We Got Mail!

Opinion • Views: 3,392

Sure enough, after my post yesterday on respecting the Constitution and opposing theocracy, the hate mail started pouring in, from self-labeled “Christians.” There are four of them this morning, but I’ll just post this one because the others are banal and uninteresting. (The contact form has an explicit notice: “Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.”)

The title of this one was “not a hate mail…”, which seems a bit inaccurate.

….but I respectfully take a parting dissent to your claim that Christian activism that “desires” to change the Constitution is “not conservative and unamerican.”

Sir, wishing to change the Constitution is NOT unAmerican…. if you accept that yours is a minority view and not able to pass. Taking up arms when you can’t get your way? THAT is “unAmerican.”

By labeling all Christians who refuse to shut up and simply “pray, pay and obey” secularists like you as un-American, you have just consigned a good 1/3 of the population to un-personhood…. and 2/3 of the GOP to non-participation in a representative government whose takes they must still pay.

No sir. We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us. Otherwise, get used to outer darkness yourselves. The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Goodbye.

Richard L. Kent, Esq.

Good grief. What do you even say to something like that?

UPDATE at 2/15/09 9:52:14 am:

I wonder if Richard L. Kent, Esq., realizes that he’s echoing a slogan used by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement?

“We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us.”

“We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.”

UPDATE at 2/15/09 10:33:09 am:

Here’s Richard L. Kent, Esq., posting a comment for an article at the Times Online:

A most wise man once said, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” What are the fruits of scientific atheism when applied to human behavior and governance?

Auschwitz. Gulag. The Laogai. Reeducation camps. Babi Yar. Dachau. Srebrenica. The Cultural Revolution.

To Hell with atheism, Mr. Whyte.

(Hat tip: Thanos.)

Jump to bottom

558 comments
1 jcm  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:28:42am

Richard L. Kent, Esq.

You sir do not understand, The Bible, The Constitution, or Science.

Good riddance.

2 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:29:21am
3 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:29:36am
4 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:30:10am
You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Sir, and I use the term loosely, you can't shit on my Constitutional rights and expect help from me. It doesn't work that way.

5 ArmyWife  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:30:13am

Esquire, huh? The jury is out on that one.

6 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:18am

re: #2 Erik The Red
What the hell?

7 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:21am
You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help.

Definitely does NOT work for PortaPotty.

8 summergurl  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:24am
We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us.

The Gay and Lesbian folks want their slogan back...

9 TheAntichrist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:30am

"Richard L. Kent, Esq"

Esquire?

10 ArmyWife  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:42am

2 deleted already? Holy Record Breaking, Batman!

11 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:44am

What does he--an attorney no less--not understand about this?

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.

12 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:50am

Dear Mr. Kent,

Please stop trying to impose your idiotic views on others and go back to the farm with Martha and Clark.

Sincerely, LGF

13 Pastorius  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:31:55am

Wishing to change the Constitution and making it a Christian Theocracy is not allowed by the Constitution itself.

Likewise, Sharia law is absolutely incompatible with Western government.

And yet, a politician in Norway said, "If Muslims become the majority, they can vote for Sharia. That's Democracy."

That is a completely wrong-headed notion of Western Democracy.

14 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:32:04am

They were 'first' comments.

15 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:32:05am

I also oppose theocracies. Especially those run by or heavily influenced by a particular expansionist religion primarily based in southwest Asia and North Africa.

16 jcm  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:32:07am

re: #4 Sharmuta

Sir, and I use the term loosely, you can't shit on my Constitutional rights and expect help from me. It doesn't work that way.

What till he finds out he shat on everything he thinks he's protecting.

17 Irish Rose  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:32:21am

Now lets' talk about the fundamentalist jackboots on the right.
Like you.

18 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:32:45am

re: #5 ArmyWife

He sounded quite lawyerlike, didn't he?

19 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:32:46am

re: #8 summergurl

The Gay and Lesbian folks want their slogan back...

I'm beginning to think that the fringe of many persuasions borrow from each other.

20 jcm  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:32:56am

re: #9 TheAntichrist

"Richard L. Kent, Esq"

Esquire?

Esquire.... south end of north bound mule.

21 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:33:06am

re: #10 ArmyWife
Nah, wait until later and see how many total. Of course idjits who post "first" don't count. So you mabe right.

22 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:33:11am

re: #14 Charles

They were 'first' comments.

Oh, dear. Maybe a smidgen too much single malt.

23 summergurl  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:33:13am

re: #19 MandyManners

I'm beginning to think that the fringe of many persuasions borrow from each other.

Definite lack of original thought.

24 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:33:19am

Any from Genexer?

25 Pastorius  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:33:55am

When we say "Democracy" in the Western world, what we mean is, a Democratic Republic under a Constitution which protects Human Rights.

26 summergurl  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:34:12am

re: #14 Charles

They were 'first' comments.


Newbies---- (((spit)))))

27 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:34:12am

re: #24 BigPapa
He has left the building.

28 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:34:31am

re: #24 BigPapa

Any from Genexer?

I can't believe I fell for what was clearly a staged protest leading to suicide.

29 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:34:42am

re: #27 pingjockey

He has left the building.

She.

30 ratherdashing  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:34:48am
The title of this one was “not a hate mail...”, which seems a bit inaccurate

I dunno. Mr. Kent isn't hating, he's just responding with passion. I've received hateful emails in the past. This one isn't.

31 Erik The Red  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:35:00am

re: #14 Charles

They were 'first' comments.

re: #22 MandyManners

Oh, dear. Maybe a smidgen too much single malt.

Maybe sorry Charles. Was trying to be a smart ass. Didn't work. Thought the pic was cute though.

32 TheAntichrist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:35:21am

At any rate IMHO for every young earth creationist out there who would stop voting for GOP candidates who oppose their agenda of theocracy and bible-based science there's 5 people so turned off by their agenda that they either don't vote or hold their nose and vote for the Dems.

33 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:35:30am
The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

Actually- historically, the GOP can't win when it alienates the fiscal conservatives.

1992, 1996, 2006- all blow back from fiscal conservatives saying "ENOUGH!"

Republicans do better when they push for fiscal sanity like they did in 1994.

34 Irish Rose  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:35:31am
You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Elitist fundamentalist asshole.

35 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:35:42am

re: #31 Erik The Red

Maybe sorry Charles. Was trying to be a smart ass. Didn't work. Thought the pic was cute though.

I trust you've forgotten the Iron Fist Rule?

36 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:35:50am

Why is it always jackboots? It's the favorite clichéboot of angry posters.

More to the point, the GOP will never win national power again if it can be tagged as a theocratic movement. 'Richard Kent' could just as well be a DNC moby, encouraging the right to remain marginalized.

37 Haverwilde  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:35:53am

Richard L. Kent,
As we saw last November, you can't win even with our help. Your causes sink any hope of a rational administration in D.C. If you want to avoid the Jackboots of the left, accept the freedoms our Constitution gives you and all of us, accept the limitations on implementing a theocracy, accept the individual liberties enshrined in that document which now include freedom to choose an abortion, and freedom to choose a sexual partner of your own sex.
Then we can all get together and work for a conservative constitutionally limited government.

38 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:36:32am

I'm wondering if Mr. Kent holds the exact same religious beliefs that I do, and if he doesn't, why does he think he should the right to force me to believe as he does?

Charles, maybe one day you'll get an e-mail with an answer to that question in it. I would be very interested to see it, if you do.

39 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:36:32am

re: #31 Erik The Red

Maybe sorry Charles. Was trying to be a smart ass. Didn't work. Thought the pic was cute though.

You can only aspire to be an esquire.

40 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:36:49am

Sounds like an ultimatum.

We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us. Otherwise, get used to outer darkness yourselves. The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Were we asking for their help? What is he referring to here?
Who is this Richard L. Kent, Esq.? The name sounds vaguely familiar....

41 Erik The Red  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:36:57am

re: #35 MandyManners

I trust you've forgotten the Iron Fist Rule?

Didn't think I was there yet. Maybe I must stop thinking and just lurk.

42 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:37:07am

re: #19 MandyManners

I'm beginning to think that the fringe of many persuasions borrow from each other.

The "far-" mindset comes in a wide variety of political and religious persuasions. The same (abnormal) psychology is common to all.

/amateur talking, but dammit, I know I'm right

43 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:37:09am

re: #28 MandyManners

I can't believe I fell for what was clearly a staged protest leading to suicide.

The upside - genexer would have a difficult time making a case that anybody piled on and was rude.

44 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:37:25am

I Googled Richard L. Kent, Esq. and found this.

45 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:37:26am

You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help

Holy shit! Not very Christian.

46 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:37:29am

re: #40 notutopia

Sounds like an ultimatum.

That's because it is. They think they can hold our party hostage.

47 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:37:44am

re: #30 ratherdashing

I dunno. Mr. Kent isn't hating, he's just responding with passion. I've received hateful emails in the past. This one isn't.

We appear to have different definitions of "hate." When someone tells me I'm going to be in the "outer darkness" because I'm a "secularist", "shitting on their altars," that seems hateful to me.

By the way, I did not use the word "un-American" in my post, even though this troglodyte put it in quotes.

48 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:38:00am

re: #41 Erik The Red

Didn't think I was there yet. Maybe I must stop thinking and just lurk.

Sounds like a plan.

49 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:38:03am

re: #37 Haverwilde

Are you saying that McCain embraced social conservatives? I saw no evidence of that in his campaign speeches.

50 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:38:35am

re: #42 pre-Boomer Marine brat

The "far-" mindset comes in a wide variety of political and religious persuasions. The same (abnormal) psychology is common to all.

/amateur talking, but dammit, I know I'm right

Extremism has the same goal no matter the approach: denial of liberty.

51 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:38:36am

re: #44 MandyManners

I Googled Richard L. Kent, Esq. and found this.

Immigration atty in MI - cool!

52 Pastorius  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:38:48am

Let us be clear, there is nothing wrong with Christians being politically active and encouraging other Christians, or other people in general, to vote a certain way.

For instance, there is nothing wrong with Christians, as a group, voicing their opinion on abortion.

