So the fact that he is a Christian makes him unfit to hold a position on the city council? And you base this on the assumption that will "probably" vote against the gay parade.

Him being a Christian doesnt make him unfit, the fact that he throws his Christianity in your face has me worried. His quote for the paper about his campaign was, “I think without the Bible the world doesn't make much sense to me.” Id prefer someones quote for their profile in the Oklahoman to, I dont know, maybe address actual issues and not show off how Christian you are. I want people to vote on facts, current issues, constituent concerns, etc, not based on the bible. Save that for your home and church, dont bring it into city politics

Save that for your home and church, dont bring it into city politics

I started to ask if it's the fact that he publicly professed his faith. I understand what you are saying, and in that light, gay agendas and issues should be left out of city, and all politics as well.

Midtowner and onthestrip, I agree with your point that a person shouldn't broadcast their faith in order to garner religious votes. And I don't know Greiner from Adam (never seen him, never talked to him, never heard of him prior to this election); so, it's possible that he's a total fake and only mentioning his faith in order to gain a loyal following. But what evidence do you have to accuse him of such? Why do you suggest that his references to God and Christianity are politically motivated? Is it not possible that he's just really that devoted?

If you don't agree with his devotion to Christianity, that is fine. If you think such references are out of place in politics regardless of motive, you are entitled to think so. But I'm genuinely asking what evidence you have to question his motives for mentioning his Christianity. Because, if he is playing Christian to win an election, I'll join you in denouncing that. But IF you simply don't like that fact that he is a vocal Christian in the public square, such aversion is as bigoted as that of which you have accused him.

Midtowner and onthestrip, I agree with your point that a person shouldn't broadcast their faith in order to garner religious votes. And I don't know Greiner from Adam (never seen him, never talked to him, never heard of him prior to this election); so, it's possible that he's a total fake and only mentioning his faith in order to gain a loyal following. But what evidence do you have to accuse him of such? Why do you suggest that his references to God and Christianity are politically motivated? Is it not possible that he's just really that devoted?

If you don't agree with his devotion to Christianity, that is fine. If you think such references are out of place in politics regardless of motive, you are entitled to think so. But I'm genuinely asking what evidence you have to question his motives for mentioning his Christianity. Because, if he is playing Christian to win an election, I'll join you in denouncing that. But IF you simply don't like that fact that he is a vocal Christian in the public square, such aversion is as bigoted as that of which you have accused him.

Im not accusing him of pandering to the christian voters to gain votes. I believe he is sincere, and thats what makes me worried. It doesnt make me bigoted. And I havent accused him of being bigoted. I just accuse him of thinking to much with his bible and religion and not thinking in terms of city or its citizens.

Might he be fair and reasonable in his decisions? Maybe. But Ive seen too many other politicians recite the same kind of stuff he has and they turn out to resemble something closer to Sally Kern. When the Oklahoman ask you for a quote for their only profile of city council candidates, essentially a sentence or two summing up what you are running for, and he says, “I think without the Bible the world doesn't make much sense to me.”... thats just strikes me as a little alarming.

OKC in the past has had a conservative christian coucil member that voted against routine stuff like approving the gay pride parade...that kind of thinking doesnt belong in city politics. If he wants to be a social conservative or a debt hating tea party type then run for state office, but stay out of city politics.

Sure, I might labeling him too soon without knowing too much about him but Ive seen this kind of religiosity before and I dont like it. In fact we are seeing it everyday at the state capitol.

[QUOTE=onthestrip;62501OKC in the past has had a conservative christian coucil member that voted against routine stuff like approving the gay pride parade...that kind of thinking doesnt belong in city politics. If he wants to be a social conservative or a debt hating tea party type then run for state office, but stay out of city politics.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this city sure doesn't need a councilman that will vote against the gay parade. ...

It's the city council person's job to vote for or against issues pertaining to the city. You say you don't like Mr. Greiner because of his public declaration that he is a Christian, but it is very obvious from your own words that you do not care for him because he IS a Christian. You want him to make a statement concerning the issues, and all your worried about is the gay parade?. If that's all you have to worry about, man you've got it made.

While your worried about that, isn't it ironic that over in ward 7, two time DUI recipient and incumbant Skip Kelly ran against 6 other candidates and still received 31% of the vote.

Any part of a person's perspective (including their faith) should be welcomed in the public sphere (barring harm or indecency), including when a person is running for or governing in political office. That's the beauty of our democratically elected leadership. If you don't like a person's perspective, you can exercise your right to vote against that person and to encourage others to do the same. But to suggest that those perspectives have no place in "city politics" presents a misguided view of civic leadership. A person running for office can lead any way they choose, and we can either vote them up or vote them down.

Believe it or not, I share your disdain for some in political office who do more harm than good (for even the causes they espouse) by an ignorantly presented worldview. However, we must be logically consistent. How can a man who defends the right for an outspokenly gay pride parade to exist so quickly reject a man for being an outspokenly Christian city council member? I never accused you of being bigoted (I precluded my comment with a big IF). However, you are logically inconsistent.

