Silencing Christianity

christian-persecutionAs many of you may recall, I recently wrote a post suggesting that the religious right be minimized in the Republican platform and stripped of power in setting the agenda. I laid out my reasoning. Some agreed and some disagreed. I was asked yesterday about a current trend in discrimination against christians in America. I offered to write a post about it because there were certainly a few different religious discussions threatening to break out. Couple this with the recent discussion I saw about Muslims and I feel like perhaps the time has come for a bit of a religious discussion. I enter into the territory with trepidation, however….

I think that for the most part, Americans are pretty accepting of other religions. I also think that for the most part, Americans are very ignorant about other religions. My wife and I have a major hobby of studying religious history and other religions. That would come from the fact that my marriage contains two people with vastly different religions, one christian and one non-christian. For those who say a marriage cannot survive with differing views on religion, I submit our very happy marriage as an example that you are wrong. 

buddhaAs I said, I believe that Americans are fairly religiously tolerant. But they are also very religiously ignorant. Pick a religion other than christianity and you will find that American christians tend to know some of the basic principles or ideas, but know very little about the reality of those other religions. One that comes to mind is how often I have heard people say that Buddhists worship Buddha as their god (Not True). Another popular one is that people believe that “Islam” means “peace” (It doesn’t). The point is merely that what Americans tend to know about other religions is mostly only what the media or their friends have told them. And it is often inaccurate. 

I believe that most of the intolerance that, while a minority, does exist, is based on the ignorance that people have for the other religions. It is human nature to judge on what you know, and with so little knowledge, Americans are often left with a very incomplete picture. I say all of this because I think it is important that if we are going to discuss religion in this forum, it is the subject that most threatens the level of respect that I request from my readers. When someone make s a comment differing from your opinion. Ask yourself if they are doing so out of intolerance or ignorance. Ask the same of yourself when you disagree. It will go a long way to keeping things civil.

christian-persecution2The topic tonight is the censorship of religion in America. The interesting thing is that these days it seems that the only religion that is censored in America, is the religion that 75% (I have heard many different numbers so I picked on in the middle) of Americans practice: Christianity.

I have to admit that it sometimes ticks me off when I see it happening. Examples of the ways that Christians are treated differently than other religious groups in America are abundant. Hollywood has done movies over and over again portraying christians as either religious nutjobs or downright evil people. However you won’t see much coming out of Hollywood doing the same for other religions of the world. In fact Holly wood goes out of its way to play nice with every other religion out there. 

kids-in-trouble-christmasThe war on Christmas has been a common theme each year, with people generally falling into two distinct and totally silly camps: Those that are offended when someone says “Merry Christmas” and those who are going to say it as a matter of protest. Towns and cities across America have been forced to remove Santa Claus from their traditional Christmas parade because of protests by one or two families in the town that feel it alienates them from attending the event. Schools no longer allow Christmas trees or the traditional Christmas Carols during the holidays. 

The fight to eliminate religion from schools is a misnomer. It should be called the fight to eliminate christianity from schools. Other religions are free to practice and be taught. I am not for teaching christianity in public schools. That violates the separation of church and state (But eliminating the public education system would alleviate that little argument wouldn’t it). But the banning of religion is another thing altogether. A quick web search for students getting in trouble for praying in school returns a troubling amount of information. When a 7 year old is suspended for saying a prayer before eating her lunch, we have gone too far. And that type of action is far too common. And the fact taht we cannot teach the principles of christianity (just history and facts here, not preaching or converting), but that it is accepted that it is OK to teach that aspect of Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion is troubling as well. 

 

Gay AND Media Anti-Christian

Gay AND Media Anti-Christian

The gay activist community has some troubling hypocrisy of its own that seems to be OK with the media and main stream Americans. We have seen many protests where gay activists dress up as nuns or as Jesus. We have seen them run into Catholic churches and begin making out and screaming “Jesus was a Homo”. All the while demanding that gays be treated with the respect that they deserve in America. Really, that is how you demand respect, with displays like that?

 

Speaking of the media, they have their own agenda, as we have all discussed at great length. Their war on christianity is well documented by a google search as well. They have led the attack with the wide spread publicity they heaped on the few priests who were caught molesting alter boys. While a horrendous crime, a simple comparison will demonstrate their disdain for the church. I don’t remember the exact numbers but I know these are very close to accurate, and may be exactly correct: In the ten year period between 1990 and 2000, there were 867 reports of priests sexually assaulting minors. During that same period there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 27,000 reports of teachers sexually assaulting minors. When you think of child molestation by a trusted adult, do you think of priests or teachers? I rest my case. The media made sure you heard about one of those every day, and the other once in a while when it was extreme, like a pregnant teacher.

books-muslimsAnd let us not forget all the recent movements to remove God from anything American. The lawsuits to remove a sculpture of the ten commandments from a courthouse. The movements to remove “In God We Trust” from the face of our money (and let’s be honest here, God is the only one who is going to make that money increase in value). During this inaugural season we had yet another atheist sue to have the reading of a prayer during the inauguration stopped and the mention of god removed from the ceremony. 

The point is that despite the fact that the majority of Americans are christians, and the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles, Christianity is under a full frontal assault in America. While other religions are being catered to and coddled as though we must not offend them under any circumstances. We are constantly told what not to say in order to not offend muslims, while making fun of or attacking christians is blatantly accepted and approved. 

And in many muslim countries, the respect accorded them in America is not returned. Dhimmi is the status accorded to non-Muslims in regions dominated by Islam. Often translated as “second-class citizen,” that unappealing phrase is itself a euphemism. We might better think of dhimmis as persons with no rights, no legal standing, no claims of citizenship, those who live shadow lives always subject to heavy taxes for simply being what they are-non-Muslims. Dhimmis may not be slaves, but they are just a notch above. Ken Blackwell calls those who demand that we cater to muslims in our christian countries dhimmicrats.

When Anglican Bishop Nazir-Ali came to the U.S. earlier this year, he did not call for persecution of Muslims. Nazir-Ali called upon all Christians to treat Muslims with genuine respect. Asked whether muezzins ought to be allowed to call Muslims to prayer in his home city of Rochester. “Certainly,” the Bishop replied even-handedly, “as soon as church bells ring out in Mecca.” That is more in line with the tones of religious freedoms that should work both ways. However I do understand that in America, we will strive to be better than other countries. 

Our system of law, individual freedoms, and the Christian religion are what distinguishes the United States among the nations. The levels of freedom and religious equality in America make us unique. Both are daily being bartered away by dhimmicrats who are more concerned with respecting muslims than respecting those christians that make up the majority of this country. Between them and the new socialist movement, I wonder how long America can remain the great country she once was. We were once beacon of hope for the world, but we are slowly slipping into obscurity thanks to Washington politics and true social liberals.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Sleepless in Tyler says:

    Finally someone speaks my language. I believe in tolerance, but not at the expense of my own right to religion free of persecution.

  2. TexasChem says:

    Teen moms throwing thier newborns in trashbins, toilets, on the side of the road. Teens going on killing sprees in thier schools. Fathers killing thier entire families. Sons killing thier mothers. Brothers killing thier sisters “because their sister was raped” for family honor. Rape, murder, robberies. I hate to even turn on the news any longer. Do you guys think that our society has not deterioated? What is the cause? These things are happening in AMERICA! Some folks say it takes two parents working to make ends meet; so not enough time for the kids to be taught values. I believe that is a factor. I also believe more of a factor is that parents do not take the time to continue or have a relationship with God. Hence they pass no values on to thier children. Religion is no longer taught or emphasized in public schools. Well most; but you can bet your last hard earned dollar it STILL is being done in the rural communities of the state of Texas.

    We have people that lobby for seperation of state and church but have you ever stopped to realize why they feel that way? What is thier reason? What are they really trying to accomplish? What are THIER moral beliefs? Are they truly happy, content people or are they miserable and looking for company? Are they really just truly evil people?

    A lot of people wonder if there really is a God. A lot of people feel as if thier missing something in thier lives but they just can’t figure out what it is. Some people say that thier can’t be a god because god is perfect but created evil so can’t be perfect. But, what if God just just gave people free will and a choice and when making a wrong decision, a wrong choice if you will; evil came into being through Mans decision? The decision to do what they wanted even if it was not in Gods will. Some people say that science disproves that thier is a god. Some people say that science proves that there is a God. Questions, questions abound as to this and mankind has been struggling with it forever.

    A few years back I struggled with my faith. What do I believe, why do I feel like my life was missing something. Why was I making bad decisions, poor choices. Why wasn’t I where I wanted to be in life financially, socially and spiritually? I started to study EVERY christian denomination. I started to study and research EVERY major religion in the world. When I was a child growing up my parents took our family to church every sunday morning. It was a small non-denominational christian church and I believe the reason I found my faith again was because of my parents instilling that seed within me when I was young. I now attend a Baptist church and take my family every sunday. I do not believe all the Baptist doctrine is totally correct but it was the closest to my interpretation of reading and understanding the Bible from updated translation from the original greek and hebrew scriptures. I believe you have to understand the scripture and culture from a historical point of view when it was written to really understand christianity. I want to instill those values into my children. I look around in my community where the majority attends services and I notice none of the horrible things happening here that I mentioned in the first paragraph.

    I have a degree in chemical process technology and am working towards a degree in chemical engineering. In my opinion there is absolutely no way that biological processes could have just popped into being without some guidance from a mind far greater than you could ever imagine. A power and understanding that is overwhelmingly out of human abilty. The complexities of the different biological processes and systems I am talking about are just simply amazing. Science is still kncking on this and barely has a foot in the door. Does this mean I don’t believe in evolution? Does this mean that I think the world is only six thousand years old? No. I do believe in evolution and I do believe the world is 4.6 billion years old. The bible says that God made the world in seven days but it does not say HOW God measures time. How long is a day to a being that has the intellect; the means to create life; the ability to create a planet, a star, the galaxy, the universes? For example a mosquito lives out its entire lifespan in one month or less. Human beings average seventy two years. Since a mosquito lives for a month; does how does it perceive the world around it? How does time feel, progress to a creature that lives only one month? God is forever; the beginning and the end. We don’t fully understand him much as the mosquito can not understand a human.

    I do know that once I started to truly attempt to have a relationship with God. Studying the Bible. Understanding scripture and applying it to my life; I stumbled upon a guideline that answers daily; everything that I need to do as a man to be happy. Everything from finances to everyday relationships with my fellow man is answered in that book. You just have to read it to find out how to apply that guideline for yourself. It’s not difficult. Everything I have asked for within reason and in his will as I perceive it God has provided. I do mean everything; from my financial well being to my love life to my ability to be a father. Everything. There is absolutely no way I would be where I am today without him and I give the glory to him that I am who I am and what I am today. I like me now. I’m content and happy. I was not always that way.

    You do not have to take the word of another man to determine your belief system. Take it upon yourself to learn the history and culture at the time the scripture was written, learn the true meaning in the words of the Bible for yourself. You may be quite amazed.

  3. No long dissertations today,just several short ones,starting with separation of church and state.

    If I were religious I would not want government anywhere near my religion.I would do anything necessary to assure that my religious freedom wasn’t usurped by government.I would remove all signs of my religion from anything government had a hand in.Then I would keep a careful eye on government to make sure no other religion got a foothold in the door.I would value my religious freedom and I would say to my government,”You will never have any chance to control my religion.You will never discourage it and you will never promote it.Nor will you discourage or promote any other religion in it’s place.”.

    That’s what I would do if I had a religion and a government.

    • I am not a religious person either. I do not attend church. I agree that there should be separation of church and state. I do, however, believe that values instilled by the various religions are a good thing and should guide our lives and do have a place in government. I try to live by the golden rule the best I can. I am imperfect so that sometimes I slip and break that rule. If you can recognize when that happens and make an honest attempt to correct it, you will grow as a human. Banning prayer in school is simply ridiculous. Open display of religion should be a personal choice and after all, this IS supposed to be a free country. As long as it doesn’t hurt someone else why waste time and energy even worrying about it…there are plenty of things that warrant attention that could benefit everyone.
      It seems that every day more and more freedoms are being stripped from us. Those in power want you to live the way they want you to live, and not the way you choose. Religion in schools, as far as classroom/teaching, should stick to teaching and not delve into preaching. But, if your child is at recess or lunch or wants to say a prayer before he or she takes a test or eats a meal, as long as the prayer is not disruptive and is kept to themselves what in the heck is the harm. If it is really important for your child to have religion interwoven to school, you are perfectly free to have them attend Catholic, Christian, or other religion based schools.

      • USWeapon says:

        I agree that the values instilled by most religions are of value to our society. We often discuss morals and then punish those who wish to display them because we are too intent on silencing the church.

      • The founders weren’t trying to keep the church out of state affairs, or out of the governement. They were trying to keep the state out of the church. Many of our new states had state sponsered and run churches and were worried about the federal government getting involved. The “wall of seperation between church and state” was never the intention of the founders.

        • The “wall of separation…” phrase was Thomas Jefferson’s; if I remember correctly he was one of those founders – so, perhaps more correctly it wasn’t the intention of some of the founders

        • Black Flag says:

          There is this habit to think of the “Founders” as some unified body and mind.

          It was, actually, more like this blog… incredibly diverse and divisive bordering on out-and-out fist fights.

          Jefferson had a camp and Madison had an alternate camp, with lots in the middle.

          You can roughly summarize the points of view as mine for Jefferson and Madison for Chris.

          In the matter of the Constitution, Chris/Madison won, primarily by promising that the States would retain their rights with the 10th Amendment.

          That played out well, didn’t it? (See Civil War).

          • Chris Devine says:

            The Civil War was about the meaning of property rights and whether human beings could be considered property. It’s not clear-cut that the altruistic notions attributed to Lincoln and others are what really justified the war, but in the end it was about the use of force to suppress the other side’s ideas on property vs. human rights. I’d like to think that human rights won, but in reality it isn’t so clear.

          • Black Flag says:

            No, Sir.

            The Civil War was completely about whether the States themselves or the United States were the sovereign power.

            It was a war over the 10th amendment.

            • You both are right.Chris and BF.The south did not want to have slavery abolished because of the plantaion culture.Free labor amounted to more money for the owner.The question of sovereign power came into being because of the huge banking system in the north being totally controlled by the north and the southern states threatening secession because of the possibility of slavery being abolished.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Interesting – many of the recent posts I have been reading the last week or so since returning to this blog seem hell bent for election to keep government out of our lives – but now we’re okay with insisting that the very same government keep my religious symbols on their buildings? Something smells fishy here. Ron – you could not have put it better.

      • Ray,
        My take on that is the country was founded on Christian ideals. I’m sure the founders didn’t take into consideration many of todays societal conditions, how could they. That being said, our system of laws is, for the most part, based on those Judeo-Christian ideals, starting (I believe) from the Justinian Code. Do we scrap our judicial system because it is founded in religious ideals? If the 10 commandments are a basis, can we not do them justice in our courts? If our laws were based in Judaism (or Shintoism for that matter) I wouldnt mind having a reminder on the walls to keep our eyes on the “big picture”.

        • USWeapon says:

          Great point here C.Z.. Given that the rule of law in America and the founding of the country was done on Christian ideals, is there an issue with merely having a sculpture of the ten commandments in a courthouse? Not for me there isn’t. I don’t expect anyone to be forced to pay homage to the sculpture before they enter the courthouse, but I don’t think it hurts anyone to have it there. It was removed simply because a very small minority wanted to make some sort of point.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Good points CZ – and often what leads to these struggles now. I don’t think we scrap our judicial system because of where part of the roots rest – I do think we realize that over the hundreds of years we have had to extend far beyond what we started with because we could never envision what was to come and we need to weigh in on judicially (suffrage, drinking ages, privacy issues).

      • USWeapon says:

        Oh, on the contrary. I am not hell bent on keeping any religious symbols on buildings. I am merely disappointed that if it were a copy of some other religion’s stuff, people wouldn’t have a problem with it. The point of my post was not that religion and government should be combined. Instead it is that Christianity, the religion that is the majority, seems to be the only one under attack in the US. As for schools, I don’t advocate teaching religion at all, just religious history, and I am against a mandated religion or prayer, but support someone’s right to say one to themselves before they eat their lunch or take a test. I don’t know that you should be smelling anything fishy, especially with only my thoughts (meant to spur discussion) and 4 other postings before yours.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          1. Most all religions are under attack and many times rightfully so ;

          2. There is a gray line b/n teaching religion and the history of religions – I do believe history should be taught but could you imagine the uproar?

          3. Any mandated use of observance of deity = bad. Saying prayer in school – uh – this will not be popular, but who decides what constitutes prayer? If the use of peyote in prayer is deemed legal for a tribe should it be legal for the kid to bring his pipe to school? Where do you draw the line or do you draw a line?

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Uh, Ray. In the Middle School here where I work, They are teaching about not only Islamic history and countries, but also Islamic religion. They are not allowed to do the same with Christianity except as far as the Crusades are concerned. Religion is even left out of the teaching of the founding of our own Country! Teachers, and they are a few, ignore this rule at their peril.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Interesting! Does the local school board select the text books or curriculum? Curious where you are geographically?

              • esomhillgazette says:

                N.W. Georgia. And the School System picks the books. The teachers have a list, but not a whole lot of choices. Go figure! I don’t understand either.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Hmmm – you near Adairsville / Rome / Calhoun by chance? I have family down that way – would shock me that Christianity would not be covered if Islam is.