But, it is wrong to attempt to change the Constitution to state that the United States is a Christian nation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

53 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:38:51am

re: #26 summergurl

Newbies---- (((spit)))))

they dont even read the fucking rules...then say oh gosh I didnt know that!...no respect...

54 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:39:08am

re: #29 MandyManners
oops!

55 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:39:10am

re: #43 reine.de.tout

The upside - genexer would have a difficult time making a case that anybody piled on and was rude.

I hope that my words caused at least one to think.

56 slamo  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:39:29am

First, I think he had one too many six-packs.

If not that then his grade school teachers need to be shot for incompetence. Forget creationism for a moment. His composition skills are abyssmal.

Religious fervor is a good thing. It loses it's way when fanatism takes over. Jesus was not a fanatic.

57 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:39:42am

re: #55 MandyManners

I hope that my words caused at least one to think.

Well, yes that is to be hoped. But I think her mind was set and there will be no change.

58 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:39:53am

re: #36 jaunte

Why is it always jackboots? It's the favorite clichéboot of angry posters.

More to the point, the GOP will never win national power again if it can be tagged as a theocratic movement. 'Richard Kent' could just as well be a DNC moby, encouraging the right to remain marginalized.

It sounds a lot cooler than 'cold weather mickey mouse boots" though.

59 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:40:16am

re: #28 MandyManners

I can't believe I fell for what was clearly a staged protest leading to suicide.

I thought it was a cool thing to do...you didnt fall for anything

60 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:40:22am

re: #51 debutaunt

Immigration atty in MI - cool!

You'd think he'd know about the dangers of dealing with those who want a theocracy.

61 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:40:32am

Mr. Kent, I'd like to esq you just one question.
... ... ... How large is your ego?

62 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:40:36am

Same to you, buddy....what would you and your ilk do without us? I'll tell ya what - NADA.

Have your beliefs, practice your religion, live your life the way you wish to live it. Nobody here is telling you otherwise. But, when you start to inject your beliefs into your politics you cross a line that makes you no different that the looney left trying to push their crackpot schemes and ideas on the rest of us as well.

Most Christians share my political views. Where you lose me is when you want to make the USA a "Christian Nation". The USA was founded by Christians and instilled with many of the fine qualities of Christianity. Why can't it stay that way? Why do some Christians wish to turn the USA in to Theocracy?

As a conservative, I want less government, less rules, less regulations...I do not want some 1960's burnout from Berkeley telling me how to live my life, just as I do not want a Creationist teaching my children at school. More freedom, less dogma, rather it be from Treehuggers or a well intentioned Christian trying to push their religion on me.

Our freedoms allow you to practice your beliefs without interference from me or anyone else, why is that not enough?

63 realwest  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:40:43am

"Sir, wishing to change the Constitution is NOT unAmerican...." Well he did get that one right. The rest of it, um, no, not even close.
And even the one he did get right was only partially correct: If you want to change the Constitution, there are Constitutionally acceptable ways to do it (Amendments - cute word, sir, you should, perhaps, look it up in a dictionary), not the way some folks are trying to do it or get around the constitution, both right and left sides of the so-called political spectrum.

64 summergurl  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:40:45am

re: #51 debutaunt

Immigration atty in MI - cool!

And what attorney's office do you know that has Sunday hours?

65 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:03am

re: #49 picaro

Are you saying that McCain embraced social conservatives? I saw no evidence of that in his campaign speeches.

What do you think picking Sarah Palin was all about?

66 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:09am

re: #43 reine.de.tout

The upside - genexer would have a difficult time making a case that anybody piled on and was rude.

agreed...

67 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:11am

re: #60 MandyManners

You'd think he'd know about the dangers of dealing with those who want a theocracy.

Sometimes they seem blind to reality.

68 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:17am

re: #4 Sharmuta

Sir, and I use the term loosely, you can't shit on my Constitutional rights and expect help from me. It doesn't work that way.


Yeah- never quite figured out how people could not see that demanding rights at the expense of the rights of others was not somewhat hypocritical. . .

69 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:39am

re: #43 reine.de.tout

The upside - genexer would have a difficult time making a case that anybody piled on and was rude.

She is probably throwing a fit at "yet another evolution thread."

///

70 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:44am

re: #57 reine.de.tout

Well, yes that is to be hoped. But I think her mind was set and there will be no change.

I'm just glad I remembered to copy my repsonses to her posts that were gonna' get deleted.

71 KansasMom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:45am

re: #56 slamo

No kidding. I thought lawyers were supposed to be good at writing opinions.

72 jcm  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:41:58am

re: #44 MandyManners

I Googled Richard L. Kent, Esq. and found this.

We specialize in taking all legal steps to secure, if possible, your legal status as as an LPR or legal immigrant, and to keep you and your family from facing the heartbreak of deportation and removal from the United States. If you have an immigration difficulty, we have both the means and experience to assist you, whether you are seeking benefits from the Bureau Citizenship and Immigration Services, defense from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or before the Executive Office of Immigration Review's Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

73 yma o hyd  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:05am

re: #38 reine.de.tout

I'm wondering if Mr. Kent holds the exact same religious beliefs that I do, and if he doesn't, why does he think he should the right to force me to believe as he does?

Hiya {reine}
Hiya, Lizard Nation!

That question is right to the point - and perhaps people like him need to be asked why muslims don't then have the same right as he thinks he has, to force their religion and attached laws on all of us?

74 ratherdashing  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:09am

re: #47 Charles

I took the "outer darkness" to mean the political type and not the spiritual type. He's talking about Republicans being outside of political power without Christians. He's not talking about being sentenced to spiritual darkness or separation.

I think.


That ain't so hateful a comment.

75 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:17am

He is an immigration lawyer.

[Link: www.richardlkentesq.com...]


No bio here. No postings.
[Link: rkentesqva.newsvine.com...]


Here he commented on 2/3 on an article about jeffrey dahmer believed in evolution.
[Link: tfnblog.wordpress.com...]

76 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:23am

Wanna bet our angry emailer finds Iranian Theocracy unacceptable? Why do so many people want a Christian one?

77 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:31am

re: #59 albusteve

I thought it was a cool thing to do...you didnt fall for anything

Well, I did but, it's okay.

78 kansas  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:49am

No sir. We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us. Otherwise, get used to outer darkness yourselves. The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

Outer darkness or this guy? I'm gonna get a flashlight.

79 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:59am

re: #40 notutopia

Sounds like an ultimatum.

We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us. Otherwise, get used to outer darkness yourselves. The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Were we asking for their help? What is he referring to here?
Who is this Richard L. Kent, Esq.? The name sounds vaguely familiar....

As a recovering democrat- people like this will drive me away from the party that is chanting for a change in religios freedom- Jews like me have not had a lot of great results from those who wanted/want/do dictate religious issues to the masses. . .

80 x-wing  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:42:59am

re: #58 rightwinger3

It sounds a lot cooler than 'cold weather mickey mouse boots" though.

They probably look better too.

81 huckfunn  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:43:19am

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Herr Kent doesn't seem to understand that there's not much difference between jackboots of the left and jackboots of the right.

82 pettyfog  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:43:22am
Good grief. What do you even say to something like that?

thank you for the form letter{?}

while I think you spend too much time on the creationist problem, I must say that the evangelical right spends FAR too much time on it.

83 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:43:33am

re: #64 summergurl

How do you think they can put in 60-80 hours per weeks? Not Monday through Friday only! I've even had to conference with attorneys on Sunday when my employer assigned me to assist our Legal Dept.

84 Truck Monkey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:43:36am

re: #40 notutopia

Sounds like an ultimatum.

We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us. Otherwise, get used to outer darkness yourselves. The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Were we asking for their help? What is he referring to here?
Who is this Richard L. Kent, Esq.? The name sounds vaguely familiar....


It is his assumed identity. He actually is SUPERCHRISTIAN MAN. He is faster than a speeding bible. Able to leap tall fables in a single bound. Charles is SUPERCHRISTIAN MANs cryptonite.

85 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:43:37am

re: #65 Charles

What do you think picking Sarah Palin was all about?

Oh, you know it. She scared the dickens out of the MFM. She was the real deal.

86 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:01am

re: #72 jcm

We specialize in taking all legal steps to secure, if possible, your legal status as as an LPR or legal immigrant, and to keep you and your family from facing the heartbreak of deportation and removal from the United States. If you have an immigration difficulty, we have both the means and experience to assist you, whether you are seeking benefits from the Bureau Citizenship and Immigration Services, defense from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or before the Executive Office of Immigration Review's Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

"If you have an immigration difficulty . . . "

Is being an illegal an immigration difficulty now? Is that the new term?

87 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:02am

re: #50 MandyManners

Extremism has the same goal no matter the approach: denial of liberty.

Beg to nit-pick.

Denial of liberty, per se, isn't the goal. It's to set oneself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth (and from that flows whether, or not, another is allowed to have liberty.)

88 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:05am
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

~James Madison, Father of the Constitution

89 jcm  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:07am

re: #76 FurryOldGuyJeans

Wanna bet our angry emailer finds Iranian Theocracy unacceptable? Why do so many people want a Christian one?

I don't want a Christian Theocracy....
and I are one.

90 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:28am

re: #74 ratherdashing

I took the "outer darkness" to mean the political type and not the spiritual type.

I don't think there's much of a difference in this person's mind.

91 Cato  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:42am

Wow! What the Republican parrty needs is a new sythesis with libertarians who somehow see the Democratic party as closer to their way of thinking. It isn't, but these guys get in the way of their seeing it. Eject the theocrats and I think there is the basis for a more permanent coalition.

92 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:44am

re: #67 debutaunt

Sometimes they seem blind to reality.

It's gotta' be a willful blindness.

93 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:46am

re: #49 picaro

Are you saying that McCain embraced social conservatives? I saw no evidence of that in his campaign speeches.

One Word - Sarah Palin.

94 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:44:49am
95 quiet man  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:03am

McCain didnt reach out to me..only Sarah did.

96 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:20am

re: #88 Sharmuta
Thank you. That sums it up pretty well.

97 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:24am

re: #92 MandyManners

It's gotta' be a willful blindness.

"there are none so blind as those who refuse to see"

98 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:28am

re: #75 notutopia

He is an immigration lawyer.