I'm thinking that a major reason for Greiner's success is that he went out personally knocking on hundreds of doors in his ward. Which such a small turnout, it doesn't take much of that with personal contact to affect the results if your opponents don't do the same. Perhaps the other two did also, but I hadn't heard about that if they did.

Yeah for some reason I can't see Marrs walking door to door. Regardless of religion, walkability advocates have to be heartened by a candidate who actually does some walking.

Having pounded a bit of sidewalk, pavment, dirt road and even fields in my younger days, I appreciate it when a candidate has folk who will do the same for the person they support. But to really get my attention, the candidate will show up on my porch. Even better if the candidate is actually engaging and not a here ya go, lots of hands to shake today total d-canoe packaged up by someone else as their personal politico play toy.

...OKC in the past has had a conservative christian coucil member that voted against routine stuff like approving the gay pride parade...that kind of thinking doesnt belong in city politics. If he wants to be a social conservative or a debt hating tea party type then run for state office, but stay out of city politics.

Sure, I might labeling him too soon without knowing too much about him but Ive seen this kind of religiosity before and I dont like it. In fact we are seeing it everyday at the state capitol.
True. The most recent former Mayor (Humphreys) thought the same way...

My guess is that Sims and Marrs split the non-fundamentalist vote in Ward 1, and that Greiner was only able to squeak into the front because of Sims playing spoiler. My hypotheses will be tested in the runoff election, though. If I'm right Marrs should win in a landslide, barring new developments.

Edit: And I'll add I was a bit surprised that Sims didn't do better. I felt like she had a good message and good branding.

I think you're stating the obvious.

Greiner will get about 25% or so, which represents the Ward 1 wackadoo vote.

I see commercials on local TV with Mayor Cornett endorsing Gary Marrs, saying that he's been behind OKC's growth and emergence (or words resembling that).

Midtowner and onthestrip, I agree with your point that a person shouldn't broadcast their faith in order to garner religious votes. And I don't know Greiner from Adam (never seen him, never talked to him, never heard of him prior to this election); so, it's possible that he's a total fake and only mentioning his faith in order to gain a loyal following. But what evidence do you have to accuse him of such? Why do you suggest that his references to God and Christianity are politically motivated? Is it not possible that he's just really that devoted?

If you don't agree with his devotion to Christianity, that is fine. If you think such references are out of place in politics regardless of motive, you are entitled to think so. But I'm genuinely asking what evidence you have to question his motives for mentioning his Christianity. Because, if he is playing Christian to win an election, I'll join you in denouncing that. But IF you simply don't like that fact that he is a vocal Christian in the public square, such aversion is as bigoted as that of which you have accused him.

My issue is that when he says things like "the world wouldn't make much sense to me without the Bible," that reveals he's a pretty dogmatic thinker. In other words, he believes in things/principles just 'cuz and without any supporting facts. It also tells me that he's very easily misled. If you can be led to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, you can be led to believe anything. Ordinarily, I don't really care what someone's religious beliefs are.

If they represent me, however, I prefer that they be able to at minimum employ some basic critical thinking skills, and above all, be able to employ some well-placed skepticism. There's nothing wrong with being Christian, having faith in God and living in a principled and faithful manner. There's quite a bit wrong with someone who rejects objective reality in favor of dogma, then wants to be placed into a position of power and authority where they will be presented often with facts and be required to make a decision in their ward's best interests. We need a leader who can look at the facts and make decisions without having to appeal to his dogma to do so. I thought Sims was that person and I guess I'll stick with Marrs over Greiner.

My issue is that when he says things like "the world wouldn't make much sense to me without the Bible," that reveals he's a pretty dogmatic thinker. In other words, he believes in things/principles just 'cuz and without any supporting facts. It also tells me that he's very easily misled. If you can be led to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, you can be led to believe anything. Ordinarily, I don't really care what someone's religious beliefs are.

If they represent me, however, I prefer that they be able to at minimum employ some basic critical thinking skills, and above all, be able to employ some well-placed skepticism. There's nothing wrong with being Christian, having faith in God and living in a principled and faithful manner. There's quite a bit wrong with someone who rejects objective reality in favor of dogma, then wants to be placed into a position of power and authority where they will be presented often with facts and be required to make a decision in their ward's best interests. We need a leader who can look at the facts and make decisions without having to appeal to his dogma to do so. I thought Sims was that person and I guess I'll stick with Marrs over Greiner.

Agreed. The Oklahoma City Charter is not in the Bible, so would that make sense to him?

My issue is that when he says things like "the world wouldn't make much sense to me without the Bible," that reveals he's a pretty dogmatic thinker. In other words, he believes in things/principles just 'cuz and without any supporting facts. It also tells me that he's very easily misled. If you can be led to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, you can be led to believe anything. Ordinarily, I don't really care what someone's religious beliefs are.