            • esomhillgazette says:

              Cedartown Ray. Or more specific. West of Cedartown in a small community called Esom Hill.

          • USWeapon says:

            I can imagine the uproar. In fact I don’t think many Christians would like religious history being taught if the true history of christianity were taught. It aint so roses and sunshine.

  4. Hello all,
    I find it interesting that, while we are approx 75%
    Christian, the percentage of Jews and Muslims in the balance would take us up to what 80-85%? All of us worship the same god. Additionally, while we call for the separation of church and state, it is simply so the government cannot force one religion or another, nor deny the practice thereof. Personally, I see no problem with putting a Christmas tree on the town hall lawn, as long as we are free to put up a Menorrah or (showing my ignorance here) something representing Muslim beliefs.
    Like many other issues, this is one that is only here because of a very few, very loud, and very obnoxious majority. They are unhappy unless they have something to complain about, and they are made very good by lots of practice.

    • Chris Devine says:

      I agree completely. And so does the ACLU:

      http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/27282res20061103.html

      Regarding Islam, as far as I know their beliefs prevent idolatry of any form. So I doubt you’ll find a visual representation of their faith other than geometric patterns of an extremely intricate nature.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I know that what the ACLU thinks is less than important to me. I won’t even go to the site to see what they have to say about religion. I don’t have to. Seeing and watching them over the years, I already know what their stance on Religion is. As far a Idols go, a Religious SYMBOL is not an idol. And what about the Dome of the Rock? You could Very well call that massive rock sitting in the middle of it, with muslims all around it praying, an Idol.

        • Chris Devine says:

          You obviously don’t know what their stance on religion is. Your unwillingness to even read a document that exposes your ignorance speaks volumes.

          I was referring to man-made idols. Regardless, it’s not a point relevant to this topic.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            All I have to do is watch the news every night to get coverage of the latest ACLU stupidity. And the ignorance crack works both ways Hoss. The ACLU is not one of my favorite groups. They do far more harm than they do good. My unwillingness to read their Propaganda stems not from ingnorance, as you put it, but a refusal to acknowledge their very existence as an entity. That is my right isn’t it? Or is only their rights important?

            • Hey Karl,
              The original intent of the ACLU was to Vigorously defend the citizen against the Gov., specifically with regard to the Bill of Rights. I agree that it has been hijacked somewhere along the way, and the national group has lost my respect for not defending my 2nd Amendment rights. That being said, let’s not lose site of their orignial motive & purpose. I know my state chapter, while not perfect is much better than the national, and your states may be as well.
              Sorry US, a little of topic but I felt it was important!

            • Chris Devine says:

              A document that explicitly shows a history of legal precedent and support is not propaganda. Furthermore, I showed why I thought you were ignorant. It wasn’t a “crack.” Your unwillingness to read something you presume you will not agree with is the issue here.

              Regarding the ACLU’s portrayal in the media, I find it odd that people who complain about the liberal media see no problem confessing they believe it when it supports their own prejudices.

              • esomhillgazette says:

                Chris, let me start over. I don’t CARE what the ACLU says. It is not prejudice. It’s not ignorance. I don’t Like them. Haven’t liked them for years. They interfere when they are not needed. They stick their nose where it doesn’t belong.

                I agree with C.Z. that they may have started out as a good group, only concerned with our rights. But over the years, they have been perverted into a Liberal Rant Agency. I HAVE read and seen things, Pamplets and posters. Even a documentary of sorts. Nothing I have seen lately changes my mind about them.

              • Chris Devine says:

                Feel free to take your time to compose your thoughts. I don’t want to pressure you into saying something hasty and inaccurate.

                Perhaps this is what I was getting at regarding ‘consistency.’ The ACLU takes case regardless of where on the political spectrum it’s other supporters are. It often defends extreme positions to stop the slippery slope of government tyranny. I won’t argue about the proportion of left/right stances they take. That’s not the issue here.

                The document I cited refers specifically to this topic. Your unwillingness to read that particular document, not your distaste of the organization who drafted it, is what I have an issue with.

              • USWeapon says:

                Moved to comment #19 for readability

            • You do have the right to ignore them if you wish. But if you oppose their policies, then silence will only allow them more freedom of action. Those who oppose which they think wrong usually make it a point of learning about their opponent, in order to combat their actions. People turned a blind eye to Hitler for many years, and terrible things happened. This is a lesson of history not to ignore what you believe is wrong.
              Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

              • Black Flag says:

                Ignore the SOB in politics, and they will turn back to what they always were – criminals.

                Hitler did not come to be because people ignored him – he came to be because people voted for him

          • esomhillgazette says:

            I went to the site Chris. After thinking about it for a while I decided, what the heck! I might as well go see what he’s talking about!
            They talk a good line. I still don’t like them though. I still satand by my other comments about them. They have become more a MINORITY rights group than a group out to fight for ALL groups Civil Rights.

            • Chris Devine says:

              You’ve got to pick your battles in life. Maybe they feel that their resources are better spent if they let the NRA and GOA handle that turf. Maybe they think they’re wrong. I’m sure you if you asked them or looked on their site you could find out.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          “a Religious SYMBOL is not an idol” – it isn’t?

          From Dictionary.com:

          Idol: an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.

          Are there religious symbols you do not address religious towards?

          • esomhillgazette says:

            No it’s not. I do not pray to Christmas trees. I do not pray to crosses. The only thing I pray to is God. Symbols are just that, Symbols.

            • Yes, it is, a symbol becomes what it represents – just try burning the American flag and you’ll find out how quickly it is America or try telling an orthodox Catholic that the host does not actually become the body of Christ through transubstantiation and you’ll be considered heretic.

      • Chris Devine your precious ACLU is just a leftist liberal coalition of socialists founded by a self proclaimed communist. They rank in the same neighborhood as ACORN in my book, and that neighborhood is the ghetto.

        Top ten reasons why the ACLU should be disbanded:

        10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…

        My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
        9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

        ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”ACLU Policy #47
        #8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

        #7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

        #6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.
        #5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

        #4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don’t practice the principles they preach.

        Take a walk into the NYCLU’s Manhattan headquarters – which it shares with other organizations – and you’ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
        #3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

        In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

        “The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”

        The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”
        #2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

        As legislative counselfor the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.
        There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.
        #1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

        • Chris Devine says:

          (Duplicate post from below)

          Show me where you find that the ACLU is funded using tax dollars:

          http://aclu.org/about/financialannualreports/index.html

          The rest of your assertions I won’t address because they concern everything except the legal justification for their views. If you want to discuss law then I’ll go along. If you want to talk about everything but the law, you walk alone.

          • The ACLU has been
            collecting taxpayer-funded attorneys’ fees in Establishment Clause cases.

            wealthy public-interest law firms – such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or AU – that represent their clients for free. Instead of declining to accept these fees, these anti-Christian law firms use the fee awards as legal blackmail against small county and municipal defendants that do not have the tax revenue to cover such fees if they lose. Establishment Clause jurisprudence has become so antagonistic to expressions of our faith that many local governments are not willing to gamble with taxpayer money and therefore surrender to ACLU demands that every vestige of religion be removed from the public square. Often a threatening letter or phone call from the ACLU is all it takes for these governments to give up without a fight.

            A survey of recent legal fee awards in these cases shows why governments are reluctant to defend the right to publicly acknowledge God. In San Diego, Calif., the ACLU received $940,000 for kicking the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In Barrow County, Ga., the county paid the ACLU $150,000 to avoid a trial for its posting the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Not to be outdone, in Dover, Pa., the trial court ordered the district’s school board to pay the ACLU and AU $2 million for attempting to teach intelligent design in the schools.

          • I didn’t say funded Chris. I said they fulfill thier agenda using my tax payer dollars.Bogus cases that allow them to be paid with taxpayer dollars. I’ll give you several more examples if I need to.IMO These organizations have one agenda and that is to cause social discord and confusion amongst the people to fulfill whatever their agenda really is.

          • I’ll admit I knew #1 on my list would be the grounds for your response arguement; well either that or #10 the founder being communist and I’m quite pleased you swallowed that bait. =) lol

            Ok so here we have a group advocating child porn, attacking tha boyscouts, having a communist founder, attacking solid christiam communities, defending terrorists, against the second amendment,national security the list really does go on and on.NOW I will admith they do have some cases that are justifiably correct in their representation of those plaintiffs but hey the chaemelon can’t afford to be seen else it will starve…

            Anyways do the math is all I ask something just does not add up with this organization.Other organizations I categorize with this group are CAIR, ACORN, and the AU.

  5. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – would your views over who we define as the majority that is getting the stick change if you were a practicing Muslim? I suspect it might. I’m not clear at all on what you think ‘separation of Church and State” should mean? Please do tell. I’m also not sure where the notion comes from that we were taught the principles of Islam, Buddhism and ‘others’ in school. For the sake of the other posters here USW and I went to the same public High School (as did your favorite punching bag Chris – now we can see how successful that school was at brainwashing us since all three of us apparently think exactly alike) – and I don’t recall being indoctrinated as may be suggested. The fact of the matter is we are increasingly becoming an incredibly diverse country and culture – and I sense many here absolutely hate that. We find it hard to fathom that there may be someone out there offended by our religious symbols and practices that are directly or indirectly hoisted upon all. I say try a different perspective – such as that held by many of our newer countrymen that likely have had loved ones and friends killed in the name of religon or holy war – maybe then you think differently about what symbols you desire to be exposed to by the very institutions you help fund.

    • USWeapon says:

      I sent you an email on this Ray. But I do have several public comments I will post when I have a chance today on a break at work.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thanks USW – just trying to read between the lines and keep the emotional brain in check (that is hard to do).

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      As for being “offended”… There is no right to not be offended. It is perfectly acceptable for the beliefs, practices, and actions of some to be offensive to others. Likewise, the others may engage in beliefs, practices, and actions that are offensive to yet another.

      Now common courtesy would dictate that the offenders not taunt and flaunt, and the offended should be civil and tolerant since you are, in turn, the offender to someone else.

      Respect and tolerance are fundamental prerequisites to membership in a free society. Newcomers need to learn this and some existing citizens need to relearn this.

    • Ray said “I say try a different perspective – such as that held by many of our newer countrymen that likely have had loved ones and friends killed in the name of religon or holy war – maybe then you think differently about what symbols you desire to be exposed to by the very institutions you help fund.”

      TC:Are you talking about the Muslims being transplanted here in America from Palestine? The Palestinians that are getting a free ride to college on my tax dollars? You know the ones that are in a Jihad right now? The ones that say they will never stop fighting until every zionist is eradicated from the face of the earth. The ones that lobbed over 7,000 rockets, mortars and missles into egypt killing and maiming?The Palestinians that view me as a Dhimmi? Or are you talking about the Muslim Somalis’ that are here after attacking Ethiopia and having thier rear ends handed to them by US supplied/backed forces? No I have no tolerance at all for that nor will I ever.I don’t want them here and neither do the communities they are being transplanted in.Not because they are different but because I don’t believe they have civil right for thier women or children. Plus last I heard there was a Jihad and America was the bad guy and these people want to kill us.Ummm do you not remember what happened sept. 11th?

      • into ISRAEL not egypt have no idea why I said egypt…perhaps bein a lil upset.

      • Careful TexasChem. You might get drawn into something like I was couple of days ago. :o)

        I share the feelings in your post. I just don’t get why people who are offended by American society insist on coming to our country. I find Sharia law offensive, thus, I WILL NEVER voluntarily live in an Islamic country. Sadly, I may find myself INvoluntarily living in one…..

        As for public displays of relgious symbols, I say we handle it like I handle young children who can’t share the toy nicely. Take the toy away and put it in the closet. I vote NO relgious symbols OF ANY kind in public. Yeah, it sucks for those who can play nice, but its the rights over the few over the rights of the many here in what was America, right?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          So at the mere mention of someone different (e.g. a Muslim) becoming an American you’ll also resort to the same hate filled invectives that drove the 9/11 people to do what they did? Most of these people are no more offended by ELEMENTS of American society than you are and as is expressed on this board.

          • No Ray I am not filled with hate filled conviction.I am a tolerant person but not when it comes to seeing my values and mores not being upheld by MY government.We have enough problems in America without sending our tax dollars to aid a people that brought the wrath of Israel upon themselves by attacking them constantly.If Mexico was tossing artillery across the Texas border day and night would America have the right to go in and stop it from happening?Afterwards I suppose we would send the Mexican government more tax dollars and then apologize to them saying that we wont be as arrogant or agressive any longer?THEN we would offer them citizenship and a free college ride as we have the Palestinians?Lets make them a more educated people so they can use that education against us in their Jihad?Maybe our Potus would bow to the Mexican president as he did to the King of Saudi; who happens to be the second most important man in the Muslim OIC.Am I a bad American because I want my beliefs upheld?Am I not tolerant enough because I would rather be pre-emptive in keeping problems out of my country?

            Someone said in an earlier post that christianity hasn’t always been the rose it is and I full heartedly agree.Millions have been killed throughout the years and continue to be so today because of misinterpretation of holy books.I don’t want to see it happening on American soil.I don’t want to see it happening period.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Wow – at the risk of engaging the nonsensical – let’s try this again. This ‘who was here first mentality’ is complete and utter rubbish. Please do yourself a favor and research how, why and when your own ancestors came to this great land. Then, if you can bite your tongue, engage a first, second or even third generation Muslim (I am simply using Muslims as an example) and try and have a dialogue with them to find out why they are here. You may be shocked to discover the very same reasons existed for both parties – typically they wanted to earn a better life for themselves and their children, or maybe they were escaping religious persecution, or maybe they just liked the fact that they can get better cable television.

        Let me provide a specific example – I have a very close friend (a former co-worker), an American, who happens to be Muslim and whose parents immigrated from Pakistan a generation ago. My friend is a practicing Muslim, prays when he supposed to pray, abstains from alcohol and participates in both Muslim and non-Muslim civic groups where he volunteers his time. Now here is the real kicker which will probably turn your world upside down – he is married (yes – it was arranged), his wife is now a student (she wants to become a Doctor so she may help other people), they both socialize with Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and they support his parents who are getting too old now to work (his parents live with them, they are buying their own home to start their own family but will continue to support the parents). My friend works very hard, payes his taxes, loves his country (the USA), takes care of his fmaily, honors his heritage, but most of all – he expresses outward tolerance towards others (one his employees was Jewish).

        And so – try to challenge your perceptions from time to time and see if they still hold true. I know when I first moved from Georgia to Pennsylvania as a 7th grader back in the mid-80s a lot of kids assumed I was in Klan simply because I came from the South and I was white. That perception took me a long time to change and affected me such that I wanted to put fences up around myself rather than understand the ignorance that builds the intolerance.

  6. Chris Devine says:

    Regarding ‘In God We Trust’ on our money:

    http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

    and government buildings:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

    or the ‘one nation under God’ part of the Pledge of Allegiance):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

    There appears to something in common about all of these instances. They appeared at times of great crisis in our country when people start looking for supernatural answers to man-made problems (the Civil War and the McCarthy Red Scare).

    Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

    • Chris Devine says:

      The second link contains a typo (trusto). Sorry.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

      • USWeapon says:

        Fixed it for you Chris. Thanks for the links. I will check them out as soon as I have a minute. Off to work now! A grand 14 hour double of a day for me.

    • USWeapon says:

      Great point Chris. I don’t know that I realized that there was a correlation between times of crisis and the appearance of such things. It would make sense that this would be true. Times of crisis always seem to be when we see massive change being made with little riase of alarm in the public.

      • CWO2USNRet says:

        Love that last sentence, considering the position of Rahm E. on wasting crises. Fits the current spendulous binge and socialist bent to a tee.

  7. I don’t get to involved in religious discussions, mainly because of the passion involved. IMHO, our government buildings and public schools should have reference to our Christian background. Be it the Ten Commandments and/or other scripture(s) on display as a tribute to our heritage should not be misinterpreted as prompoting religion. I’ve never known a member of the Jewish faith that ever complained about Christmas trees being displayed, or the term Merry Christmas being used as a friendly verbal gesture. I do agree that all people of any religious faith should be free to worship, and seeing or hearing this act of worship never has offended me. If the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in our schools or government buildings because of very small minority of people, then the majority should demand that traditional Muslim mosques be tore down. If seeing the Ten Commandments is offensive to non-Christians, then isn’t it fair the other way around?

    • G-Man
      Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe we should remove some of these “historical” icons from our govt buildings.
      But surely you must see the difference between removing a symbol from a govt building and tearing down someones church.
      Don’t you???

      Can’t wait to see if this one breaks the old record
      JAC

      • JAC, ofcourse I see the difference. I was using this as an example of who things have gotten out of control with all this “it offends me” Bulldookey (for lack of a better term). I wouldn’t want any place of worship to be forcefully removed, it would go against our Freedom of Religion. If everyone would just respect that freedom, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Separation of Church and State… Don’t get me started.

    Someone please point to me where the Constitution ACTUALLY USES this phrase in any way? In fact, there is NOTHING about Religion in the Constitution until you get to the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion:

    How is reconizing that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian Priciples and displaying something like the 10 Commandments (which are common to Judaism and Christianity) tantamount to making a LAW respecting an establishment of religion? HOW?

