2008.11.02
Discuss Trejbal's column on voting in churches
Where we vote affects how we vote
By Christian Trejbal
Election Day is nearly here. Voters will gather in school gymnasiums, libraries, government centers, recreation centers and other halls.
Most people take polling places for granted in Virginia, where absentee ballots are too hard to come by. They park, run the gantlet of candidates, stand in line, then vote.
The peaceful moment alone with the voting machine is an illusion. Take a minute to look at your surroundings on Tuesday; your subconscious is.
RSS feed 
I concur and always thought this an odd choice for polling places.
Comment by NRVA Citizen — November 2, 2008 @ 7:00 am
Mr. Trejbal, perhaps you can tout a new study next month that purports to demonstrate the subliminal influence that the sight of Christian churches have on the atheists or non-Christian drivers that are forced to travel past them. After all, aren't they located on publicly funded roads? Surely you would agree that the so-called "separation of church and state" requires that all of these churches be cloistered away from public view lest the sight of a cross, or horror of horrors, a nativity scene, influence the unthinking masses to alter their thinking and behavior. In Mr. Trejbal's world, "tradition" is a euphemism for discrimination and prejudice. Similarly, "democracy", or the express will of the majority is good in Presidential elections, but at the local level it must be thwarted whenever it conflicts with his heightened sensibilities of "justice" and the protection of minority "rights".
To illustrate that there just might be an "agenda" behind the smoke screen of "concern" for the extreme minority who feel harmed by being forced to set foot in a Christian church to cast a vote, one should consider checking out his other columns that have touched on the subject of religion and religious people in our community.
Comment by Wayne Carlson — November 2, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Wayne,
You got it. Mr. Trejbal's agenda is the worst-kept secret on these pages.
Using churches is perfectly logical, since the buildings are largely unused most days. I don't know if churches are reimbursed for heating, electricity and janitorial output or not, but the government is spared the hassle of those details, if not the expenses. Furthermore, the churches I have voted at are large and have nondescript basement meeting rooms you walk straight into from the parking lot. Not a lot of religious inspiration there. You can't tell if you're in a church or a VFW hall.
There are so many other things we should change about elections which may be currently skewing the results. For one thing, we should vote on weekends to make it more convenient for those who work. Tuesday elections give Democrats such an advantage because so many of them don't work, so they have all day to vote for Obama, whereas working folks have a narrower window. They usually work during the day, then have to face longer lines in the evening. A double disadvantage for Republicans.
Also, we need to abolish early voting. It just gives ACORN and other Democrat operatives more opportunites to cheat. Besides that, the MSM is reporting early voting results which could unfairly influence turnout just the way early (and erroneous) reporting of Florida in 2000 disenfranchised Republican voters in the state's western portion.
Comment by Josh — November 2, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
"They (nonbelievers) must enter a place that offends their sensibilities if they wish to participate in the democratic process." If they're nonbelievers, then it should just be a building, for crying-out-loud, just as a gas station is. If they were vegans, would it offend their sensibilities to enter a Kroger or Wades, where animal products are sold? What about the mall, where leather is sold? He mentions the use of saloons. What about the many people who don't consume alcohol ... wouldn't that offend their sensibilities?
"Christians should think how comfortable they would feel entering a mosque, temple (sic) or Wiccan hall on Election Day." I have voted in a synagogue, and I was thankful and proud that I lived in the United States of America, where we have freedom of religion and association, where I can freely enter these buildings and participate in the democratic process.
Christian (you do realize what that name means, don't you?!?) Trejbal offends my sensibilities, yet I will continue, perhaps foolishly, to subscribe to the Roanoke Times. I may not, however, read his column.
Comment by Amy — November 2, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Most of the Atheists I know (including me) aren't bothered by voting in a church. I suppose believers in competing myths might be offended by having to confront the myth of Christianity, but those of us who don't believe in them generally don't consider those buildings any differently than warehouses, civic centers, or local brothels.
No, we save our concern for unconstitutional and divisive intrusions of religion in the government. Voting in a church isn't a big issue; the Ten Commandments on the door of a court house (to the exclusion of other historical documents) is a big deal.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 3, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Rob,
So...if you don't view churches (filled with religious symbols) any differently from any other building, then your complaints about religious symbols at a court house are insincere and specious. Thanks for the insight.
Comment by Josh — November 3, 2008 @ 9:25 am
As a Christian, I can still see your point of view.
