to replace him. Once again: A pox on BOTH your houses. Parties *are* the problem - but since we seem to be stuck with them, vote Libertarian, vote Independent, vote ANYTHING but Democrat or Republican!
Whatever.
On to New Hampshire...
Leave it to Iowa to support a Bible thumper - they selected Huckabee last time. Fortunately, this fact didn't end up meaning anything.
So Santorum ("Sanctorum") and Romney are in a dead heat, with Paul a close third. The good news is that Gingrich and Perry are reduced to also-rans - which is encouraging, but hardly definitive at this point.
Santorum who sprang up seemingly from nowhere, is even a worse theocrat than Perry - thump, thump, thump, thump, thump, that damned BOOK.
Romney is the guy no-one likes. His strong numbers here are mostly votes against someone/everyone else - the least of all evils. But... I'd rather have Ron Paul - he at least GETS IT: its the economy, stupid! Although I'm not sure I agree with him on things like national defense, although his apparent isolationism has quite a few merits.
I loved the "man on the street" interviews - people saying Romney isn't a Christian, blah, blah. Whatever - they all look pretty much the same from an outsider perspective, but I'd take a Mormon over a Baptist any day of the week. I'd really rather have a Pagan, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Native American, or even an Atheist over any JCI adherent, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
We've GOT to get rid of that Socialist Liberal in the White House, but we sure has hell don't need a worse-than-Bush theocrat to replace him. Once again: A pox on BOTH your houses. Parties *are* the problem - but since we seem to be stuck with them, vote Libertarian, vote Independent, vote ANYTHING but Democrat or Republican!
Whatever.
On to New Hampshire...
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Learn how to drive, PLEASE!
I've been wanting to write this particular post for some time - it is, however, a bit hard to write in order to correctly "draw the picture" sufficiently well so the reader will have a vague idea what I'm trying to say...
Bear with me, and picture this:
A rural "T" intersection where a westbound 2 lane road meets a north/south 2 lane highway. The highway has a left turn lane where southbound traffic wishing to turn onto the road (to head east) can line up. Here's the important part: Just to the south of said left turn lane, is a center merge lane where traffic turning left off of the 2 lane road can speed up and merge with southbound traffic on the highway. This lane is about 1/4 mile long.
Needless to say, all sorts of mayhem, incompetence, and sheer stupidity ensues. Here are several situations I see on an almost daily basis:
1) Southbound car wanting to turn left off the highway and onto the eastbound road. Add another car wanting to turn left off of the westbound road to proceed south on the highway. The "rules of the road" are very clear: The southbound car on the highway has the right of way (over the car turning onto the highway, obviously not over northbound traffic). Instead of taking it, the southbound highway car wants the left turner from the westbound road to go first. THIS WASTES TIME and is VERY DANGEROUS. Time is wasted trying to communicate - if the southbound car would just go ahead and make its turn onto the road, the other car can almost always make its turn onto the highway at essentially the same time. It is dangerous - an exception to the rules of the road usually is - if the car turning onto the highway accepts the invitation of the car turning off the highway to go first and an accident ensues - its going to be the fault of the car turning onto the highway because it didn't follow the rules of the road.
Go back and re-read that if you need to. Exceptions to the rules of the road should ONLY be made in exceptional circumstances. I purposely do NOT make eye contact with the 'car turning off' when I'm the 'car turning on' to discourage the other driver's attempt to be 'polite'. Its anything BUT. If you have the right of way - TAKE IT - unless truly remarkable circumstances apply.
2) Car waiting to turn left off of the road onto the southbound highway. Either doesn't see (!!!!) or doesn't know about, or doesn't care about the southbound merging lane. This kind of sheer IDIOT sits there waiting until traffic is clear on BOTH directions before going. My NUMBER ONE pet peeve. The car in this situation needs to yield to northbound highway traffic, and left turners off the highway from the southbound left turn lane. There is NO need whatsoever to wait until the main southbound lane is clear - that's what the merge lane is for! MOVE IT.
3) As above, but the car turns into the merge lane and STOPS! Or goes real slow waiting for southbound traffic to clear. I'll give them the horn immediately if I just cannot go around them (which I usually cannot). That's what a MERGE lane is for: MERGING. ACCELERATE AND MERGE.
4)Traffic is heavy. This time a northbound car STOPS for either one (or both) of the left turners to go. This causes northbound traffic to back up for miles. DO NOT DO THIS - UNLESS the northbound traffic just past this intersection is essentially stopped already. Otherwise, all this does is create a blockage that will stop the left turners (and right turners too - off the road and onto the northbound highway) from EVER having a gap in traffic. As with #1, it takes a LOT of time to negotiate this kind of exception to the traffic rules; although it can be valid if the traffic is already essentially stopped. THINK.
Now, I'll take the reader down the road a bit more than a quarter mile. The same kind of intersection exists, except for three differences: The road is now eastbound, T-ing to the north/south highway. This fact isn't important for this discussion. More importantly, the merging lane is only 3 car lengths long at best; bad design, it cannot be used to merge with moving traffic. Also, if you're in the merging lane, the road behind you curves to your left. What this means is if someone is in the merge lane behind you, you cannot see the traffic (northbound this time) that you need to merge with.