    How is ALLOWING students to pray in school equivalent to establishing a LAW respecting an establishment of religion? If you think about it, NOT allowing students to pray in school is probably more of a violation of the first amendment. Now, if there were a law that REQUIRED students to pray in school, and that law required that the prayer follow the forms and beliefs of a particular religion, then THAT would also violate the first amendment.

    Some people will argue that by displaying the Ten Commandments or by having In God We Trust on our money is an example of Government promoting religion, or tacitly recognizing one religion as superior to another. I would argue that the Government is simply recognizing that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Explain to me how having these texts or symbols in a Government building is equivalent to Congress making a LAW?

    The Constitution does NOT say, “The Government will deny the existance of God and will not recognize God in any way, shape or form so as not to appear biased in any way.” That wasn’t the idea. In the Declaration of Independence it states:

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Oh NOES! I see God in there! I see “their Creator” in there! Whatever shall we do?

    Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution, it is a construct of the Supreme Court in a mis-guided attempt to “define” what the First Amendment actually says! I would suggest that the First Amendment is actually quite clear and concise, and beyond what should be common sense, it doesn’t really require some convoluted definition.

    The Government should not only be free to recognize that it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, it should be proud of this heritage, and it should encourage ALL Americans to be proud of our religious heritage, regardless of our individual religions.

    If we are agnostic, or atheist, or just not religious, that should certainly be fine as well. That is what “freedom” is all about. If you are an athiest, and it somehow OFFENDS you that the Government has texts and symbols that recognize the Judeo-Christian heritage of the Government and the Country, well, that is too bad. Perhaps you need to find something of more merit to be offended about.

    If the Government tries to make a law telling you what YOU PERSONALLY have to believe, THEN you can have a beef with the Government.

    By the way, nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that says that you have a right to live your life in total freedom from being offended. I don’t see that anywhere.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Show me the word ‘Jesus.’ Or ‘Christian.’ Or ‘Judeo-Christian.’ Or ‘God.’

      Shall I go on? The Constitution is subject to interpretation (or misinterpretation). It’s up to reasonable men of all faiths (and non-faith) to decide what is or isn’t appropriate or just.

      • In the past 75 years it has been mostly misinterpretation.

        • Chris Devine says:

          What about when the 14th Amendment (giving rights to male former slaves) was misinterpreted to mean that corporations were free to break strikes because it violated their property rights? When was that? I could provide more than enough instances to show that misinterpretation of the Constitution has been going on since its passing and no more so in the past 75 years.

          • Chris:

            Please re read my statement. You will not find anywhere there stating other bad decisions were not rendered. In the past 75 yr, approximately, most interpretations are not consistent with the original intent. I should maybe modify that to mean those decisions that have had the greatest impact on society. I doubt you can provide evidence to the contrary as that is not just my opinion it is one shared by several constitutional historians and scholars.

            If you can just chill for a minute and look objectively you will see that the basic tenant of how the Supremes looked at the constitution changed around the 1930’s. Starting with a major change in the meaning of the commerce clause. Some scholars believe that was in respons to FDR’s attempt to stack the court. I don’t know because none of them ever documented such feelings of intimidation, as far as I am aware.

            I suggest we chase this rabbit someother time instead of diverting the focus of the post today?
            Can you agree to that?
            JAC

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The Constitution is pretty damn clear and concise, and VERY carefully thought out and well written.

        They tried to leave AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE subject to interpretation.

        The reason that they did this was to try to prevent people from twisting their words and claiming that they “meant” something that they did not actually “say”.

        • Chris Devine says:

          They didn’t want anyone twisting their words, but they built in a mechanism for change? If they didn’t want it to be interpreted or altered then why did they even bother with creating the judiciary and give the Supreme Court the sole power to do so?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Chris, I don’t have to show you the words “Judeo-Christian, or Jesus, or God. I CLEARLY STATED in my post that, “In fact, the Constitution says NOTHING about religion until we get to the First Amendment.”

        So, how would it be POSSIBLE for me to point to any of the words you just mentioned, when I have already clearly stated the above (twice now).

        • Chris Devine says:

          It’s bait and switch. You appeal to the Constitution but cite the DoI. Which document is legally binding today?

          The Bill of Rights was passed almost immediately after the Constitution was enacted. For our purposes they both represent the document under discussion.

          Regarding “clear and concise,” we seem to have a great deal of difficulty figuring out what they meant by “a well regulated militia.”

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The Constitution, brought to you by, the same folks that wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers!

            Oh, yeah, and all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and Federalist papers where we mentioned “their Creator”, and “nature’s God”, and “God”, and all of that stuff? We didn’t put any direct reference to that in the Constitution because we are far more enlightened now and realize that the Creator/God doesn’t have anything to do with anything anymore!

            Why is there a buzzer going off in my head when I write that?

            • Chris Devine says:

              The federalist papers were op-ed pieces in newspapers to garner support for a revolution. The DoI was a document addressed to a foreign power. The Constitution in stark contrast is a document drafted for the sole purpose of creating a basis for law and government:

              “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “Secure the blessings of Liberty”, which, if you read the Delaration of Independence, obviously were thought by the writers of the Constitution to come from the Creator or Nature’s God.”

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Basically, if you keep trying to convince me that the DoI, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution have nothing to do with each other and were not written by the same set of people, you will continue to have me saying, “Yeah, sure, whatever.”

                Perhaps you are trying to argue that they were indeed written by the same set of people, but due to the fact that each served a different purpose and was intended for a different audience, they have nothing to do with each other. I say, “meh” to that too.

          • Chris,
            A well regulated militia’s meaning? Do you not believe in the Heller vs D. of C.

            Would you and the ACLU allow us to pray to the creator?
            I also have trouble with anything ACLU has touched with them defending the man boy love association. I have gay friends, but how do you defend child rapist?

            • esomhillgazette says:

              LOI, Howdy! Pardon my enthusiasm for hearing from you. I knew it was something about the ACLU I didn’t like. That issue was one! There are more than that, but I don’t keep up like you obviously do. I remember being shocked that they would even stick their nose into that Hornet’s nest! Had that been my kid. Whoa Nelly!

              • Esom,
                Back at ya, kinda busy today, or I’d have more to say. May check back around 4 central time.

                I read “The Last Undercover” a few months ago. Can’t recomend it, not that is bad, but the subject matter is so vile.

              • esomhillgazette says:

                You mean The Last Centurion? Yeah, I know what you mean. But it had a kind of entirely possible scenario for today.

              • Esom,
                The Last Undercover by Bob Hammer, former FBI who busted the man boy love association.
                A good read that will make you vomit.

            • Chris Devine says:

              They didn’t defend NAMBLA members right to molest children, they defended their right to hold unpopular viewpoints:

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm

              Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it supports unpopular viewpoints. Popular speech needs no protection.

              Regarding District of Columbia v. Heller:

              “[T]he prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense”, as being necessary to the security of a free polity”

              but,

              “[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

              • “[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

                The black-robed traitors of the Supreme Court obviously don’t understand “shall not be infringed”.

                However, I agree that unpopular rights are the only ones that need to be defended, whether it is holding unpopular opinions on sex, guns, religion, or politics.

              • Chris,
                They where clear it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, which should clear up the militia confusion.

                And I understand the freedom of speech part, and the they are perverting it by defending CHILD RAPIST.

          • The Constitution was written in 1787, and ‘adopted,’ but did not go into effect until March 1789 – two years later. And only then because of the promise of a forthcoming list of guaranteed rights, resulting from heated national debates over the lack thereof. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 – four years after the Constitution was written.

            The Federalist Papers were written after the War for Independence…not in support of revolution, unless one regards the replacing of the Articles of Confederation with a Republic form of government revolutionary.

    • Chris Devine says:

      One more thing, I have noticed a tendency of people to confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

      The first document was meant to poke a colonial power in the chest, the other establishes law for a new country. Different aims, different styles, but only one legally binding document (i.e., the one where ‘Creator’ is conspicuously absent).

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I am not, in fact, CONFUSING the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. I clearly state which quote is from which document.

        I also assert that without one document, you could not have the other document, so although they are not the SAME document, they are inextricably intertwined.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Without your parents you wouldn’t be here. If you commit a crime should your dad go to jail?

          • What ?!?!?

            • Chris Devine says:

              All I mean is that there is a chain of events and that the DoI, while necessary for the origin of our country, does not make it a legally binding document today (or the past 222 years).

        • Chris Devine says:

          “Inextricably linked” (my words) is not the same thing as “inextricably intertwined” (your words). There is definite time-line whereby the DoI did exactly what it’s title refers to. Then the Constitution was drafted and enacted. If the words of the DoI were so important to our founders and drafters of the Constitution, why didn’t they put them verbatim in the latter, legally-binding document?

      • USWeapon says:

        Great point Chris, I have not read enough of the comments yet to know whether it applies to the discussion you are in with Peter yet, but it is a good point. I do think that many people misintepret the purpose and intent of the two documents and hold them to be equally influential in terms of law, which is a mistake.

        Would you agree, however, that for the purpose of attempting to gain a better understanding of the founder’s intent, that the DoI is a relevant document to read? Knowing the DoI is there and reading it, in my opinion, is relevant to simply gaining a better insight into the mindset of the framers and the people of that time.

        • Chris Devine says:

          That doesn’t mean that words and arguments not found in the Constitution should be used to interpret statute.

          I think it’s very important to point out that the DoI was written by one man, Thomas Jefferson (albeit signed by others like a petition). The Constitution was drafted after much deliberation of the 55 delegates at the Philadelphia Convention. That’s 55 brains to pick that were contained in the heads of 55 men from many different areas and conflicting interests.

          • Black Flag says:

            And like any committee trying to design a mouse, created a monster.

            By the way, Chris, you tend to jump over the history of development of the Constitution by neglecting the Article of Confederation – which in fact was the document that created the United States – not the Constitution.

            • Chris Devine says:

              The AoC were superceded by the Constitution and as such are no longer binding documents. That’s what I meant.

              “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”

              I will admit when I’m wrong, but you’re perpetual tendency to give your opponents’ an uncharitable interpretation for the sake of obscuring (not clarifying) the issue at hand is something I don’t really appreciate.

              If you insist on being belligerent I will ignore you and let the others decide whether I’m being unreasonable or pigheaded.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            The Convention also made Thomas Jefferson redraft the Constitution until it satisfied ALL parties before they would sign it. I agree with you Chris, that the Const. superceded the AoC. Might as well get used to BF though. Just because you ignore him won’t stop him from commenting to you. He can pick me apart with ease, so I don’t even try to argue. But I still gain insight by reading his remarks. Sometimes he has good points.

            • Esom:

              Perhaps you meant that the Continental Congress had Jefferson revise the Declaration of Independence…

              Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention.

              Regards,
              Rowe

              • esomhillgazette says:

                You’re right Rowe! My Mistake! My 28 years out of school is showing! LOL

            • Chris Devine says:

              James Madison was the primary author of the Constitution.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I couldn’t have said it better Peter. I also do not see where the problem understanding the Constitution. How much interpretation is neccessary? Seems pretty straitfoward to me. Christian is not a question. The framers of the Const. were not Muslims, or Bhuddists, but the Founders I believe meant what they said when they talked of freedom of religion. They meant ALL Religion. I think they would be horrified to see what it’s been “interpreted” to say.

      • Chris Devine says:

        I’m sure I could show you where some of the men you refer to weren’t even Christian, but Deists.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Christian. Deists. Man you are as hard to talk with as BF! No wonder you lost your cool with him, ya’ll being so close to alike. You’re just on opposite sides of the argument. All I’m saying is that the Founding Fathers would not like this Country moving away from God. I know the Historically. I’m really not the ignorant buffoon You seem to take me for even though I am a countryfied hillbilly.

          • Chris Devine says:

            I don’t think you are a buffoon nor do I find the ‘”I’m just a regular Joe” argument persuasive. I can think of a recent example where an Ivy League graduate and son of a prominent New England family got elected to office (the second time around anyway) all the while pretending to be just a brush clearing, God-fearing, beer-swilling (in recovery), regular guy.

            Please don’t compare me to Black Flag. I’m not interested in bullying anyone here.

      • USWeapon says:

        Esom,

        To be fair here, you ask how hard it can be to understand it or “how much interpretation is necessary”. I think that the answer to that is A LOT. The framers were writing about a future that they couldn’t see in terms of what our world looks like. So interpretting hwo they would have viewed the internet is difficult. If we don’t take the time to properly try to interpret the constitution, then we are relying on it to be interpretted based only on the words as they are written. Such a literal interpretation would render the document outdated and would be an argument for abolishing it and writing a new one, which is a scary proposition. I would hate to see what a constitution written today would entail once the two big parties got their claws into it.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I guess my take on this is to say that yes, you do have to take what the Constitution says, and attempt to apply it to modern developments which the writers of the Constitution could not forsee. This is a natural consequence of technological changes in a Society.

          Where I think we get into trouble is the point at which we no longer say, “Let’s take a look at this issue and see how the Constitution can be applied to writing new laws regarding this issue” and instead go to, “Lets write some new laws regarding this new issue and then see how we can interpret the Constitution in a way that will make these laws seem consistent with it.”

        • esomhillgazette says:

          US, I meant the Part about Separation of Church and State. That part seems pretty clear to me. If you read the Article on my blog about Religion in Schools, you will see that I don’t agree it should be there. But I also don’t see the harm of a moment of silence, or someone praying quietly to themselves in school.
          My point is, groups and organizations and the government have carried a simple sentence in the Constitution too far IN MY OPINION!

        • USW:

          It has been awhile but I STRONGLY disagree.
          If you read and study all the writings surrounding ratification you see solid evidence they intended it to be a straight forward and concrete document. BUT, they saw the potential need for future change so they included a provision to:

          AMEND IT

          That was the intended mechanism for modernization, not revising meanings or interpretations to create a “living docmument” as put forth by more enlightened Supremes in the 20the century (I love how we can say that in an historical context, don’t you).

          What amazes me is that so many of the anti-federalists accurately identified the weaknesses in the document that could lead to “tyranny” as they viewed it then. Madison was the best at assuring them the language was plain enough that no such arguments could be supported. Many also had a great faith in those who practiced law and would be selected as Supremes. Many of the anti’s did not share their faith, and it turned out they were right not to.

          Pace yourself, sounds like a long day ahead.
          JAC

          • USWeapon says:

            LOL. I will pace myself. I had not thought of it the way that you are presenting to me here. I will have to ponder this a bit and get back to you. I guess interpretation can be viewed from your angle as well. I must ponder (placing hand to chin and slowly looking up and to the left).

            • Weapon, as an aside, I think interpretation of the Constitution would be a good topic all on it’s own.
              Also, whether the coming retribution for the killing of Marcus Luttrell’s dog is warranted and justified. You would have more insight into that situation than most of us.

    • Good morning all!
      I would like to point out here that one, the original European settlers of this country did come here for religious freedom, not for less, but the freedom to have more and our original “governments” on this vast land certainly reflected this. As a result religion and its place in government will be a discussion long after we are dead. Second, Chris made a great point that many have glossed over, that most of the direct religious references in our goverment were instituted long after the Constitution was written.
      That being said, I think that what alot of the fights against religious symbols are not about the religion, they are about hypocrisy. Am I offended with the ten commandments being posted at a courthouse? Of course not! As soon as the government officials inside actually follow them. Am I offended when a university installs footbaths for Muslims? No, don’t care, once that group also fights as hard against the extremists that kill in the name of that same religion.
      US, you wanted to know why we heard so much about priests molesting kids. Because it is so hypocritial. These are the men that are supposed to be teaching the rest of us to be better, kinder, more spiritual, how to live live closer to god. instead they break the most precious rule that exists, the trust of a child.

      • USWeapon says:

        AZGirl,

        Great points. And you are right that we entrust priests to teach people to be good, but in the end they are human like any other, which means that there will be those that are not good. We entrust our teachers to spend far more time with out children than priests, so why not the public outrage over that second part?

  9. Kristian says:

    Can’t tear down the Mosques, those are houses of worship. That would be like tearing down a church. I’m still trying to figure out why my faith in God would be offensive to anyone. That makes no sense to me.

    • I think I may have been misunderstood on the Mosque issue. I Don’t want any place of worship tore down. As far as your faith being offensive to anyone, first let me say, it certainly does not offend me in any way. However, having served in very Muslim country for quite some time, there are some that are offended by worship of any other faith but Muslim. Although it’s not the majority, I have seen it first hand.

      • USWeapon says:

        And that minority that is offended by the worship of any other religion should certainly not be catered to, correct?

  10. Peter B., well said, though Chris’s point is extremely valid. Taking simply the Constitution, which does not mention God or creator or Judeo-Christian, Peter’s point is still valid that Congress shall create no law regarding establishment of religion. How does that affect an atheist’s percieved right to tell me how to celebrate my religion? Or a Muslims, Bhuddists, etc.? While I consider myself a Christian, and believe in Jesus’s teachings, I do not consider myself a good fit for any of the established Christian faiths. Perhaps that makes me a bad example as I am too much of a minority? I do not force my beliefs on anyone else, and will vigorously defend the right of anyone to express their religion in any way that doesn’t HARM anyone else or infringe on their rights. I believe a Christmas tree or Easter Egg hunt on town property is fine, but you better allow anyone elses religion (yes, even Satanism) to be displayed. There is no “right to be not offended”.

