<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Governor Mark Sanford&#8217;s Apology Excludes Atheists</title>
	<atom:link href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/</link>
	<description>Atheism with Positivity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:57:07 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: darryl</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-323155</link>
		<dc:creator>darryl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-323155</guid>
		<description>I understand that Sanford has been separated from his wife for awhile, or has been having marital problems, and judging from his wife&#039;s brief response to reporters she&#039;s got to be too much for him to handle.  I don&#039;t really care about someone&#039;s private life so long as it doesn&#039;t interfere with one&#039;s duties.  

Everyone knows what it feels like to fall short of your own standards of conduct, but these ambitious fundamentalist Christian fools that are forced by the ignorance of their voters to pander themselves into a corner--well, I have no sympathy for them:  they weren&#039;t forced to make their deal with the devil; they did it with eyes open.  They&#039;re either dishonest or just don&#039;t have a good grip on their own weakness.  I hope this keeps this Republican from any shot at the White House.  
I wonder how many of the wives of guys like this--young, handsome, ambitious, capable, well-regarded--understand that he is going to be a target of women when he takes a public office like that of governor.  If these wives are smart they&#039;ve got to know this.  They should be more vigilant because it&#039;s damn sure that the Spirit of God is just not up to the job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand that Sanford has been separated from his wife for awhile, or has been having marital problems, and judging from his wife&#8217;s brief response to reporters she&#8217;s got to be too much for him to handle.  I don&#8217;t really care about someone&#8217;s private life so long as it doesn&#8217;t interfere with one&#8217;s duties.  </p>
<p>Everyone knows what it feels like to fall short of your own standards of conduct, but these ambitious fundamentalist Christian fools that are forced by the ignorance of their voters to pander themselves into a corner&#8211;well, I have no sympathy for them:  they weren&#8217;t forced to make their deal with the devil; they did it with eyes open.  They&#8217;re either dishonest or just don&#8217;t have a good grip on their own weakness.  I hope this keeps this Republican from any shot at the White House.<br />
I wonder how many of the wives of guys like this&#8211;young, handsome, ambitious, capable, well-regarded&#8211;understand that he is going to be a target of women when he takes a public office like that of governor.  If these wives are smart they&#8217;ve got to know this.  They should be more vigilant because it&#8217;s damn sure that the Spirit of God is just not up to the job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon.</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322789</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:09:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322789</guid>
		<description>Why is there an ad for dianetics on this site?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is there an ad for dianetics on this site?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heidi</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322659</link>
		<dc:creator>Heidi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322659</guid>
		<description>I feel kind of sorry for him. He sounds so completely pathetic clinging to his little god axioms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I feel kind of sorry for him. He sounds so completely pathetic clinging to his little god axioms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephanie</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322658</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephanie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322658</guid>
		<description>As an atheist in SC, this comes as no surprise. This type of talk is the norm. I&#039;m not saying I agree obviously, but maybe it shocks people from more liberal states.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As an atheist in SC, this comes as no surprise. This type of talk is the norm. I&#8217;m not saying I agree obviously, but maybe it shocks people from more liberal states.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stogoe</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322363</link>
		<dc:creator>stogoe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322363</guid>
		<description>It is difficult to begin telling you how wrong you are, because there are so many places to start.  
&lt;blockquote&gt;1) He told his staff he’d be gone, so there was a warning.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Either they thought that he was Naked Hiking the Appalachian trail, and he lied to them, or they knew he was &lt;strike&gt;selling state secrets to a foreign power&lt;/strike&gt;breaking up with his online girlfriend from another country.  Nobody in the governor&#039;s office had spoken with him in the week he was gone.  That they lied and said they had talked to him is immaterial.

&lt;blockquote&gt;2) The legislature wasn’t in session and the state constitution has provisions for dealing with emergencies while the governor is on vacation, so he didn’t “abandon” his job.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Wrongo.  Sanford was completely out of communication, and did not delegate his authority during his &#039;vacation&#039; to anyone.  Nobody has the authority to take charge in his absence.  The powers of the governor have to be delegated.  Who mobilizes the SC Guard in a natural disaster or riot?  Nobody can, not until Sanford gets back from his weeklong disappearance.
&lt;blockquote&gt;3) He most certainly doesn’t owe you or anyone else an explanation; you don’t tell him where you go vacation, why should he tell you?&lt;/blockquote&gt;
What would happen to you if you didn&#039;t show up to your job without notice for an entire week?  You&#039;d lose your job, that&#039;s what.  If you can&#039;t get away with completely disappearing for weeks at a time at Burger Mart, you sure as hell can&#039;t get away with it when you&#039;re the Governor of an entire State.  Take a vacation, sure, whatever.  But if you don&#039;t let your boss know that you&#039;re taking time off, and you don&#039;t get anyone to cover for you, you&#039;re going to get fired.