If they represent me, however, I prefer that they be able to at minimum employ some basic critical thinking skills, and above all, be able to employ some well-placed skepticism. There's nothing wrong with being Christian, having faith in God and living in a principled and faithful manner. There's quite a bit wrong with someone who rejects objective reality in favor of dogma, then wants to be placed into a position of power and authority where they will be presented often with facts and be required to make a decision in their ward's best interests. We need a leader who can look at the facts and make decisions without having to appeal to his dogma to do so. I thought Sims was that person and I guess I'll stick with Marrs over Greiner.

The problem with your point is that it is self-contradictory. You cannot both say that it's okay for a council member to be a Christian as long as they possess critical thinking skills and then suggest that a person who is a Christian is not exercising critical thinking skills. I'm not defending Greiner himself; as I mentioned earlier, I honestly don't know the man and have not investigated this particular council race. A discussion of religion doesn't belong on this thread, but to respond to what you have said as it pertains to the issue...

To suggest that devotion to Christian beliefs requires a person to adhere to dogma over critical thinking only reveals your bias against Christian beliefs. Some of the most brilliant, critically-thinking people on the planet are devoted Christians. Some of history's greatest public officials were devoted Christians.

It is possible for any person to myopically skew every issue according to their predetermined mindset, and a person devoted to Christianity is no more prone to such an approach than anyone else is. I have encountered biased Christians, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics... Therefore, rather than present that your mindset is one of pure, unbiased devotion to critical thinking, just admit that you also have a dogma that you have chosen over logical critical thinking (a bias against Christian beliefs). It's okay for you to be biased; just admit your bias as clearly as Mr. Greiner has.

having pounded a bit of sidewalk, pavment, dirt road and even fields in my younger days, i appreciate it when a candidate has folk who will do the same for the person they support. But to really get my attention, the candidate will show up on my porch. Even better if the candidate is actually engaging and not a here ya go, lots of hands to shake today total d-canoe packaged up by someone else as their personal politico play toy.

lol.

After reading the posts above, I hope Greiner loses in historic fashion.

After reading the posts above, I hope Greiner loses in historic fashion.

It appears that Greiner may have won the seat.

Looks like Pettis and Greiner are going to win.

Fine for Ward 7.

Being a resident of Ward 1, I hope I'm wrong about this guy.

Tweet from Zeke Campfield of the Oklahoman:


Pettis beating Kelly at rate of two-to-one after nearly half of precincts report; Greiner and Marrs neck and neck

Tweet from Zeke Campfield of the Oklahoman:

When was that tweet? Looks like Marrs is losing. He ran a very lethargic campaign. Hard to get excited about the guy but it would be better than having a bible-thumping teabagger on the council.

Another Campfield tweet from 27 minutes ago:


Pettis still leads Kelly, 1,346-890, with 29 of 51 precincts in; Griner still ahead of Marrs 769-637 with 13 of 27 precincts in

Oklahoma City Council Ward 1 - Oklahoma 8:27 PM James Greiner
1,686 56.39%

Gary Marrs
1,304 43.61%


30 of 37 precincts reporting! Exciting day for Okc! See ya Marrs!

Another from Campfield:


Challengers win in both #okc city council races. Pettis beats Kelly 1,940-1,202, Greiner beats Marrs 1,775-1,333.

Another from Campfield:

Congratulations to John Greiner. I think Marrs went into this without respecting his opponent. Quick thought: Mayor Cornett endorsed Gary Marrs, and campaigned for him. Does this say anything about this Ward's perspective on Mayor Cornett?

Congratulations to John Greiner. I think Marrs went into this without respecting his opponent. Quick thought: Mayor Cornett endorsed Gary Marrs, and campaigned for him. Does this say anything about this Ward's perspective on Mayor Cornett?

Probably not. Says more about Marrs. Didn't seem to run a strong campaign. Also, Hobby Lobby probably had more boots on the ground for the "Christian candidate." Preacher beats a fireman in Ward 1, apparently.

While I may disagree with James Greiner's fusion of religion and politics, I appreciate his energetic campaign. When Gary Marrs was my city councilman he did not show much enthusiasm for anything. He did not return any of our neighborhood's phone calls or e-mails. I think he got tired and complacent during his last term and it certainly showed in this campaign.

He was also endorsed by Larry Nichols and the Oklahoman...

Goes to show ... always respect the other candidate. Even if a candidate thinks the other candidate is an odd duck, it's generally best to consider him a highly motivated and well motivated odd duck.

I always thought Marrs was a lazy and distant member of the Council, but I'm not real happy with his replacement. Greiner worked hard and wanted it more, congratulations to him.

another from campfield:

Yay, on both counts!

I always thought Marrs was a lazy and distant member of the Council

He was. The lazy arse and the soom to be convicted drunkard are both gone. I am not necessarily pleased that Greiner won but I sure am glad that Marrs lost. Now if only the incumbents fall in a few more races...

While I may disagree with James Greiner's fusion of religion and politics, I appreciate his energetic campaign.

Greiner seemed to be the better funded of the two--something which surprises me. I received several mailers from Greiner, nada from Marrs.

As to the content of Greiner's mailers and campaign rhetoric, it was the same pablum being used in just about every single Republican race out there. It's a baby step above "faith/family/freedom." My concern is that Greiner won't be able to grasp how a city is supposed to be run. I'm also concerned that he is going to be guided by the Republican dogmatic belief that the government should stick to "core functions," (I'm not sure anyone knows what that actually means other than that we need to occasionally cut services, perhaps pour encourager les autres?)

It'll be an interesting run.

My concern is that Greiner won't be able to grasp how a city is supposed to be run.

This same ignorance infested Marrs also IMHO. Just because he was a retired fire chief means really nothing. Moving up in city government is more hiney smooching than ability. If you doubt this ask any fireman who is below the rack of Major and many Majors would tell you legions of horror stories about his so called administration of the OCFD. Most were ecstatic to see him go. Many are laughing again to see him kicked to the curb.

I am open minded to the new guy. He needs to be given the opportunity to show what he is made of. It really is churlish/low brow behavior to frog gig him before he has even set his posterior in the chair on the horseshoe.

Greiner seemed to be the better funded of the two--something which surprises me. I received several mailers from Greiner, nada from Marrs.

As to the content of Greiner's mailers and campaign rhetoric, it was the same pablum being used in just about every single Republican race out there. It's a baby step above "faith/family/freedom." My concern is that Greiner won't be able to grasp how a city is supposed to be run. I'm also concerned that he is going to be guided by the Republican dogmatic belief that the government should stick to "core functions," (I'm not sure anyone knows what that actually means other than that we need to occasionally cut services, perhaps pour encourager les autres?)

It'll be an interesting run.

A la Brian Walters.

Brian won an open seat, but he won in the same fashion. Boots on the ground, speaking to the bland rhetoric. And he ended up being one and done because people realized that he had no idea how to run a City nor help all citizens. I hope that doesn't happen with Greiner. We'll see.

[QUOTE=Midtowner;632657]Greiner seemed to be the better funded of the two--something which surprises me. I received several mailers from Greiner, nada from Marrs.



Wow, I wonder why you did not get anything from Marrs. I live in Ward 1 and probably got 6-8 mailers and multiple phone calls in the last few days, mainly from the Marrs camp. I also got the Greiner mailers. On Monday, I had two from each in the mail box. Although I supported Marrs, I have to admit that I think Greiners graphic design was easier to read and conveyed a simple message, not to mention that it did not hurt that most of his mailers conveyed the color coordinated apple pie family imagery you see in politcal campaigns that people like that regardless if they know much about the candidate. It certainlly appears that none of Marrs heavy hitting supporters carried much weight in Ward 1 which I guess makes sense since none of them live there to my knowledge.

Speaking of money and mailers, I live in Ward 7, and I did not receive any mail during the original primary or the run off. I did get a visit from a woman campaigning for the first part... but that was it.

Greiner seemed to be the better funded of the two--something which surprises me. I received several mailers from Greiner, nada from Marrs. …

Unless there was a last minute infusion of donations…

Oklahoma City Council candidates look for votes before Tuesday's election | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-candidates-look-for-votes-before-tuesdays-election/article/3778553?custom_click=pod_headline_oklahoma-city-news)

(Marrs) has been re-elected twice but is in a battle after running a close second in the March primary, despite a big fundraising advantage.
…
Marrs spent $50,000 in the latest reporting period and still had $40,000 left for the final weeks.
…
Limited funds — about $5,400 on hand in mid-March — were of no concern, said Greiner, a graphic design team leader at Hobby Lobby.


I did find it surprising that there was higher turnout in the runoff than for the primary. This is not the norm, unless there is something highly controversial and getting a lot of press…
Oklahoma City Council candidates look for votes before Tuesday's election | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-candidates-look-for-votes-before-tuesdays-election/article/3778553?custom_click=pod_headline_oklahoma-city-news)

Turnout is a major concern after only 5 percent of those eligible voted last month, he said.

Challengers win seats on Oklahoma City Council | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3779201)

Turnout on a chilly day with record rainfall was light, with only 6.5 percent of eligible voters casting ballots in Ward 7 and 9 percent voting in Ward 1.

Congratulations to John Greiner. I think Marrs went into this without respecting his opponent. Quick thought: Mayor Cornett endorsed Gary Marrs, and campaigned for him. Does this say anything about this Ward's perspective on Mayor Cornett?

Cornett also recorded radio spots and robo calls for Skip Kelly.

With Cornett having endorsing two defeated incumbents, does that give any tactical ammunition to Ed Shadid as a potential mayoral challenger?

The turnout was even higher than what I quoted above:

Absentee and early voters raised the totals to 7.6 percent in Ward 7 and 10 percent in Ward 1.



Cornett also recorded radio spots and robo calls for Skip Kelly.

With Cornett having endorsing two defeated incumbents, does that give any tactical ammunition to Ed Shadid as a potential mayoral challenger?

Not sure but here is what he had to say:

Mayor Mick Cornett said voters spoke individually — rather than collectively — in turning out two veteran council members who had the mayor's endorsement, along with the benefit of his voice and image in campaign ads.
“There are certainly people who will view this in many, many different ways, and I think they're all right,” Cornett said.
Tuesday's winners will take their seats next Tuesday. Council members serve four-year terms, earning $12,000 per year.
Next Tuesday? Didn't know it happens that quick. No time to get settled in as it where.

Unless there was a last minute infusion of donations…

Oklahoma City Council candidates look for votes before Tuesday's election | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-candidates-look-for-votes-before-tuesdays-election/article/3778553?custom_click=pod_headline_oklahoma-city-news)

I did find it surprising that there was higher turnout in the runoff than for the primary. This is not the norm, unless there is something highly controversial and getting a lot of press…
Oklahoma City Council candidates look for votes before Tuesday's election | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-candidates-look-for-votes-before-tuesdays-election/article/3778553?custom_click=pod_headline_oklahoma-city-news)

Challengers win seats on Oklahoma City Council | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3779201)

Well maybe there is something to this Greiner fella. I was lazy and didn't do the research, so thanks for doing it for me. If he can organize a campaign to look better than the fella with the massive fundraising advantage, that really does say something positive about him. Of course, a buddy of mine in the legislature did something similar. From his campaign literature, I'd think he was a Tea Party imbecile, when really, he was just saying what his consultants told him to say to get elected... and it worked, so who can blame him?

If the voters continue to buy into the boilerplate politics, that's what they'll continue to get.

Well maybe there is something to this Greiner fella. I was lazy and didn't do the research, so thanks for doing it for me. If he can organize a campaign to look better than the fella with the massive fundraising advantage, that really does say something positive about him. Of course, a buddy of mine in the legislature did something similar. From his campaign literature, I'd think he was a Tea Party imbecile, when really, he was just saying what his consultants told him to say to get elected... and it worked, so who can blame him?

If the voters continue to buy into the boilerplate politics, that's what they'll continue to get.

That is an interesting observation Mid. Can a candidate get elected in Oklahoma by being 100% intellectually honest? When "Faith, Family, Freedom" is enough to beat an arguably better candidate in the highest profile election in the state, I wonder. Are there differences in this at the local and state level? Makes you think....

That is an interesting observation Mid. Can a candidate get elected in Oklahoma by being 100% intellectually honest? When "Faith, Family, Freedom" is enough to beat an arguably better candidate in the highest profile election in the state, I wonder. Are there differences in this at the local and state level? Makes you think....

I think to win these contests, you have to, like Shadid, have lots of your own money and run a hell of a ground game. Also, Ward 1 has a lot of unsophisticated voters who really buy that stuff, IMHO.

I think to win these contests, you have to, like Shadid, have lots of your own money and run a hell of a ground game. Also, Ward 1 has a lot of unsophisticated voters who really buy that stuff, IMHO.

MT, I don't mean to take it personally and hope you don't, but I think I did (even though I'm not in Ward 1). Do you mean non-thinking Christians when you say unsophisticated voters? or do you mean hicks without a graduate degree? I realize this all stems from your (very valid) dislike of the candidate stating that this ol' world only makes sense when he reads his Bible (my paraphrase, but yeah -- where the hell did that come from and what does it have to do with the job he's now going to do starting Tuesday), but I don't see it that way. I would say that there are two things to keep in mind. 1) there may very well be lots of unsophisticated, non-urban folk in Ward 1, but I'll bet that the bulk of them that you may not want as your neighbor probably don't vote in OKC council races either and that 2) those that did show up yesterday were probably a little disenchanted with the OKC way ahead and voted to oust the incumbent rather than get this particular person in.

Considering Carolyn Sims, who was the best (by far) of all of the candidates didn't manage to get hardly any votes--surprising since she was the only woman on the ballot, I don't think so. I think what we had was a turnout machine which primarily went through the churches. If Marrs had even tried to be effective in this race (and in general), he'd have had this one in the bag.

A couple weeks ago a few friends and I were discussing how the church vote might affect the Ward 1 election. Greiner definitely used his instant connection with that demographic to his advantage, but he also worked his rear end off knocking on doors in the Ward. It is hard to say which of these were most significant in the election outcome, but Marrs clearly underestimated his opponent.

Well maybe there is something to this Greiner fella. I was lazy and didn't do the research, so thanks for doing it for me. If he can organize a campaign to look better than the fella with the massive fundraising advantage, that really does say something positive about him. Of course, a buddy of mine in the legislature did something similar. From his campaign literature, I'd think he was a Tea Party imbecile, when really, he was just saying what his consultants told him to say to get elected... and it worked, so who can blame him?

If the voters continue to buy into the boilerplate politics, that's what they'll continue to get.
He is a "graphic design team leader at Hobby Lobby". I don't know what that position entails but as a graphic designer myself, he probably has an advantage when it comes to designing/producing advertising materials. Might have done it himself instead of having to hire someone else to do it for him.



A couple weeks ago a few friends and I were discussing how the church vote might affect the Ward 1 election. Greiner definitely used his instant connection with that demographic to his advantage, but he also worked his rear end off knocking on doors in the Ward. It is hard to say which of these were most significant in the election outcome, but Marrs clearly underestimated his opponent.
Would think after barely placing 2nd to him in the primary that Marrs would have snapped to attention. but then again, since he got the endorsement of his other opponent, may have thought that it would have put him over the top. But then again, those that voted for his opponent probably did so because they were wanting change so it wouldn't make much sense to vote for the status quo.

I'm not sure about that. I think he had to either have had some consultant work on that message (because it's so similar to others) or he just copied someone else's campaign entirely. Those political mailers have got to all be from the same place. Everyone seems to use 'em these days.

Really amazed at the hatred, bigotry, and intolerance I"ve seen in this thread.

"Tea party imbeciles"
"wackadoo vote"
"Unsophisticated voters"
"Bible thumper"

I, frankly, don't care who said it, so I'm not even going to attempt to draw any one person into the fray with accusations.

It's the fact it was said at all, and principally said unchallenged. If someone here had said "that stupid Muslim," or that "imbecile Jew," there would rightfully be outrage at the comment. But say it about a Christian, and, well, that's ok?

This site is supposedly one that embraces "progressive," inclusive, open-minded thought. But from these comments, its clear that anyone who professes Christ or claims to be a Christian is pre-emptively in the gunsites of some here for abuse without the slightest justification other than the fact they assert Christianity.

I am a Christian, and make no bones about it nor apologies for it. And there is no question that the Bible shapes my world view. But why that might make me unqualified or an "imbecile" to make decisions about convention centers or streetcars defies the imagination.

I expect more of and from everyone on this site. We all should. If we don't, or reserve the righteous indignation for only the "right" religions, the pretense of openness, inclusion, and diversity is an abject scam.

Okay, so let me clarify.

I think someone who runs because some invisible man in the sky communicated that he should run is either a liar or should be diagnosed with schizophrenia and medicated.

Anyone who can't make sense of the world without the Bible despite mountains of science and facts is someone who ignores facts and truth when making decisions and instead relies on dogma. For me to think that person is going to be an awful decision maker is not prejudice, it's fact.

Is a voter unsophisticated if the only message they received about a candidate was the exact same thing every single Republican candidate in Oklahoma prints on their flyers? Or if they vote that way because the candidate appeals to their religious beliefs, saying zero (his campaign never took any position on anything having to do with running the city, except to say the government should stick to "core functions" [he didn't define those]) are they unsophisticated voters? I'd have to say yes.

Are Bible thumpers bad people? Yes. They seek to deprive others of the equal protection of the law because they want to impose their religious world view on non-believers. It's immoral, and frankly, evil.

What does the Bible say about streetcars and convention centers? Not a damn thing.

Wow. All I can say is Wow.

Is a voter unsophisticated if the only message they received about a candidate was the exact same thing every single Republican candidate in Oklahoma prints on their flyers? Or if they vote that way because the candidate appeals to their religious beliefs, saying zero (his campaign never took any position on anything having to do with running the city, except to say the government should stick to "core functions" [he didn't define those]) are they unsophisticated voters? I'd have to say yes.

Are Bible thumpers bad people? Yes. They seek to deprive others of the equal protection of the law because they want to impose their religious world view on non-believers. It's immoral, and frankly, evil.

What does the Bible say about streetcars and convention centers? Not a damn thing.

How can you say that the majority of the voters in Ward 1 voted for the Christian and not against the incumbent? You can't. You certainly can put your spin on it, but it's just an assumption. How can you say that Christians (sometimes refered to as "bible thumpers") are bad people or that they seek to deprive others of equal protection of the law? To do so is a gross mischaracterization and wrong -- some would say even immoral, and frankly, evil. You say that you haven't done the research, but are content to label this guy as dogmatic, immoral and evil and have inferred a lesser intellect based on, what? two sentences about his use of a religious text and ability to hear God in a way you apparently can't or won't? I hope you choose your words better in court than you do in a public discusison forum. Curious: Have you read any religious texts? The Bible or otherwise?

I infer the lesser intellect from his campaign materials. I could be totally wrong. He could just want to look like a Bible thumping lunatic to get votes and actually be a truly thoughtful person.