    • In addition, hearkening back to US’s Christian right debate, I feel the extremists on that end have done a great disservice to the rest of us. While they wave the flag and say the right things, many do try to impose their religion on others and inject their beliefs into law. We have recently passed a gay marriage bill here. We already had a civil union law, and I personally felt that was enough. The debate leading up to it, though, was vicious and the papers here printed letters from Christians “like Manna from heaven” that were hate-filled and grossly exaggerated. I feel they did their cause a great disservice because it became a lightning rod for Pro-gay forces.

      • USWeapon says:

        Agreed C.Z.

        The really far right christians often go a bit over the top with a lack of tolerance for those that do not think like them. And it is important to realize that while freedom of religion is protected (unless you are a christian it seems at times), the beliefs of a religion should never be legislated as law. Doing so violates the fundamentals of freedom.

        And yes pagans and satan worshipers shoud be afforded the same rights. Why do I think, however, that the courts in the 9th Circuit in California, would back up the pagan’s right to displaying a pentagram, but would require a christmas tree to be taken down?

        • CWO2USNRet says:

          What confuses many people is the conflation of good laws, e.g. murder, assualt, theft, etc. with the parallel religious teachings. Because a piece of legislation aligns with a particular religious tenet does not mean that the legislation is religiously motivated. Similarly, atheism does not equate to immorality.

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Chris brings up an intersting point in one of his posts, which is the claim that the Constitution is open to interpretation (or misinterpretation) and that reasonable men of all faiths are responsible for determining what is right and just.

    This is one of the ways that liberals get away with legislating from the bench.

    It is not the job of the Courts or the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution, their job is to interpret proposed law and see if it is CONSISTENT with the Constitution. If a law is found to be consistent with the Constitution, the the law is ok. If a law is found to be inconsistent with the constitution, then it is a bad law.

    • PeterB,
      I agree about 98%. Like the age-old 2A line, ” what part of “…shall not be infringed” do you not understand?”.
      However, I don’t remember exactly where (don’t have a copy in front of me) but at one point it gives congress the right to pass laws for the general welfare, and that is about as “open to interpretation” as it gets. In fact, several trains have been driven through that tunnel just in the 20th century!

    • DaveE,
      Have you seen similar legal actions in Canada about removing Christmas ornamentation or Judeo-Christian symbolism from publicly held property?

      • To the best of my fuzzy memory, I think not. But up here, we do not have such extremist views on this subject. Most allow each other to live and let live.

    • Chris Devine says:

      How is interpreting new laws and their constitutionality different from interpreting the intention of the Constitution itself (besides semantically)? This is a false dilemma.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ah, but it IS different. In one instance, you are evaluating a new law or new piece of legislation vs. the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not based on what you THINK or FEEL the Constitution says or what you think or feel is SHOULD say or should have said.

        In the other instance, you are interpreting what you yourself have called a “legally binding document” that was designed to have all other laws evaluated in comparison to.

        A prime example of this is when the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion” and that is INTERPRETED to mean, “Congress shall neither implicitly or explicitly recognize any influence of any religion on how this country came to be in the first place, and shall display no texts or symbols relating to any religion, because clearly, religion had no influence or bearing on any of the people that wrote this Constitution.”

        There goes that buzzer in my head again… been a busy day for the buzzer.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Before you can interpret the constitutionality of any new law you must have an idea of the intention of the document it is being compared to. That intention is only held in the minds of people currently living, writing and enforcing laws.

          You should also have a look at the ACLU document I cited above regarding public displays of religious symbols.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Interpret: To explain or tell the meaning of.

            By that definition, interpretation of the Constitution is fine.

            Interpret (definition #2): To conceive in the light of individual belief, judgement, or circumstance : CONSTRUE

            By that definition, interpretation of the Constitution can get pretty interesting, can’t it?

          • Chris:

            Regarding your first sentence:

            Bulldookey
            or
            OOMPAH
            or
            BS

            Sorry, can’t get the razor any sharper than that.

            Suggest you read up on legal theories of constitutional review.
            JAC

            • Chris Devine says:

              Suppose you suggest a few. Law is a hobby of mine not a specialty.

              While you’re at it you can brush up on your thoughts about how the human mind works, or human language. That’s my specialty.

              • Ahhh

                Arrogance

                Sorry, can’t find 2 letters to describe that one.

              • Chris Devine says:

                I’m not being arrogant. Substitute the word ‘understand’ for ‘interpret’ and ‘meaning’ for ‘intention’ (as I intended) and you may see that:

                Before you can understand the constitutionality of any new law you must have an idea of the meaning of the document it is being compared to.

                Is that any better? Does it contradict my point?

              • I have moved JAC’s response to post #32 for better readability… USW

              • Chris Devine says:

                My response to your arrogance assertion was in the same tone of voice as and certainly no harsher than your post I was responding to.

                You and the others are free to see my style in any way you choose. I don’t think I am being crafty or trying to mince words, but that’s not for me to judge is it?

      • Black Flag says:

        Interpreting is facilitation of dialogue between parties who use different languages.

        The Constitution is written in English. It does not need ‘interpreting’ by anyone whose mother tongue is English.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I’ve spent a great deal of time in Ireland and they claim to speak English. English (especially legalese) is not always straightforward, even for native speakers.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Translation would be a better term for what you’re describing.

        • Black Flag says:

          No, Interpreter is needed to interpret. I find many of these people at the UN.

          I, as many millions, are fairly fluent in English.

          The Constitution requires no ‘interpretation’ as it is English.

          If I don’t understand a word, I can look it up all by myself without the help of a Supreme Court Judge.

          But, again, at direct to the point, Chris….

          … the Constitution does not mention the word, interpret, translate or any other synonym of the word you wish to use.

          I find it remarkable that those which wish to abuse power seem to find words in the Constitution which are not there.

          • Chris Devine says:

            Forming a personal understanding is one thing. The Roman Catholic church for the longest time insisted on scriptures and masses not being available in languages other than Latin so that the priesthood had the sole ability and right to translate and interpret the “word of God.” I suspect this goes on in other faiths as well.

            However, once you try to convince somebody else of that viewpoint you will see that what some words on paper mean in your head might mean something completely (or even just partially) different to another person. That’s where agreement becomes necessary. It’s not about words but the meanings behind the words.

          • Black Flag says:

            Forming a personal understanding is one thing – in fact, it is the only thing.

            Surrendering this to anyone or any other body/entity surrenders your freedom to that body. You are now a slave.

            You’ve allowed someone or something else to think for you. “I, Robot”??

            If you give to someone the determination of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in place of your own mind, you’ve set yourself up for tyranny.

            The RC’s didn’t have to work quite that hard – few could read.

            But Luther and the printing press changed that.

            And a perfect point, Chris. People are more than able to think for themselves without you or the Court doing it for them.

            Once that ol’ printing press gotta printing – RC’s as the sole, dominating religion of Europe and Eurasia was doomed.

            Free people with free minds change the world.

            While I see your point on agreement, I add this:

            Agreement is not necessary.

            If I as a free man interact with you, and between us we agree – yet, for whatever point, we misunderstand our simple words and there meaning – and fail to agree, what happens?

            One of us, in the opinion of the other, breaks their agreement or “contract”.

            What is the consequence?

            We will not interact with one another again.

            I see no need of violence from anyone or any entity necessary at all.

            That’s where agreement becomes necessary. It’s not about words but the meanings behind the words.

            But you will concede that even then, this does not solve the problem.

            For example, you have added ‘interpret’ into the Constitution – somewhere – where it, nor any synonym of the word possible exists.

            If I was a fool, and agreed with your contention that I be bound to words on paper written by other men (just for the sake of this argument), and we both agreed to such binding – signed it – and then you played your parlor tricks… what is my recourse?

            Gee, it’s the same as what it would be in my example above!

            It appears that mere agreement – even in your perfect world – is insufficient.

            Now, in your world, you’d respond with pounding the heads of every person in sight with club to their heads – that is, make a law.

            In my world, I’d just be smarter the next time we do any agreement or deal in the future.

  12. General Rambling….

    I keep hearing the media claim that Christians are intolerant, but from my perspective Christians are one of the more tolerant religions. I have seen cartoons where Jesus and Santa duke it out for who really rules during Christmas. I bet that won’t fly for Muslims.

    This reminds me of an old team I use to work on where we would eat lunch and respectively talk about religion. At the lunch table there was a Baptist, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Atheist. We were a very diverse group. What I have learned is that out of all those religions present the Muslim was the most intolerant. Anytime we ate out the restaurant had to be certified as halal with absolutely no regard to the kosher requirements of the Jewish person. The Muslim representative was approved that people were killed over the cartoon of Mohammad. From reading this you might think I dislike this person, which is completely incorrect. We are good friends that play ping-pong tournaments and eat lunch occasionally. I have helped him and his family. What I am trying to illustrate is that this very nice person has zero religious tolerance that does not follow the Muslim faith.

    I am not intolerant of other religions … just intolerant of the ones that seek to impose there will on me. I am a proud Christian and I am proud that our country is founded on Christianity and I want others to know it, not hide it. I have worked in Saudi Arabia and never once did I remark how the Muslim religion offended me and not once did I ask for them to change to appease me. I was in their country and knew that was their religion. I was respectful and learned more about it. Why must I change my great country to please them when it is considered criminal for me to the same in their country?

    Back to the media … Whether we like it or not America is going to have a primary de-facto religion. Which one would you prefer? I know that most Americans would not be happy living Muslim style. Funny thing about the Media is in there effort to minimize Christianity they are opening the door for another different “dominate” Religion, which more than likely will impose an even tighter leash on the their freedoms.

    mb2

  13. I grew up as a WASP, and hold dear the principles of Jesus Christ. And John Wayne too, to define the important principles of honor, respect, and moral fiber. As far as schools go, my opinion differs. I consider schools as an investment in the future. My taxes go towards the education system, in order to give the children skills, so that they may go out into the adult world with abilities that allow them to be able to work productively. I do not consider schools as a social experiment, or a place to instill moral beliefs. That responsibility lies with the parents.
    Concerning the recent erosion of Christianity, as related to this topic, I see two forces at work. The first is to diminish Christianity because it is too prevalent. Maybe there’s too much Christianity going on, and other religions do not enjoy some of Christianity’s perks. It’s only fair and appropriate that any other legitimate religion be given equal treatment. And just like racism, it takes a long time to correct this injustice.
    And just like racism, there exists intolerance on both sides. Viewed from a non-Christian perspective, many Christians are extremely intolerant of foreign religions. And the same thing flows the other way. For example (very true story), my wife works for a Jewish organization. Generally nice people. But she put up a Christmas tree in her workplace, and was ordered by her supervisor (a Jew) to remove it. So trust me, there is religous intolerance practiced by non-Christians.
    I believe very strongly that Government has absolutely nothing to do with religion, the two should be completely separate. The only time religion and politics come together is at election time, when the voters decide on their choice, with religion being one of the determining factors concerning suitibility with the voter’s priorities.
    I do disagree with this statement “The levels of freedom and religious equality in America make us unique.”. There are many nations where this occurs. Heck, just come up to my home town, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Just drive around and you will easily see Christian churches, Jewish Synagogues, mosques, and all so on.

    • DaveE,
      I agree, but would posit that your country was founded on the same principles ours was. With my extensive time spent in Eastern Canada, I would say you folks are more tolerant of others than America is, but looking at the big picture we are very much the same.

      • Dave,
        I sent you another question but put it under comment 11 by accident.

      • Heck yea, both our nations share a lot. Not only borders, but culture, religion, you name it, Canada is the USA’s little cousin. And I pointed out certain problems we also have up here. There are no grounds for criticism or posturing, because we all share the same problems, and future.

  14. esomhillgazette says:

    I have twice tried to post my own comments on this subject. I have twice messed up and hit the wrong button thereby wiping out a whole hour of typing. I don’t think God wants me typing my comments on this subject after the last 2 days, so I’ll just watch and reply to others here and there. I don’t want to be misunderstood again although I already have been once or twice. But that’s OK. Sometimes I have trouble getting my point across correctly and even if I do, you ain’t got to agree!

  15. That was a very insightful article. I do think that if we started to show more tolerance at our schools, that would be passed on to our children. What;s wrong with having a few minutes of silence? Each child is able to pray, or not, But it gives a chance to reflect. I think the media has to take some of the blame on this subject. They talk with the correct information about different religion which only spirals this issue more out of control. They show the minority of people to do terrible things as a example for everyone. My partner and I have two different religious beliefs and it works fine for us also

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I think that the “moment of silence” is a great compromise for prayer in schools. But I also think that if a child wants to pray before eating, or a test etc., who is to say they can’t. And NO! I don’t care WHO or WHAT they’re praying to. That is their business, not he Schools. I don’t really understand US, because where I live Students in school are allowed to gather around the Fag pole every morning to pray for their coming day. And noone would dream of suspending a 7 year old child for praying. This community would be up in arms over it! But then, this is GA, not Kalifornia, or another liberal State.

      • Chris Devine says:

        California is a big place (if it were it’s own country it would be the world’s eighth largest economy). Don’t assume because San Fran and LA seem liberal that the rest of the state is. Some of the most conservative parts of the country are in CA (Orange County, Antelope Valley, etc.) I lived there and saw a former test pilot turned state senator (Pete Knight) write legislation to ban gay marriage even though he has a gay son (whom he disowned). I also saw the only church I’ve ever seen that used bumper stickers to advertise. All over town you saw ‘Lancaster Baptist Church’ stickers as well as the little fish symbol on storefronts and in advertisements. In addition, George Runner is a fairly prominent CA politician and he is on the board of directors for Desert Christian Schools (as well as a proponent of voucher programs that would benefit him personally).

        On a side note, why would you pray around a flag? That seems odd to me.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          I apologize for including Kalifornia in that. (Maybe I should have said MA.) I guess Diane Feinstien and Nazi Pelosi have me a bit frazzled when it comes to looking west. I know they have Conservatives there. I just can’t see them sometimes for all the Celebrity Glitter. As for the Flagpole. It’s the American Flag. They gather around and are led in prayer by the Leader of the Christian Atheletes Club at the School. If it’s too cold, they go in the Gym or a room.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            My point was that they are ALLOWED to pray on school property because noone has a problem with it. The parents of the 7 yr. old should have sued the School system. Or did they? What State was that school in US?

        • Can’t be that many left in Orange County. Most moved to Idaho.
          LOL

        • They pray around the flag because they probably say the pledge of allegiance after the prayer. Thats how my hometown school does it anyway.Affirmation of your allegiance to God and your country, whats wrong with that?Good values to instill in your children.

  16. CanadianFox says:

    This article started out innocent enough and was very cleverly written. But some passages gave the author away. You might as well say it was a paid political announcement for the conservative movement or Republican Party. For example, ” a war on Christianity”? Isn’t that a pretty subjective statement based on this individuals belief? Christianity under ” a full frontal assault”? Now if that isn’t totally subjective AND inflammatory, I don’t know what is. But the last two sentences are what really give this author away and I quote “Betweem them (dhimmicrats) and the new socialist movement, I wonder how long America can remain the great country she was. We were once the beacon of hope but we are slowly slipping into obscurity thanks to Washington politics and true social liberals.” Now many of us would call this a pretty narrow, opinionated view of our great country. It is also a great example of why many middle class moderates left the Republican Party and voted the other way last time. And with this type of mentality being so seemingly prevalent (and getting more strident, shrill and worse by the day), we probably won’t come back anytime soon. I don’t know if anyone else out there notices, but it seems to me that people who hold such fanatical views, like this author, are the very ones that cause the majority of the strife, ill will and trouble in the world. I suggest you look at a bigger picture than the one you are currently looking at. I truly believe more problems can be solved that way.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I believe, if you look at the totality of USW’s posts, you will clearly see that he is not as you describe. He did a very elaborate post not long ago basically saying that the religious right had ruined the Republican party and they needed to GTFO. He made good points in that post, and he makes good points in this post as well.

      Yes, he does use heavily loaded and inflammatory terms which, perhaps, he should try to avoid. The reality though, is that he is stating his OPINION, and if he holds that opinion strongly enough to use terms like “War on Christianity”, then so be it.

      Also, this “bigger picture” that you mention… I would suggest that ALL of us view this “big picture” through a fairly narrow lens which is colored by our own opinions and biases.

      “(and getting more strident, shrill and worse by the day)”
      “people who hold such fanatical views”

      How are those quoted phrases significantly different than those used by USW in his post?

    • USWeapon says:

      Canadian Fox,

      Oh ye of little faith. You obviously do not know me at all. I could give you a few revelations at this point that would blow your entire opinion of me, but I will not. Suffice to say, if you are seeing me as a conservative schristian or a Republican, then you are clearly reading things into my words that are not there, which shows that you are unwilling to accept a viewpoint different than your own. I will only say that I often write from a viewpoint different than my own in order to spur discussion.

      You are certainly welcome to your opinion, as am I. You are right on a couple of points though so I will say so. War on Christianity and full frontal assault are a bit inflamatory, but my use of language like that certainly got your attention, didn’t it. And isn’t that the point of writing opinion pieces, getting people to pay attention and be emboldened to post their thoughts? I would say mission accomplished.