4)Travelling without anyone knowing your destination and travel times is stupid and dangerous even as a private citizen.  For government officials it&#039;s even more insane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is difficult to begin telling you how wrong you are, because there are so many places to start.  </p>
<blockquote><p>1) He told his staff he’d be gone, so there was a warning.</p></blockquote>
<p>Either they thought that he was Naked Hiking the Appalachian trail, and he lied to them, or they knew he was <strike>selling state secrets to a foreign power</strike>breaking up with his online girlfriend from another country.  Nobody in the governor&#8217;s office had spoken with him in the week he was gone.  That they lied and said they had talked to him is immaterial.</p>
<blockquote><p>2) The legislature wasn’t in session and the state constitution has provisions for dealing with emergencies while the governor is on vacation, so he didn’t “abandon” his job.</p></blockquote>
<p>Wrongo.  Sanford was completely out of communication, and did not delegate his authority during his &#8216;vacation&#8217; to anyone.  Nobody has the authority to take charge in his absence.  The powers of the governor have to be delegated.  Who mobilizes the SC Guard in a natural disaster or riot?  Nobody can, not until Sanford gets back from his weeklong disappearance.</p>
<blockquote><p>3) He most certainly doesn’t owe you or anyone else an explanation; you don’t tell him where you go vacation, why should he tell you?</p></blockquote>
<p>What would happen to you if you didn&#8217;t show up to your job without notice for an entire week?  You&#8217;d lose your job, that&#8217;s what.  If you can&#8217;t get away with completely disappearing for weeks at a time at Burger Mart, you sure as hell can&#8217;t get away with it when you&#8217;re the Governor of an entire State.  Take a vacation, sure, whatever.  But if you don&#8217;t let your boss know that you&#8217;re taking time off, and you don&#8217;t get anyone to cover for you, you&#8217;re going to get fired.</p>
<p>4)Travelling without anyone knowing your destination and travel times is stupid and dangerous even as a private citizen.  For government officials it&#8217;s even more insane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cypress Green</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322359</link>
		<dc:creator>Cypress Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322359</guid>
		<description>He said, “I guess where I’m going with this is that there are moral absolutes, and that God’s law indeed is there to protect you from yourself.  And there are consequences if you breach that.  This press conference is a consequence.”

If I die and find out god really does exist, I&#039;m gonna lobby for a press conference in lieu of hell.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He said, “I guess where I’m going with this is that there are moral absolutes, and that God’s law indeed is there to protect you from yourself.  And there are consequences if you breach that.  This press conference is a consequence.”</p>
<p>If I die and find out god really does exist, I&#8217;m gonna lobby for a press conference in lieu of hell.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wade</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322309</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322309</guid>
		<description>&quot;The biggest self of self is, indeed, self.&quot;--Governor Mark Sanford

&quot;I am that I am.&quot; --God

&quot;I yam what I yam and that&#039;s all what I yam.&quot; --Popeye

I think the Sailor Man makes the most sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The biggest self of self is, indeed, self.&#8221;&#8211;Governor Mark Sanford</p>
<p>&#8220;I am that I am.&#8221; &#8211;God</p>
<p>&#8220;I yam what I yam and that&#8217;s all what I yam.&#8221; &#8211;Popeye</p>
<p>I think the Sailor Man makes the most sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wade</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322305</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322305</guid>
		<description>Secular Planet,
I agree with you that my framing was not quite logical, and not a good illustration of what I&#039;m trying to do. I&#039;m questioning the assumption  that any mentioning of a category always implies the exclusion of a category that is seen by some as its opposite. 

First of all, in his rambling talk the Governor did apologize at one point to &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the citizens of South Carolina. With that in place, his specifically singling out a sub group within that, the &quot;people of faith of SC,&quot; seems to me to be just an enhancement toward a group that he felt more compelled for contrition, (for whatever reasons, sincere or cynical, it doesn&#039;t really matter) and doesn&#039;t seem to be blatantly snubbing the &quot;people of non-faith&quot; in its omission.  