I think with Christiansburg Town Hall and with any place on Tech's campus, you will deal with parking. Have you tried to park at Christiansburg Town hall to do any business? And that intersection is oh-so-fun to deal with. Lordy (no offense)!
I found the Merrimac Road location to be too far out to vote. When I lived near the CRC, I never understood why I voted there and not some place closer like the library or Blacksburg Municipal Building. But I digress.
North Fork Baptist church in the Ellett Valley is used as a polling place because there is no building around there that can handle a polling place - unless it is the Food Time. Free biscuit and gravy for each voter!
It is more convenience than any thing else. If people are truly offended, then they can vote absentee.
Comment by Lisa — November 3, 2008 @ 9:29 am
I think the point is that a church is expected to have religious symbols, texts, and information since it's, well, a church. A courthouse is supposed to be a place of law and justice. And while many of those laws are based on religious teachings, they generally hold true in any religion and therefore are more or less a universal truth, or universal law, if you will. Having religous symbols of only one religion in a public building where religion is theoretically not supposed to be promoted or endorsed, that to me crosses that fine line. However, the Constitution does only apply to Congress making no law supporting or endorsing a religion, so having those things shown in a local court, for example, I'm not sure it really falls into the realm where the Bill of Rights would technically apply. But If you strictly interpret the Constitution as written, then the RNC's most beloved 2nd Amendment would be under fire because the way it reads says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, and I don;t know of too many gun owners being part of a well-regulated militia. If someone wanted to test that, I'm sure they would have the Constitutional authority to ban gun ownership for all private citizens unless they were in law enforcement, active-duty military, military reserves, or national guard, since those could be considered to be well-regulated militias in a sense, but the average private owner would not fall into that category. So my point is that strict interpretation for one Amendment yields results the Republicans love, but would kill another Amendment, so it would seem that everyone is for the strict interpretation of the Constitution when it suits them, and for loose interpretation in other cases to likewise suit them. Pick one or the other, this mix and match stuff has got to go.
Comment by Other John — November 3, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Lisa, your suggestion that people offended at voting in churches misses half the point -- churches almost certainly corrupt the vote of the faithful. More important, it isn't an option in Virginia. The commonwealth has very specific excuses that justify an absentee ballot, and religious offense is not one of them. Oddly, religion is an excuse if Election Day itself infringes on one's sacred duties: "8. Any duly registered person who is unable to go in person to the polls on the day of the election because of an obligation occasioned by his religion." Maybe some registrars would loosely interpret that, but I think it would be a stretch and not be upheld by the courts.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 3, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Comment by Josh as to reimbursement, the voting precincts are paid for their use on election day - all precincts.
Comment by restes — November 3, 2008 @ 10:26 am
There will always be people looking for reasons to be offended. You can't let them trash the Constitution for their own vanity's sake. There is no right "not to be offended".
"churches almost certainly corrupt the vote of the faithful"
Are you saying that black churches corrupt the vote of their members?
Comment by Henry — November 3, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Incorrect, restes. Not all polling places are paid. In Montgomery County, for example, only about half receive money. None of the schools do and not all of the churches do.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 3, 2008 @ 10:56 am
OJ,
Rob is the one who said atheists don't distinguish between churches, warehouses, civic centers and brothels. I think he unwittingly unearthed the real reason behind his group's protests of nativity scenes and Commandments at public buildings; bigotry against Christians.
Comment by Josh — November 3, 2008 @ 10:56 am
That may be plausible for some atheists, and I can't deny that or dispel that since it certainly appears true for some. I'm not an atheist, but often times wonder if having nativities in front of town halls sends the best message to the non-Christian citizens of whatever locality has the set-up. Granted, the non-Christian population is several times smaller in almost every location in the US, but I have to wonder if the motives for some folks to keep pushing the public display of Christian symbols in public venues has something to do with wanting to make non Christians uncomfortable and thereby either leave particular communities or convert to Christianity to avoid feeling alienated by a country that has historically embraced the differences of its citizens by uniting under the term of American. Nowadays it seems we are a very fractured nation on many fronts. Red states and blue states, religions, political ideologies, ethnic background and origins...it seems everyone looks to identify with their own little cliques and say people that don't fit in with them are somehow lesser or too different to be accepted as a "true" American, and that sort of behavior is not conducive to making our country better. I guess this goes to the "Unity" blog posting more than this.
