This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by Hendrix is my gOD

Go to: Cee Lo Green Changes 'Imagine' Lyrics To 'All Religions' From John Lennon's 'No Religion'

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 172 by Hendrix is my gOD

Back when this song was a new release, radio stations in the southern US were changing the line to "..and one religion, too..."

*I was hoping to verify this claim that I read a very long time ago. No success, but I did see something interesting on Wikipedia: "Following the September 11 attacks, the song was included on the 2001 Clear Channel memorandum "do not play" list."

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:51:11 UTC | #904986

Go to: Cee Lo Green Changes 'Imagine' Lyrics To 'All Religions' From John Lennon's 'No Religion'

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 168 by Hendrix is my gOD

"Yo I meant no disrespect by changing the lyric guys! I was trying to say a world were u could believe what u wanted that's all."

Kinda like Manson believing what he wanted about Helter Skelter, huh?

Comment 156 by StephenH

Someone remind this Cee how lo yo can go bloke, that it was a religious nutcase who shot John Lennon

Anyone else see a common thread here?

I'm coming down fast but I'm miles above you

Tell me, tell me, tell me,

come on tell me the answer

You may be a singer but you ain't no dreamer.

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:21:23 UTC | #904949

Go to: How to make atheism matter

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Hendrix is my gOD

As head atheist in charge...

I had no idea that there was someone in charge of my not believing in someone else's religion.

The real priority for American atheism concerns its political future, its ability to shape policy agendas so as to represent the interests of its constituency. The key question, then, is: What do atheists want? If what they want is to abolish religion...

This is a secular democracy not an atheistic dictatorship. Atheists are a disenfranchised minority whose constitutional rights are ignored by those in political power. Atheists want the same thing as gays, racial minorities, women, etc. wanted before us: enforcement of the existing constitutional rights that were supposed to have been granted us all along. Why would we want to abolish the rights of those who have them now?

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:21:55 UTC | #901417

Go to: Video: In SNL sketch, Jesus tells Tebow to ‘take it down a notch’

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 5 by Metamag

You can see it here on youtube.

But don't look at the comment section.

So, of course I had to run and look at their comment section. I'm not suprised that christians don't think it's offensive to jesus, and it's not. Picking on Tebow for being a self-righteous ass who wants attention for himself is just too easy. (see Comment 9 by esuther, I couldn't have put it any better) I wish somebody had the balls to do a skit that tells both Tebow and Jesus to just fuck off. We don't need either of their egos shoved down our throats as a part of football.

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:06:49 UTC | #901049

Go to: Texas approves 'One State Under God' license plate

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by Hendrix is my gOD

Now if they had only extended it to "One State Under gOD's Rule" it would be a true statement.

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:01:26 UTC | #898316

Go to: [Update: Catholic League takes down their contact link] “Adopt an atheist” campaign begins

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 77 by Hendrix is my gOD

In the interest of shamelessly evangelizing my own religion, The Tax-Exempt Church of Jimi Hendrix, gOD, I have decide to start a campaign of my own: "Adopt a blues guitar gOD" aimed at those who are misguidedly following the catholic dOG and his calling for a lifestyle of self-denial. gOD candidates must posses supernatural guitar-playing ability and be devoutly committed to the Rock-n-Roll lifestyle. The adopted gOD will need to be provided with plentiful alcohol, female groupies, limousines and cold hard spending cash. Hopefully the misguided "adopter" will then be converted to accepting the holy creed of our faith: "Rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners are much more fun..."

Sat, 10 Dec 2011 05:16:44 UTC | #897396

Go to: [Update: Catholic League takes down their contact link] “Adopt an atheist” campaign begins

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by Hendrix is my gOD

In my neighborhood, catholic women have long been "adopting" atheist men. Well, at least atheistic towards that adultery commandment.

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:13:04 UTC | #897294

Go to: [Update: Catholic League takes down their contact link] “Adopt an atheist” campaign begins

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 27 by Flapjack

just wanted to "LIKE" your hilarious comment.

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:28:44 UTC | #897223

Go to: [Update: Catholic League takes down their contact link] “Adopt an atheist” campaign begins

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 16 by Richie P

If the number of self-identified Atheists is so tiny, as Bill argues, then there isn't going to be enough Atheists to go round for the Catholics that wish to adopt is there? Plus if it is so tiny, then what is the point in trying to convert them (or guide them out of their so-called closet if you prefer)?

You can't really have it both ways Bill, either there are plenty of Atheists and thus some potential converts for the Catholics, or there are bugger all of them and thus bugger all closeted Catholic Atheists to get on your side. Make up your mind!

Bill knows very well that there is a large base of atheists who were raised catholic and the remainder of nominal catholics are functional atheists. A generation ago, they wanted their kids in catholic schools for non-religious pragmatic reasons and were forced to feed the collection basket on Sunday as a requirement. Today, they are abandoning both the schools and the churches. This is just a futile recruitment attempt to save a dying money-making machine.

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:25:24 UTC | #897191

Go to: [Update: Catholic League takes down their contact link] “Adopt an atheist” campaign begins

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Hendrix is my gOD

I hope that the American Atheist affiliates who receive this hate mail will forward it to their local district attorney's office for further investigation. After all, the organization behind this campaign is known to harbor sex criminals and now that they are losing members in droves, they start this campaign to harass those who freely choose not to be part of their cult.

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:18:19 UTC | #897162

Go to: Republicans insane; want to establish theocracy

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 102 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 96 by KenChimp

Anyone who suggests we cannot determine the original intent of those who wrote this law is either an ignoramus or is attempting to promote their own interests above those of their fellow citizens.

I couldn't agree more! The "ignoramuses" can always consult the numerous writings of the authors of this law, who explained in no uncertain terms what their intent was.

James Madison in 1789, as Congressman from Virginia, chaired the committee to draft the wording of a "Bill of Rights". He wrote extensively throughout his life on the intent of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and especially what he felt most passionately about, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. As President, he elaborated at great length in his numerous veto messages of Congressional bills, as unconstitutional by the Establishment clause.

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others. -- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams(1832)

...

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. -- James Madison, veto message, February 21, 1811

.. . Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." -- James Madison, veto message, February 28, 1811

Thomas Jefferson's famous "Wall of Separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802) was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (1879); Everson (1947); McCollum (1948)

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:23:54 UTC | #892649

Go to: Republicans insane; want to establish theocracy

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 97 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 90 by /////////////////////////////////////////

Please can I have a medal, I skipped the song and came in on what I think must have been the promo ad and then I lasted about a minute listening to that smarmy git they introduced as the CEO. Did anyone get any further with this gut-wrenchingly awful and tedious mountain or ordure?

None of us were expected to torture ourselves with this mountain of ordure. Somehow, you missed the warning label:

Or, better yet, just skip this and read Rick Saletan’s piece in Slate, “Rule of the Lord,” which summarizes what these politicians have in mind for America.

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:50:59 UTC | #892631

Go to: Republicans insane; want to establish theocracy

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 79 by KenChimp

You're absolutely right, KenChimp. This has been the case in every example from history. I fear that we in the US are now facing "...Those entrusted with governance attempting to restore order by draconian martial law..." in our immediate future. To restore the "order" of the rule of Jesus Christ.

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:47:12 UTC | #892587

Go to: Republicans insane; want to establish theocracy

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 68 by sbrogdon

Anyone willing to help me relocate to a different country. Preferably one that isn't going insane.

Sweden is your best bet. At least 85% are non-religious and the prevalence of hot blondes don't hurt either. ...but to answer you question, no I can't help you relocate. Not financially ;-)

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:26:25 UTC | #892580

Go to: Republicans insane; want to establish theocracy

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by Hendrix is my gOD

Herman Cain: What we are seeing is a wider gap between people of faith and people of nonfaith. … Those of us that are people of faith and strong faith have allowed the nonfaith element to intimidate us into not fighting back. I believe we’ve been too passive. We have maybe pushed back, but as people of faith, we have not fought back.

Rick Perry: Somebody’s values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States is going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell you, it needs to be our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers . . . in every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.

contrast this to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy (address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, September 12,1960):

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

...

If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part. It was one to which I could not subscribe.

...

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty ... Neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection.

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:44:13 UTC | #892368

Go to: The Science of Sarcasm? Yeah, Right

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by Hendrix is my gOD

Great point Mike Kemp! But in 1979, at least one teenage Pink Floyd fan was inspired to become a teacher someday.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:44:35 UTC | #891750

Go to: The Science of Sarcasm? Yeah, Right

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 33 by crookedshoes

All of the great teachers I've ever had have defied the rules of teaching.

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:05:58 UTC | #891382

Go to: The Science of Sarcasm? Yeah, Right

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by Hendrix is my gOD

Joking sarcasm is the only way I know how to make a point when I feel strongly about something. I would feel like a foreigner who doesn't speak a word of the language if I didn't have this powerful communication tool at my disposable.

Comment 15 by crookedshoes

They tell you repeatedly when you are studying to be a teacher that "there is no place for sarcasm in the classroom". It is beaten into you over and over.

Then I find myself in front of a room full of 15 to 18 year old students and try as I might to keep the sarcasm to a minimum, it is really really effective in both delivery of instruction and classroom management. The kids respond to it much better than being a pedant about the rules. You slip in some sarcasm and they respond!

That's what's wrong with education. Lecture and indoctrinate. And #%*-forbid that a teacher should have an opinion of the subject-matter other than unquestioning acceptance.

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:16:31 UTC | #891351

Go to: Michigan's bullying law passes state senate

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 48 by Steven Mading

The First Amendment of the US Constitution does, unfortunately, create a defense for people who spread lies about other people, provided they do so under the auspices of religion.

This is a complete misinterpretation of the legal meaning of "free exercise". It makes the assumption that religious belief is a privilege that supersedes any existing laws. This would contradict the establishment clause which denies the government the power to "respect" the establishment of religion. The free exercise of religion is both an individual right and a right to organize among those who freely choose to do so, but it is not a privilege above the rights of others nor of the existing laws of the state. The government may not prohibit by legislation one's constitutional right to publicly profess one's beliefs, to attend any church (or to start one's own), to orally pray any words of one's choosing (including voluntary group prayer) or to freely discuss one's beliefs with those whom disagree, provided that all are freely choosing to engage in dialogue. It is when one (verbally) confronts an unwilling individual that their own equally-protected constitutional rights become involved. One's right to hold religious beliefs does not provide an exemption for their actions if those actions (verbal confrontation, in this case) violate existing laws.These pre-existing laws must be neutral to religion and blind to any religious beliefs regarding the actions they criminalize (or protect). The proposed religious exemption in the anti-bullying legislation clearly does not meet this neutrality and would be a governmental "respect" for religion.

Unfortunately, there have been Supreme Court rulings that upheld laws providing religious exemptions. These precedents led to such laws rarely being constitutionally challenged and since that time, your above understanding of "freedom of religion" has become the prevalent one among Americans. You stated: "The first amendment [...] does, unfortunately, create a defense ..." and yes, even people such as yourself, who see the legal loophole in this misinterpretation, have wrongly believed it to be what the 1st amendment allows.

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:38:04 UTC | #888996

Go to: Michigan's bullying law passes state senate

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 17 by TimRiches

"Please, please, PLEASE read the text of the amendment! ... The Republican amendment only makes a distinction between religious-inspired statements being different from actual bullying, a fact that the first amendment to the Constitution makes clear. ..."

Apparently not clear enough for me.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Please, please, PLEASE elaborate how the text above is clearly distinguishing between religious-inspired statements and actual bullying. You are correct that religious expression and bullying are both addressed in the text, but not even remotely as you interpret it for they are never associated with each other. Do keep in mind that the authors of the text (1st amendment) were very careful and deliberate in using only wording with precise legal definitions.

If you are arguing in any way that people do not have the right to vocally object to another person's behavior, you do not understand what freedom of speech means!

Speech is legally defined as the expression of ideas. Your individual right to vocally express any idea, topic, or grievance you choose is unabridged and constitutionally protected from the government "respecting" (taking legal action) regarding the validity of the views expressed. For the authors of the first amendment, free speech was understood as a right to address grievances against the government, which is balanced by the expressed right "...to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (implied protection from bullying??? ... are freedom of religion and speech even relevant in this bullying case or is the only issue harassment and intolerance? ) Once an individual "vocally object[s] to another person's behavior" they have involved the equally-protected constitutional and civil rights of the "objectionable" individual. They are now libel for demonstrating the truth of their accusation solely with regard to how the individual's behavior violates a law. Personal beliefs, or freely expressed behaviors of either party are not "respected" by the government. Informally, the objector has chosen to be a plaintiff against an unwitting defendant. Is this an issue of the free expression of ideas or is it the redress of grievances to the government against an individual? In addition, confronting a total stranger (vocally or otherwise) who does not wish to interact with you is harassment and a violation of criminal law.

"...you do not understand what freedom of speech means!"

Do you understand what libel means under civil law? Do you understand what harassment means under criminal law? Have you ever heard of hate crimes?

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:56:06 UTC | #888636

Go to: Mississippi to vote on 'personhood'

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 22 by wrongwatch

doesn't life begin at Wal-Mart?

No, but many have ended there in the long, slow check-out lines.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:00:14 UTC | #887006

Go to: Booting Dawkins from a Country Club: Why it Matters.

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Hendrix is my gOD

Sean, this is one of the most amazing articles I've read in a long time. I started reading this with minimal interest. Just a snotty country club acting, well, snotty. Then out of left field you bring up the Beatles. Now that's thinking different rather than just differently. I'm blown away how you talked about all these apparently unrelated events and individuals and then tied it together into a single and valid point. Actually, I'm jealous that it wasn't me who successfully linked Jefferson and Madison, my statesman heroes with my life's passion, Rock n' Roll. I can't wait to read the book.

Comment 7 by sandman67

No, I did not overlook your descending rebuttal.

Yes America is exceptional - exceptional in its adherance to stupidy childish religiosity; exceptional in the way it clings to creationism ...

These things may exist in America, but it depends on where you live. I would'n't live in these places if my life depended on it. But where I do live is like a different country from those places (More like a different reality). People do not push their religious views on me nor care about mine. Although the majority have religious beliefs, they see it as their own business that they don't even want you to know about. Creationism is not thought in public schools and evolution is thoroughly covered in science classes. No-one is trying to bring prayers into public schools and "meet-you-at-the-pole" does not even exist around here.

Obviously, you have never visited the United States and are clueless about life in places which are actually the bulk of the American population. Yes, it's true that the vast majority of Americans are not atheists ... :( ... but for most of us, we would have to relocate to places that we would consider an alien world to live in the America which you describe. I personally would never comment about life in countries I haven't visited regardless of what I may have read or heard. ...but that's just me.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:03:28 UTC | #886973

Go to: Today, Congress Will Vote to Reaffirm ‘In God We Trust’ As the American Motto

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 20 by hemidemisemigod

What's wrong with: "In God (or Gods) We (well, Some of Us anyway) Trust" as a motto?

Or maybe: "In God or Gods or The Scientific Method or Nothing & Nobody We Trust"

or 300 million separate individuals trusting whomever or whatever they freely choose.

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:15:36 UTC | #886026

Go to: Making God Mad

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by Hendrix is my gOD

Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes

Comment 46 by antleite2001

We need to figure out why god hates tectonic plate boundaries... and why he put the tectonic plate boundaries in some particular places and made some other places so stable. Stupidity should be given in small amounts to some guys but he carries all the stupidy a guy can carry.

The imam's logic is flawed. There's no significant difference in the number of immodestly dressed women along plate boundaries than elsewhere. However, I did notice that tectonic plate boundaries generally run close to the coasts of oceans. Therefore, it's very simple. gOD hates surfers and it's them he's punishing.

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:18:13 UTC | #885999

Go to: Godless Billboards in Reno; Banner in Nevada Day Parade

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 47 by popsaw

If morality is subjective, then it can be argued that murder is not always wrong. However, the biblical view and the law say that murder IS always wrong. I think this highlights a failure in subjective morality, to allow such a view.

You imply that non-religious morality leads to the view that murder is not always wrong - subjective morality, you call it - yet we constantly see religious motivations for murders. From muslim punishments for "sins against god" to biblical accounts of god commanding the murder of his enemies. Murder is "objectively" committed as the moral thing to do. On the other hand, I'd like you to give me one example of an atheist murderer committing their crime motivated by their subjective conclusion that it's morally allowed.

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:08:13 UTC | #884345

Go to: Godless Billboards in Reno; Banner in Nevada Day Parade

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 11 by 78rpm

"...good without God" still presupposes the existence of God. Much, much better would be "...good without religion."

I agree. It does presuppose the existence of god and suggests that goodness can still be achieved "the hard way".

Much, much better would be "...good without religion."

I just wouldn't go there. If you make the point that god doesn't exist then religion as a source of morality becomes meaningless.

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:07:52 UTC | #884278

Go to: A creationist's 'scientific' disproof of Darwin's theory of evolution

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 29 by mmurray

Comment 28 by Anaximander :

And I wonder, who'll stop the rain?

Some people say rainwater is clear but I've never given that any creedence.

Michael

Alright! That's enough. We don't need a revival of the old creedence clear water jokes.

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:03:25 UTC | #881256

Go to: Not Even Truthy: AFA’s Fischer Says States Can Apply Religious Tests

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Hendrix is my gOD

My favorite Bible quote?

I wouldn't know any. Next stupid question.

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:35:16 UTC | #881251

Go to: [UPDATE]Heads-up to everyone - Bill O'Reilly response expected on Friday Oct 14th

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 78 by Hendrix is my gOD

So on Monday morning we can expect the "response" to be moved to Tuesday.

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:34:52 UTC | #881011

Go to: Comedy as a legitimate way to spread the theory of evolution?

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 16 by crookedshoes

BUT HE LOVES YOU.....

...and he needs money.

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:55:57 UTC | #881006