I just think that whenever somebody mentions people of faith, atheists don&#039;t have to stand up every single time and say &quot;Hey, you bastard, what about us??&quot; It&#039;s all about the context, all about what is actually being said. Sometimes it&#039;s a snub that should be confronted, sometimes it&#039;s an oversight that might be politely corrected, and sometimes it&#039;s just not applicable to us, and so not a slight to us in its omission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Secular Planet,<br />
I agree with you that my framing was not quite logical, and not a good illustration of what I&#8217;m trying to do. I&#8217;m questioning the assumption  that any mentioning of a category always implies the exclusion of a category that is seen by some as its opposite. </p>
<p>First of all, in his rambling talk the Governor did apologize at one point to <em>all</em> the citizens of South Carolina. With that in place, his specifically singling out a sub group within that, the &#8220;people of faith of SC,&#8221; seems to me to be just an enhancement toward a group that he felt more compelled for contrition, (for whatever reasons, sincere or cynical, it doesn&#8217;t really matter) and doesn&#8217;t seem to be blatantly snubbing the &#8220;people of non-faith&#8221; in its omission.  </p>
<p>I just think that whenever somebody mentions people of faith, atheists don&#8217;t have to stand up every single time and say &#8220;Hey, you bastard, what about us??&#8221; It&#8217;s all about the context, all about what is actually being said. Sometimes it&#8217;s a snub that should be confronted, sometimes it&#8217;s an oversight that might be politely corrected, and sometimes it&#8217;s just not applicable to us, and so not a slight to us in its omission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ZombieGirl</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322295</link>
		<dc:creator>ZombieGirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322295</guid>
		<description>Well, I don&#039;t really care what politicians do in privacy, except if they rape people and/or animals (or some of other various mentally unhealthy things that make me uneasy about them making powerful decisions.) So he&#039;s implying that not cheating is a value that only people of faith have? We all know that&#039;s ridiculous...he&#039;s just like every other person who thinks that, regardless of his political status. Yeah, it&#039;s annoying, but that&#039;s why us atheists should be more vocal about our non-belief. So people can think...&quot;Hmm...my neighbor Mr.McMuffin is the most honest person to his wife...and he doesn&#039;t subscribe to any faith! How about that?!?!&quot; Or if they can&#039;t make the connection on their own, we can help them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I don&#8217;t really care what politicians do in privacy, except if they rape people and/or animals (or some of other various mentally unhealthy things that make me uneasy about them making powerful decisions.) So he&#8217;s implying that not cheating is a value that only people of faith have? We all know that&#8217;s ridiculous&#8230;he&#8217;s just like every other person who thinks that, regardless of his political status. Yeah, it&#8217;s annoying, but that&#8217;s why us atheists should be more vocal about our non-belief. So people can think&#8230;&#8221;Hmm&#8230;my neighbor Mr.McMuffin is the most honest person to his wife&#8230;and he doesn&#8217;t subscribe to any faith! How about that?!?!&#8221; Or if they can&#8217;t make the connection on their own, we can help them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noadi</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/24/sanfords-apology-excludes-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-322293</link>
		<dc:creator>Noadi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=12974#comment-322293</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;1) He told his staff he’d be gone, so there was a warning.
2) The legislature wasn’t in session and the state constitution has provisions for dealing with emergencies while the governor is on vacation, so he didn’t “abandon” his job.
3) He most certainly doesn’t owe you or anyone else an explanation; you don’t tell him where you go vacation, why should he tell you?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Since I&#039;m not a citizen of SC he owes me nothing. However he is an elected state official and as such where he is definitely is a matter of public concern for citizens of SC to have public notice of when the governor is going to leave the country (where isn&#039;t their business, the fact of his vacation is). While he told his staff he was leaving he told no one else and it isn&#039;t clear if his staff even had a way to contact him. That is dereliction of duty as far as I&#039;m concerned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>1) He told his staff he’d be gone, so there was a warning.<br />
2) The legislature wasn’t in session and the state constitution has provisions for dealing with emergencies while the governor is on vacation, so he didn’t “abandon” his job.<br />
3) He most certainly doesn’t owe you or anyone else an explanation; you don’t tell him where you go vacation, why should he tell you?</p></blockquote>
<p>Since I&#8217;m not a citizen of SC he owes me nothing. However he is an elected state official and as such where he is definitely is a matter of public concern for citizens of SC to have public notice of when the governor is going to leave the country (where isn&#8217;t their business, the fact of his vacation is). While he told his staff he was leaving he told no one else and it isn&#8217;t clear if his staff even had a way to contact him. That is dereliction of duty as far as I&#8217;m concerned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