      I do often hit at liberals, and your post is a good example of why. You aren’t interested in debating the topic, you are only interested in debating my objectivity and how horrible those Radical christians are. You spoke with plenty of passion and emotion, but very little intellect or open-mindedness towards opposing viewpoints.

      As for the statement “Betweem them (dhimmicrats) and the new socialist movement, I wonder how long America can remain the great country she was. We were once the beacon of hope but we are slowly slipping into obscurity thanks to Washington politics and true social liberals.” Pay better attention. I did not say Democrats. I said Washington politics, and by that I mean ALL Washington politics. And true social liberals defines a fairly narrow group within the Democratic party. What I don’t like is welfare and income redistribution. I am free to feel that way aren’t I? I am, at least for now.

      It would be you that I suggest get a bigger picture view. Come out from under that Democratic party umbrella and see some sunshine for a change. I believe open dialogue among competing viewpoints is the way forward. That is how more problems can be solved, not nitpicking the possible leanings of the author or blaming christians for the plights of the world. However, the blame game is one played well by Democrats these days, so I guess you fit in well. I am sure you are proud of your boy Barney Franks for taking care of that pesky student asking for accountability.

      • CanadianFox says:

        USW, You are right. I do not know you, but touche’, neither do you know me. You are right about my passion but not emotion. I know exactly what I say too. And I know it is bound to stir things up. And just for the record, I am far more open minded than you think. I understand what you are saying about the extreme left. But here is something I have learned in my life. The far left? They are not who really worry about. Most peole do not pay much attention to them at all. Or you can always outthink or “outfox” them. The far right; however is a far different story. Now my passion comes from that point. The Republican Party has pandered so much to these people over the past 15-20 years that I do not recognize the Party any longer. Now I am talking about the ones who only want to: 1) quote the Bible and look for answers there 2) those that want to quote the Constitution and only look for answers there 3) quote a dead President who governed nearly 30 years as if the answers lie there. Now I am not knocking Mr. Reagan for the right person at the right time. But these are different times. Just last night even good old Newt Gingerich said that the “Obama administration was anti-religious”. Now USW, ewho do you think he was trying to stir up or mobilize there? Open minded thinkers? That is why the passion is there. A very good political party has been brought to its knees because they have pandered to people who only think one dimensionally, with no thought or little thought to compromise. Sorry have to go. Got a customer to attend to.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Maybe Newt got the idea that Obama was anti-religious from the fact that he picked a gay activist for his faith advisory panel. This guy has already blasted several religious leaders for everything from being Anti-Gay to being against abortion. I hate to tell you this but I also think being “Gay”(Lordy, I hate that term) is wrong and I am against abortion. SO IS GOD. And I’m not a religious zealot. I don’t care what gays do with their life. I just don’t want to know or hear it. Or have it waved in my face like a flag. Abortion in MY opinion is just plain murder. Notice, CF, I said In MY opinion. Maybe Newt is a little extreme, but so is Obama.

          • CanadianFox says:

            Just so you understand, I do not care whether Mr. Obama goes to church or not. And I truly believe that nobody else should care either. The “gay” issue? It is only another distraction that certain political leaders want to use to stir people up for their own political advantage. Abortion? My preference like yours is that people choose life, if it is the right choice for them. But choice is just that, Choice. It is my belief that that law will never be overturned. Pro-life people should keep their effort turned toward education on options. From the statistics I have seen it must work because the number of abortions are down. But should abortion be used as a “litmus test” for a politician’s electability? No way.

            • esomhillgazette says:

              I too, could care less about his church going. It’s his life. The gay issue as you put it is not a distraction of certain political leaders though. I only heard about it last night. I don’t believe that is a very good choice.
              Like most of his other cabinet and advisors.

              Yes. I am prolife but I’m sorry about that. I do use it for a litmus test. I just feel to strogly about it not to. If you don’t of course, that is your choice.

              That actually was 1 small reason I didn’t vote for Obama. I realize one day that may not be an option. But until then…..

              If you consider me an extremist, then so. be. it.

        • USWeapon says:

          Some fair thoughts there Canadian. I agree that Newt was appealing to Christians with his comments. But would you be willing to agree that Obama is doing no differently when he promotes class warfare? What I would prefer here is that you see the hypocrisy coming from both sides of the argument here.

          • CanadianFox says:

            It’s funny but I have never gotten the impression that he has or that he is. It is just a matter of debate as to what rates are fair for those of different income levels. Bush had one opinion. Mr. Obama has another. The only time I have ever heard the term “class warfare” used is by Republican leaders. And I read and listen alot.

            • Fox, if you have read some of the early posts, you will know that Weapon, like many of us, have become disenchanted w/ the Repub’s and are looking at the Libertarians for some answers. With you previous comment about the Constitution, I am curious to hear your thoughts there.
              Thanks1

              • CanadianFox says:

                Not much to say there. I could never join a Party that felt the answers lie in the past. The world has changed so much since that time. It’s funny, when I worked for a firm that hired employees for big time companies, the two of the most desireable core values we looked for in people were flexibility and adaptability. My view of that party (right or wrong) doesn’t see those values in their beliefs. I guess I do not feel you make good decisions in the present, and plan very well for the future, with your eyes in the “rearview mirror”.

    • Much as I admire USW, I have to agree that some coments are alarmist. I just write it off as overexposure to Foxnews. But he most definitely has a right to his views and method of presenting them. Besides, all are composed with the intent of being respectful and polite, a trait I admire greatly.
      USW recognizes that no process is perfect. Be it the Republican Party, the Catholic church, or even Canada have problems, and sometimes miss the mark on finding solutions to issues. But by open dialoge, and respectful exchange of ideas, do we grow as human beings and useful members of society. Throwing insults or putting up barriers to communication solves nothing.
      Personally, I believe that a person should seek out as many forms of information as possible. I go to many web sites for that, such as CNN, Foxnews, Al Jezzera, BBC, China news, Moscow News, and my local news providers, for example. Of course, each source has their agenda, and BS. But by sifting through all the different sources, the truth can be gleaned. That’s why in a court of law, both the accuser and accused have an opportunity to give testimony. If you just listen to one source, you are seriously restricting your ability to recognize and absorb the real truth.

      • USWeapon says:

        Don’t make it out to be overexposure to FoxNews Dave. I don’t spend that much time there, although I do prefer it over CNN. I read a lot of stuff from a lot from different countries as well. I think a wealth of information is the difference between partcipating in a discussion and merely being a part of it.

        I do make alarmist statements and have a tendency to pop off at the mouth (fingeritps?) at times. I am opinionated and outspoken. But much of what I do is for the benefit of all. I don’t want to write boring or politically correct articles. That is no fun and would make me no more interesting than the PC media. I imagine that every person that reads this blog regularly will at one time or another call me an ingnorant son of a bitch. I also imagine that each will also call me brilliant. If both of those things happen, I am accomplishing my goals, not catering to any one group or person and inspiring people to truly think about what they believe and discussing it in order to refine or refute their original position. It benefits everyone if we are better able to articulate our positions.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      US’ posts are there to make us think. You, I think, missed the point. Besides, he is right. There is an assault on Christianity. After all, when you write a new blog every day, you have to pick something!

      • USWeapon says:

        And believe me it isn’t an easy thing to do. I am quite grateful for those folks who are sending me articles so that I at least get one day off a week! Coming up with a topic every night can be a challenge, especially when I want to make sure that it is relevant, researched (at least somewhat), and interesting enough that people will want to read it and discuss it. I can’t remember now what it was that you said in a post earlier today that I was considering for tonight’s post. It was just a question you asked or something that stirred a thought. My addled brain forgot to file it correctly, and now it is lost, probably filed under something inane like the “Why does my cat like to pretend he still has claws” folder. I will have to go back through the comments and find whatever it was.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          I hope you didn’t get this topic from what I’ve said the last 2 days. (Or maybe I do!) I tackled the “Should Religion be in Schools” subject on my site. But I was too chicken to tackle this one. You are certainly braver than I am. I’m getting in trouble just commenting here and there. LOL!

  17. Having a culture of easy offense is a problem. Having those “offenses” turn into legal cases and suits is an abuse of the system. There is no right to not be offended. I understand that a government is not supposed to appear to support any particular religion to preserve a separation of church and state. However, an individual government official or employee is, in fact, still a citizen, and to restrict their actions in respect to religion is in violation of their constitutional rights.

    If a group of taxpayers desire a religious symbol on that which they paid for (public properties), then I see no particular issue with it, providing that other symbols are not restricted, and that that there is a stated separation of the official government position and such displays.

    As for our documents and pledges and money, I would think tradition would hold some sway, and I see no reason for it to be such a massive issue compared with the rest of the things that need to be addressed. If there is really a separation of church and state, then the state should not be made to make such a big deal about the whole thing. People are free to dissent as much as they like. In this country, you don’t even have to use cash if you don’t like the “In God We Trust” inscription.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      How about we substitute, “In Plastic we Trust” and put that on all of our debit/credit cards 🙂

      I’m sorry… sometimes I let my own goofiness get the better of me.

      • Peter B:

        No Can Do. It takes oil to make plastic.

        Of course if we turn it into plastic and then bury it for future archeologists to find, we might get some carbon credits to sell. Damn, Peter you may be onto something here.

        You have no monopoly on goofy my dear friend.
        Keep smiling and stay free
        JAC

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Maybe we could put “In Obama We Trust” on it. Think that would ruffle any feathers? (besides ours of course)

          • esomhillgazette says:

            WAM. I got it!! “In the Supreme Generic All Encompassing Diety Like Figure We Hold A Conditional Trustlike Condition” Think that’d fit around a Nickel?

          • Worthless money is still worthless no matter what you inscribe upon it. If the money was gold or silver it could have swastikas on it and still be better than the pot-metal crap we are ordered to use now. (Although in that case I’d melt the coins down and re-mint them with my own design… which is “coming soon”)

  18. USWeapon says:

    Chris Devine said
    April 9, 2009 at 9:45 am e
    Feel free to take your time to compose your thoughts. I don’t want to pressure you into saying something hasty and inaccurate.

    Perhaps this is what I was getting at regarding ‘consistency.’ The ACLU takes case regardless of where on the political spectrum it’s other supporters are. It often defends extreme positions to stop the slippery slope of government tyranny. I won’t argue about the proportion of left/right stances they take. That’s not the issue here.

    The document I cited refers specifically to this topic. Your unwillingness to read that particular document, not your distaste of the organization who drafted it, is what I have an issue with.

    Just moved the post down here for better readability as the discussion continues… USW

  19. I guess now would be a good time to address Priests and teachers mlesting kids.According to the figures I can find,there are more teachers teaching preschool and kindergarten in the U.S. than there are Catholic priests in the world,442,000,compared to 408,000 respectively.The reason I bring these numbers up is to show that by population the two groups are not so widely different by number.The difference comes with the disposal of the perpertrators.Teachers are convicted and spend time in prison and lose their jobs and stature in the community.Priests were siimply shuffled along and hidden by the higher ups in the church.The penalties paid by the teachers did not exist there.In fact,the church bought the priests immunuty in many cases.This fact has not changed even after all the publicity.The people that knowingly shoved along the child molesterers were never charged and they won’t be.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      What you say here is, in part, true. However, the Catholic Church is now being sued into the ground by people claiming to be molested by Priests, and in many diosces is nearing bankruptcy.

      SOME people would say this is a far more favorable outcome than simply seeing Priests in jail.

      • SFC Dick says:

        “SOME people would say this is a far more favorable outcome than simply seeing Priests in jail”

        Nay, not I. Why, ta tell ya the truth, I pretty much want to go burn down that God Damned catholic churh I was raised to the ground, bankrupt the whole thing and hang every God damned priest that ever knew what was going on in that dioscees.20 years later I even visited one of the Monsignors, as he lay in ICU so I could watch him die.

        • SFC Dick says:

          but,……thats just me.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          You see, that is an extremely interesting point. The whole issue of Priests molesting children, and then having it covered up by higher and higher ranking people within the church, played BRILLIANTLY into the hands of the people that wanted to destroy the Catholic church.

          It is perfectly natural to view the Catholic church as being filled with complete hypocrites that never did practice anything that they preached.

          If the Catholic church had simply, in all cases, immediately and publicly excommunicated the perpetrators, turned them over to the authorities for prosecution, and fully cooperated with the authorities in that prosecution, it would have been a hell of a lot better for Catholic PR.

          The only real problem would have come if/when an accused Priest was acquitted of the charges against him. What would happen then? Would he have been reinstated? If not, on what basis?

          In spite of that potential conundrum, the Catholic Church could have probably saved itself from self-destruction if they hadn’t made total hypocrites out of themselves on the whole issue.

      • I don’t mind seeing someone go down in flames because they’re guilty.I’ve thought about false lawsuits brought against the Church and have decided that they get to reap the seeds they sowed.I just can’t find any sympathy for them.

      • I respectfully disagree. How about the victims, the young boys who were molested/raped? Many if not all of them will bear horrible scars as a result of what happened. Some are now much older, some never made it, having comitted suicide because of the trauma. Money from a lawsuit will not bring them back, or heal the scars.
        Prosecute the guilty individuals, from the priest comitting the act, to anyone in the chain of command who assisted in covering up. Especially the ones who covered up, because they promoted a culture of silence on an issue that should have been addressed from day one.
        For instance, let’s examine Cardinal Bernard Law. This web site does a good job of listing his sins.
        http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/coverups_archive.htm
        Pretty sad. Now here’s the Vatican’s official biography of this “person”.
        http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_law_bf_en.html
        And here’s what he’s been up to since he dropped out of the public spotlight.
        http://www.counterpunch.org/brauchli06032004.html

        You have to go after the real problem, and obviously it didn’t happen. The man who protected and covered up these pervert priests was himself protected and covered up by his superiors. But instead, if Law was now languishing in a prison for the rest of his pathetic life, the Vatican and all it’s priests would realize that that this kind of behavior is not tolerated.

        You have to cut the head off the snake.

    • SFC Dick says:

      Yeh, I can vouche for that one.

      “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

      • SFC Dick says:

        Ok, I just took a pill. I’m calm now. Neither the fact that I post follow up to my own follow up or the fact that I had to take a pill necessarily points to a mental defect or disorder, so, we are clear on that then.

        I got to thinking; I would not like to burn that church down. It is beautiful, my great grandfather laid some of the stones with his very hands, we as a family have put much money into that church and it is truly awe inspiring in size and magnitude.
        I love the Catholic Church because everything about it is big, big mass, big speakers giving the big voice throughout that marbled cavernous Artesia; I love the pomp and ceremony of the high church. I don’t want to sit around some backwoods snake handler shack and have the good word preached over the sounds of cicadas and June bugs( not that there’s anything wrong with that), I want big Sunday, fancy attire and gold and marble.
        So, there, I won’t call for the church of the Blessed Sacrament to be burned, all the other stuff stands.

        “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

        • Senior Dick:

          You must be having a great day over yonder cause man you got me laughing so hard my sides hurt.
          Send me one of those pills, and whatever you had before you took it.
          Stay Safe Amigo
          JAC

    • esomhillgazette says:

      To be honest Ron, if someone molested one of my kids. The Justice System would be the least of their worries. It would suit me just fine if the law released them. But then when it comes to me and mine being harmed, I’m to say the least, a litle Bloodthirsty. NLOL DS

  20. Wow folks,
    102 comments and Flag isn’t even here yet! Hit a nerve again, US.
    I’d like to go back to my comment that this issue is the result of a very loud, obnoxious, very small minority similar to the anti-nukers of the 70’s or the SDS’s of the 60’s. Re-read “Very Loud”. I believe the reason they get so much play in the media is that the media knows most people don’t agree. But there is no such thing as bad publicity. If they can squew their facts just enough, they can make people believe anything. I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said “Save Wolves, Kill Palin”. Now, I don’t care who you are or how you vote this is wrong on many fronts. Again, though, it twists the truth enough to make people without Critical Thinking Skills (and who vote) to make a decision based on inflammatory, mostly untrue ideas. I could say “Save Bambi, Kill Lynch” because my Governor has supported deer hunting, although he is a Democrat.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    OK, this is kind of interesting. Chris D. has caused me to at least consider thinking about my position on something here.

    My position has been that you have to consider the Declaration of Independence (which mentions Creator and God) and the Federalist Papers (some of which mention Creator and/or God) and the Constitution (which makes no mention of Creator or God) and look at them as all being the products of the same people at the same time period writing with the same philosophical viewpoint in mind.

    Chris points out that the Declaration of Independence was basically written as a way of thumbing our noses at the King of England, kind of like saying “we declare our independence from you because you are violating fundamental rights which are endowed to us by our Creator.” and the Federalist Papers were op-ed pieces designed to convince the people of the need for revolution. Certainly, couching this in terms of saying “God gave us these freedoms, the King of England is impinging upon these freedoms; therefore, we must revolt” would have been a pretty good selling point to the general populace at the time.

    Then, after the success of the revolution, we have the Constitution as the basis of the formation of our government, and references to “Creator” and “God” are suddenly conspicuously absent.

    Perhaps, God was just used as the excuse for the revolution, and once that argument had served its purpose, the founders said, “Ok, that appealing to God stuff got the job done, now let’s get down to the real business at hand and get that “God” stuff out of here!”