As for folks showing up to vote against Marrs, I just don't see it. Marrs really didn't do anything objectionable enough to motivate anyone to vote against him. He in fact, never did anything.

As far as the Bible goes, I've had to read it numerous times in my life because of attending Catholic school, or in high school, it was required reading for AP English way back in '96 Edmond North HS.

Tell me.. when you talk to God, what does he say?

As for folks showing up to vote against Marrs, I just don't see it. Marrs really didn't do anything objectionable enough to motivate anyone to vote against him. He in fact, never did anything.

Spartan wants him to go back to Marrs very much -- and he's in Cleveland.

Tell me.. when you talk to God, what does he say?

I'm not sure I have the radio tuned to the exact same frequency that others do, and get my messages from God through his written word.

Okay, so let me clarify.


I think someone who runs because some invisible man in the sky communicated that he should run is either a liar or should be diagnosed with schizophrenia and medicated.

Fortunately, this nation still allows for the freedom of religion. You are obviously a very intelligent guy, Mid, but for you to eliminate on a wholesale basis the notion of spiritual enlightenment from God and direction reflects a closed-mindedness that surprises and saddens me immensely. You are 100% entitled to your opinion. But that opinion is not what this site has been about for as long as I've been a member. And when it gets right down to it, you're dogmatically damning people for - guess what - being dogmatic. I hope you can appreciate the irony.



Anyone who can't make sense of the world without the Bible despite mountains of science and facts is someone who ignores facts and truth when making decisions and instead relies on dogma. For me to think that person is going to be an awful decision maker is not prejudice, it's fact.


No, Mid, it isn't fact, it's your opinion. And it happens to be a a bigoted, prejudiced opinion. It is prejudice in the extreme, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it. You might be amazed how much more sense much of what's going on the world right now makes if you had a willingness to understand at least a portion of the history encompassed in the Bible, but I guess that makes me a dogmatic imbecile in your book. Oh, well.



Is a voter unsophisticated if the only message they received about a candidate was the exact same thing every single Republican candidate in Oklahoma prints on their flyers? Or if they vote that way because the candidate appeals to their religious beliefs, saying zero (his campaign never took any position on anything having to do with running the city, except to say the government should stick to "core functions" [he didn't define those]) are they unsophisticated voters? I'd have to say yes.

For some people, Mid, how they reflect on life at a religious level is more important to them then how many streetcars the city buys. But they also believe that, in the midst of a great deal of confused, bizarre political leadership at all levels of government, someone willing to at least try to espouse matters of faith as an ongoing part of their life is at least as worthy of consideration for their vote as someone who espoused the fine earthly judgment to find themselves on the wrong end of a DUI.



Are Bible thumpers bad people? Yes. They seek to deprive others of the equal protection of the law because they want to impose their religious world view on non-believers. It's immoral, and frankly, evil.


Mid, I can't even begin to address the hatred, the pure, raw hatred you convey in this sentence. I don't know what incident or incidents have led you to this point in your life, but my heavens, that kind of hate will eat you alive.



What does the Bible say about streetcars and convention centers? Not a damn thing.


But it does give us a guidepost for government, and no small notion about the sanction of its leaders. I'm not about to convert this into a theological debate, as I could rightly be accused of hijacking it already, but this notion that it is acceptable to demonize Christianity merely because you don't like it is no more acceptable than bashing any other group. I'm not going to incite an argument or a fight, but I won't let this kind of narrow mindedness go unchallenged any more than I would try to deny the reality of Christ in my life - but, then again, saying that will just get me medicated in your world, Mid.

C'est la vie.

Intolerance and hatred are never virtuous, whether overt as racism or couched in the thin rationale of political discourse.

Neither should not be tolerated here.

And with that, I will exit this thread with no further comment. I've said my peace. Mid, you'll get the last word.

Okay, so let me clarify.

I think someone who runs because some invisible man in the sky communicated that he should run is either a liar or should be diagnosed with schizophrenia and medicated.

Anyone who can't make sense of the world without the Bible despite mountains of science and facts is someone who ignores facts and truth when making decisions and instead relies on dogma. For me to think that person is going to be an awful decision maker is not prejudice, it's fact.

Is a voter unsophisticated if the only message they received about a candidate was the exact same thing every single Republican candidate in Oklahoma prints on their flyers? Or if they vote that way because the candidate appeals to their religious beliefs, saying zero (his campaign never took any position on anything having to do with running the city, except to say the government should stick to "core functions" [he didn't define those]) are they unsophisticated voters? I'd have to say yes.

Are Bible thumpers bad people? Yes. They seek to deprive others of the equal protection of the law because they want to impose their religious world view on non-believers. It's immoral, and frankly, evil.

What does the Bible say about streetcars and convention centers? Not a damn thing.

This is the exact reason Ive been critical of Greiner as well.

Sorry, but if in a campaign interview with the Oklahoman and you dont say much more other than how much of a Christian you are...you open yourself up to criticism about it. Call me crazy but if Im voting for a guy to run this city, Id rather hear more about the streetcars and convention centers than what itd be like without the bible.

Fortunately, this nation still allows for the freedom of religion. You are obviously a very intelligent guy, Mid, but for you to eliminate on a wholesale basis the notion of spiritual enlightenment from God and direction reflects a closed-mindedness that surprises and saddens me immensely. You are 100% entitled to your opinion. But that opinion is not what this site has been about for as long as I've been a member. And when it gets right down to it, you're dogmatically damning people for - guess what - being dogmatic. I hope you can appreciate the irony.

Religious thinkers are more dogmatic. Especially evangelicals, which is what I believe Greiner is. I'm not damning anyone, just observing that different groups of folks tend to think differently. A dogmatic black and white approach to life doesn't lend itself well to government and politics. It's very concerning that once again, we could have another Brian Walters who when he spouts off about silly things like the so-called homosexual agenda, will cause companies wanting to attract creative class workers to look elsewhere. Let's hope our new councilman has better sense than that. If history is an indicator with regard to folks who use campaign rhetoric like his though, he won't.


No, Mid, it isn't fact, it's your opinion. And it happens to be a a bigoted, prejudiced opinion. It is prejudice in the extreme, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it. You might be amazed how much more sense much of what's going on the world right now makes if you had a willingness to understand at least a portion of the history encompassed in the Bible, but I guess that makes me a dogmatic imbecile in your book. Oh, well.

I'm talking about folks who think the world is 6,000 years old and that Jesus Christ rode around on the back of a pterodactyl. Nope, those folks are definitely not capable of dealing with facts or considering evidence which conflicts with their dogma. That's why they're stuck in a fantasy magicland. Again, that sort of thinking makes for bad leaders.


For some people, Mid, how they reflect on life at a religious level is more important to them then how many streetcars the city buys. But they also believe that, in the midst of a great deal of confused, bizarre political leadership at all levels of government, someone willing to at least try to espouse matters of faith as an ongoing part of their life is at least as worthy of consideration for their vote as someone who espoused the fine earthly judgment to find themselves on the wrong end of a DUI.

Then stick to your religious gatherings. The city council gives direction to the folks who buy the streetcars. Spiritual matters are best left to the private realm. Especially when you are in charge of a purely secular institution.


Mid, I can't even begin to address the hatred, the pure, raw hatred you convey in this sentence. I don't know what incident or incidents have led you to this point in your life, but my heavens, that kind of hate will eat you alive.

I'm talking about social conservatism, obviously. Not that it has much to do with city government. It's more how anyone could feel they would be on the moral high road when dealing with issues like being against equal rights for homosexuals. It's no different than the bigots who in the past were against things like interracial marriage. It has nothing to do with municipal government except as to say that someone with that sort of philosophy is going to play well to the home crowd, but on the national scene will be an utter embarrassment who will quite possibly cost us jobs.


But it does give us a guidepost for government, and no small notion about the sanction of its leaders. I'm not about to convert this into a theological debate, as I could rightly be accused of hijacking it already, but this notion that it is acceptable to demonize Christianity merely because you don't like it is no more acceptable than bashing any other group. I'm not going to incite an argument or a fight, but I won't let this kind of narrow mindedness go unchallenged any more than I would try to deny the reality of Christ in my life - but, then again, saying that will just get me medicated in your world, Mid.

Look, if you're able to be led by your religious leaders to be a young Earth creationist, then you can pretty much be led to believe anything and you lack the critical thinking skills to make big boy decisions. That's what it comes down to.

There is a good reason why the creators of our United States government thought separation of church and state was critical. Religious beliefs are wonderful. People who follow the teachings of most religions are better people for it. If the ethical teachings of a church infuse your interactions with other people, you make a better representative for your constituents. And that's where it should stop. Religious beliefs do not belong in politics. Jesus knew that. "Render unto Caesar...". He also understood treating people as human beings and worthy of love no matter their failings. He was the most tolerant person I "know". So, if we want to honor him and his teachings we keep our beliefs and intolerances out of the political sphere.

I infer the lesser intellect from his campaign materials. I could be totally wrong. He could just want to look like a Bible thumping lunatic to get votes and actually be a truly thoughtful person.

As for folks showing up to vote against Marrs, I just don't see it. Marrs really didn't do anything objectionable enough to motivate anyone to vote against him. He in fact, never did anything.

As far as the Bible goes, I've had to read it numerous times in my life because of attending Catholic school, or in high school, it was required reading for AP English way back in '96 Edmond North HS.

Tell me.. when you talk to God, what does he say?

But with that job not doing anything is exactly the problem. I know constituents he didn't bother calling back and you do that enough times and yeah, people are voting against you because you're not doing anything.