Brent has a couple of interesting posts.

Brent of Unscrewing the Inscrutable has had a couple of entries that I thought were worthy of pointing out.

The first one is called Lying for Jesus in which Brent tells us of hearing from a lying conman who finally got around to reading Brent’s entry calling him a lying conman from awhile back. The original entry talks about a man named Robert Frey a supposedly patriotic Christian who’s pissed off about the whole Ten Commandments thing that took place in Georgia and is out to bring down that evil atheistic organization known as the ACLU by selling fellow patriotic Christians cheaply produced little signs with the Decalogue printed on them to display in their front yards. The supposed “logic” being that the ACLU will eventually go bankrupt trying to sue everyone who has a little cheap-assed sign with the Ten Commandments in their front yard. There’s just one little problem with this plan: the ACLU doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Decalogues posted on private property, as well they shouldn’t, which means Frey is just out to make a buck off of his fellow Christians through deceptive practices. Brent basically called Mr. Frey a conman (which he is) and Frey got a little pissed about it and left a hilariously stupid comment implying, among other things, that Brent could be in for a libel lawsuit. Frey shows up again in a response to this latest entry and proceeds to demonstrate his rather slimy nature some more.

The other entry that caught my eye was his rather excellent roundup of a debate on Christianity that got started by the folks at The Illinois Leader newspaper when they asked the question: “Will Christ disappear from Christmas this year?” It must have taken a bit of dedication to keep up with the back and forth articles that resulted from this as I only remember stumbling across one or two links myself. Brent provides the links to them all in one handy-dandy spot.

I try to check in on Brent every day at this point, but I’ve not been leaving myself enough time to chime in on some of his entries like I want to so I’ll have to make more time for that soon. He’s got some good stuff over there, though, so I wanted to point a couple of them out and encourage him to keep up the good work.

15 thoughts on “Brent has a couple of interesting posts.

  1. I love it when people try to come up with novel schemes to disrupt the ACLU.  As an athiest, there are few groups who will look out for the rights of individuals.

  2. Funny folks you people are. All this attention only serves our purpose in spreading the word.

    It’s also funny that you’ve totally misrepresented the purpose of the entire 10 Commandments campaign. The purpose is simply to respond to the anti-1st amendment crowd by multiplying the 10 commandments you folks hate so much. It seems to be working quite nicely.

    Many of you appear to have trouble with the 1st amendment. Roy Moore is a citizen, his status as a (former) judge, in no way prevents him from the protection of the 1st amendment. If that weren’t true, George Bush would have been jailed a long time ago for his professing of his faith as the President. Where is the ACLU on this one? Shamefully silent, that’s where. Where’s the lawsuit? Are you going to try and convince the world that Roy Moore can’t display a ‘decoration’ (printed text) in the courthouse that he was given exclusive management of, but that it’s OK for ole George to exclaim his religion to the entire country and the world? I’m surprised you folks aren’t convulsing every time he says “God Bless America”. Or, are you? But of course, this is somehow different. He’s talking. It’s pure speech, is that it? Is that the explanation? The Supreme court has held numerous times that printed or written speech is deserving of the same protections as verbal speech no matter who the person is.

    And where does the Atheist community get their twisted interpretation of the 1st amendment? It has obviously been completely ignored that Congress had zero influence on the Roy Moore decision to place a Decalogue monument in the AL courthouse rhotunda. And, there certainly were no laws created on the subject. Moore was simply exercising his freedom of speech and certain of your little groupies didn’t like it so they sued.

    As for con artists, liars and the like: The majority of Americans (who are also God fearing) would conclude the opposite of your rants about me. In fact, it seems that those in your camp (atheists and ACLU), who completely ignore the clear writing of the 1st amendment, are the real con artists. You so hate the words of God, and you are so obviously pained to see the 1st commandment “I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me” that you would prefer to simply do away with freedom of speech so that you don’t have to hear or see that which your master hates.

    You are all slaves to your own nearsighted, close minded, hate mongering bigotry that you can’t even think clearly. You have such enormous difficulty forming a cohesive, sane and relevant argument that you’d prefer to call names (like 4 year olds), lie, slander, demonize and, avoid logical argument/debate and, if it weren’t illegal, would probably kill those you don’t agree with.

