Sorry, but I quit reading when the Bible came up. 

Vote out the self-interested BoS and CC, or at least MAKE THEM IMPLEMENT the recommendations of their respective planning commissions. Recommendations they have ignored for years ....       

Now THAT would be righteous.

We *DO* have us some righteous atheists in this town...

No slogans!!!!!!!! This is yet another piece of marketing drivel that means nothing. Let the actions of Bakersfield residents and their city officials speak for themselves. I am all about promoting the things this city has done well, or the attractions that are nearby in the surrounding areas, but "City of Righteousness" smacks of Biblical arrogance mingled with mighty Bakersfield ignorance.  

No such thing as negative publicity...I guess.

The definition of righteousness alone argues against it as a slogan for a city. It's ridiculous.

"Now, it is evident that no one is good but the triune God, that no one is righteous but God alone." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

"No one is good but God alone." -- Jesus of Nazareth.

I think it's incredibly arrogant.

Anything to do with religion defies logic and basic common sense.

 Elinem,

Dietrich Bohoeffer was persecuted and then finally  executed by the Third Riech for his opposition ( on religous principle ) to the Nazi regime.

In his case, it's true that religion and common sense had nothing to do with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

--virgil

It's not what you believe, it's what you do as a result of your beliefs that matter.

There are a lot of ethical ( moral ) christians - it's true.

--virgil

"Bako people are some of the kindest humans in the universe." Yes, they are. And many of them are atheists (and even nudists). We have a bad enough reputation as it is now, why make it worse by telling people we're a city full of hypocritical religious nutcakes. Leave that to the Southern States.

How about this; Bakersfield: City of Really Nice People! or Bakersfield: City of Mostly Nice People! or Bakersfield: City of Religious Jerks That Will Try To Force Their Crazy Religious Agenda On You Every Chance They Get!

Well said, Adampayne.  Arrogant, meaningless marketing drivel. 

I've lived in a lot of places and Bako people are as nice (and not nice) as anywhere else.  We are nothing special here, just people who do the right things sometimes.

Bakersfield IS a city of Righteousness, with one of the highest numbers of churches per capita in the country.  It is also many other things.  But people hear "righteousness" or mention of the Bible, and they start screaming for tolerance to come their way.  Ironic.  These champions of tolerance don't offer it in return.  Maybe Bakersfield is also a City of Self-Righteousness.   Everyone starts slamming "hypocritical religious nutcakes," as if there are not hypocritical nutcakes in every demographic.  Then more Irony.  They call Christians arrogant.  Hmmmm.  Hypocrisy??

1. The quality or state of being righteous; holiness; purity; uprightness; rectitude.

Note: Righteousness, as used in Scripture and theology, in which it chiefly occurs, is nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles and affections of heart, and conformity of life to the divine law.

2. A righteous act, or righteous quality.

All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.

Isa. lxiv. 6.

3. The act or conduct of one who is righteous.

Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.

Ps. cvi. 3.

4. (Theol.) The state of being right with God; justification; the work of Christ, which is the ground of justification.

There are two kinds of Christian righteousness: the one without us, which we have by imputation; the other in us, which consisteth of faith, hope, and charity, and other Christian virtues.

 By the definition given in the dictionary we are far from the said state and are even warned by the bold sentence.

Arrogant,divisive and inaccurate.

You could say "City of Many Churches."  (Or "Houses of Worship.")

 "with one of the highest numbers of churches per capita in the country" How does the number of churches equate to righteousness? There are lots of "churches" in Iran. Would you call them righteous? Or is that the wrong religion to be considered righteous?

Now, if the context of "righteous" was surfer/skateboard lingo, as in: "Bakersfield: It's a Totally Righteous Place, Dude!"...now I think you have something.

Hubris~ the downfall of many "right" people.

H8:  if churches don't equate to righteousness, which you have clearly proven beyond all shadow of doubt, then what is your problem with righteousness as a slogan or otherwise?  You consider yourself righteous, as "are atheists (and even nudists)"!  So your problem is really not with righteousness at all.  It is with the church, because Christians are different from you.  You want tolerance for your differences, yet Christians deserve no tolerance from you for their differences?

Sounds like some of the debates they had in Sodom and Gomorrah;(  I agree with Sage it is just arrogant and prideful for any to claim that they are righteous.  The Saints themselves always felt that they were the worse of sinners.  

And now for something completely different;)  I am a import and I happen to like Bakersfield.  It is my opinion that if you want LA or San Francisco you should move there and leave Bakersfield alone.  And about our current city motto.  Can you believe we actually paid someone for that? 

Gee, Way, do you *REALLY* go back that far?  I was *THERE*, and the debates mostly centered on the baseball rivalry between the two cities.  The Sodom Saints were good, sure, but nothing like the Gomorrah Giants, especially with that kid Goliath pitching.

The whole thing reminds me of a radio interview Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin supposedly did for one of their movies.  Someone said the movie was a "righteous comedy," and Lewis said "where the *(^*%% do you get 'righteous'?  It's *RIOTOUS*, you greaseball!"

Mayhaps the bumper stickers are similarly misspelled? 

Just as with the stupid posters in the KHSD classrooms:  If you have to print signs  that "In god we trust," you don't.   If you have to have a "Righteous" sticker on your car, you aren't.

Sounds like some of the debates they had in Sodom and Gomorrah

Lot inner debate: Should I give my daughters or the angels to the mob?

spam code:omg jf!

If they want to make us sound more corn pone than we already are, use the slogan.   Nothing about the burg surprises me anymore.

However, if they must use the slogan,  please edit it to say "Bakersfield, City of Righteousness, Hebrew Style". 

The Hebrew word for righteousness is tseh'-dek, tzedek, Gesenius's Strong's Concordance:6664—righteous, integrity, equity, justice, straightness. The root of tseh'-dek is tsaw-dak', Gesenius's Strong:6663—upright, just, straight, innocent, true, sincere.

  If you have to print signs  that "In God we trust," you don't.   If you have to have a "Righteous" sticker on your car, you aren't.

And if you claim to be a righteous atheist you are probably neither.  Thanks Rf;)

Back up a ways and point out where *I* claimed to be righteous.  Or put up a sign about it.

I was merely commenting that  lots of righteous people *ARE* atheists.  In fact, it helps--because you no longer have the excuse that you're "doing god's work" by being whatever flavor of hypocrite or bigot is justified by selective reading of a goatherding manual.

 But Rf I used your reasoning.  And by your reasoning you must not even be an atheist or if you are then you are a hypocritical atheist.  So which is it already?  By the way did I mention that A I got in logic last semester;)

 wrytingbear quotes: "You consider yourself righteous, as "are atheists (and even nudists)"!  With all due respect wrytingbear, when did I ever claim to be righteous? The actual quote from my post is: "Bako people are some of the kindest humans in the universe." "Yes, they are. And many of them are atheists (and even nudists)". Where did I say I am righteous? Some of the problems we have with tempers flaring on these blogs is when people misread the posts. No, I am certainly not "righteous". I'm a HORRIBLE, EVIL DEVIL SINNER SCUMBAG...since I don't believe in your god. There, we're all in our proper places now.

BTW: I like your handle, except if I used it, I would be 'wrytingbare'.

No, in fact, you didn't use my reasoning.  Again, go back and re-read, slowly, what I actually *DID* write.  Those who need to publicly proclaim their faith don't have any.  (By definition, atheists don't have a faith or belief to proclaim.)

I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt about that "A".  A good friend of mine--fundamentalist, but I try not to hold that against her--got an "A" in a physical anthropology class at BC, then promptly forgot everything from the class, since she didn't believe it anyway.

But you guys have given me a terrific idea for the remainder of my weekend off.  Toodles!

At the rate that this county has been growing in the last 25 years, any slogan that slows that down or even reverses it to some degree, is a righteous one.

Nope that is indeed your reasoning rf as anyone can read for themselves.  Now given that atheism is just a another religion that simply believes that it isn't a religion. And a lot  of philosophy professors agree with that premise.  Add to it the facts of how many times you are on your soap box on these blogs going on about your atheist faith.  It then follows that by applying your own reasoning to your own actions we can then conclude that you actually believe in God. 

Driln that is righteous dude! 

Well, OK then. There are definitely some fireworks going off in this blog, although most of the sparks have been safe and (relatively) sane.

Couple of interesting points from both sides:

I still remember the biblical story of the rich man who sat in the front of the church and proclaimed his righteousness, while the poor, meek man sat in the back and remained silent. I seem to remember that God smiled on the man in the shadows. The loud rich man was rejected for his pompous expectations. The story raises the question of public arrogance vs. private worship.

On the other hand, remember, this bumper sticker is not a city motto (although recent history may make people wonder if the idea might some day come up on the City Council). The point is, it's simply a sticker. An example of free speech, a principle we celebrate today on the 4th of July! People who like it can honk, smile and wave. People who don't can ignore it.

Or honk, frown and gesture otherwise.

bakersfield always thinks it is rightous - just a bunch of cowboys and rednecks!!!

RF: you are one of the reasons this is a redneck county!! HA!

Are $1000 dollar ambulance rides righteous?

You know what TK thinks?
Selling a lot of Bibles, makes a lot of money.
But it doesn’t make righteous.

Sorry, but every time I heard the word "righteous" I think of Bill & Ted!

hahaha billionairebartley, you made me lol. I ♥ bill & ted.

and me personally i cant stand that word richeous. to me it sounds like "im so good im better than you". yuck. no. that should not be anybodys motto.

obviously I don't agree with his stupid religous views, but the slogan isn't that bad we do have some atheist's in Bakersfield, so the city might have a chance of being righteous. We all know the track record christians have of being righteous, lol.

Sounds like another "Random Acts of Kindness" bumper sticker gimmick. Some people want Bako to be perceived as a kind, polite, righteous town. And that's cool. But the reality is I just wrote a news story this morning about some punk who shot five people for no good reason. It's not "Life as it should be" either. We live in a city where people don't always say hello to each other, and where good air is hard to find. I suppose for the affluent it's probably life as it should be and pretty righteous. But when I see Bakersfield I see a "struggle" that includes both economic and social aspects. That dude has every right to put whatever he wants on his car regardless of my negative opinion of his sticker though.

Hmm, that's strange Vanity, I did the same thing.

Random...Are you saying it should say "City of Grease balls"?

There has to be a correlation between the number of "houses of worship" and fast food/chain restaurants in this city. They both fill you with the same......Aaaah never mind.

If by "righteous" he means we value sports above education, then he's right on.  Ignorant, uneducated, God-loving Bakersfield!  There's no place like home.  :) 

Bakersfield: City of Self-Righteousness

Wayfarer:  I've heard many religious people claim that atheism is just as much something you accept on faith as most religious doctrines... I've also heard this same basic move applied to darwinism and other similar ideas.

Here's why it's wrong:

Scientific atheism makes claims of this form This is true because X ( where X is some argument based on empirical observations (or whatever)).

Christianity makes claims of this form: This is true.

Sure, some individual atheists believe what they believe without understanding the reasons behind it (in exactly the kind of dogmatic way many religious people believe).  It's also true, I'm sure, that holes can be found in some arguments that have been made to support atheism.

On the other side of the coin, it's true that some Christians have gone out of their way to try to find evidence that supports their beliefs - they've analyzed historical record, tried to show how prophecies have been fulfilled, or whatever.

The bottom line though is that atheistic belief systems themselves explicitly get their authority from being supported by good arguments based on empirical observations.  Christianity does not justify itself at all, it just makes dogmatic claims. 

Different people embrace these belief systems in different ways, but there couldn't be more difference between the actual systems themselves.  

The bottom line though is that atheistic belief systems themselves explicitly get their authority from being supported by good arguments based on empirical observations. 

OK so give me some good arguments and empirical observations;)

randomhuman: What "system" of belief do atheists follow, exactly? I'm an atheist. I have no system, or faiths or anything, for that matter. I just don't believe in any kind of god, deity, cosmic muffin man or anything else that's not real. BTW, just some friendly advice; don't bother to get into a discussion on religion with my friend Wayfarer here. You can't win. He's that good. Hi Wayfarer...how have you been! 

Hm...

Not even the cosmic muffin man ?

--virgil

wrytingbea: churches-per-capita seems like a bad measure of righteousness. Actions can be righteous or unrighteous... I'd be interested to see statistics related to our actions here -- teenage pregnancy rates, drug addiction rates, crime rates, number of people persecuted for their beliefs, giving to charity per capita, etc.

I'm always interested by claims that pro-tolerance people are intolerant of religion.  I think this is based on a mis-understanding of what tolerance is (or maybe an oversimplification of the concept?).

The basic argument seems to be: To be tolerant, someone must tolerate every possibly behavior and belief.  Allegedly tolerant person X does not tolerate behavior Y (e.g. a christian pushing for prayer in schools) therefore they must be intolerant!