    Not sure whether I buy that or not, but an interesting possiblity nonetheless.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Oh, and by the way, I unintentionally mis-spoke. Chris made the claim that the Federalist Papers were op-ed pieces written to convince the population of the need for REVOLUTION. I think if we go back and read the Federalist Papers, they were actually op-ed pieces attempting to convince the people of the need to have a Constitutionally formed Federal Government rather than a loose confederation of States.

      That may or may not have any bearing on the argument.

      • Chris Devine says:

        Point taken. I was thinking of Thomas Paine.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          No big deal.

          I, for one, am glad that the home-page of this site links the DoI, the Fed. Papers, and the Constitution. I think that they should all still be required reading for all high-school students either in a Civics class or an American History class. They get glossed over far too much these days.

          I would be willing to bet that precious few people under the age of 40 have any idea what ANY of the Federalist Papers actually say, and that the percentage of people over 40 that even have a general idea of what they say really isn’t all that high either.

          Kind of a shame if you think about it, although they ARE somewhat painful to try to read 🙂

  22. One more point today.
    I alone cannot silence Christianity,I would need help.I would seek that help from the government,the one that many people want supporting their religion.The court where they want to hang their religious symbols may well be the one that decides ,in my favor,that they have no right to hang it there in the first place.

    Many of you want Christian history taught in schools,just history,mind,not religion per se.You would trust the same teachers that you say are brainwashing your children to handle their religion? Why would you do that?

    A religious person caused the words “under God” to be inserted into a very good Pledge of Allegiance,making it impossible for people who understand words to be true Pledgers of Allegiance to this country and it’s flag.I don’t happen to believe that this country exists “under God”.I believe this country exists ‘under law”.The Pledge was fine with me before it changed.It encompassed all Americans,not just the religious people.

    Anyway,U.S. will be here another day harpooning the government for getting in his face and today he wants the government to support his beliefs so it won’t be silenced.If I had a religion that needed government support,I’d trade it in for another one.My beliefs don’t need government support,but I have to spend a lot of my time making sure your’s doesn’t either.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I don’t think that USW is in any way saying he wants the government to “support” his religious beliefs. I believe that what he is saying is that the government was originally founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, and yet we now have that same government seemingly attacking the same principles on which it was founded.

      Does that sound more like what you are trying to say USW, or am I misinterpreting?

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I know that’s what it sounded like to me too.

      • USWeapon says:

        Thank you Peter. That is definitely more in line with my sentiment. I am not looking to promote one religion over another, although Christianity is the dominant religion in America so I can see it being dominant. Instead, my point to the article was that the founding religion of our country is the only one that seems to be deiscriminated against these days.

    • USWeapon says:

      Easy there Ron. You are making assumptions about me that are false. First of all at no point did I say that the government should get involved. What I said was that the christians in America are marginalized and discriminated against. I also don’t particularly care if any religious history is taught in school, but I don’t deem it fair that only the majority’s religion is excluded while others are included.

      I caution you, as well as all others, not to make assumptions about what I believe in terms of religion. I argue a point here based on facts and what I see, not what I want to see or what I personally believe.

  23. After reading SFC Dicks comments, I got to thinking as to why I have come to this blog and spend time in coversation with total strangers. SFC’s comments opened my eyes to one thing that I have not been doing near enough in my life. That one thing is demanding accountability. I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I should be demandiing alot of accountability, especially with our elected officials. Now the next question I have to answer, is how to go about this?!?

    • See college student stand up and grill Barney (the dinosaur) Frank.
      Follow college kids example.
      140 million of us.
      BINGO…We Win

      Love
      JAC

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Notice he never answered him except with another question! That kid was Kool as KuKumber!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I am sorry, you are no longer allowed to demand that any of your politicians be held accountable by any of YOUR standards.

      You see, your politicians know what is best for you, and, knowing what is best, there is nothing for them to be accountable FOR!

      If you have a problem with one of your politicians, please go see a government-sponsored phychiatrist immediatly to have your problem “corrected”.

      I speak in jest… or DO I? 🙂

  24. Black Flag says:

    Chris,

    The ‘interpret’ part I stand by:

    Thanks for the link.

    However, I may be block-head today (Jewish Holiday, so it’s a day off) but I can’t for the life of me find the word interpret that section, or anywhere in the entire document.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Thanks again for the uncharitable interpretation of my words. Argumentative.

    • Black Flag says:

      So, you’re saying a misinterpreted your English?

      Seriously, Chris.

      It is not the job of the Courts to ‘interpret’ a darn thing of the Constitution. Making claims that it was the ‘sole’ branch that could was plainly wrong.

      For a guy who demands the law be followed as written, it was strange that you were making up points about laws where none is written.

      I must remind you, the latter is my job here on the blog.

      • Chris Devine says:

        Maybe we can have a discussion about how language works at another time and place. However, a quick glance at any dictionary should show you that the only thing in there that is black and white are the typeface and paper. The words in there are only symbols referring to ideas in the heads of people. There are very few instances where one man’s idea exactly matches that of another (if it’s even possible). All we have (if we have anything at all) is agreement (or not).

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          It all depends on what your definition of “is” is. 🙂

          (I think that I must need a nap).

          There is no black and white, only shades of grey.

          There is no good or evil, only shades of grey.

          There is no right or wrong, only shades of grey.

          If that is the case, all that is left to decide is whose shade of grey we like the best.

          2 and 2 are 5, 5 and 5 are 9, 9 and 9 are 17, 17 and 17 are 42. Oh well, at least I know where my towel is. Time to head out and get a Pan-Galactic Gargle-Blaster.

        • Black Flag says:

          I appreciate your point, Chris.

          However, your statement was bold and explicit – whereas in the document, the word wasn’t even used.

          That’s quite a chasm to argue across.

          Later, Dude!

      • Flag, I need to agree with Chris on this. While it may not say that the supreme court is to interpret the Constitution, how else are they to fulfill the job that is laid out for them?

        • Black Flag says:

          It begs to ask what their job is…

          But I think this will come up again next USWep post.

  25. Black Flag says:

    Chris,

    It’s a matter of accuracy, since you and others seem to jump over AoC, where as it is very important as it created the United States and because from the DoI to the AoC to the Constitution creates a the path of logic. Without is, the existence of the United States, as far as the paper trial, isn’t there.

    The Constitution didn’t spring out of the air on the hand of God, right?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Aw crap… here I go agreeing with BF again. Actually, I suspect that he and I agree on more things than either of us think we would agree on… I was also flattered by his comparison of himself to the Dread Pirate Roberts and me to Inigo Montoya. Eventually through mutual respect and bizzare circumstance, they found themselves very much on the same side of a lot of issues 🙂

      Anyway, my attempted point in an earlier thread with Chris is that you cannot take the DoI, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution (and as BF rightly added, the Articles of Confederation), each in their own individual vacuum. All of these documents not only fit a time-line, but they all stem from the same philosophy, and they are all inter-related.

      So, to me, if you say, “if the DoI was so important, why didn’t they cite it verbatim in the Constitution?” my relpy would be, “Because they didn’t have too!” Just because it wasn’t cited verbatim in the Constitution doesn’t have anything to do with anything. One was still a critical building block to the other.

      • Chris Devine says:

        But only one document remains as law:

        “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

      • Black Flag says:

        Indeed, “Indigo” 🙂

        There are quite a few on this blog that could play that part as well – they know who they are ….

        …but only one could play the Man in BLACK who is a Pirate… 😉

    • Chris Devine says:

      There is a single supreme binding document of law in the US, the Constitution. Arguments that you should use words or arguments not appearing in that document (DoI, AoC, FP’s) to support unstated intentions (views regarding religion, et al.) of that document are circular.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        And, views of any current person (President, Congressman, Judge, Activist) that use words or agruments not appearing in the Constitution to support unstated intentions (views regarding religion, et al.) are equally circular.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Fair enough, but interpretation of words and arguments that are there leaves plenty to work with and just as much difficulty.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Perhaps “circular” is not really the word I should use when applied to any current person that uses words or arguments not appearing in the Constitution to support unstated intentions. Perhaps I should use the word “suspect” or “unacceptable”.

        What I find interesting is that there are people that will support adherence to the Constitution as the supreme binding document of law in the US when it suits their purposes, and yet when the Constitution as it is written denies them the ability to do something that they believe should be done, suddenly it becomes open to “interpretation”.

        Could one not “interpret” that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence come from the same philosophical school of thought, and therefore the rights enumerated in the Constitution are consistent with the rights described (as having come from the Creator) in the Declaration of Independence?

        Why is one form of “interpretation” superior to the other?

        • Chris Devine says:

          It’s all about agreement and power. Who has the power to make decisions and how they get there is the primary concern of the Constitution. Everything else comes after, but that’s where it gets messy.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Well right now only have one Party with Extreme Liberals in charge and ALL the power and absolutely NO agreement. You got the messy part down Chris!

  26. G-man,
    We’ve touched on this in past posts, but in a nutshell:
    Get involved locally! Whether you run for office or support someone else, do it! Get the word out, send people to this site, if you can’t make the arguments find someone who can make your argument for you. Be involved…though Flag will tell you differently, and much more eloquently than I, eh Flag?

    • Black Flag says:

      Any political activism on the national level is pointless – the game is permanently rigged against the citizenry and in favor of the political elite.

      If one still insists in rolling around in the feces of violent power, I suggest rolling in local and maybe state politics.

      Local level – a person might make a difference.

      State level – a person is unlikely to make a difference, but its possible.

  27. TexasChem says:

    First off a lot of you are not even aware that the beliefs, mores, values that you have; are firmly ingrained in the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN belief system. Even if you are not a practicing christian or jew you should respect that and REALIZE THAT; THAT IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON. Don’t believe me? Read the ten commandments and then Bible ITSELF then tell me which of those beliefs you believe in. After reading the Bible go read the Quran. Then you will understand why Muslims have honor killings and child marriages and RAPE! Thier prophet Mohammed was married to a CHILD of 9! Personally I believe the seperation of church and state is unfounded and that America should REALIZE why it was founded and WHO founded it. If you don’t like the belief system and what this country was founded on then get THE HELL OUT, leave. I am sick of the “movement” to undermine our nation. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Before someone says what right do I have to determine what children learn in school; it was given by the founders of this country. One nation, under god, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all! Christian beliefs. I firmly believe that the social moral degradation of our society in America is because of our society and our nation turning its face away from God. I am not a so called “Bible Thumper” but just a person with enough intelligence that with a little investigating can see what is wrong with our “American society”.

    How in the world some of you can blog on this site saying you want seperation of church and state is beyond my ken. Do you have any idea you would not have the freedom you have today in this country if it was not based upon a christian belief system? You would not be able to voice your opinion as you can here on this blog. The founders wanted seperation of church and government because as colonists leaving a country that persecuted them for thier religious beliefs they wanted to insure it did not happen again but VOILA it has just this time it is the christian faith that is being persecuted in a country founded on christianity.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Wow – I seriously started singing “The Trial” as I read this gem. Are ya following the conversation at all? Rent “Constantine’s Sword” next time you’re at the video store – then you’ll get an idea of where religious zealotry can take you. So all Muslims are rapists eh? Challenging the belief system and its premises is not the same as rejecting it – maybe in the Bo Gritz fantasy land but not mine.

    • Chris Devine says:

      Read the Old Testament before you start condemning Islam. Then realize that all the violence caused in the past and present by followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has been supported in one way or another by the same basic scriptures. They all believe in the same God.

      Religion causes as many problems as it fixes. Relying on it as justification for our own legal system is not going to fix that.

      • Black Flag says:

        I can’t believe it! What happened? An alternative Universe?

        An entire post and two paragraphs that I agree with Chris.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I hate to admit it, but I think Chris is “getting into the swing of things” here on this site. The past few days, I haven’t seen nearly as much “I am right, you are wrong, and if you disagree with me you are an idiot.” as much as I have seen well thought out posts, many of which make a pretty good point.

          I hope you don’t mind my actually throwing a compliment your way there CD 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reasons combined in the history of the world.

        If there is a God (which I personally think there is), then this is probably not God’s fault.

        I personally blame the people that are trying to “interpret” God.

      • TexasChem says:

        http://www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

        There ya go investigate Islam all ya want.

        • TexasChem, Sir
          I went to atlas shrugs ( being a play on a good book’s title i couldn’t refuse), but I gotta tell ya, the problem I have with people and agendas is I have to “try” to figure out the level of honesty. I’m all for dropping the hammer on some screwed up place like that nashville mosque, if the charges are true, obviously an investigation needs to be done. I bought in on that article hook line and sinker. I then read about their take on the F22, ahhh…..the thread beguns to unravel the garment. The F22 is being rolled over into a joint fighter F35 ( i think 35, hell, 35, 36, what ever it takes) because we can not afford a single purpose airframe any longer. The point is, the F22 has not been cancelled because of some nasty conspiericy (damn spell check) as intimated by that article, far from it……so…..that gives me pause now on the credibility of the entire site.

          “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

          • Both aircraft have been in development for quite some time early to mid 90’s.I believe Pamela was stating in the article her anger at the defense cuts in general and the dangers of our miltary not being as well funded as they should be with the cuts.She never said their was a conspiracy.The f35 is a joint development with several nations and is nowhere near the aircraft that the f22 is.The f22 also has ground attack abilities and is not just an air superiority craft.Both are 5th generation, one is cheaper.But anyways thanks for checking out the site.

      • Chris Devine said:

        Read the Old Testament before you start condemning Islam. Then realize that all the violence caused in the past and present by followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has been supported in one way or another by the same basic scriptures.

        TC says: Thats a false statement. Prove it I dare ya’.

        Chris Devine said:
        Religion causes as many problems as it fixes. Relying on it as justification for our own legal system is not going to fix that.

        TexasChem says: Seems to be working ok for the Islamic community. ehh?
        Seriously what would you conside a good standard to set our AMerican Law by? Sharia?

        • Chris Devine says:

          Social contract theory (John Locke, et al.). Distributive Justice (John Rawls). Basically anything that reasonable men and women can come together to create a system of peaceful tolerance. That and legalized psychotropic substances.

        • I’ll take that dare: Proving that the Bible is repulsive

          • We can do this all day long Kent!
            http://www.godandscience.org/

            I didn’t ask to prove to me the Bible was fallacy.

            You prove to me in your words how those three major religions have the same basic scriptures contained within them advocating violence.They are different scriptures of different books in different frames of time in world history that have been interpreted by evil men for evil purposes.

            • What the video I linked to proves is that there is no need to misinterpret the Bible in order to use it to justify atrocities: it is full of whole-hearted endorsement of barbarism of every sort. For every act of insane cruelty promoted by followers of Islam, there is a matching one for followers of Christianity (fortunately most of them conveniently ignore those parts of the Bible at this point in history).

              All that video does is take the Bible’s own words, in context, to show how horrible it really is, if you actually pay attention to the whole thing.

              It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is a fallacy. Something can be repulsive and evil and still true. There are plenty of other parts of the Bible that show conclusively that it is not true. But that is another issue.

              However, the website you linked to is full of misrepresentations of science and outright lies. It constantly puts a false dichotomy in place, and then attempts to trick a person who knows little or nothing about science or the scientific method into choosing between the two false choices (the “Christian answer” and what the website claims is the “scientific view”).

              It is a perfect example of what made me finally admit that Christianity was a sham.

    • USWeapon says:

      TexasChem,

      To be fair, the beliefs, mores, and values that many of us believe in are firmly ingrained in many of the world’s religions. Look across the major religions of the world. In terms of values and principles, you will find far more similarities than differences.

      And One nation, under god, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all! was added significantly later, especially the god part. The founders really didn’t have much to do with that.

      • TexasChem says:

        I agree US.

        Peter,
        Mankind has interpreted scripture to his benefit throughout history. It is a shame.

  28. Ray Hawkins says:

    A Table of the Religious Affiliations of American Founders:

    http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm

    I don’t know how accurate this is – interesting to see some ‘deists’ on there.

    • Great post Ray! Isn’t the internet amazing? More info at our fingertips than the founders could have in decades!

  29. The First Amendment prohibits government from sponsoring or penalizing a particular religion. Yet, the government acts like the First Amendment does the opposite.

    Obviously people are free to believe however they have grown to believe. Where I have an issue is when they use the power of the state to force those who don’t believe the same collection of myths to act as though they do. Don’t pass “laws” based upon your religious beliefs. In all things “legal” a “lowest common denominator” (only those things everyone agrees upon) should be the standard. If not everyone agrees, then it shouldn’t be “law”, though each person could choose to refuse to associate with those who they disagree with. Notice “legal” and “moral” are not equivalent.

    I do believe that Christians are unfairly treated by the state and the mainstream media. That much is obvious. Of course, people who refuse to play the “god game” at all are treated just as harshly by the Christians. If you think Christians are persecuted in our society, try telling people that you have no belief in any god for a while. Even the lowest, most vile scum will berate your lack of faith. I know this from personal experience.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Do you not believe in God Kent? Well, God loves you anyway!

    • This is true, although it is generally carried out by individuals rather than main stream media. It does not justify the judgementalism, but there is a difference. Some of what we are talking about is government related, and the bringing of religiousity into the courts. Some of it is an outcry against the anti-christian vocal minority that seem to permeate the education system and the media. Some of it is an outcry against individual and personal attacks and discrimination against people who divorce themselves from conventionally understood faith altogether. This shows that judging and attempts at influence over the beliefs of others is rampant in all levels of our society. The first place it can be eliminated in government. That is a place where we have legal and historical reasoning for doing so.