    Try this bit of prose from Alan Keyes.

    He’s a much better arguer than I. I’m sure you folks could start a whole new blog just trying to get your little heads around this. But we already know what you’re going to say.

    Have fun in your little worlds. The truth will be revealed before too long and you will wish you were on the ‘right’ (winning) side. But it will be too late.

    And thanks again to all you atheists and ranters for helping increase our traffic and getting more signs out there. Your work is extraordinary.

    Les -  Yes, your domain tells it like it really is doesn’t it? And what’s wrong with us, people? Some of us have brains in our heads. If that’s wrong then I’m glad to be wrong.

  3. Funny folks you people are. All this attention only serves our purpose in spreading the word.

    Drawing attention to your self-serving underhandedness in the guise of promoting religion is not something I’m afraid to do. After all, one can hardly discuss why something is a problem if people aren’t familiar with what you are talking about. Will it help to bring you new sales? Perhaps, but then do you really think there are a ton of Christians hanging out on this website waiting for me to show them places where they can buy cheap ass reproductions of the Decalogue? If you do then you’re either amazingly optimistic or hopelessly naive.


  4. Wonderful fisking Les!

    And now, a parable:

    A man came upon another man hitting himself repeatedly in the head with a rock. “Why are you hitting yourself in the head with a rock?” The first man asked the second.

    The man paused. “Because,” he said, “it feels so good when I stop.”

    We can both lay claim to being the first and the second man now.

    Thanks for the linkage!

  5. Thanks for such a succinct and eloquent response to ignorance. I really appreciated your writing that. Hopefully he will read it and maybe, just maybe, something will take hold. Why is it that people like him don

  6. Even if he reads it I doubt it would sink in because he’ll probably brush off anything I have to say as being unworthy of consideration for the simple reason that I’m an atheist. It’s clear by many of the statements he’s made that facts and logic aren’t a part of his thinking process in this matter.

    At least if we give him the benefit of the doubt and accept the idea that he’s truly doing something because he thinks it’s the right thing to do and not because he can make a few bucks off his fellow believers and stir up trouble at the same time. The nature of his sales pitch on his website leads me to believe he really is just a conman trying to hustle people by intentionally misrepresenting an emotional issue so he can sell some overpriced cheap ass yard signs. He’s no better in my mind then the asshats who perpetuate the too-good-to-be-true used car sale scams on their fellow Christians.

  7. Well, I’m a Christian, and I want very much to protect my right to my faith.

    When the government starts formally endorsing other people’s view of how religion should be practiced, that right is in jeopardy.

    The president can, in a speech, say that he believes in God. He can even be seen praying in the oval office before meeting with John Ashcroft..I certainly would.

    But the first time he says that people who aren’t religious can’t be patriotic..I have issues.

    When he signs legislation that provides extra money to religious groups, which is not available to non-religious groups…I have issues.

    The first time I hear of a judge showing the Ten Commandments…and atheists have a legitimate fear of getting screwed in child custody proceedings, or not getting sentence reductions that “God-Fearing” people get, I have issues.

    And believe me..I do not need to be a groupie, follower or anything else of Les, to figure these things out for my self.

  8. WRONG! You are totally off base Les:

    “underhandedness”? How is selling a sign to those who want it, underhanded? And don’t try the same lame crap about “lies, con artist” etc. It’s called libel, and you made it up. I already challenged you the proof, which was conveniently dodged.


  9. Wow Robert, so much anger and bile in one reply, you do your religion proud.

    The only point you made that came close to being accurate was the weight of the monument (5,280 pounds) so a big thumbs up on your trivial pursuit skills. Parsing your rant has only made it even more clear why the government should not be in the business of funneling “faith based” funds to religious organizations involved in teaching anything to anyone. I may be wrong and the fault does not lay with religion, maybe your madness is organic. Lots of fruitcakes gravitate to religion for reasons known only to that individual fruitcake. Some wrap their heads in tinfoil to keep out mind control rays. Some believe their neighbors dog is commanding them to kill. You just happen to believe that atheism is a religion and that “satan” is our master, that people who do not believe in your view of the “holy trinity” cannot possibly be christian, and that people who are opposed to a government employee sneaking his religious iconography into a taxpayer funded building are “anti” first amendment.

    And the way you put your ideas across…so very acidic. Let me tell you that IF there is a hell and I do indeed wind up there that I will not be surprised at all when I bump into you. Well, you and all of the other loud mouthed, ill tempered, narrow minded, bible thumping bullies that figure shouting down an opponent equates with winning an argument. Here’s a hint: we quit arguing after if becomes clear you are unreasonable and will only respond with more angry blather.

    Go ahead and sell your signs to the gullible and prepare to bilk the same mouth breathers when the next big “battle” appears for you to haul in your holy dollars. They would probably only end up giving it to some idiot televangelist who would use it to hire a prostitute (ala Jimmy Swaggart), put air conditioners in their dogs houses (ala Jim and Tammy Baker), or air a television show where the televangelist would suggest blowing up the U.S. State Department with a nuclear weapon (ala Pat Robertson on the 700 Club).

    Maybe we do need to put an icon up, I vote for a plaque which reads:

    “You see the mote which is in your brother’s eye; but you do not see the beam which is in your own eye. When you cast out the beam from your own eye, then you will see to cast out the mote from your brother’s eye.”

    Can you read past your beam?

  10. WRONG! You are totally off base Les: How is selling a sign to those who want it, underhanded? And don’t try the same lame crap about “lies, con artist” etc. It’s called libel, and you made it up. I already challenged you the proof, which was conveniently dodged.

    Looking back at your earlier reply you didn’t make any such challenge at all. How is selling a sign to those that want it underhanded? If that’s all you were doing it wouldn’t be, but you’re implying that this will in some way damage the ACLU which is quite simply not true. That’s called deceptive marketing practices, but then you seem to be well versed in deception. If you feel I’ve libeled you then feel free to file a lawsuit at anytime. After all, isn’t that the threat you tried to use on Brent? I’m willing to bet you’re not even remotely aware of what it takes to win a libel lawsuit and are just tossing the threat around to try and scare people into keeping quiet.

    For someone who claims to be such an honest and upstanding Christian perhaps you can explain why you’re lying right here on this website? Why the use of false names and email addresses in your previous two comments, Robert? The ones under the names “Who ?” and “Bill Blass” in another thread? I know they were you because 1) The typing style is exactly the same right down to how you quoted the entry you were responding to and 2) they were all posted within an hour of each other and they all have exactly the same IP address attached to them.

    The rest of your argument in this reply would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic. Not only do you claim to have the only right opinion, but you also claim to know how I feel and what I believe. You must be related to Miss Cleo. She was a pretty well-known lying con-artist as well. You function wonderfully as a perfect bad example of what a Christian should be and I appreciate you demonstrating it so well here at SEB so I can use you as such in future discussions.

    I doubt you’ll be able to resist checking back in from time to time, but you’ll probably continue using false names to make any more replies so just remember that I’m tracking your IP address. Shame you have to lie to try and bolster your opinion. That’s usually the tactic of someone who knows he’s wrong.

  11. Thanks for that tidbit Les, I was going to take the time to respond to Who? and Bill Blass because I thought that a plague of morons had descended on your blog, but now I won’t waste my time.

  12. Nope, just a single religious nut trying to pretend he has more support than he really does.

    Hey, do you like that “sinister” picture of me up in the corner? Ooooo! Scary!

  13. Robert Frey & others of the like:

    Many people such as yourself are arguing for a 1st Amendment “right” to display the 10 Commandment statues. But see, we’re talking about actions of the government, not the private citizens. If you want to display that gaudy statue on your private property, then go for it. But…the government (as a collective entity) isn’t insured a right to free speech. Likewise, when they exercise YOUR (religious view of) “free speech” & not mine, then they are breeching the line that separates church & state. Most importantly though, they are using MY taxpayer’s dollars have such statues created, installed, & maintained. In a case such as Alabama’s, the government also uses taxpayer’s dollars to fight lawsuits to retain the statue. Bottom line: A government sponsored/funded religious statue cannot be defined as “free speech.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.