Comment by Other John — November 3, 2008 @ 11:29 am
We live in a country whose forefathers created the laws based off of religion in their views, our pledge mentions the Lord's name directly, officials are sworn in on a Bible and court proceedings use the Book as well. Mr. Carlson's post hits the mark exactly. Non-believers driving on publicly funded roads have to look at churches as they drive by, yet not many complaints. Atheists do not ask the doctor performing surgery that could save their life if they are a believer or not (certainly the atheist wouldnt want their life saved by someone that says a prayer under their breath that a stint may take hold successfully). Atheists do not complain about such things so why would they complain about something like where the votes are cast? If they truly believe they evolved from rocks in space, then who would they be worried about is looking over their shoulder in a structure made of stone or wood???
Comment by Marked Man — November 3, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Marked Man: wow, you hit just about every anti-Atheist buzz you could get your hands on, didn't you? You do know that some of our forefathers were Deists, right? You do know that our pledge, as originally writen (by a Baptist minister) didn't mention god at all, right? You do know that the official swearing in ceremony, done out of the private eye, does not involve a Bible or any other book, right? In fact, the use of a Bible is purely up to the person being sworn in; it's in no way an official prop.
As an Atheist, I don't care what religion my surgeon follows, but if they reject the Theory of Evolution for something fanciful like creationism, I'm finding another surgeon. I don't care if the surgeon wants to mutter a prayer before, during, or after a procedure, but if he thinks prayer is a substitute for study and practice, or insists that I join him then I'm finding another surgeon.
I haven't heard an Atheist here or elsewhere complain about voting in a church, have you? Of course, I also haven't heard an Atheist say we evolved from rocks in space either. We truly aren't concerned in a being we don't believe in looking over our shoulder while we vote.
Josh: OJ answered well enough; we expect the trappings of mythology in a building dedicated to the teachings of that mythology. Our courts aren't dedicated to mythology, so we expect the trappings of reason and sanity. There may be some tenuous link between our laws and various religions from the past, but our laws evolve over time to reflect reasoned responses to ever-changing situations. Or, at least, they usually do. Then you have ridiculous, homophobic marriage amendments which seem to indicate a desire to revert to the Dark Ages.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 3, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Josh: if it makes you feel any better, it's not just your mythologies trappings that I don't want in court houses or other public squares. I also don't want the Muslim, Hindu, Greek or Roman mythologies in the court houses. It has nothing to do with bigotry, just reason and sanity.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 3, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Rob
No it's not. You are forcing your beliefs on the rest of us. You are forcing our silence. You are following a mythology called Evolution and you want us to bend to your beliefs because you are "right". It's not your place to kick us out of the public arena.
When I was an atheist (back when it wasn't cool), I worried about atheists who fixated on religion. It made me wonder if they were embittered theists who rebelled because mommy and daddy made them go to church. I never thought about religion because it rarely interfaced with my life. I knew atheists who thought the entire Christian world conspired against them but in the end, they were just vain and thought all the hymns were sung against *them*.
Comment by Henry — November 3, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Rob,
But you just said you don't mind state business being run in a building surrounded by religious symbols, aka, a church. And since you don't think a church is different than other disparate types of buildings, then conducting state business in a courthouse with religious symbols in it should be just fine with you.
I love it when people trap themselves when trying to be flip.
Comment by Josh — November 3, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
RM i dont recall saying that im anti-atheist. Anyway, my original point WAS in fact (just like you said) that many of our forefathers were Deists so im not sure why you were asking me if i knew that ??!?! It just seems odd why someone who doesnt believe in God would choose to live in a country that was founded on those beliefs and then complain about 'having religion forced down their throats' as opposed to moving to somewhere that follows a belief that we evolved from... well that we came from... well i guess they dont have an answer for that.
Comment by Marked Man — November 3, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
RM, exactly what did you mean by the 'official swearing in being done out of the private eye'? Do you mean in the public eye, the Bible isnt used?
Comment by Marked Man — November 3, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Josh,
You missed Rob's point entirely...not surprisingly though. He is saying that he does not mind if the government uses a non government building that has a specific purpose as a religious building. However, in a building that is specifically used for government purposes only should not have any sort of religious artifacts or symbols....why would they? We are not worshiping there.....we will never be worshiping there, so they do not belong there. I don't believe he was the one being "flip"
Comment by olive — November 3, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Olive: exactly, and thanks.
Henry: I'm sorry if you feel anyone is forcing you to silence, because as inane as it seems to me, you can pray all you like. Even in public, as long as you aren't disruptive. You just can't force me to pray with you. And you can't use official government business as an excuse to forward your religious agenda. It's all right there in the Constitution. Check it out sometime.
Josh: what olive said. Pay attention, because other people seem to understand what I'm saying just fine. I don't know why you're having a hard time following along, unless you're purposefully being dense for some reason.
Marked Man: the only religious belief this country was founded on is the freedom from having religion forced on us by official decree. Disagree? Okay, name one constitutional principle found ONLY in religion. Hey, since you're so hot to live in a theocracy, why don't you move to Iran? They'll welcome you with open arms, so I hear.
(Yes, I know that's a childish statement, but that's all your childish "why do you chose to live in a country blah blah blah" statement deserved.)
Oh, but good catch, MM. I said "out of the PRIVATE eye" when I meant "out of the PUBLIC eye." I apologize for the confusion. Just to clarify, the official swearing in ceremony does not use any holy text of any kind in an official capacity. Sometimes a person will pose for a photo op with their hand on a book of some kind, and sometimes that book is a Bible.
But nice try deflecting the fact that all of your examples in post #15 didn't work out for you the way you'd hoped.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 3, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
OH RM, from your post#16 you wrote "You do know that some of our forefathers were Deists, right?" That was simply reiterating what i had said in post #15 "We live in a country whose forefathers created the laws based off of religion in their views..."
So im confused, are you agreeing with me or not? Are you going to vote for either major party candidate (they both are members of a church) or not??
Comment by Marked Man — November 3, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
" And you can't use official government business as an excuse to forward your religious agenda. And you can't use official government business as an excuse to forward your religious agenda."
Good, then you should have no problem finding in the Constitution where it says I can't express my religious view in an official government business environment.. We'll be waiting right here while you find it.
Comment by Henry — November 3, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Olive,
Rob said he couldn't tell the difference between a church and a brothel. That's a flip comment, honey.
Comment by Josh — November 3, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
Josh,
I guess that in reading your post it was not clear that you were speaking of that particular statement, but actually it seemed to be about a different post altogether, sweetie.
Comment by olive — November 3, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Josh: really, I said I couldn't tell the difference between a church and a brothel? I'm almost positive that is not what I said. Yea, I just scrolled up and I was right: I didn't say I couldn't tell the difference between the two, just that we atheists don't consider them any differently. I wasn't being "flip" at all, and you are still missing the point (either intentionally or you really are that dim.)
Henry: welp, you got me didn't you? I can't find those words specifically in the Constitution, so that must mean I'm wrong and you're right. Never mind the long history of interpretation of the "establishment clause" that, in effect, says exactly that (government officials are not allowed to use their positions to promote their religious agenda).
As soon as a Muslim, Hindu or Wiccan is elected to a high enough office, you'll come around to my way of thinking on this, Henry.
MM: why would you assume that I wouldn't vote for either candidate just because they are Christian? I don't have anything against Christians, as long as they don't try to force their religion on me. I won't vote for a candidate with a history of trying to use their office to promote Christian (or any other religion) agendas, but so far I think both candidates are cleaner in that area than W. Bush. It would be hard for them not to be.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 3, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Rob,
Oh, OK. You said you didn't see the difference between a church building and a brothel? And you weren't being flip. Uh, that leaves only one other explanation.
Comment by Josh — November 3, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
No, Josh, I wasn't being flip. I was illustrating why Atheists don't mind (at least, the ones I know) voting in a church. It's just another building. No better, no worse, when it comes to a box to hold some voting machines in. I don't know what other explanation you think that leaves, but I can only think of one explanation for your continued inability to grasp what really is a very easy point.
Now I'm done with you, Josh. I don't know what point you were trying to make with all of this, but it's childish and I'm embarrassed for you.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 4, 2008 @ 7:29 am
Well RM because you said you wouldnt accept the services of a surgeon if they supported "something fanciful" like creationism. Last time I checked, pretty much all Christians believe in creationism. So therefore, you would vote for and abide by the laws created by a Christian but you wouldnt let one save your life if it depended on it? Seems sort of hypocritical does it not?
Comment by Marked Man — November 4, 2008 @ 9:03 am
"I can't find those words specifically in the Constitution, "
And you never will. For some strange reason, fundamentalist atheists seem to be in love with suppression of religious speech. When they see "Congress shall not.." in the Constitution, they somehow read "No one should be allowed...".
Other religions do not "offend" me. It smells like....freedom.
Comment by Henry — November 4, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Marked, you might want to check again. Plenty of Christians are not creationists. Might as well start at the top. The pope isn't. The current pope is hosting a conference on evolution as we speak. His predecessor had strong words on the topic, too, "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Comment by c. trejbal — November 4, 2008 @ 11:01 am
For those who think this comes down to churches being the places that have adequate parking, think again. This just came out from Montgomery County:
Montgomery County, Virginia – Montgomery County voters who vote at the E-1 Precinct at St. Michael’s Lutheran Church, 2308 Merrimac Road, are encouraged to park at Kipps Elementary School and take a shuttle to the polling place to avoid parking problems.
Montgomery County Public School Bus # 124 will run continuous shuttles from Kipps, 2801 Prices Fork Road, to St. Michael’s from 12:30 p.m. until the polls close at 7 p.m. There is limited parking at St. Michael’s, which is causing traffic problems in the area.
Just to refresh memories, this is the precinct I singled out in the column that really should be voting on the Tech campus.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 4, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Thanks Christian, "plenty of Christians" and you provided two. Two that happen to be from a wing of the religion that also seems to advocate the molestation of children by people calling themselves priests. Anyway, interesting point you brought up in post34. Have you ever tried finding a place to park on Tech's campus between 7:30AM and 5:00PM Mon-Fri????
Comment by Marked Man — November 4, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
St Michael's is nowhere near campus. But it is VERY close to the precinct at BMS which wasn't crowded today. You cannot park on campus anywhere during the day.
St Michaels is an illogical voting choice because there is little parking and it is under construction right now. But it has more parking than Luther Memorial Church which is where the students vote. It was slammed.
Comment by Henry — November 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
I'd have to disagree Christian, because if voting were on the VT campus on a class day, county and town citizens would not be permitted to park on campus, and therefore it would make voting for those folks, who vastly outnumber the students, far more difficult. Perhaps what is needed is a Virginia Tech district that covers all of the VT campus property and some immediately adjacent off-campus locations with high student populations. Then, voting could occur on campus in a place like Squires Student Center or maybe in Cassell Coliseum, where both on-campus and off-campus residents would have an easy time of voting, but without causing problems for non-student voters. It's a thought.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Or, short of redrawing the precincts, which the General Assembly forbade until after the next redistricting, does anyone know if Virginia allows sub precinct voting places? Could they do a campus one and an off-campus one in the same district.
I agree parking could be a challenge, but don't look at it just as how parking is today. If election officials approached Tech and asked for a parking lot to be set aside near a polling place for one day, preferably on the edge of campus, some accommodation might be reached. No, it's not a slam dunk, but there's room to work together. I'm thinking the Inn at Virginia Tech might be a good site. It has large conference rooms and lots of nearby parking. Plus it has easy car and bus access.
Comment by c. trejbal — November 4, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
That might be a good compromise location that wouldn't have a major impact on the daily operations of the campus, and is only a couple miles from the current site. In my old stomping grounds in Virgnia Beach, they keep making the precincts smaller to accomodate the number of voters and just add extra precincts. They're up over 90 in the city now to keep the precinct sizes smaller, which is done to keep the voting locations close to the residences of voters. For sparsley populated areas in this region, it makes it harder to get polling places centrally located in places with good parking, so perhaps the state should explore re-drawing some precinct lines as soon as it's possible.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
I Think we need to rename Christensburg as it has a Christen theme to it.
It just doesnt fit the Rob Miles mode.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Herb, to begin with, it's Christiansburg, with an ia, not an e. Secondly, it's named for Col. William Christian, who was appointed to be a justice in these parts by Governore Dunmore back in the 1700's. The town was incorporated in 1792 in honor of Col. Christian, which has absolutely nothing to do with religion. As someone who does not like the close intermingling of religion and the state, I am not in favor of displays promoting one particular religion to the exclusion of others on public/state-owned property. Honestly, unless the government is running a museum of religion, no displays promoting any religion specifically should never be on display on public grounds. I've never had a problem with the town's name because I'm not so lacking in knowledge as to the town name's historical origin. If I were, I might be inclined to think that Blacksburg got the name because of a large African population or the Catskill Mountains were named because of the large number of feline slaughters held at Halloween.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Never guess what I am sitting here watching.
have a 4 wheel truck across the street that is stuck and and get into its yard.
One of the rear wheels are up. I was going to take one of my forktrucks over there which could easely get the truck to flat ground.
Then I noticed a Obama sign in the yard there yard.
I still watching the truck.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
And also Herb, its Governor not Governore...
Comment by Marked Man — November 4, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
OJ, what about the Grand Tetons?
Herb, now that you mention it, I think Trejbal should definitely change his first name, because it just makes me see all red when I have to read it. Thank God his posts are signed "c. trejbal", so I don't have to read it every time!
But seriously, I like "the Rob Miles mode". I think that would make a great name for a band.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 4, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
I bet you consider yourself a loving Christian, too, don't you Herb?
Comment by Rob Miles — November 4, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
"displays promoting any religion specifically should never be on display on public grounds. "
So should people who dare to put displays on public grounds be jailed for exercising their free speech rights? What next? No criticism of the government on public grounds?
You folks scare me sometimes. We have become so comfortable with suppression of freedom in this country.
Comment by Henry — November 4, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Well shoot...I point out a typo and make one myself. My mistake on the added "e" there. I hadn't thought about the Tetons, but that's pretty funny. As long as we're going there, the literal interpretation of two tv shows would have yielded far different shows than what aired" Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure.
As to Henry, I have a problem with governments promoting or sanctioning religious displays on public grounds. Obviously, if a church group wanted to hold a gathering at a park that's entirely different. What I'm getting at is state-sanctioning/sponsoring of religion or religious displays. I don't see what's so scary about that, or how it surpressed the freedom to preactice the religion of anyone.
Comment by Other John — November 4, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Haha the Rob Miles Band... already been done:
http://www.offoffoff.com/music/2001/miles.php
Sorry about the earlier comment insinuating that you believe that we came from rocks in space. Just curious however, if you dont believe in Creationism, and you dont support the Big Bang theory, exactly where did we come from Rob??
Now lay that heavy beat on me daddy-o...
Comment by Marked Man — November 4, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Rob,
Isnt that my choice.
Even God took out Sadam and Ghammorah and sent Joshua to destroy Jericho.
Sorry about spelling.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Truck still there.
He still trying to figure out how to get it out.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Herb,
If you wish to act like a jerk and deny help you could offer to someone simply because you disagree with their political choice, that is your decision.
Please spare us the blow-by-blow account, however.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Marked: who said I don't support the Big Bang Theory? There are a lot of interesting hypothesis around the cause(s) of the BBT (including a few multi-verse ideas that are mind boggling), but I think it's pretty much accepted that the Universe as we know it today started from that singularity event.
Now I'm curious; why do you equate the BBT with "we came from rocks in space"? Do you think the theory states "rocks were created by the Big Bang, and everything else came from that"? I'm not trying to be "flip" (as some would say) with this question.
No, the band name would be "The Rob Miles Mode", as Herb said while watching a fellow human being suffering, having the means to end that suffering, and choosing not to do so. But come to think of it, he's just mirroring his Biblical god.
Comment by Rob Miles — November 4, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Wow Dan,
you must have been sitting on my last post.
You sure emailed me at my personnal email pretty quick.
No matter what you went against your personnal attack rules.
As for the rest of the blog I help the guy over an hour ago.
I guess personnal attacks are only allowed by King Dan.
Comment by HERB KREBS — November 4, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Many Obama supporters would equate having a vehicle stuck (on a 65 degree day) as 'suffering' and would sit around and wait for someone more fortunate than themselves to come by and give a handout as opposed to working hard themselves.
I know many McCain supporters that would tough it out and beat the odds like a real maverick... not this one though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Maverick_(Car)
Comment by Marked Man — November 4, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Considering he got the truck stuck in the first place, it is a wonder he's not a McCain supporter, right? Or does that happen after the 5th time?
What's the difference between someone who would "tough it out and beat the odds" and someone who would "sit around and wait for someone more fortunate... [to] give a handout"? Didn't Maverick's "tough it out" amount to waiting to be released?
Comment by Rob Miles — November 4, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Rob, Face it. You were trying to be cute and got busted.
Comment by Josh — November 4, 2008 @ 10:39 pm