  30. Kristian says:

    I can’t claim to know much about the Constitution or any of the other founding documents as I don’t recall being taught those things in school. What I do know is this, the bible is a GUIDE and was probably used as such by the founding fathers. I’m not a bible thumper, so lets just be clear on that, but if used correctly it is a guide on how to live your life, how to treat others and how to be fair. I don’t like the idea of being called a zealot simply because I believe in God. I don’t like the idea that my children can’t say a prayer before a meal at school without some kind of repercussion. I also don’t like what the republican party has done to being a Christian. Because of the republican party Christians are made out to be nutjobs at best and zealots at worst. A true Christian isn’t out to change your mind about your faith, they aren’t out to convert everyone and they aren’t there to judge you because a true christian knows that it isn’t their job to judge. That is for a higher power to do, not me.

    • Kristian, well said.

      US, I at first didn’t think there would be mush for me to talk about, as you covered it so well. But it seems the heave hitters are touching lightly one of your points. 867 priest reported molesting vs 27,000 teachers. The media has been outspoken about the priest, but only reports those teachers where its a male student and female teacher. Sex sells is a principle of news reporting.

      And the media, ACLU and liberals seem to be winning. There have been lawsuits against nativity scenes on church grounds. And if they succeed, will it really change America significantly? Church attendance is declining, so is it perhaps time to let it die a graceful death?

      I think that depends on how you feel about prisons. Ann Coulter claims that 75% of our prison population come from homes with a single mother raising them. We are experiencing a rise in childbirth greater than the baby boom. The largest percentage of them being blacks and hispanics.
      Gloucester High, Mass. made the news a few months back with 17 girls having a pregnancy pact. One was impregnated by a homeless man.

      So maybe its time to cast off religion, or government was seen as an experiment. We tweak the formula a little here and there, every so often.
      One step up and two steps back. (Springsteen)

      But if we are doing away with religion, and take the belief in God out for a moment. Strip religion from our society, and what are you replacing it with? Are we being offered a value system that fits our society’s needs?
      Gloucester High also has an on-site day-care, and baby buggies in their hallways. How many of them are wheeling toward prison, because we have thrown away our founding values and replaced them with 90120 or Desperate Housewives.

      For those of you who don’t believe in God, I suggest you put up with our religion just a little longer, until you agree on a replacement.

      God knows you need something.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Well said Kristian! Sad that we have talked all day on here and your the 1st person to say that. Even me. LOI. You make good points too. I wish you 2 had been here earlier.

      • Thanks Guys! I don’t post often because I don’t feel I have the education to take on some of these guys here, but I do know how I feel about religion. To me it’s a personal thing, not something that you use to beat people over the head with as I have seen many politicians do, most especially republicans. God is not meant to be used as a weapon and some of the things that I have heard and seen done in His name over the years are atrocious, I can’t believe that He condones it. I also don’t believe that religion has any place in politics. Would it make me feel better personally if my representatives believe in God? You betcha! Should it be a requirement? No. Again, religion is a personal choice and should never be used as a weapon or an excuse for violence.

  31. Chris;

    Please explain how “God” is a religion and not the English word depicting the entity that most people in this country believe created this universe?

    I have been taught that Christianity, Buddhism, Islam,and Judaism are religions. God is not a religion. Why would the words “In God We Trust” depict the establishment of a religion when God is not a religion?

    Just curious.

    • Chris Devine says:

      The answer is simply that some people don’t believe in God and they should not be marginalized for their viewpoint given the anti-establishment clause of the first amendment.

      • Chris,
        No one should be marginalized for not believing in a God or gods. There is, however, no constitutional or legal garauntee against this. There is a garauntee that they will not be legally marginalized or forced to participate in any religion. The First Amendment prevents government from doing the marginalization. Unless citizens are being forced to say the pledge including “under God” or aliens being naturalized are forced to say it to become citizens, then there is no real violation on the part of government.

        If a government policy, symbol, activity, or decoration makes you “feel” like you are being marginalized, and that is grounds for a lawsuit against the State, then I sue the government for marginalizing me by saying that I am not as important or deserving of their help as someone who has less than me, or is a minority, or has kids, or is more privy to the workings of the system, or chooses not to find employment, or is losing their house now instead of a year ago like I did. I could sue for all sorts of stuff if feelings were covered by the constitution. But, fortunately, they are not. So, offense because our money has “God” on it, or a courtroom has the Ten Commandments on it, or a town center had a nativity, or a general assembly chose to pray is not a valid basis for a suit. If it were, failure to engage in such activities would also be considered grounds for offense. A government that is A-religious is still supporting a belief system, that of a lack of religion. Don’t you see that a perfect lack of religion is as much a government stamp of approval on a belief system as any disply of a certain religion? It is all hypocrisy and foolishness, and a corruption of the original intent for the First Amendment.

        • Chris Devine says:

          Maybe you didn’t see the article I cited above earlier from the ACLU. It’s worth reading and you’ll see that I agree with most of what you say. However, I don’t really see much of a war on Christianity except by people who don’t realize that there is nothing wrong with displaying religious symbols on government property as long as you give the same opportunity to those of other faiths (or lack thereof), but are mislead into thinking they are doing something wrong.

          That’s a mouthful. Simply:

          People think they shouldn’t do something they are well within their right to do because they are unnecessarily afraid that it will cause trouble.

          I hope that helps.

          • Top ten reasons why the ACLU should be disbanded:

            10. The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…

            My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
            9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

            ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”ACLU Policy #47
            #8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.

            #7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

            #6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.
            #5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

            #4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don’t practice the principles they preach.

            Take a walk into the NYCLU’s Manhattan headquarters – which it shares with other organizations – and you’ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
            #3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

            In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.

            “The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”

            The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”
            #2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

            As legislative counselfor the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.
            There is no doubt the The ACLU are perverting the Constitution.
            #1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money. What more can I say on this one?

            • Chris Devine says:

              Show me where you find that the ACLU is funded using tax dollars:

              http://aclu.org/about/financialannualreports/index.html

              The rest of your assertions I won’t address because they concern everything except the legal justification for their views. If you want to discuss law then I’ll go along. If you want to talk about everything but the law, you walk alone.

              • The ACLU has been
                collecting taxpayer-funded attorneys’ fees in Establishment Clause cases.

                wealthy public-interest law firms – such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or AU – that represent their clients for free. Instead of declining to accept these fees, these anti-Christian law firms use the fee awards as legal blackmail against small county and municipal defendants that do not have the tax revenue to cover such fees if they lose. Establishment Clause jurisprudence has become so antagonistic to expressions of our faith that many local governments are not willing to gamble with taxpayer money and therefore surrender to ACLU demands that every vestige of religion be removed from the public square. Often a threatening letter or phone call from the ACLU is all it takes for these governments to give up without a fight.

                A survey of recent legal fee awards in these cases shows why governments are reluctant to defend the right to publicly acknowledge God. In San Diego, Calif., the ACLU received $940,000 for kicking the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In Barrow County, Ga., the county paid the ACLU $150,000 to avoid a trial for its posting the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Not to be outdone, in Dover, Pa., the trial court ordered the district’s school board to pay the ACLU and AU $2 million for attempting to teach intelligent design in the schools.

              • I didn’t say funded Chris. I said they fulfill thier agenda using my tax payer dollars.Bogus cases that allow them to be paid with taxpayer dollars. I’ll give you several more examples if I need to.IMO These organizations have one agenda and that is to cause social discord and confusion amongst the people to fulfill whatever their agenda is.

          • It does help. I think, however, that some of the fear of getting in trouble has to do with the results of some of the ACLU cases. Perhaps it is not the ACLU itself, but the media coverage of them. I like some of the ACLU’s work, and I dislike some of it as well. Too many of their cases have resulted in restrictions on the actions of individuals in government and on government property, even tho they are citizens. This is in direct violation of the first amendment.

            I need to do some research of specific cases for you so that you see what I am talking about, but I do not have time at the moment. It is also possible that I am basing this off of what I have heard about the cases rather than the decisions themselves, but the end result is exactly what you were talking about, people not doing things because they think they will get in trouble. That has been the result of cases the ACLU has won, not just the result of situations where the ACLU has not yet stepped in. In fact, I would submit that the effect of a suit won in court would be far more daunting and misleading if it is unclear than the actions of a government assembly, such as holding a prayer to open a legislative session. I don’t know of anyone who was actually intimidated by that, or would see that as a restriction on their personal beliefs. The people crying out against that are citing offense, not intimidation. The people decrying the ACLU are talking about actual or perceived legal restriction on their actions as a result of the cases. This may not be the intent of the ACLU suits, but it is certainly the result.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I guess I also take issue with attempts to insert God on money and buildings and into the ‘Pledge’ when it is an insincere appeal to people’s beliefs just to gain political support. That’s why I linked to the other articles above.

      • You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care, but that is not an answer.

        God is a word. Nothing more or nothing less. If YOU choose to believe in what YOU think God is, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!

        However, you do NOT have the right to force others to believe as you do.

        If the majority of the population of this country wants to have the words “In God We Trust” imprinted on our money, and you do not like it, then you do not have to touch that money – THAT IS YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!

        Remember that “God” is not, nor ever has been a religion. Your complaint that using the word God is implying a religion is not founded in any fact. Therefore having the word God in our pledge of allegiance, and printed on our money DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ESTABLISHING A RELIGION in any way shape or form.

        But then YOU would never admit to that.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I’m not sure why you’re getting so upset. I’m not particularly bothered by the “In God We Trust” thing. I just find the reason for it’s occurrence pretty shallow. Appeals to God to gain political support for a particular agenda is what I’m concerned with.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I also take issue with anything where the justification is primarily that the majority feels one way or another. Without checks to ensure that the individual rights of those in the minority are preserved we can be seen as a nation of bullies.

        • “If the majority of the population of this country wants to have the words ‘In God We Trust’ imprinted on our money, and you do not like it, then you do not have to touch that money – THAT IS YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!

          Actually, it isn’t. The government forces you to use that money when dealing with it and its minions, including paying fees, licenses, fines and “taxes” (all colorful metaphors for “theft”). As I see it, you have a myth endorsing a counterfeit currency. Funny from any angle. Until it is enforced at gun-point. But like I said before, the government owns the money and can put any nonsense on it that it wants. It still doesn’t make it worth more.

          • Kent you can always immigrate to a country where it’s not printed on there if you don’t agree with it.

            Thats a freedom you have as an American, you don’t have to live here. Course if you immigrate make sure it is not to a country where you could be pressed into service working for 10 cents a day!

            • USWeapon says:

              Ah but the beauty of America is that Kent is free to live his life as he sees fit right where he is. He doesn’t have to leave America because he disagrees with anything. And why should he. Should we be asking all non-christians to adhere to christian will or they arefree to leave. If that is America, I would no longer be interested.

            • SFC Dick says:

              ‘Cmon now TexasChem, You were just on the top of my favorite dude list, for posting this

              “Kent can run around naked in the woods toting an M60 and a bag full of grenades as far as I am concerned. As long as he does no harm or threatens no harm I see no problem with it.”

              It shouldn’t come down to the “love it or leave it” tripe, should it. Ah, I’m thinking, after reading many of your posts, that this last one was just not laid out the way you wanted it. I’m bettin’ there is no way in hell you would allow yourself to devolve into a “love it or leave it” argument.

              “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

          • Black Flag says:

            Tex,

            That is such a tired, poor, argument.

            You’d accept this argument back – ??

            If someone is stealing your couch, why are you complaining? You can always abandon your house if you don’t like it!!

            • Chris Devine says:

              Not that I accept the ‘love it or leave it’ stance, but how many families live in your house? How many families live in the USA?

              It’s just a bad counter-example.

    • G.A., That is a point I made earlier. I cannot say that having the Ten Commandments or certain proverbs to be viewed in a government building or school as promoting any particular religion. I see it as historical evidence on how our nation was crafted. Any other meaning given to our history is , in my opinion, absolutely stupid. Our nation was built on these ideals, and those words prove it.

      • Personally I kind of like the ten commandments, particularly the part about treating others as you would have others treat you.

        Out of my basic curiosity I have been trying to find more complete translations of the Qumran scrolls – aka the dead sea scrolls – as I heard that sometime ago the Jesuits had a death grip on them for fear that they would prove that Jesus did not exist. Since Israel has been given control over them all I have been able to find out is that they more or less parallel the Christian Bible in their descriptions and teachings. Not much else.

        I have also learned over the years that no matter how you try to explain the morality contained within some religious teachings, the dyed-in-the-wool anti-religious set close their collective ears and minds. I do understand that religion – and by that I mean ALL religion – has played a very important part in the progression of the Human race from the caves to the present form of humanity. Whether we as individuals choose to believe in one or the other of the various religious teachings, religion has shaped this world into the condition that it is in now, for better or worse. It is just that some folks refuse to even consider that.

        • Chris Devine says:

          That’s the golden rule, not the ten commandments.

          The question isn’t whether religion can form a basis for moral action. Of course it can. The question is whether it is necessary to do so. That remains to be seen and my suspicion is that a system of morals can be derived without appeals to a supernatural being or an afterlife.

          • Ok, where would you pull your morals? What documented civilization has morals and values not derived from a religious affiliation? Where do mores and values come from Chris? The little voice in your head telling you right from wrong? Id? Ego? Or do you believe that a psychotropic drug such as Thorazine would enable you to develope your own morals? LOL

            • Chris Devine says:

              You skipped right over my suggestions for moral justifications and when straight for the drug reference.

              As far as thorazine goes, from what I recall it’s an antipsychotic. I was more or less referring to psychedelics (which in some cases induce psychoses rather than fight it, but that’s a different story).

            • Chris Devine says:

              The ‘little voice in your head’ argument cuts both ways, don’t you think?

          • Yep, your right. It isn’t in the ten commandments. I have someone that I fondly call my Jewish mother-in-law who has called me and vehemently corrected me on that bit.

            “The question isn’t whether religion can form a basis for moral action. Of course it can. The question is whether it is necessary to do so. That remains to be seen and my suspicion is that a system of morals can be derived without appeals to a supernatural being or an afterlife.”

            You need to re-read my last paragraph. Religion was the first “school” for mankind. The religious scholars were the first teachers. Religion has had a profound effect on the makup of human nature since the beginning of time.

            Darwinians, I am told, cannot explain exactly how humans came into being. Theologians, I am told, have decided that God created us in his own image. Again, God is NOT a religion.

            Religion HAS dictated our morality from the gitgo, whether we like to admit it or not. Bhudda, Mohammed, Jesus, Judaism, Shintoism, and even the Mayan religions listed what was considered moral behavior and what was not considered moral behavior in all their writings from the very beginnings. Even the old Roman Gods, the Egyptian Gods, and the Greek Gods have dictated what morality is or is not. The fact remains that we Humans cannot, and never have been able to figure out on our own what we should consider moral or not without some sort of “higher power” (if you wish, call it something else) providing the guidelines. Even still, guys like me have had to dedicate our lives to following some rule of law to keep those who have no moral conscience away from those who have. Our law has to have some sort of basic beginning. Whether you like it or not, our law was founded in the Christian beliefs of those who wrote our Constitution. I happen to think that they are some pretty good laws.

            • Chris Devine says:

              The Greek and Roman gods weren’t moral in the sense of the word you use. They had competing interests and often used deceit and abused their powers to satisfy their selfish goals.

              Please explain to me how the adoption of British common law shows our reliance on biblical notions of justice. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that many of the men who helped write the Constitution were not Christians.

          • The golden rule is standard in many religions. In christianity it is in matthew chp12 verse 7 if I’m not mistaken. Thats in the new testament but it’s mentioned in Leviticus in the old testament as well.

            matthew chp:12 verse:7 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

            • USWeapon says:

              So the true question then Texas is whether you are willing to accept a different point of view as valid for someone else? You are free to believe what you believe. Is an atheist free to believe that it happened the other way around? By that I mean that morals existed before religion and that the fictional writings we now know as the Bible told their stories based on the morals of the society that created them? I am not saying that is what I believe, but posing a it as a hypothetical question. Is an atheist not capable of having morals? Because from everything I have seen Kent has a pretty strong moral base yet subscribes to no god. I do believe that morals are quite capable without religion. Tribes long ago had no idea what god was or how anything came to be, but they still treated each other with respect and acted with a moral base. The American indian had a “religion” that made them heathens to Christians, but they had a solid moral base and firm principles of social behavior.

              • US:So the true question then Texas is whether you are willing to accept a different point of view as valid for someone else?

                TC:Yes, as long as their point of view does not infringe upon my rights or harm my family and friends.Christianity has become a very tolerant religion, that has not always been so; perhaps too tolerant but thats another topic ehh.

                US:Kent has a pretty strong moral base yet subscribes to no god.

                TC:Kent can run around naked in the woods toting an M60 and a bag full of grenades as far as I am concerned. As long as he does no harm or threatens no harm I see no problem with it.

                US:The American indian had a “religion” that made them heathens to Christians, yet a strong moral base.