The unfortunate protocol that has developed at this intersection is for people to turn left into the merge lane and stop. Since the merge lane is uselessly short, that's the only action that can be taken if there's any northbound traffic. However, people will roll forward to the end of the merge lane to allow additional cars to join them there - sometimes there will be as many as 3 cars sitting and waiting there.
9 times out of 10, when I do this there is some guy in a large van or SUV behind me. I can NOT see a damn thing in my passenger left side mirror because of the curvature of the road. So, I started getting into the merge lane and NOT pulling ahead - leaving no room for another car to join me there. Several times I had someone try to do it anyway, and honk because there's no place for them to go. My attitude: "Hey buddy, you saw that it was unsafe to pull out here before you did it, the onus is on you." I can't see, I'm not going anywhere.
After this BS happened a couple of times, I stopped using this badly designed intersection altogether. I now loop through a couple of parking lots and come out further south where there's a 2 way left turn lane in the center. If someone gets behind me there - its no problem because the road is STRAIGHT there, I can SEE out of my passenger side mirror, so I can go when its safe. Problem solved. Technically illegal, but I don't care - its my life and my safety that's at stake. The above intersection needs to either have its merge lane extended so it resembles the one further north up the highway - OR - left turns out of it should be forbidden altogether.
Hope this makes sense...
Bear with me, and picture this:
A rural "T" intersection where a westbound 2 lane road meets a north/south 2 lane highway. The highway has a left turn lane where southbound traffic wishing to turn onto the road (to head east) can line up. Here's the important part: Just to the south of said left turn lane, is a center merge lane where traffic turning left off of the 2 lane road can speed up and merge with southbound traffic on the highway. This lane is about 1/4 mile long.
Needless to say, all sorts of mayhem, incompetence, and sheer stupidity ensues. Here are several situations I see on an almost daily basis:
1) Southbound car wanting to turn left off the highway and onto the eastbound road. Add another car wanting to turn left off of the westbound road to proceed south on the highway. The "rules of the road" are very clear: The southbound car on the highway has the right of way (over the car turning onto the highway, obviously not over northbound traffic). Instead of taking it, the southbound highway car wants the left turner from the westbound road to go first. THIS WASTES TIME and is VERY DANGEROUS. Time is wasted trying to communicate - if the southbound car would just go ahead and make its turn onto the road, the other car can almost always make its turn onto the highway at essentially the same time. It is dangerous - an exception to the rules of the road usually is - if the car turning onto the highway accepts the invitation of the car turning off the highway to go first and an accident ensues - its going to be the fault of the car turning onto the highway because it didn't follow the rules of the road.
Go back and re-read that if you need to. Exceptions to the rules of the road should ONLY be made in exceptional circumstances. I purposely do NOT make eye contact with the 'car turning off' when I'm the 'car turning on' to discourage the other driver's attempt to be 'polite'. Its anything BUT. If you have the right of way - TAKE IT - unless truly remarkable circumstances apply.
2) Car waiting to turn left off of the road onto the southbound highway. Either doesn't see (!!!!) or doesn't know about, or doesn't care about the southbound merging lane. This kind of sheer IDIOT sits there waiting until traffic is clear on BOTH directions before going. My NUMBER ONE pet peeve. The car in this situation needs to yield to northbound highway traffic, and left turners off the highway from the southbound left turn lane. There is NO need whatsoever to wait until the main southbound lane is clear - that's what the merge lane is for! MOVE IT.
3) As above, but the car turns into the merge lane and STOPS! Or goes real slow waiting for southbound traffic to clear. I'll give them the horn immediately if I just cannot go around them (which I usually cannot). That's what a MERGE lane is for: MERGING. ACCELERATE AND MERGE.
4)Traffic is heavy. This time a northbound car STOPS for either one (or both) of the left turners to go. This causes northbound traffic to back up for miles. DO NOT DO THIS - UNLESS the northbound traffic just past this intersection is essentially stopped already. Otherwise, all this does is create a blockage that will stop the left turners (and right turners too - off the road and onto the northbound highway) from EVER having a gap in traffic. As with #1, it takes a LOT of time to negotiate this kind of exception to the traffic rules; although it can be valid if the traffic is already essentially stopped. THINK.
Now, I'll take the reader down the road a bit more than a quarter mile. The same kind of intersection exists, except for three differences: The road is now eastbound, T-ing to the north/south highway. This fact isn't important for this discussion. More importantly, the merging lane is only 3 car lengths long at best; bad design, it cannot be used to merge with moving traffic. Also, if you're in the merging lane, the road behind you curves to your left. What this means is if someone is in the merge lane behind you, you cannot see the traffic (northbound this time) that you need to merge with.
The unfortunate protocol that has developed at this intersection is for people to turn left into the merge lane and stop. Since the merge lane is uselessly short, that's the only action that can be taken if there's any northbound traffic. However, people will roll forward to the end of the merge lane to allow additional cars to join them there - sometimes there will be as many as 3 cars sitting and waiting there.
9 times out of 10, when I do this there is some guy in a large van or SUV behind me. I can NOT see a damn thing in my passenger left side mirror because of the curvature of the road. So, I started getting into the merge lane and NOT pulling ahead - leaving no room for another car to join me there. Several times I had someone try to do it anyway, and honk because there's no place for them to go. My attitude: "Hey buddy, you saw that it was unsafe to pull out here before you did it, the onus is on you." I can't see, I'm not going anywhere.
After this BS happened a couple of times, I stopped using this badly designed intersection altogether. I now loop through a couple of parking lots and come out further south where there's a 2 way left turn lane in the center. If someone gets behind me there - its no problem because the road is STRAIGHT there, I can SEE out of my passenger side mirror, so I can go when its safe. Problem solved. Technically illegal, but I don't care - its my life and my safety that's at stake. The above intersection needs to either have its merge lane extended so it resembles the one further north up the highway - OR - left turns out of it should be forbidden altogether.
Hope this makes sense...
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Joy of Stainless Steel
My wife and I frequently watch the various "home search" and real estate improvement shows on HGTV. They're fun to watch. One theme recurs again, and again - the subject of STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Always spoken with emphasis and often with a bit of awe: STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!
Usually, the Realtor or remodeler will tout the fact that a home has STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Or the prospective buyer will make note of them, or if not present say that they want STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Or sniff about the kitchen being "dated", and they wanted something more "high end" such as STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!
Sorry, my wife and I are *NOT* fans. We purchased a condo a few years ago, while looking at one of the prospects the realtor pointed out that it had STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! I told her "That is *NOT* a selling point" (we bought something else)...
Stainless had a brief period of popularity in the mid 1970s - and for those oh-so-concerned about things being "dated", by 1978 the stainless appliances looked *VERY* dated - whatever.
We don't like Stainless because it shows dirt and fingerprints better than nothing else, it scratches and dents easily and very visibly, and its just plain ugly. I realize that people who like this stuff are enamored of the supposed "prestige" of having something that looks like it came from a restaurant kitchen. That's another problem, it looks just like that. I don't want commercial-looking "anything" in my house. The same goes for TVs, stereos, etc as well. I don't want Metalica's recording studio in my living room!
We'll stick with the classic whites and blacks. They look far better and won't be "dated" in 5 years. As for "dated", I'd rather have Avocado or Harvest Gold over STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!
Usually, the Realtor or remodeler will tout the fact that a home has STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Or the prospective buyer will make note of them, or if not present say that they want STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Or sniff about the kitchen being "dated", and they wanted something more "high end" such as STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!
Sorry, my wife and I are *NOT* fans. We purchased a condo a few years ago, while looking at one of the prospects the realtor pointed out that it had STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! I told her "That is *NOT* a selling point" (we bought something else)...
Stainless had a brief period of popularity in the mid 1970s - and for those oh-so-concerned about things being "dated", by 1978 the stainless appliances looked *VERY* dated - whatever.
We don't like Stainless because it shows dirt and fingerprints better than nothing else, it scratches and dents easily and very visibly, and its just plain ugly. I realize that people who like this stuff are enamored of the supposed "prestige" of having something that looks like it came from a restaurant kitchen. That's another problem, it looks just like that. I don't want commercial-looking "anything" in my house. The same goes for TVs, stereos, etc as well. I don't want Metalica's recording studio in my living room!
We'll stick with the classic whites and blacks. They look far better and won't be "dated" in 5 years. As for "dated", I'd rather have Avocado or Harvest Gold over STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!
Saturday, December 10, 2011
More proof of the Revisionist, Dominionist lie:
Found on the 'net, more quotes from our founding fathers:
SOME FOUNDING FATHERS QUOTES ON RELIGION
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Jefferson
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].
Thomas Paine
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.
Thomas Jefferson
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. [So much for the oft rendered phrase "God-fearing" -Zorba]
Thomas Jefferson
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
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. My own mind is my own church.
Thomas Paine
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
Thomas Paine
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.
George Washington
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
[Contrast this to the Republican repudiation of science -Zorba]
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and
irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.
George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.
George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc
Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102
If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they
may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists....
George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical.
George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.
George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its
ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.
George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
SOME FOUNDING FATHERS QUOTES ON RELIGION
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Jefferson
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].
Thomas Paine
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.
Thomas Jefferson
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. [So much for the oft rendered phrase "God-fearing" -Zorba]
Thomas Jefferson
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
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. My own mind is my own church.
Thomas Paine
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
Thomas Paine
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.
George Washington
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
[Contrast this to the Republican repudiation of science -Zorba]
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and
irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.
George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.
George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc
Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102
If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they
may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists....
George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical.
George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.
George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its
ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.
George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)