A society in anarchy is not a very free society -- the biggest, baddest gangs on the block can do whatever they want to outsiders, and in general, things are pretty bloody and choatic.  (Just look at modern day Somolia).  Government actually brings more freedom to a society -- by restraining those who'd like to violate the autonomy of others, most of us are made more free.

It's exactly my commitment to freedom and tolerance then, that forces me to oppose attempts to impose religion by legislation (e.g. In God We Trust signs in public schools, restrictions on homosexuality based only on moral prejudice, or city slogans that directly reference one religions group).  Those actions are the example of the big, bady majority bully trying to throw its weight around.  We have to limit the bully's freedom to be aggressive to ensure the most freedom for the most people over the long term.

Hey H8 by the grace of God I am doing good.  Randomhuman or if you don't mind we can shorten it to RH.  Would you also not agree that the use of mercenary lawyers (like the ACLU) and the use of frivolous law suits to force the beliefs of a minority unto the majority is also bullying.  Why should your personal beliefs carry anymore weight for everybody than anyone elses beliefs?  P.S. your argument about pro tolerance not meaning that they should tolerate all behavior also works for those who accuse Christians about being intolerant ,because they don't sign on to carnal slavery. 

Wayfarer:  "OK so give me some good arguments and empirical observations;)"

The argument isn't whether atheism is true or not -- it's that there's a difference in kind between atheism and religion.  Most modern scientific atheists have beliefs that are justificed by reason and observation -- even if wrong their authority comes from these things.  Christianity is dogmatic -- you can make arguments for it, but ultimately it's self-justifying.

H8cloz:  "system of beliefs" was probably a bad choice of terms.  I wasn't implying that there is any formal Athetistic set of beliefs that all Athetists (with a capital A) believe in. 

I'm an agnostic, in the sense that, if there is some kind of supernatural religious realm, I don't think there's anyway we can get knowledge of it.  This overall belief is supported by all kinds of related beliefs/claims -- a belief in the usefulness of rationality to answering questions about what is, beliefs about the inconsistency of Christianity's claims, beliefs about how well a certain scientific method of thinking has served us in the past several hundred years (evidenced by technological advances etc.) -- and so on.  I was using "system of belief" to capture the claim "there is no god" and all the related beliefs/claims/whatever you want to call them that support it.

Thank you for the advice.. it does seem to be pretty hard to "win" arguing religion with religious folks.. I'm not sure if it's a communication issue, or just the emotional involvment both people have on both sides of this kind of debate. 

Wayfarer:  Absolutely, Christians who fight or fought against slavary are practicing "positive intolerance" for lack of a better word.  Refusing to accept this behavior in America helped to make many Americans more free.

Your ACLU question is rather broad.  I wouldn't characterize taking prayer out of schools (for example) as forcing the beliefs of the minority on the majority.  Many ACLU cases are similar.   The ACLU doesn't want religion to be made illegal, and doesn't try to sue people for practicing religion in private.  As a society, we've agreed that the government shouldn't endorse a particular relgiion.  When the 800lbs gorilla that is religion over-steps this limit and does exactly that, even with the blessing of the majority, the ACLU and other organizations help to keep it in check.  

To me this is protecting the minority from an over-reaching majority.

Wayfarer: 

With the ACLU specifically, here's some example of them defending Christians and religious freedom:

http://www.aclu.org/religio...

Rh I am really enjoying this conversation.  But what I hear you saying is that it all comes down to beliefs and you have yet to give a answer as why your beliefs should carry more weight than any other.  At least those of traditional beliefs can state they have the weight of social norms and generations of people to back them up.  To give a more specific example of how a minority can pervert the legal system and turn it from it's goal as a instrument of justice and use it as a bludgeon.  How about the Mohave Cross.  Surely if you argue that the cross should be removed from public lands ,because it is favoring one religion over the other,  Then you also argue that Native American holy sites be destroyed for the same reason.  Clearly this is wrong.  To destroy the religious history ,because you don't agree with it is no better than the Taliban destroying those historic statues of buddhas in Afghanistan.  The communist in the Soviet Union and China destroyed lots of religious sites.  But now world organizations are fighting to preserve them all over the world.  So why should we be different in the US?  Also were is your evidence of this over reaching majority? 

That link is nice Rh ,but it doesn't tell the whole story does it?  What about the cases that the ACLU was used to attack the freedom of religion?