                TC:I grew up with the Alabama/Coushatta tribe reservation 10 miles from my home. I went to school from kindergarten to highschool with them.Here is an example of what I meant by understanding history and the things that happened from a context of knowing the people that were calling the shots during that time frame ARE not the same people that are living today.The American Indian was a victim of Manifest Destiny.Once again mankind using religion as a tool to impose his will.True christians do not believe nor behave in that manner.

            • Chris Devine says:

              There’s some stuff in Leviticus that isn’t so universal too. Don’t eat shellfish, shave your beard, wear the color red, etc.

          • Black Flag says:

            It is not just the Golden Rule….

            …but the single commandment from the Nazarene and found in the Talmud, Koran, and the Analects of Confucius).

            …and of Socrates (Dictes and Sayenges of the Philosophirs, 1477): “Do to other as thou wouldst they should do to thee, and do to none other but as thou wouldst be done to.”

            It’s more than Golden….its defining civilization.

            • Chris Devine says:

              A minor note:

              Socrates is believed to have lived from 469–399 BCE. Plus, he never wrote anything. All we know about him is from the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

              It’s pretty difficult to ascribe things to those who never wrote anything themselves (especially when what we do ‘know’ is from people who likely never met the man). See where I’m going with this?

          • Black Flag says:

            G. A.,

            Recall the Ten Commandments I’m sure everyone is talking about are NOT the Ten Commandments set forth in the Bible.

            (Remember previous post on that subject?)

            I’m not sure if this supports Chris’ contention on the Constitution or not, or if it supports mine (and who knows what that is…(yes, folks, that was a test)..)….

            …but…

            if a book that has been around for, oh, roughly 1500 years can’t even get one of the most quoted and revered parts of its story straight….

            ….how the heck will anyone get the Constitution straight?

            • BF,

              My thoughts on the bible are that it has been written, re-written, translated, re-translated, defined, re-defined, into so many languages over so long a period . . . . . Get the picture?

              Maybe our Constitution is getting to look like that . . .

              I have a good friend who is a Baptist Pastor and I have a real hard time getting him to discuss the events in the bible without him going off on a sermon at me. He still hasn’t answered the original question of “If Adam and Eve were the only two humans on earth, then they had two sons and one son killed the other one, then went off and got a wife . . . Where did the wife come from?”

              I know, that is a childish question. I have always believed that Adam and Eve were a different sort of human (whatever that means) that God put here to spruce up the planet, then they “mingled” with the then inhabitants and the rest is biological history.

              However we do derive our moral standards from the multitude of religions that have dotted our human existence from whatever our humble beginnings were.

              Just my humble opinion.

        • G.A.,
          I think you’ll find what you’re looking for in the Apocryphal Bible. These are the gospels that were “discarded” at the Council of Nicaea. There is much debate and gnashing of teeth of what exactly happened and at which of the many “Councils of Nicaea”. Most took place in the 4th century. My understanding of it (and I am no scholar!) is that the books showing Jesus to be a man were left out, and those showing him to be divine were left in. Very interesting reading!

  32. USWeapon says:

    I moved this down here for readability:

    Just A Citizen said
    April 9, 2009 at 2:12 pm e
    Chris:

    That is a better phrase than the one you used first. But that was not my issue with your position of determining constitutionality of any law. I infered your meaning as you have restated it. It was your comments about how that “understanding” should change with time. My point regarding theories was that there are more than one and even two. As a hobbyist in law you know that but didn’t disclose other options. I confess that neither did I, as I was focused only on rebutting your stated position by providing the opposite. Which happen to be my prefered theory as it is most consistent with the founders stated intent.

    As for the “arrogance” comment it was aimed at this: “While you’re at it you can brush up on your thoughts about how the human mind works, or human language. That’s my specialty.”

    That is at least the second time you have tried to place your intellect and knowledge above my own. Without provocation I might add. If you are the expert in the use of the English language then be explicit in what you mean. I have noticed that everytime someone calls you on an insult or some other vague premise you respond with that was not what I meant. At first I bought it. Now I am not so sure. That is one of those old tricks I told you about way back when. If its not challenged let it stick, if it is deny it.

    I hope that is not really your style.

    • Chris Devine says:

      My response to your arrogance assertion was in the same tone of voice as and certainly no harsher than your post I was responding to.

      You and the others are free to see my style in any way you choose. I don’t think I am being crafty or trying to mince words, but that’s not for me to judge is it?

  33. Chris:

    What is your definition of a “Liberal” and “Extreme Liberal”

    • Chris Devine says:

      I think that all services that can reasonably considered a necessity (utilities, health care, etc.) should be nationalized. Education should be free as long as you make a real effort to succeed. Anything that consenting adults want to do to themselves that doesn’t affect the person or property of someone else should be legal (sex, drugs, rock and roll). Etc.

      How many members of Congress would agree to all that? Seriously.

      • CD, I enjoy reading your posts, with that said, havn’t you noticed that everything the govt. sticks their nose becomes a complete disaster! The whole housing mess was caused by govenment gettin involved in a free and fair market. We already have a form of socialized healthcare that is a disaster, it’s called State run Workers Comp. I could write 10000 or more words on the nightmare that it really is. I won’t here. In the last month, Britain’s social healthcare officials announced that breast cancer medicine was too expensive and will no longer be offered!!!! Those are just some short examples of my personnal disdain for anything being government run. I do respect your position, but would have to fight like hell to keep your position from ever happening! PEACE!

        G

        • Chris Devine says:

          What’s the difference between the state telling you that drugs are too expensive and your pharmacist telling you that your private insurance doesn’t cover them? Perhaps the real issue is the insistence of the pharmaceutical companies that they should be able to gouge us for life saving medicines (they’ll call it necessary profits to fund research, but a glance at a market prospectus might suggest otherwise).

      • Chris, you said;

        “Anything that consenting adults want to do to themselves that doesn’t affect the person or property of someone else should be legal (sex, drugs, rock and roll). Etc”

        The unfettered use of any narcotic does not only harm the individual using it, but that individuals future generations as well. Therefore the use of drugs(narcotics) is NOT nor has ever been a harmless crime.

        Just my opinion.

        • Chris Devine says:

          I never said unfettered use. Like I’ve said before, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. It is precisely when personal choices have public consequences that it comes time to intervene.

          • Is it OK then to say, if your position on socializing things would infringe on my Constitutional Rights to freedom that I can therefore initiate public consequences?

            • Chris Devine says:

              Sure, as long as you’re willing to admit that as a result of deregulation and unchecked greed, private choices have had public consequences.

            • Black Flag says:

              Every action has consequences.

              The consequences of the actions of free men are far less disagreeable then the actions of those that belief they have a right to overrule the peaceful actions of freemen.

              • Chris Devine says:

                I’ll concede that point if you’ll concede that the actions of free men aren’t always as peaceful as you would have us believe. Given that scarcity is an economic reality, there is nothing more violent than depriving a man of sustenance through another man’s (or country’s) greed.

              • Black Flag says:

                Reply at bottom ~#39

    • TexasChem says:

      That would be as difficult as trying to figure out the difference between a moderate Muslim and an extreme Muslim in my opinion. There is no difference, even thier religious leaders state that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

  34. Yikes, was out for the day and it’s taken me nearly an hour to get through all the comments. USW, your blog has a great following, which is a real credit to you and your articles.

    Just a quick note, here in my neck of the woods, we deal constantly with the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” which is based in Madison. Lots of discussion on here about rights granted to us of “freedom of religion”, well this group wants NO religion anywhere, however, they always seem more concentrated on Christianity, perhaps because that is the dominant religion in this area. They fight against everything, including having stores having different hours on days like Easter Sunday, Christmas Day; schools being closed on Good Friday; and city workers putting up Christmas decorations on the lightposts.

    I get real tired of their tactics and often wonder where they get their direction in life. But, in the name of diversity and tolerance, we put up with them.

    • Kathy do me a favor and see if you can find out who is funding that organization please? Thanks!

    • Chris Devine says:

      Private businesses should be free to open and close as they see fit. Growing up on the border of PA and MD I remember when the only stores that were allowed to be open in MD on Sundays were those considered necessities (grocery stores, pharmacies). That was due to the so-called blue laws. Laws requiring you to close your business based on religious reasons seem like a pretty straightforward violation of the anti-establishment clause. In addition making public services unavailable on religious holidays seems like an obvious violation as well.

      • I’M AGREEING WITH CHRIS ON SOMETHING! Yes, private businesses should be able to set their own hours and as far as I’m aware, there are no laws requiring them to change their hours on hoidays, it’s their choice. But this group FFRF, tries to fight this.

  35. USWeapon says:

    Just for the record everyone, tonight’s new post will focus on interpretation of the constitution. I look forward to everyone’s thoughts as I try to determine where I fall on this subject.

  36. If i am not mistaken , Chris said allah the moon god that islam idolizes is the same as the God of the Bible and black flag agreed.Also that most of the the violence was from the gods of islam and early Judiasm and Christianity.Satan, the ruler of this world has duped many into thinking all the suffering and wars in this world is Gods fault and skip right over the freedom of choice that mans has been bestoed as having anything to do with it. Ive seen countries that do not have the light of the holy spirit around,the pestilence, famine , ruthless warlords killing millions when these places arent being hit with natural disasters. We could argue semantics and devine plans all night.. the bottom line though is once you have a born again experience and see the light ,none of the Aclulegalese and scientific hypothesis have that much weight anymore

    ex. science has aliens coming from far away galaxies even though they cant even pick up a single sign wave. religion has them coming from close by in an alternate dimension. History has documented them as woodland faieries and the like and the bible in Ezekiel described the craft as chariots of fire. science glorified them for 20th century man and has them in space ships from far away galaxies t them;they arent demons their advanced beings. See the unbelieving have been blinded from the truth as their not from God. Peace

    • Chris Devine says:

      That’s ‘divine plans’ not ‘Devine plans.’ You won’t have much luck arguing about my plans.

      Regarding your other points check out Carl Sagan’s, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It has more than a few examples the shed some light on this matter.

  37. SFC Dick says:

    ACLU-legalease
    Man, I’m getting to old, or something, for this. I’ve been looking up “aclulegalease” as it is in the bottom line. I’m thinking, “man..aclulegalease, are those some leauge of dudes, maybe greeks, or some greek dude, aclutes and his folks. I gotta educate myself otherwise be exposed the class dunce. I’m thinking “if aclulegalease has now eight, do I follow any of the philosophy, unwittingly, has it become a part of my id”?
    wheh, I’m relieved now, ACLU legal-ease. Heck, I know what that is and don’t give it any credit at all.

    “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

  38. Sure Chris, i will look for Sagans book as i havent read that one.
    Sorry about the late night spelling SFC. I couldnt add any characters without others being erased hence the new word- lol.. but not that you have to give it any credit, just be aware of the powerful men behind it and the influence they have on the masses.

  39. Black Flag says:

    Chris

    Black Flag

    Every action has consequences.

    The consequences of the actions of free men are far less disagreeable then the actions of those that belief they have a right to overrule the peaceful actions of freemen.

    Chris Devine s

    I’ll concede that point if you’ll concede that the actions of free men aren’t always as peaceful as you would have us believe.

    It isn’t necessary to concede that point at all, as it is my point, made many times in the past.

    Of course, I know you’ve not been here long enough to read the million posts of the past to know that. So I’m glad we are, at least, in alignment on the specific point.

    Forces of violence, such as government, cannot solve poverty, disease, nor prevent disasters, etc. What the forces of violence does cause is, obviously, violence and as a consequence, slavery.

    Freedom cannot solve poverty, disease nor prevent disasters, etc., nor can it prevent violence, but we are free.

    It is by the actions and work of man that solves problems.

    The question is, what guides that action of man into solutions?

    Is the guide of actions based from coercion and violence, or is it based on morals derived from freedom of all men?

    Given that scarcity is an economic reality, there is nothing more violent than depriving a man of sustenance through another man’s (or country’s) greed.

    I accept your given, but I do not agree with the remainder of your statement.

    All men are equal in the eyes of God. And that is the only place they are equal.

    It takes violence to seize a man’s property and use that property in ways not intended by the owner.

    A starving man starves when I am not there.

    Should he still be starving when I am there, his starving is not my cause.

    Therefore, it is not my right nor your right to claim my culpability to his condition.

    It becomes my choice, on my reason, from my own thoughts on how, if at all, I interact with my fellow men. If I chose to act, I am moral if my actions to not impose upon other men, including the starving man.

    If I chose not to act, no moral determination can be made as moral determination can only be made in judgment of action, not non-action.

    It can not be used against non-action because the universe/situation does not change if I do not act.

    If I am not there, the universe/situation is as it is. If I am there, but do not act, the universe/situation is as it is, that is, it does not change.

    To judge me in the latter would be to equally judge the universe in the former. To judge the universe is irrational.

  40. Black Flag says:

    Kristian

    Thanks Guys! I don’t post often because I don’t feel I have the education to take on some of these guys here

    I sincerely hope that you (and others) don’t feel this way.

    Certainly some may have more education then others, but that does not mean your thoughts and beliefs are wrong, malformed, incorrect or weak.

    Obviously, you’re alive. You’ve overcome nature’s desire to kill you. You’ve succeeded because you’ve made good choices at times it was necessary.

    Good choices comes from good thinking (or amazing good luck).

    I’m betting that in your case, in came from good thinking.

    • USWeapon says:

      Exactly Kristian. Please don’t ever think that you can’t take anyone on. One of two things will happen: you will learn from your mistakes in thinking by hearing the responses that you get or you will inspire a conversation that identifies a flaw in their thinking. I know so many people who don’t think they are smart enough to engage in political conversation (some might argue that I am one of them). But the alternative is to go on believing something that is wrong or flawed. For my part, I know that there is a lot that I don’t know, so I am OK with everyone tearing apart my arguments because I get to learn what they know!

    • pookisaurusrex says:

      I know that I have learned a lot sine I have been coming to this site simply by reading the many posts on these threads. I am so glad that I found this! Thank you for your encouragement, it is needed and appreciated. Happy Easter!

  41. Yes, it’s true, Christians have had to go underground to worship, so persecuted are they here in the USA. Seriously, are there any Christians in the Senate or the House? I don’t think so. Christians running major American corporations? I can’t think of any. Here in New York we’ve converted all the churches to discos or soup kitchens … I don’t know what Christians do when they want to pray with their fellow believers. Meet secretly in their ghetto apartments? I hear that Mayor Bloomberg (a Jew!!!) has proposed a law that makes saying “Merry Christmas” in public a hate crime.

    Really, people, get a life. Our economy is imploding, Iraq and Afghanastan are slipping back to the dark ages … and you’re worried about the fate of poor Christians in the USA?

    Evan Adamson
    readtakeover.com

  42. I’ve gotta say I’m learning a lot (which I do appreciate), I also believe in God.

    This country did very well under God, Family, Country.
    Now it has or is turning towards Welfare, Country…Empty.

    Christianity is a not a boxed religion. It’s not about war or democrats or republicans. It’s about knowing good and hoping good for all. If your religion chases and intimidates others into their ideology…that’s not God.

    For the life of me…I do not understand the effort to eliminate a “good thing” and Christianity is good. I also do not understand why this president would bring higher taxes on gifts to the poor… other than to replace God with government.

  43. Chris Devine says:

    I wish I had written this:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/christian_nation

    ‘Nuff said there.

  44. I haven’t taken the time to read all of the above posts, so I apologize if this has already been stated.

    I was very disturbed a while back to see pro-gay marriage activists standing outside of a church chanting “separate church and state.” I believe this is an excellent example of the religious intolerance alive in this country today. I constantly have friends tell me that it is wrong to make laws such as those banning gay marriage because it is imposing our belief on others. I am greatly aggrieved by this situation and simply must rant for a moment.

    When I step into the voting booth, I must weigh in my mind what I believe is right and wrong as pertaining to the law or politician for which I am voting. I will not vote for something that I think is immoral, nor for the person I think ill suited for the position. I believe everyone should and must vote in this way, otherwise how can we trust or believe in our laws and government. If my values come from my religion, can I now not use them as my moral guide? Must I disregard my own conscience in order to support someone else’s opinion, even one I believe is wrong? When does a law not impose some moral judgment on its citizens? If Prop 8 had failed, would it not have been imposing the values of its opposers upon Christians. If gay marriage is allowed, do Christians become preachers of hate because they believe homosexuality is a sin?

    It seems to me that “atheist” America (I use quotes because not all atheist Americans think this way) wants to impose their values upon Christians (and other religions of course). They want us to disregard all that our religion teaches us when it is contrary to their opinions. This is not separation of church and state, it is dominion of state over church, exactly the thing that caused people to immigrate to this country in the first place.

    For those of you who support gay marriage, who think it is a civil right, fight for it. Don’t sacrifice your values because the majority of the country opposes you. For those of you who oppose gay marriage, who think it is a sin or unnatural, fight against it. Don’t sacrifice your values because the opposition tells you you are wrong. But everyone, look in your hearts and consider what you think is right and wrong and stand for it. If it comes from religion it is no less worthy that any secular opinion. That is the foundation upon which this country is made. You have the freedom to believe in and practice your religion and shape your life about its principles.

    I pray constantly that our nation would seek and find Truth and Justice.

    God Bless America!

Trackbacks

  1. […] Silencing Christianity « Stand Up For America […]

%d bloggers like this: