Sense of community my ass.  I don't see that here and I've lived in several different areas in California.  Kindness?  During my visit there, I've received more kindess from strangers in Oklahoma than I have in my entire lifetime in California.  Actions always speak louder than words.  Let' see 'em, not hear about it.

The print version "scraped" comments from this blog. Check out today's Local section.

New bumper sticker, "Bakersfield: It is what it is."

 RF, it’s a crying shame that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination made you into an Atheist.

I don't see any loss in that conversion, and a great deal of gain. 

The country suffered two great losses through their assassinations, and it wasn't at *ALL* that they'd been making bad deals.  Two random (excuse the expression) nuts affected the course of history, and there was no god to stop them.

 On that note, I propose we run with it, and create "Bakersfield: The Center of the Known Universe"

On that note, let make stickers that look lik yellow ribbons that say, "who doesn't support the troops?"

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

Evolution.

.

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

What RH said.

"But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments."

Sound familiar? I don't care if you're atheist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist...The abuse of pride is spoken against across the board. The question is, is this bumper sticker an act of pride? I'd say most definitely, as it doesn't appear to be done in jest. 

On that note, I propose we run with it, and create "Bakersfield: The Center of the Known Universe"

siouxcityranch

" now i understand your fear..it being that if Btown is promoted as a religious city those of you who have a problem with it might get out numbered and then you would really be uncomfortable living here..

your KIND are out numbered no matter WHAT the propaganda being generated  by a few misguided souls on the TBC blogs say."

I'm not an atheist -- I just don't have the arrogance to assume that I have certain knowledge about things like god, right, wrong etc.

No offense man, but the part I quoted from you above sounds like something from a lynch mob in an old western movie.  Do you really believe there's no place for non-religious people in your community?

 RF, it’s a crying shame that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination made you into an Atheist. I still believe that he and Jack died because they bit the hand that fed them.

RH I don't get that impression at all... what makes you think this?  I know I'm neither.

 denying you were neither gay or an atheist?? anti religious means atheist no matter which corner of the bed your looking under..and you have been spouting that through out this blog..or else your just LYING..which is it???

RH If people did that it's definitely a shame.  I fully support your right to practice your religion.  I just believe that your religion shouldn't be forced on my by the government anymore than my non-religion should be forced on you (as it was by communist governments).

DID ya CHOKE on yourself when you said this?? I know I did!! reads like an admission of guilt..your an atheist so admit it..

RH siouxcityranch: "it seems the majority of posters on here are gay and or atheists" 

I don't get that impression at all... what makes you think this?  I know I'm neither.

ahhh a newbie..how QUAINT

RH Promoting Bakersfield as  Christian city has, real negative consequences for those of us who live here and aren't Christians. 

 now i understand your fear..it being that if Btown is promoted as a religious city those of you who have a problem with it might get out numbered and then you would really be uncomfortable living here..

well Breaking News Report its too late... your KIND are out numbered no matter WHAT the propaganda being generated  by a few misguided souls on the TBC blogs say..

Rh I am against any particular religion being taught in public schools.  That includes secularism and darwinism.  Not that I follow what is popularly called creationism.  But I think we should study the facts and weakness of all ideologies.  If you read all the comments on this post you will find that it was turned into a religious argument by those who identify themselves as atheist.  As a matter of fact atheist made the most comments on this post.  Which is why I remarked that it resembled the atheist ruled Soviet Union.  An outsider reading these things would never guess that the majority of Bakersfield was living a normal life and too busy to waste time on these blogs.  As for persecutions of non-Christians or non conservatives.  The fact is until, recently these blogs have been monopolized by those who identified themselves as atheist and liberal.  When I first started blogging here those people did everything they could to drive off those bloggers that didn't share their opinion.  A lot of them are no longer here and the rest just have less to say now that Obama is in power and that they can't blame their lives on the bogeymenn Bush and the religious right anymore.  On the other hand nit picking Mr. Obama, whom I see as trying the best, he can is another worrying trend for me.  Let me end on that and wish God bless you all with a good night;) 

Reading these blogs you would think that Bakersfield was the Soviet Union under Stalin. Hey, if that means free Vodka for everyone, then I say da comrade!

Not surprisingly, I have to side with randomhuman here. Would I be given a fair trial in this town if the jury knew I was an Atheist? If my employer ever found out I am a Atheist, my career would be in jeopardy, because my immediate boss is a Christian, and hates Atheists. What about when Bush 1 said that Atheists can't be Americans, because Americans believe in God? Add to that the negativity toward nudists and I'm doomed, DOOMED I SAY! Hence, the free Vodka...

If people did that it's definitely a shame.  I fully support your right to practice your religion.  I just believe that your religion shouldn't be forced on my by the government anymore than my non-religion should be forced on you (as it was by communist governments).

I'm wondering if our disagreement is because you believe that keeping religion out of schools etc, is in fact forcing non-religion on kids. 

The Stalinist Russia thing is kind of extreme, but non-christians, or non-conservatives are in fact persecuted here.. just like I'm sure some conservatives are persecuted in liberal bastions.

wayafer

"But Rh you have yet to show how your beliefs should carry more weight than anyone elses or why we should ban Christian monuments on public land ,but not those of other faiths"

It shouldn't be Christian-specific.  We should prevent people from using the power of the government to promote any faith, Christian or otherwise.

"In response to your last post, then why should the government favor the atheist religion or secular humanist over any other? "

I think this is where a lot of mis-understandings start.  I'm not arguing that the government should favor the atheist "religion" or secular humanism.   There's plenty of opportunities outside of public schools and places like that for people to pursue their interest in religion and get a Christian (or other religion's) perspective on the world.

A certain kind of way of thinking has enabled us to make a lot of progress in the last several hundred years.  It involves focusing on what we can empirically, observe, arguing using reason, based on evidence, verifying what we believe to be true using experiments and so on.

This kind of thinking is not the only way of approaching the world.  It may have limitations.  It's not anti-religious, but it can potentially lead to certain types of anti-religiosity. 

Despite the potential for anti-religiosity, the usefulness of this way of looking at the world is enough to justify teaching it in schools.  This is not to say that explicit attaks on religion should be made in schools.  Wherever possible, we should point out that it's not a complete picture of the world, that there are many resources to learn about religion and that aspect of things, etc.

A "secular" education has proved it's usefulness, is not inherently anti-religious and can and should be supplemtanted by religious instruction at private instutions.  (Who would you rather have teaching your kid's about your religion anyway -- you and the leaders of your faith community, or some beauracrat?)

Rh did anyone say that all non Christians should leave the city?  No!  On this post  did anyone attack people ,because they attended a house of worship of any other faith than the atheistic one?  Yes!  If you preach tolerance than practice it;)   

Sioux you are right when ever someone mentions faith here.   Those suffering from personal issues with organized religion are quick to turn it into a forum of their ills.  Reading these blogs you would think that Bakersfield was the Soviet Union under Stalin. 

siouxcityranch: "it seems the majority of posters on here are gay and or atheists" 

I don't get that impression at all... what makes you think this?  I know I'm neither.

siouxcityranch: "...inviting people to ... rip apart something this guy is wanting to do because he believes in it JUST AINT RIGHT BRO!"

I see where you're going with this, and I agree that it's kind of mean spirited to attack someone personally for something he was doing with good intenions.  I'm sure the guy making this stickers is a nice guy.

On the other side of the coin, doing something "because you believe in it" while admirable, does not mean you're not wrong, or not hurting anyone.  The Taliban murdered women and repressed its citizens because of what its leaders believed in. 

Promoting Bakersfield as  Christian city has, real negative consequences for those of us who live here and aren't Christians.  It encourages a general atmosphere of intolerance and opression, that in my mind is very un-Christian (as well as uncomfortable).

If you'd like all non-Christians to leave your city, then you should say that right out. 

Smayer, I'm sorry I contributed to the negativity here. My initial comment was really a knee-jerk reaction to all the "rah-rah everything is fine we've got stimulus and it IS a great time to buy" crap flying around everywhere. People who use empty words when addressing our current economic climate drive me insane. I know that wasn't necessarily the topic of the article, but I wish people would stop with the cutesy wordplay and call a spade a spade. Bakersfield is a pit and it's only getting worse; far from "righteous."

I appreciate his optimism, though, no matter how futile it is.

In response to your last post, then why should the government favor the atheist religion or secular humanist over any other? 

But Rh you have yet to show how your beliefs should carry more weight than anyone elses or why we should ban Christian monuments on public land ,but not those of other faiths.  Please stick to the subject and not try to distract us with fantasy straw men and slippery slopes.   

wayfarer: 

As far as the other part of your post goes, I haven't argued that my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should be given more or less weight than anyone else's.

I have argued, indirectly, that government exists to promote the freedom and well-being of the governed, that one part of doing this is protected minorities from powerful majorities, and that one such powerful majority is religion.  The roots of this argument come from people like John Locke, who inspired the founding fathers... I don't know that I can summarize it all here and do it justice, both because of my limited understanding, and limited space.

What I can say, however, is that this particular country was founded with similar principles in mind. 

The constitution starts:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Things like this indicate that the founding fathers did thing the justification for government was the well being of the governed -- the things listed as the purpose for forming the government are all benefits and freedoms citizens will enjoy.  

Look at the declaration of independence as well --- it basically makes the argument that human beings have inalienable rights, and that when a government doesn't protect/honor these rights it's illegitimate.

It also seems clear to me that one type of freedom that we're supposed to enjoy is the freedom to practice our religion as we choose (see the establishment clause of the first amendment).

When our government begins favoring one religion over another, or letting one religion force it's beliefs on others, it violates the basic principles it's founded on. 

I realize this is a bit of a weak argument (a little distracted here), and that it only speaks to our current country and its history... but I think it holds water.

(Please don't take any of this personally btw, like you (I'm guessing) I like to argue :-) ).

Steve your better than this..why would you start a blog on religion knowing from ALL THE OTHER BLOGS where the local atheists have a field day....it would just setup a blog to make people angry and hurt peoples feelings??

it seems the majority of posters on here are gay and or atheists..they dont need a good reason to condem people who believe in god..infact they enjoy it better than a good steak and a bottle of wine..

I hope in the future you refrain from instigating such dribble in an effort to generate blog posts..the article was fine as it stood..but to have people publicly attack and invte them to rip apart something this guy is wanting to do because he believes in it JUST AINT RIGHT BRO!  and you and everyone else knows it..cept maybe RF and a few of his buddies....some people just lost their souls and wont ever get them back.ya I know its.their god given right..but its really kinda sad..

Wayfarer: To address your points in reverse order:

Arguing that Native American holy sites in public land should be destroyed is wrongheaded, and very different then arguments that attempt to keep the government from endorsing religion.  (It's kind of the same as the people who argue that student's shouldn't study books and paintings with religious content.) The historic Bhuddist statues in Afhganistan and the Native American holy sites here in America were created by private individuals as a personal expression of their beliefs (well before either country even existed of course). 

Leaving this private, historical sites on public land isn't exactly and endorsement of religion.  The government didn't pay to build them, and, unless they have historical value, the government doesn' t pay to maintain them.  Also, everyone is clear that they're historical sites, not symbols of the government's faith.

Letting public school teachers put on a living nativity show or lead a Christian prayer (for example) is a very different kind of case.  Here the teacher has a forum given to him or her by the state, and paid for by tax dollars and is using it to push a particular religion.

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? 

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? 

Wayfarer: 

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

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

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:  "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. 

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. 

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.

Hm...

Not even the cosmic muffin man ?

--virgil

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! 

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;)

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.  

Bakersfield: City of Self-Righteousness

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.  :) 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

Driln that is righteous dude! 

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. 

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.

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!