[Link: www.richardlkentesq.com...]


No bio here. No postings.
[Link: rkentesqva.newsvine.com...]


Here he commented on 2/3 on an article about jeffrey dahmer believed in evolution.[Link: tfnblog.wordpress.com...]

Good catch.

99 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:42am

re: #75 notutopia


Here he commented on 2/3 on an article about jeffrey dahmer believed in evolution.
[Link: tfnblog.wordpress.com...]

That comment sounds a little like the poster 'Carol Herman's writing.

100 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:44am

re: #80 x-wing

They probably look better too.

Only when spit-shined.

101 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:46am

re: #93 FurryOldGuyJeans

One Word - Sarah Palin.


Um . . .

102 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:53am
I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

~James Madison, Father of the Constitution

103 quiet man  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:54am

McCain would have been 75% Obama

104 kansas  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:45:59am

re: #95 quiet man

McCain didnt reach out to me..only Sarah did.

McCain is still asking me for donations for his Senate campaign. Like that's gonna happen.

105 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:46:09am

re: #65 Charles

Most of the excitement around here was about having a younger female candidate. Not about whether she was a Baptist or whatever.

106 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:46:13am

re: #87 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Beg to nit-pick.

Denial of liberty, per se, isn't the goal. It's to set oneself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth (and from that flows whether, or not, another is allowed to have liberty.)

Six of one.

107 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:46:32am

re: #81 huckfunn

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

Herr Kent doesn't seem to understand that there's not much difference between jackboots of the left and jackboots of the right.

One Socialist, the other Theocratic.

Crushed by the heel is still crushed though.

108 jcm  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:46:38am

re: #86 Wyatt Earp

"If you have an immigration difficulty . . . "

Is being an illegal an immigration difficulty now? Is that the new term?

Can you guys in Philly check on immigration status? Seattle cops are prohibited..... from enforcing the law....

109 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:46:39am

re: #94 ploome hineni

something McCain may have been cornered into doing.as soon as he picked her, he began to control and discredit her

with friends like McCain and his folks, she did not need enemies enemas

110 The Other Les  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:46:53am

Perhaps the question we should ask is who isn't a Cylon.

111 x-wing  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:03am

re: #93 FurryOldGuyJeans

One Word - Sarah Palin.

You takin' lessons from Joe Biden?

//

112 realwest  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:04am

re: #72 jcm
Yep. But I don't know if this is the same person as the one who wrote to Charles.
BUT - HE HAS HIS E-MAIL ON GOOGLE - MAYBE CHARLES CAN MATCH IT TO THE HATE MAIL?

I really would hate to be whacking the wrong Richard Kent!

113 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:13am

re: #101 Wyatt Earp

Um . . .

Oh shut up....I know it wasn't just one word. ;)

114 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:19am

re: #95 quiet man

McCain didnt reach out to me..only Sarah did.

me too- she was someone I felt "got it" and yes, she is religious, and a different religion from me. . .but that was not something that bothered me all that much because she did not make me feel like I would have to convert anything. . .dear leader. . .people sold their souls to get him elected. . .without a moment's thought. . .

115 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:24am

re: #108 jcm

Can you guys in Philly check on immigration status? Seattle cops are prohibited..... from enforcing the law....

As are we. Welcome to Amerika.

116 quiet man  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:37am

re: #104 kansas

I ripped the McCain sticker from my car when he threw sarah under the bus..then getting his lips tattooed to Obamas butt was the last straw

117 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:43am

re: #105 picaro

Most of the excitement around here was about having a younger female candidate. Not about whether she was a Baptist or whatever.

Horsefeathers! The excitment was about her conservative principles.

118 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:47am

re: #113 FurryOldGuyJeans

Oh shut up....I know it wasn't just one word. ;)

Heh.

119 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:47:54am

re: #93 FurryOldGuyJeans

One Word - Sarah Palin.

hahahaahhahahahhaaa

120 Haverwilde  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:04am

re: #49 picaro

Are you saying that McCain embraced social conservatives? I saw no evidence of that in his campaign speeches.

Nope, but do you remember the 'Palin Bump' with all the 'Xian right' jumping on the bandwagon? I watched my entire family shift away from even considering McCain and voting for Obama. The 'Xian right' is a plague that drives intelligent folks into the enemy camp. And I come from a family that is Baptist to its core, but is also well educated. Every one of my siblings have degrees and all but one have advanced degrees.

121 Truck Monkey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:09am

re: #65 Charles

What do you think picking Sarah Palin was all about?

The Sarah Palin pick is what prevented a blowout along the lines of Nixon/McGovern or Reagan/Mondale.

122 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:11am

lol un-personhood

123 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:22am

re: #76 FurryOldGuyJeans

Wanna bet our angry emailer finds Iranian Theocracy unacceptable? Why do so many people want a Christian one?

Becuase they think that they are going to be the only ones to benefit from it. It's the same with these "academic freedom" bills. Christians think that they are going to be able to push their religion when in reality they are opening the door for Islamists and Scientologists too.
We are seeing the same thing with European hate speech laws. Geert want to use them to ban the Quran and the Islamists are using them to ban Geert.

124 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:25am

re: #44 MandyManners

I Googled Richard L. Kent, Esq. and found this.

We don't, in fact, know that he's the one -- or if someone stole his name.

Perhaps someone should email him the link to this thread. The response might be interesting, whatever the situation.

/I don't have a throw-away email account

125 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:33am

re: #111 x-wing

You takin' lessons from Joe Biden?

//

See #113. ;)

126 KansasMom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:33am

re: #105 picaro

My support of her had nothing to do with age or gender. I supperted her because she was the only true conservative running. I don't agree with her religious views, but I saw nothing that indicated she had ever tried or would try to legislate based on religion.

127 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:48:57am
[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

~James Madison, Father of the Constitution

This, and this alone, is all the justification I need to be alarmed. Why- it's downright American to be concerned, and anyone trying to tell us otherwise shouldn't be trusted.

128 Gella  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:00am

some people are blind and don't want to open up to a new ideas, as an example Mr. Kent

129 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:01am

re: #114 DisturbedEma

The ONE certainly has a following. The MSM speaks of Him in reverent tones.

130 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:11am

re: #117 MandyManners

Horsefeathers! The excitment was about her conservative principles.

And her hotness. Don't forget the hotness!

131 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:24am

I posted this on the previous thread. It seemed appropriate--until I noticed that thread was dying. So, for your reading consideration (and probable down-dinging) here it is...

Charles,

Though inartful--and certainly tactless (especially from another fellow lawyer) this letter represents the sentiment I mentioned in another post on another thread last night. People like this do not want to let go of their "cause" even if it may be losing one. They do not seem to realize that the war is over how the future generations are being socially conditioned. The fight over evolution v. ID/creationism is just one battle in that war.

I fully appreciate your efforts and your overall reasoning. Any steps towards programs which might promote religious orthodoxy are to be avoided. We do not have to look too far back to see the calamities of such regiemes. As a fundamentalist (I attend an AOG church) I urge you to keep up the fight.

The reason the fight needs to go on--such as it is--is that the axis of attack must change. When people who's scientific studies ended after the 12th grade are engaging in detailed discussions with accredited scientists, they stand as much chance of winning as the Zulus did against the British (after Islandwana). In short, there are a lot of people fighting this battle who are woefully ill-equipped to do so. They approach it with the same sort of demented fervor found on the left when their closely held beliefs are challenged. It is axiomatic; just because you strongly believe in something does not make it right. This is one reason why you have met with--and will continue to face--such nasty comments.

I would equally urge you to invite them to shift the focus of the attack to a more common ground. While the debate rages over science, we are losing our history. If time were not a factor this morning, I would post links to efforts to remove the names of Washington, Jefferson et al from schools due to the fact that they had been slaveholders. Stalin and Mao erased from memory those who had fallen from favor. The same thing can happen here--it will just take longer.

The shift in historical studies from inductive to deductive reasoning can have a far more profound effect than the issue of science. There can always be new breakthroughs in science which could challenge conventional wisdom. But if the founders of the nation are obliterated, if our political and historical traditions are destroyed to fit a new--and perhaps odious-- social template template how can they ever be rehabilitated? And who is to say that "they" will stop with the founders? This is the battle which needs to be fought, and far more people can be better equipped to fight it than the current scientific clash.

Sincerely,

PS--I think the attack on our history is more insidious; no one really talks about it.

132 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:30am

re: #105 picaro

Most of the excitement around here was about having a younger female candidate. Not about whether she was a Baptist or whatever.

that's not how I recall it....most of us saw her as a sound conservative and good balance to McCain

133 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:36am

re: #126 KansasMom

My support of her had nothing to do with age or gender. I supperted her because she was the only true conservative running. I don't agree with her religious views, but I saw nothing that indicated she had ever tried or would try to legislate based on religion.


me too. . .and she would have shook her head in disgust at any hint of such crap, IMO

134 SlartyBartfast  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:42am

re: #86 Wyatt Earp

Is being an illegal an immigration difficulty now? Is that the new term?

Kind of like NASA CAPCOM saying, "We've had an anomaly..." when the Challenger exploded.

Or the recent newsletter I received from my U.S. Senator who called "Turbo-Tax Timmy" Geithner's tax problems "troubling."

135 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:49:42am

re: #124 pre-Boomer Marine brat

We don't, in fact, know that he's the one -- or if someone stole his name.

Perhaps someone should email him the link to this thread. The response might be interesting, whatever the situation.

/I don't have a throw-away email account

Notutopia found a link to an article by the same name about Dahmer's belief in Darwin.

136 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:50:03am

re: #130 Wyatt Earp
Damn straight!

137 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:50:05am

re: #135 MandyManners

Notutopia found a link to an article by the same name about Dahmer's belief in Darwin.

No. 75.

138 kansas  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:50:08am

Evolution and religion story coming up on Chris Wallace.

139 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:50:28am

re: #110 The Other Les

Perhaps the question we should ask is who isn't a Cylon.

Look for the orgasmic spinal glow. They don't show that much on the show. Guess the FX budget got cut some.

140 quiet man  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:50:42am

re: #114 DisturbedEma

Her religion wasn't in your face like this e-mailers was...and thus she is entitled to it. RevWrights religion was scarier by far.

I liked her because she was unapologetic for being conservative.
Most of our GOP leaders act as if they are lepers at an oyster bar

141 realwest  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:50:46am

re: #93 FurryOldGuyJeans
Uh, no. Palin was picked because of her gender (and the - as it turned out fallacious - belief that enough female Dems would come over to McCain with Palin on board since Obama pretty thoroughly abused Hillary) and the fact that of ALL four candidates, she was the only one who'd actually done any, ya know, governing.

142 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:50:49am

re: #130 Wyatt Earp

And her hotness. Don't forget the hotness!

Who could forget?

143 ratherdashing  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:09am

Here's the problem with tossing out the "theocrats". We are currently in a roughly 40/40/20 electorate split. During each presidential election we see 40% Repubs, 40% Dems, and 20% undecided. If you start tossing out large groups of people, you need to make them up some place else.

Christians (if they have a candidate that they respect) can be great grass roots organizers and workers. They know and have connections to loads of people through churches. So if the Republicans alienate them, then they need to replace them. The replacements may not be as passionate.


[I've seen it.]

144 Irish Rose  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:10am

Unfortunately, it's a common notion among Christian fundamentalists that they are the base of the Republican party and the only "true conservatives".

They genuinely believe that the Republican party will fall into obscurity unless America embraces their way of thinking, and they're willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen. Because they believe that they've been directly ordained by God to save America from itself.

It's the epitome of arrogance, and I've learned that it's impossible to dialogue or reason with people who are so utterly detached from reality.

145 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:13am

re: #95 quiet man

McCain didnt reach out to me..only Sarah did.

Well, as a Canadian, I really didn't have a horse in the race, other than I would have much preferred to see our nearest neighbor and largest trading partner with a sane government.

But to my thinking, a lot of Sarah Palin's appeal was the fact that she is an outsider to the Washington elite clique, and also very much a fiscal conservative. And she also appeared to be quite comfortable with compartmentalizing her Creationist beliefs into a personal zone, and not trying to implement them in the school system.

146 kansas  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:16am

re: #126 KansasMom

Mom?

147 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:30am

re: #130 Wyatt Earp

And her hotness. Don't forget the hotness!

She's the kinda woman that puts steam in man's strides.

148 Digital Display  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:32am

re: #132 albusteve

Hey..Invincible with Mark Walberg is on FX.. A great football story that, as it happens..Is a true story..

149 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:35am

re: #132 albusteve

That too, McCain seemed to take great pleasure in allying with the Left against his nominal party. The glee with which he backstabbed really turned me off.

150 x-wing  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:36am

re: #121 Truck Monkey

The Sarah Palin pick is what prevented a blowout along the lines of Nixon/McGovern or Reagan/Mondale.


xactly.

Them Dems. had to destroy the Economy to beat our ticket. That doessay alot about how sceered they were of Sarah.

151 Fierce Guppy  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:51:51am

These theocratic savages fail to realize that their ideological battle was lost in 17th century Massachusetts.

152 Truck Monkey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:52:13am

re: #105 picaro

Most of the excitement around here was about having a younger female candidate. Not about whether she was a Baptist or whatever.

Who looked good in a Bikini hovering over a slaughtered elk!
/

153 Erik The Red  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:52:20am

re: #85 MandyManners

Oh, you know it. She scared the dickens out of the MFM. She was the real deal.

MM she is still the real deal if she can package her self right and can get the support she needs. I think she scares to many narrow minded males in the GOP and scares the shit out of the liberal left.

154 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:52:28am

How the Party of Lincoln Forgot About Lincoln

....the Party of Lincoln has really become the Party of Reagan in instinct and self-conception. It is ideologically conservative and traditionalist—whereas Lincoln's Republican Party was the progressive party of its day. It finds philosophical structure in federalism and states' rights, concepts that comforted southern Democrats of the John C. Calhoun variety. And perhaps not coincidentally, the party's strongest support now comes from the states of the former Confederacy.

155 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:52:44am

re: #134 SlartyBartfast

Kind of like NASA CAPCOM saying, "We've had an anomaly..." when the Challenger exploded.

Or the recent newsletter I received from my U.S. Senator who called "Turbo-Tax Timmy" Geithner's tax problems "troubling."

Or, "That is not the [insert crooked politician/minister's name here] I knew."

156 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:52:45am
157 summergurl  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:53:23am

re: #65 Charles

What do you think picking Sarah Palin was all about?


//I am sure that was intended to bring in the female vote.

158 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:53:24am

re: #141 realwest

Uh, no. Palin was picked because of her gender (and the - as it turned out fallacious - belief that enough female Dems would come over to McCain with Palin on board since Obama pretty thoroughly abused Hillary) and the fact that of ALL four candidates, she was the only one who'd actually done any, ya know, governing.

I saw it as she was picked to cater to social conservatives and because she was not male. Her experience at governing was an overt detriment to McCain because it highlighted his inexperience in that regard, and he knew it.

159 Irish Rose  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:53:31am

re: #90 Charles

There isn't.

160 KansasMom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:53:35am

re: #146 kansas

Mom?


Son? I thought you were on Webkinz!?!

161 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:53:47am

re: #44 MandyManners

I Googled Richard L. Kent, Esq. and found this.

We specialize in taking all legal steps to secure, if possible, your legal status as as an LPR or legal immigrant, and to keep you and your family from facing the heartbreak of deportation and removal from the United States. If you have an immigration difficulty, we have both the means and experience to assist you, whether you are seeking benefits from the Bureau Citizenship and Immigration Services, defense from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or before the Executive Office of Immigration Review's Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. We also handle appeals on the Federal level. We have experience in applying for immigration benefits, in Asylum/Withholding of Removal, Violence Against Women Act, and other applications both before US CIS and before the Immigration Courts. We also offer our legal services nationwide, and have unrestricted representational access to all Federal courts and agencies.We offer the full range of general legal services which may arise as a part of your immigration case, in particular, criminal defense services as wel as family law, divorce and adoption.

162 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:53:51am

Here are his comments from the Dahmer article.

# Richard L. Kent, Esq. Says:
February 3, 2009 at 6:55 pm

There are over 40 million atheists in the USA and Canada alone. How many are are serial killing cannibals? C’mon, what is holding us all back?>

Leaving aside the cannibal question, what keeps you from becoming serial killers?

Judging from history, the fact that you are not in absolute power and haven’t crushed all competition.
# Richard L. Kent, Esq. Says:
February 3, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Same with penicillin, smallpox vaccine, synthesized insulin, semiconductors, and alternating current. Try living without those, then we’ll talk.>

Believe it or not, I’m on your side. I’m not interested in living in a world without science.

However I’m even more uninterested in living in a world where people who make decisions use science, ALONE, without more, as a standard of justice. Use that as your standard, and the neighbor that God commands you to love becomes nothing more than a resource for the production of bone meal and lye soap.
# Richard L. Kent, Esq. Says:
February 3, 2009 at 7:02 pm

PS. How can you be an atheist Jew? Isn’t that kind of like being a flat-earthist astronomer?
# Richard L. Kent, Esq. Says:
February 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm

For the record–I’m equating the atheist with the flat-earthist, as both believe in something objectively untrue.
# Richard L. Kent, Esq. Says:
February 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Why does anybody quote or cite Jeffrey Dahmer for any purpose whatsoever? It’s like citing Charlie Manson. Geez.

163 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:53:52am

re: #146 kansas

Mom?

Dorothy?

164 quiet man  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:54:30am

re: #145 Alberta Oil Peon

In other words, it looked like we had a real person with a reasoning mind as a possibility for leadership, instead of someone whose facade had to be rebuilt time and time again to fool the credulous

165 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:54:31am

re: #163 debutaunt

Dorothy?


Toto?

166 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:54:35am

re: #143 ratherdashing

Exactly - the SoCons work hard to elect Republicans if they are not pushed out. Many of the self-labelled moderates around here barely did half a precinct of literature drops in the last election. Couldn't persuade them to knock on doors and talk to voters.

167 The Other Les  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:54:41am

re: #139 calcajun

Look for the orgasmic spinal glow.


This would make Cylon testing an interesting job.

168 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:54:51am

re: #148 HoosierHoops

Hey..Invincible with Mark Walberg is on FX.. A great football story that, as it happens..Is a true story..

FOOTBALL!...gotta take off pretty quick...I'll try to rent it...thanks bro

169 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:55:08am

re: #143 ratherdashing
20% undecided are not the fundamentalists. I don't know how many there are in the republican party, but it can't be over 10%, I hope. I think there are more fiscal conservatives(me) than the fundamentalist stripe. GWB appalled me with his spending.

170 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:55:22am
171 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:55:39am

re: #154 Killgore Trout

They forgot about TR, as well. He was hardly the champion of big business. That shift started with WH Taft and the GOP presidents of the 1920's. The GOP surrendered that mantle to the Dems, who co-opted a lot of the Progressive Party platform.

Again, people don't read their history.

172 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:55:53am

re: #143 ratherdashing

I don't think the goal should be to alienate Christians but instead to educate them about the dangers of theocracy and the importance on our constitution so they can participate in mnainstream politics again.

173 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:55:58am

re: #131 calcajun

They do not seem to realize that the war is over how the future generations are being socially conditioned. The fight over evolution v. ID/creationism is just one battle in that war.

They seem fully aware of that. Social conditioning of future generations seem to be be the goal.

Are you defending the irrationality of Kent?

174 x-wing  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:04am

re: #157 summergurl

//I am sure that was intended to bring in the female vote.


So now you're calling me a girl ;>}

/not that there would be anything wrong with that

175 realwest  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:10am

re: #145 Alberta Oil Peon
Hmmm

But to my thinking, a lot of Sarah Palin's appeal was the fact that she is an outsider to the Washington elite clique, and also very much a fiscal conservative. And she also appeared to be quite comfortable with compartmentalizing her Creationist beliefs into a personal zone, and not trying to implement them in the school system.

very astute observation.

176 Haverwilde  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:16am

Palin is a sound conservative. Her instincts are good. She governs well. But she was ill prepared for her initial national indepth exposure. She never ran as a 'xian right' person up here, she ran as a reformer. She has shaken up the party.
With a month or two preparation on her strengths, and a clear articulation of her beliefs, she probably would have appeared far less objectionable and far more ready for national leadership. McCain did her no favors by not getting started a couple of months earlier preparing her for the campaign.

177 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:22am

re: #169 pingjockey

GWB appalled almost everyone by the end. Sprinting toward socialism.

178 Taqyia2Me  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:31am

Let us stop and say a prayer for Richard Kent, esq.

The constitution is explicit and gospel is likewise explicit in this regard. To quote (perhaps paraphrase) my Lord and Savior, Jesus of Nazareth:
Mat 22:21 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (blueletterbible.org)

179 quiet man  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:39am

re: #175 realwest

agreed..balls on.

180 Onibroc  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:43am

I just had an epiphany!

Young-Earth Creationists are precisely like gender-feminists:

Scratch one, and find a fascist. Every. Single. Time.

If the Republicans ever want to be taken seriously, then they need to excise every person from the party that is a YEC. Period.

181 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:56:51am

re: #171 calcajun

Good point.

182 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:57:37am

re: #167 The Other Les

This would make Cylon testing an interesting job.

Why do you think Baltar wanted to do that task alone?

183 quiet man  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:57:44am

have fun kids!

later

184 francisco d'anconia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:57:51am

While he is wrong and unchristian in his condemnation of secularists, his reasoning on changing the constitution is not all together flawed. The constitution has within it mechanisms to institute changes, wanting to follow that process is not necessarily unamerican, though its aims may very well be. Within the constitution is a prohibition on religious tests for office, but George Washington himself added the words "so help me god" to the presidential oath. Many of the founders would be profoundly unhappy with the lack of religion in this country. He is also correct that fiscal, small government conservatives need help from the religious right to combat the communists among us. What we should be doing however is trying to get the religious right to see our point of view rather than dismissing them or saying we dont need their help. This nation was built by christians, christians can help return it to the right path.

185 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:58:17am

re: #135 MandyManners

Notutopia found a link to an article by the same name about Dahmer's belief in Darwin.

back in after a while ... saw that, been away reading it.

I wonder if he knows about the Iron Fist Rule.

186 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:58:23am

re: #177 picaro

GWB appalled almost everyone by the end. Sprinting toward socialism.

I was so upset when he said he had set aside his free market principles.

187 Gella  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:58:36am

while googling Mr. Kents name i came across this
[Link: tfnblog.wordpress.com...]

188 Haverwilde  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:58:37am

Well see you lizards later, I am off to church.

189 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:59:14am
190 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 9:59:34am

re: #188 Haverwilde
Have a good day.

191 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:00:04am

re: #188 Haverwilde

Well see you lizards later, I am off to church.

Sorry about the poop on your altar. I couldn't resist.
/

192 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:00:17am

re: #189 Onibroc
Not nice. Some manners are not amiss.

193 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:00:32am

re: #187 Gella

Someone anonymous may have stolen 'Richard Kent the immigration attorney's name for their online posting identity.

194 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:00:44am

re: #184 francisco d'anconia

Many of the founders would be profoundly unhappy with the lack of religion in this country.

What? There is no shortage of religious participation on the part of the American people. And I think you're wrong about the Founders. Many of them were not overly religious men. Many of them were Deists.

195 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:01:00am

re: #193 jaunte

It's also a pretty common name.

196 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:01:05am

re: #173 BigPapa

They seem fully aware of that. Social conditioning of future generations seem to be be the goal.

Are you defending the irrationality of Kent?

No. I understand (I think) the basis for the belief and fear. I don't support any social steps that might lead to a religious orthodox society. I do not believe that they have picked "good ground" on which to fight, though. This is a social, not a theological war.

197 mean Gene  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:01:07am

I wish I knew my American History better.
What names were women called who wanted the vote?
What names were blacks called who wanted access to polls after they had the vote technically but not in reality?

Was the term ''unamerican'' bandied about back them or were we more accurate?
The term ''unamerican'' is probably the most powerfully negative adjective (perjorative) in the American English language and it is often over-used.
What do people really mean when they say it?

198 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:01:19am

One of the problems the GOP needs to address is its priorities. While there are a few issues most conservatives agree on, there are many more that divide the consensus. At the FEDERAL level, I am far more interested in national security and smaller government.

As for the issues important to fundamentalist Christians, they have every right to their own priorities, but if they put those above the bigger issues, we all fall together.

And a side note, I'm steaming over a Fox website headline:

Obama to Lift Stem Cell Ban?

The president could soon sign an executive order lifting a federal ban on stem cell research, adviser says

This is SO misleading: there was never a ban on research, just on the federal funding, and that was of embryonic stem cell research.

Words matter.

199 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:01:40am

re: #162 notutopia

Believe it or not, I’m on your side. I’m not interested in living in a world without science.

However I’m even more uninterested in living in a world where people who make decisions use science, ALONE, without more, as a standard of justice. Use that as your standard, and the neighbor that God commands you to love becomes nothing more than a resource for the production of bone meal and lye soap.


After reading this comment, I see he is tormented by
Evolution belief alone.
Why do intelligent people like this, who acknowledge the importance of scientific evolutionary contributions to their mere LIFE, have such a damned hard time accepting that they CAN believe in evolution AND their God at the same time.
This is obviously someone who is a black and white thinker. He also obviously has not done any research on the LGF threads when this has been discussed so clearly over and over!

200 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:02:01am

re: #172 Killgore Trout

I don't think the goal should be to alienate Christians but instead to educate them about the dangers of theocracy and the importance on our constitution so they can participate in mnainstream politics again.

202 rawmuse  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:02:49am

Charles is a pioneer. You can tell which ones are the pioneers, they are the ones with the arrows in their shirts.

203 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:03:06am

re: #185 pre-Boomer Marine brat

MWAH!

204 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:03:07am

re: #197 mean Gene
Sufferagettes were the women. Don't know about the blacks. I do have a handwriiten receipt from 1889 of my great grandfathers. He had to pay a one dollar 'poll' tax to vote.

205 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:03:09am

re: #200 MandyManners

I don't recall being so bold.

206 summergurl  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:03:10am

re: #83 picaro

How do you think they can put in 60-80 hours per weeks? Not Monday through Friday only! I've even had to conference with attorneys on Sunday when my employer assigned me to assist our Legal Dept.


When an ad states "office hours" it is not referring to after hour work that attorneys perform, but rather when the door is unlocked and you can schedule an appointment.

207 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:03:25am
208 spudly  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:03:54am

To be fair, it is just fine (and American) to change the Constitution---within the Constitutional Amendment process. It's just extremely unlikely (as it should be).

It's also an unfortunate fact that conservatives require the religious conservatives to win right now. The left requires moonbat loonies to win, as well, apparently. The trick is to not BECOME the loonie fringe in the process (the Dems have clearly lost this battle at this point, to the extent any fought it at all). In many places like LA right now, the right has lost the battle to keep the loons from holding the wheel as well.

Right now, I think the minimum "glue" required to keep them voting is the abortion issue. I'm an atheist conservative, and I certainly have a problem with abortion past viability (all those ultrasounds of my kids had an impact, for sure). Early is fine by me until some arbitrary point. That issue can keep the needed votes around while remaining palatable to conservatives (most voters are against the procedure at some, arbitrary point, the point just moves around for different people).

Teaching fantasy as science, OTOH, is not a road to go down. It makes conservatives look like the idiots that the ID people actually are. You can make good, secular conservative arguments against abortion, and against paying for it with public money, but there is no good conservative argument for intentionally making our children ignorant with public funds.

PS-charles, the spell checker thinks "ultrasounds" should have an apostrophe. Ultrasound IS? Belongs to ultrasound? :) Maybe I should have just typed "sonograms."

209 Truck Monkey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:03:54am
210 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:07am

re: #180 Onibroc

I just had an epiphany!

Young-Earth Creationists are precisely like gender-feminists:

Scratch one, and find a fascist. Every. Single. Time.

If the Republicans ever want to be taken seriously, then they need to excise every person from the party that is a YEC. Period.

I don't care what someone believes as long as she or he doesn't try to force it down the throats of the citizens.

211 francisco d'anconia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:18am

189, Christians cannot not and should tell anyone how or what to think, but christianity also fosters democracy and capitalism. Its takes just as much faith to believe in nothing as it does to believe in something. Nobody wants a theocracy. What we want is freedom. Islam is incompatible with freedom, christianity is.

212 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:23am

re: #121 Truck Monkey

The Sarah Palin pick is what prevented a blowout along the lines of Nixon/McGovern or Reagan/Mondale.

I agree, it made the race much closer, but it also made it official McCain would not win. The MSM went after her like nobody else in history....they did not destroy her, but they did enough damage to make her unelectable. She did not help herself with some of those initial interviews either. She came across as unprepared and uninformed. I still think she is done now....but, I could be wrong.

213 KansasMom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:25am

re: #184 francisco d'anconia

This nation was built by christians, christians can help return it to the right path.

I thought this nation was founded by christians who wanted to separate their government from the church, among other things.
And just which kind of christian path should we return to? Southern Baptist? Unitarian? Catholic?

214 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:38am

re: #203 goddessoftheclassroom

MWAH!

MWAH!
It's a day of rest. Enjoy it.

215 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:44am

re: #209 Truck Monkey

More child abuse, sponsored by Hamas!

216 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:44am

re: #201 Killgore Trout
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest its costume!

217 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:04:56am

re: #209 Truck Monkey

It must be the same guy in different suits. The rabbit, the bee, and the mouse all had the same voice.

218 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:05:10am

re: #184 francisco d'anconia

While he is wrong and unchristian in his condemnation of secularists, his reasoning on changing the constitution is not all together flawed. The constitution has within it mechanisms to institute changes, wanting to follow that process is not necessarily unamerican, though its aims may very well be. Within the constitution is a prohibition on religious tests for office, but George Washington himself added the words "so help me god" to the presidential oath. Many of the founders would be profoundly unhappy with the lack of religion in this country. He is also correct that fiscal, small government conservatives need help from the religious right to combat the communists among us. What we should be doing however is trying to get the religious right to see our point of view rather than dismissing them or saying we dont need their help. This nation was built by christians, christians can help return it to the right path.

Where is God mentioned in the Constitution?

219 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:05:19am

re: #162 notutopia

Here are his comments from the Dahmer article.

. . .

Believe it or not, I’m on your side. I’m not interested in living in a world without science.

However I’m even more uninterested in living in a world where people who make decisions use science, ALONE, without more, as a standard of justice. Use that as your standard, and the neighbor that God commands you to love becomes nothing more than a resource for the production of bone meal and lye soap. . .

Where is it happening that decisions are made using science ALONE?

220 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:05:27am

re: #184 francisco d'anconia

This Pew study suggests that the country is quite religious:

The Pew study also states that 74% of Americans believe in heaven and only 59% in hell. It reports that 63% believe Scripture is the word of God. Another 63% of respondents with children at home say they pray and read Scripture with their children and 60% send their children to religious education programs.

The study also concludes that most Americans have a non-dogmatic approach to faith and that the majority of those affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one way to interpret the teaching of their faith.

Some 40% see a conflict between modern society and religion, with 42% saying Hollywood threatens their values.


[Link: ihmhermitage.stblogs.com...]

221 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:05:34am

re: #216 pingjockey

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest its costume!

Hey-o!

222 francisco d'anconia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:05:36am

re: #194 Sharmuta

revisionist history strikes again.

223 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:05am

re: #189 Onibroc

We can disagree without peeing all over someone's beliefs.

Shame on you. Shame.

224 2by2  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:20am

re: #201 Killgore Trout

OT: Good news: Hamas finds cuddly new children’s character to replace Jew-hating rabbit

.......like a clone, with that same annoying "cutie" high pitch voice.

225 picaro  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:20am

re: #218 MandyManners

Let me guess - the same place as Darwin? ;>)

226 mean Gene  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:31am

Every now and again we should remind ourselves about how easily Muslims find offense.

We do not want to even appear to emulate that super-sensitivity.
We are Americans (most of us).
We are a melting pot and our successful political parties are ''big tents.''

There used to be a joke running that Muslims should simply list everything that DOES offend them.
Let's not have to have that joke said about us.

227 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:32am

re: #44 MandyManners

I Googled Richard L. Kent, Esq. and found this.

Of course that could be the boss of the guy who just got laid off.

228 realwest  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:38am

Well y'all it's been grand as usual, but I gotta go now!
Hope you all have a great day and that I get the chance to see you all down the road!

229 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:40am

re: #219 reine.de.tout
Rockets, sattelites, engineering.

230 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:57am

re: #214 pre-Boomer Marine brat

MWAH!
It's a day of rest. Enjoy it.

So this is ok?

231 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:06:59am

re: #197 mean Gene

I wish I knew my American History better.
What names were women called who wanted the vote?What names were blacks called who wanted access to polls after they had the vote technically but not in reality?

Was the term ''unamerican'' bandied about back them or were we more accurate?
The term ''unamerican'' is probably the most powerfully negative adjective (perjorative) in the American English language and it is often over-used.
What do people really mean when they say it?

Suffragettes.

232 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:07:19am

re: #231 MandyManners

Suffragettes.

Thank you David Bowie. :)

233 Erik The Red  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:07:53am

re: #210 MandyManners

I don't care what someone believes as long as she or he doesn't try to force it down the throats of the citizens.

And mandate that it is taught in public schools as science with public money. If it must be taught teach it in RE class.

234 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:07:53am

re: #205 Killgore Trout

I don't recall being so bold.

You were when I got through with you.

235 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:07:53am

re: #219 reine.de.tout

Where is it happening that decisions are made using science ALONE?

I am making an assumption here.
Which I do not like to do..but here goes.
I think he is referring to the school board issues of excluding religion in the curriculum and keeping pseudoscience out of the schools.
?

236 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:08:04am

re: #218 MandyManners

Where is God mentioned in the Constitution?

God is not mentioned by name, but I believe there is a line or two for his followers: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

237 mean Gene  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:08:11am

re: #204 pingjockey

Sufferagettes were the women. Don't know about the blacks. I do have a handwriiten receipt from 1889 of my great grandfathers. He had to pay a one dollar 'poll' tax to vote.

Oh, I knew what the ladies were self-labeled.
Thanks, though.
I was referring to what perjoratives were that called by the anti-women getting the vote Americans.
What bad NAMES were they called?

238 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:08:21am

re: #228 realwest
Have a good day RW.

239 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:08:40am

re: #199 notutopia

Why do intelligent people like this, who acknowledge the importance of scientific evolutionary contributions to their mere LIFE, have such a damned hard time accepting that they CAN believe in evolution AND their God at the same time.
This is obviously someone who is a black and white thinker. He also obviously has not done any research on the LGF threads when this has been discussed so clearly over and over!

They have boughten into the Fundamentalist lie that to be a good Christian they must take the Bible to be literal. There are a couple of LGFers with better experience in Fundamentalist churches. My understanding from them, based on their previous posts, is it has a lot to do with power and influencing their congregations by intimidation through fear of eternal damnation.

Now- reading up on a few of these types of Christians and their involvement in pushing creationism, they are pushing that intimidation on these people by making them think they will be separated from their children because their children will be damned to hell if they're taught evolution. It's really sick, twisted, and unChristian, imo, to intimidate people into ignorance and perpetual fear.

240 mean Gene  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:08:40am

re: #231 MandyManners

Not what I meant.
See #237

241 Truck Monkey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:08:59am

re: #217 Killgore Trout

It must be the same guy in different suits. The rabbit, the bee, and the mouse all had the same voice.

Putting the "Ham" in Hamas! What is a theater major from The Gaza State University to do once he graduates?

242 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:09:12am

re: #219 reine.de.tout

Where is it happening that decisions are made using science ALONE?

I hope in science classrooms and labs.

243 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:09:14am
244 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:09:44am

re: #225 picaro

Let me guess - the same place as Darwin? ;>)

Precisely.

245 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:09:46am

re: #237 mean Gene
No idea! I do know the first woman elected to office was in 1869 in Wyoming.

246 Macker  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:09:47am

re: #11 MandyManners

What does he--an attorney no less--not understand about this?

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.

I also seem to recall something about Rendering Unto Caesar That Thich Belongs To Caesar, And Unto God That Which Belongs To God. Whenever stuff like this pops up. I believe people who rant and rave like this guy apparently did to Charles, forgets Matthew 22.
To me, these passages say to me that, while I am a Christian (and an imperfect one at that, like all human beings), it is important and right for me to obey the government put over me, and to sound the alarm (like we Lizards do here). If there is a law which contradicts God's commends, it is then and ONLY then, I will disobey it.

247 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:10:18am

re: #230 goddessoftheclassroom

So this is ok?

SUCH BEHAVIOR!
*gasp*
/whatever will come of it?

248 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:10:29am

re: #233 Erik The Red

And mandate that it is taught in public schools as science with public money. If it must be taught teach it in RE class.

That's my belief.

249 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:10:37am

re: #229 pingjockey

Rockets, sattelites, engineering.

specifically, rockets satellites,engineering.
Science is used to make these, construct them, figure out how to make them.

but science is not used to figure out whether or not there are needs for these things.

The guy's statement that science ALONE is driving all decisions ludicrous.

250 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:01am

re: #222 francisco d'anconia

revisionist history strikes again.

The Hell it does! The Founders and Deism.

251 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:04am

re: #243 VetteMan
Quit yer bitchin'. We still have all of that stuff and more! Sheesh.

252 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:06am

re: #236 Desert Dog

God is not mentioned by name, but I believe there is a line or two for his followers: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

And, for those who are not believers in God.

253 Digital Display  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:23am

re: #243 VetteMan

I miss the old days, when this blog was about the threat of islamic supremacy and terrorism. Maybe it's just that Bush has done a better job than some give him credit for.

I still check in from time to time, but all the fuss over "intelligent design" and "creationism" has taken that from a daily visit to a weekly visit. Lest we forget who the real enemy is.

Controversy creates cash (Good book, BTW). Times, they do change.


Here we go again..

254 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:37am

re: #243 VetteMan

I miss the old days, when this blog was about the threat of islamic supremacy and terrorism. Maybe it's just that Bush has done a better job than some give him credit for.

I still check in from time to time, but all the fuss over "intelligent design" and "creationism" has taken that from a daily visit to a weekly visit. Lest we forget who the real enemy is.

Controversy creates cash (Good book, BTW). Times, they do change.

Did Genexer send you?

255 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:42am

re: #235 notutopia

I am making an assumption here.
Which I do not like to do..but here goes.
I think he is referring to the school board issues of excluding religion in the curriculum and keeping pseudoscience out of the schools.
?

Well, I took it differently.
So we know this guy can't make his intent clear.

256 AuntAcid  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:57am

re: #231 MandyManners

OH NO! not the "U" word!

257 Truck Monkey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:11:57am

re: #245 pingjockey

No idea! I do know the first woman elected to office was in 1869 in Wyoming.

Helen Thomas was there to cover her first presser!

258 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:12:08am

re: #237 mean Gene

Oh, I knew what the ladies were self-labeled.
Thanks, though.
I was referring to what perjoratives were that called by the anti-women getting the vote Americans.
What bad NAMES were they called?

Bitches. Witches. Unnatural beings. Whores.

259 Elcid  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:12:09am
The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

Nor can it win with YOU!

260 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:12:19am

re: #220 jaunte

This Pew study suggests that the country is quite religious:


[Link: ihmhermitage.stblogs.com...]

Here is the original PEW data in various categories. I do note that those with the biggest fear of Hollywood seem to be the Mormons.

PEW surveys.

261 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:12:34am

re: #249 reine.de.tout
Ah. I misread.

262 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:13:01am

re: #189 Onibroc

Wow, real class act you are.

263 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:13:20am

re: #257 Truck Monkey
More than likely!

264 CharlieBravo  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:14:30am

re: #36 jaunte

Why is it always jackboots? It's the favorite clichéboot of angry posters.

More to the point, the GOP will never win national power again if it can be tagged as a theocratic movement. 'Richard Kent' could just as well be a DNC moby, encouraging the right to remain marginalized.

From a pure psyop point of view -- the moby hit paydirt.

265 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:14:45am

Again - the only ones who complain bitterly about the posts on creationism are ... creationists. It's a transparent tactic - they're trying to guilt-trip me into stopping the criticism.

266 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:15:03am

re: #196 calcajun

No. I understand (I think) the basis for the belief and fear. I don't support any social steps that might lead to a religious orthodox society. I do not believe that they have picked "good ground" on which to fight, though. This is a social, not a theological war.

I understand it as fear, fear of contradicting a some significant tenets of a belief system. They are engaging in the 'defense' of their theology by forcing creationism/challenging evolution in the public school system that is supposed to be educating all children. The best defense is a good offense, no? Can there be any 'good ground' for them to fight on? Well, the beachhead of that good ground would be honesty and directness and staying away from the 'educational freedom' BS being pushed now.

267 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:15:11am

re: #246 Macker

The Jews had a Theocracy before the Roman Occupation, and a lot of people want a Christian one; they "know" it would be different and better than an Islamic one. They want to change the Constitution to get rid of those little bits that prohibit creating one.

268 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:15:25am

re: #260 Naso Tang

Thanks! Interesting data.

269 Macker  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:15:42am

re: #110 The Other Les

re: #139 calcajun

re: #182 calcajun

I still have some theories as to the most recent episode. It still points back to more than 5,000 years....

270 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:16:29am

And again -- folks, please do not quote from offensive posts that are going to be deleted!

Use the 'reply' button instead. I'm leaving these responses up this time.

271 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:16:32am

re: #265 Charles

Again - the only ones who complain bitterly about the posts on creationism are ... creationists. It's a transparent tactic - they're trying to guilt-trip me into stopping the criticism.

How's that working for them?

272 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:16:57am
273 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:17:11am

Thanks for deleting No. 189, Charles!

274 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:17:12am

re: #239 Sharmuta

I agree with your conclusion and concern.
I find this so frustrating though, when all they need to do is read the posts from any of the evolution threads here on LGF. This Richard L. Kent, Esq. obviously has read them, or has he just perused through and "gleaned" a line or two? This is not the character of an attorney to not do the research on a LGF position thoroughly, before making these kinds of ultimatums.
Also, the letter does NOT look like it was written by a learned attorney.


Query.
Charles, have you validated this man's email address to this dissenting letter?

275 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:17:54am

re: #242 MandyManners

I hope in science classrooms and labs.

I thought the guy was talking more broadly than that.

276 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:18:24am

re: #254 Wyatt Earp

Beat me to it!

277 Digital Display  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:18:29am

re: #258 MandyManners

Bitches. Witches. Unnatural beings. Whores.

How embarrassing was it as an American to hear guys yell iron my shirt at Hillary in the 21st Century?
That kind of shit just pisses me off...Same with Sarah...SNL now will suk forever..
I get disappointed in so called mankind sometimes

278 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:18:54am

re: #271 MandyManners

How's that working for them?

It doesn't seem to be producing the desired result.

279 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:19:08am

re: #261 pingjockey

Ah. I misread.

well, maybe I did.

280 francisco d'anconia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:19:09am

re: #218 MandyManners

Mandy, God is absolutely not mentioned. Not. The. Point. The revolutionary thing about America is that we were the first to say that rights originated from the virtue of being human. Some would say they were endowed to us by our creator. Thats the problem with the godless left, rights to them are easements granted by the state, if there is no higher power than rights are given by the people and can thus be taken away by the people. We should be embracing the christian community and reminding them where our rights come from, including the right to worship or not worship as one sees fit. Is Intelligent design lunacy? Yes, but it is a problem of interpretation, not with the religion. St. Thomas Aquinas himself noted that where science and theology diverge, the problem lies not with science but with our interpretation of theology. Christians understand (or can be reasoned with enough to understand) individual rights, they can and should be on our side, but ridicule and and disdain toward them helps nothing. Some people show as much disdain for christians as the Elite left show.

281 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:19:11am

re: #276 BigPapa

Beat me to it!

GMTA!

282 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:19:45am

re: #278 Charles

It doesn't seem to be producing the desired result.

Oh, po' twolls and socks.

/ not really.

283 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:20:00am

re: #278 Charles

It doesn't seem to be producing the desired result.

They must not know the definition of insanity.

284 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:20:02am

re: #47 Charles

We appear to have different definitions of "hate." When someone tells me I'm going to be in the "outer darkness" because I'm a "secularist", "shitting on their altars," that seems hateful to me.

By the way, I did not use the word "un-American" in my post, even though this troglodyte put it in quotes.

Here's our self styled Esq. at Times Online:

A most wise man once said, "By their fruits shall ye know them." What are the fruits of scientific atheism when applied to human behavior and governance?

Auschwitz. Gulag. The Laogai. Reeducation camps. Babi Yar. Dachau. Srebrenica. The Cultural Revolution.

To Hell with atheism, Mr. Whyte.

Richard L. Kent, Esq., Easpointe, MI, USA

285 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:20:56am

re: #283 MandyManners

They must not know the definition of insanity.

How could they not? They live it daily.

286 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:21:07am

re: #280 francisco d'anconia

And what about the distain showed to Christians who accept both God and evolution? Or do you think you can reason with people who think you're going to hell because you're not reading the Bible the same way they are?

287 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:21:11am

re: #273 MandyManners

Thanks for deleting No. 189, Charles!

Damn, missed another one. Any entertainment value?

288 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:21:32am

re: #280 francisco d'anconia

Mandy, God is absolutely not mentioned. Not. The. Point. The revolutionary thing about America is that we were the first to say that rights originated from the virtue of being human. Some would say they were endowed to us by our creator. Thats the problem with the godless left, rights to them are easements granted by the state, if there is no higher power than rights are given by the people and can thus be taken away by the people. We should be embracing the christian community and reminding them where our rights come from, including the right to worship or not worship as one sees fit. Is Intelligent design lunacy? Yes, but it is a problem of interpretation, not with the religion. St. Thomas Aquinas himself noted that where science and theology diverge, the problem lies not with science but with our interpretation of theology. Christians understand (or can be reasoned with enough to understand) individual rights, they can and should be on our side, but ridicule and and disdain toward them helps nothing. Some people show as much disdain for christians as the Elite left show.

Do you know about the Dominionists who make up a large bloc of the DI? Those people cannot be reasoned with. They want a Theocracy.

289 Wm T Sherman  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:21:52am

Richard L. Kent, Esq.

Hey people, he's a lawyer. Show some respect.

290 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:21:52am

re: #284 Thanos

The standard, "science leads to killing people". Lovely.

291 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:22:01am

re: #285 FurryOldGuyJeans

How could they not? They live it daily.

The insane don't know that they're not insane.

292 mean Gene  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:22:04am

re: #258 MandyManners

Do you have any historical proof?
I can't find a thing about the opposers of the Suffragette movement, here, in UK ot even in France where they burned stuff down and destroyed store fronts.
I mean, what you suggest makes some sense, but I was looking for the actual names women and blacks were called.
See, the whole ''unamerican'' as perjorative thing didn't happen until the McCarthy era.

293 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:22:42am

re: #287 BigPapa

Damn, missed another one. Any entertainment value?

NO. It was a vile attack on Christians.

294 justadot  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:22:42am

re: #274 notutopia

Yeah, he read them alright. I assume he wrote that hate mail after he requested Charles ban him.

295 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:22:59am

re: #287 BigPapa
Nope. Mandy and me both whacked it for bad manners.

296 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:23:09am

re: #284 Thanos

Well, well, well ... scrub my rhetorical above.
Looks like this IS th' guy.
Good catch, Thanos.

297 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:23:15am
298 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:23:36am

re: #291 MandyManners

The insane don't know that they're not insane.

That's a FACT!
Lol.

299 SlartyBartfast  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:23:44am

OT, but I was really saddened by this.

It appears that President Obama is dissing the Brit's most famous and stalwart leader by quickly returning the most famous bust of the man loaned to this country by the United Kingdom in the aftermath of 9//11. The return of the bust of Churchill flustered the British government because they didn't ask for it to be returned. Our best ally was nonplussed and even quickly told Obama he could keep it in the Oval Office where Bush had displayed the piece of art. Obama told them no thanks which made the Brits even more amazed.

Going back and reading this well-known passage by the great man made me feel better. When Hitler declared war on the U.S., pulling us into the conflict alongside the U.K., Churchill said, "I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful." See below (and thanks to CJW for his SpinOff link that brought this to my attention).

Silly people -- and there were many, not only in enemy countries -- might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before -- that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate". Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.

The Age of Obama--another day, another disappointment...

300 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:24:50am

re: #289 Wm T Sherman

Richard L. Kent, Esq.

Hey people, he's a lawyer. Show some respect.

no sarc tag?

301 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:24:56am

re: #293 MandyManners

NO. It was a vile attack on Christians.

Sounds like you got in some WHACKs. Christians aren't the problem, nor are atheists. It's the YEC's.
Obviously a plant.

302 pbird  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:25:15am

re: #131 calcajun

The fall into irrationality in thought and also the loss of knowledge of even the recent past are two of the scariest things going to my mind.

303 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:25:22am

re: #258 MandyManners

Bitches. Witches. Unnatural beings. Whores.

Anarchists, Unnatural women (aka lesbians), etc.

304 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:25:31am

re: #294 justadot

Yeah, he read them alright. I assume he wrote that hate mail after he requested Charles ban him.

And, so 'Arkay' is Richard L. Kent, Esq?

305 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:26:08am

re: #294 justadot

What kind of drama queen logic is it to request to be banned? How about.... don't come back...?

306 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:26:26am

re: #292 mean Gene

Do you have any historical proof?
I can't find a thing about the opposers of the Suffragette movement, here, in UK ot even in France where they burned stuff down and destroyed store fronts.
I mean, what you suggest makes some sense, but I was looking for the actual names women and blacks were called.
See, the whole ''unamerican'' as perjorative thing didn't happen until the McCarthy era.

I was on the committee to celebrate Colorado's adoption of the 19th Amendment but, it's been too long for me to remember the slurs and degradations women suffered throughout this nation for the simple right to vote.

And, yes, "unAmerican" was one of them but, the attack was NOT focused on that angle but on the angle that no true woman wanted to vote, that a true woman was nothing but an empty vessel waiting to be filled by her masters. Their enemies sought to demonize them, to render them sub-human.

307 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:26:43am

re: #300 unrealizedviewpoint

no sarc tag?

Was it needed? I LOL'ed pretty good.

308 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:26:51am

re: #294 justadot

Yeah, he read them alright. I assume he wrote that hate mail after he requested Charles ban him.

Good catch! Yep, that was him.

309 justadot  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:26:54am

re: #304 notutopia

Judging from the similar comments, the reference to "immigration lawyer", the NIC, I'd say yeah.

310 Digital Display  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:27:16am

re: #294 justadot

Yeah, he read them alright. I assume he wrote that hate mail after he requested Charles ban him.

I never have understood that approach to suicide by blog...
Hey even if you have 6000 downdings as long as you are true to your beliefs and not insult the Lizards..Charles will let you blog...He even brought Cog back after he said he liked the edge he brought to the room..
If you want to meltdown and insult people..expect the banning stick..

311 francisco d'anconia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:27:17am

re: #286 Sharmuta

God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and i'd rather live next to a young earther than a communist. Fundamentalist Christians can be reasoned with. Ive had success with the line of reasoning that God no more break his physical laws than he can his moral laws.

312 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:27:29am

re: #305 BigPapa

What kind of drama queen logic is it to request to be banned? How about.... don't come back...?

Maybe these folks think the sheer force of the disapproval will be enough to change the minds of people who don't think as they do?

313 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:27:39am

re: #297 ploome hineni

Theocracy can also be Governance by Ruling Priests/Mullahs/Wise Men. And also Governing according to Religious Principles.

Interesting you chose Wiki to try to "prove" me "wrong". Thanks for playing.

314 horse  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:27:42am

I think there can be a line between rage and hate. The guy was ragging in the letter, but I do not believe we can claim he hates the recipient. He is just very, very angry with the recipient. Still dangerous, but a hopefully temporary condition, lest his heart give out from such fury.

One can obviously see why a position that is positive about modifying the constitution to support a religion is not conservative. It is also not a stretch to view modifying the constitution to nullify part of the very first amendment put forth by the founders as a violation of the beliefs of our American forefathers, and therefore somewhat un-American. Rage blinds logical thought.

The agenda pushed by religious "social-cons" has created quite a barrier with those more libertarian in their views. There appears to be little in their agenda that is conservative. That was evident in the rise of Huckabee last year; there was nothing conservative about the guy, socially or fiscally. What a sad state for the once proud Republican party.

The politics of both sides are now full of people who want to tell us what to do and what to think; and when we attempt to choose neither, we are still stuck with either.

315 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:27:43am

re: #301 BigPapa

Sounds like you got in some WHACKs. Christians aren't the problem, nor are atheists. It's the YEC's.
Obviously a plant.

Those who believe in YEC are not the problems. People are free to believe what they want. Those who want to force others to believe a particular religious belief ARE the problems.

316 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:28:25am

re: #288 MandyManners

Do you know about the Dominionists who make up a large bloc of the DI? Those people cannot be reasoned with. They want a Theocracy.

Mandy, I thought Francisco's #180 had a lot of good wisdom there.

And thanks for bringing up the Christian Dominionists! The notion that this is a "Science vs Faith" struggle, or an "Atheist vs Christian" struggle is a false dichotomy. What is really driving this is the Christian Dominionists vs all the rest of us.

317 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:28:29am

re: #304 notutopia

And, so 'Arkay' is Richard L. Kent, Esq?

"arkay"
R K

318 Syrah  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:29:06am
"No sir. We’re here, we’re Christian. Get used to us. Otherwise, get used to outer darkness yourselves. The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US."

You need us Kent, more than we need you.

If you make it more profitable for us to have you made unwelcome in the GOP than to keep you in, you will find yourself consigned to third party loser status for ever and anon.

Knock off with the "creationist flash" crap and try to remember what its like to have to work with adults.

319 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:29:08am

re: #290 Sharmuta

The standard, "science leads to killing people". Lovely.

That's chillingly scary that anyone would really believe this.

Thanks Thanos for that posting.

320 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:29:22am

re: #171 calcajun

Hoover, Eisenhower and even Nixon who brought national healthcare onto the political stage could hardly be considered in the same league as Taft or Coolidge when it came to GOP politics. Taft and Harding/Coolidge were flukes, and even Taft was at best lukewarm to business. The entire 20th century except for JFK's and RWR's tax cuts were big government full steam ahead, compared to the first half of our Republic's history.

After WWII there was no repealing the New Deal. It attracted a lot of the black vote away from the Republicans. Kennedy/Johnson attracted even more of the black vote away from the Republicans (although not nearly as much as FDR did).

Nixon and his dog whistle Southern Strategy effectively finished the swapping of the electorate with the democrats.

As far as political ideology goes, the Democrats can claim Lincoln was a 'Progressive' all they want. I have read a lot about and of Lincoln and nothing I've read leads me to believe that he was "Progressive, read: Socialist". Lincoln was more or less a Federalist, that split with that ideology on its anti-democratic views. Claiming that the logical conclusion of Federalism in the mid 19th century is a Socialist state today is simply false.

If more Federal power was good in 1860, that doesn't equate to more Federal power is good all the time, and the Republicans of the day certainly did not believe that. Not to mention, the glaringly obvious fact that the progressive ideology today owes it's roots to Karl Marx more than any home grown political philosophy.

Regardless, in reality just about every Republican sitting in office today except maybe Ron Paul is considerably to the Left of Lincoln in regards to the role of the government, military and economy. The Republican party of Lincoln wasn't the servitor party of the black community. How many dark skinned people vote for the party today is not any kind of litmus test on the validity of their political views. That is all the article is. Counting heads of the correct color. How progressive.

321 AuntAcid  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:29:25am

re: #280 francisco d'anconia

There are Christians and then there are the loons. You can't fellowship with them and you can't ignore them. At one time you could fight their ilk with your hat, but no more.

322 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:29:29am

re: #302 pbird

The fall into irrationality in thought and also the loss of knowledge of even the recent past are two of the scariest things going to my mind.

The former is a knee-jerk reaction. The latter is the scariest aspect of this whole debate. We study history because human nature is fixed--it's a constant. We study the way we behaved in the past to learn the potential consequences of our future actions. The abandonment/rewriting of history is due to the belief that human nature has changed. It hasn't and it won't.

323 Wyatt Earp  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:29:50am

re: #317 reine.de.tout

"arkay"
R K

Wow, my detective skills look like poo next to yours. You want a job?

324 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:29:50am

re: #307 BigPapa

Was it needed? I LOL'ed pretty good.

Absolutely not needed. Nor was my sarc comment.

325 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:30:05am

re: #316 Alberta Oil Peon

The notion that this is a "Science vs Faith" struggle, or an "Atheist vs Christian" struggle is a false dichotomy.

I wonder if the Dominionists are the ones who came up with the Wedge Strategy.

326 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:30:21am
327 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:30:38am

re: #312 reine.de.tout

Uh, yeah. Howzat workin out fordem? I'm taking my ball and going home!

328 Wm T Sherman  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:31:07am

Immigration lawyer, office in Detroit, looney religious world-view.

Huh.

329 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:31:28am

The problem is that people are way to lazy to research issues. If half of the 'creationists' actually looked into D.I. and I.D. for what it's actually trying to do and the agenda it is after, I would bet that many 'creationists' would be against it also. But research requires 'work' and 'study' and who wants to be bothered with the 'source' when 'pastor' can tell me what to do for a small fee. So you get a myriad of 'SCS' 'sudden creation syndrome' knee-jerk reactions from those defending the 'faith'.

330 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:31:45am

re: #280 francisco d'anconia

Christians understand (or can be reasoned with enough to understand) individual rights, they can and should be on our side, but ridicule and and disdain toward them helps nothing. Some people show as much disdain for christians as the Elite left show.

It's easy to make principled statements of this sort, but you seem to ignore the fact that the disdain is towards those who try to impose their religious beliefs on others, largely through education and sometimes in other areas.

If in the process of discussing it becomes apparent that someone is ignorant or deceitful then disdain is to be expected, and certainly it is implicit in the very attitude of the other side.

Your suggestion seems to be to be tolerant and respectful, which is synonymous with accepting what they want to impose.

Those who don't care to impose religion on others are respected for that by most people here, I am sure.

331 justadot  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:32:03am

re: #310 HoosierHoops

100% agreement. It's easier to walk away.

332 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:32:09am

re: #323 Wyatt Earp

Wow, my detective skills look like poo next to yours. You want a job?

LOL!
It was only after somebody else figured out that Arkay was Richard Kent, that I "got" it.

so, sadly, no job for me.

333 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:32:10am

re: #317 reine.de.tout

"arkay"
R K

I think more like Stu Pid.

334 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:32:12am

re: #297 ploome hineni

would Kings who ruled by 'divine right' be thocracies

Like the English Kings who also were the head of the Anglican Church?

and what was the basis of rule during the period of the Hebrew Kings in other nations?

Ploome, this sentence from your Wiki reference excludes monarchies based upon "divine right" from the category of theocracies: "Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God"."

335 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:32:42am

re: #300 unrealizedviewpoint

no sarc tag?

LOL. None required on that one.

336 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:32:46am

Gotta' go do some momma' stuff. bbl

337 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:33:27am

re: #311 francisco d'anconia

God and evolution are not mutually exclusive

I dinged you down for this. You have a lot of nerve to try to tell me something I already know and have argued relentlessly for on all of these threads concerning evolution. It pissed me off.

Nor did you even address what I said. Go on- keep reasoning with these people damning LGFers to hell. Good luck.

BTW- what makes you think communists can't be reasoned with in the same way Biblical literalists can?

338 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:34:06am

re: #315 MandyManners

Those who believe in YEC are not the problems. People are free to believe what they want. Those who want to force others to believe a particular religious belief ARE the problems.

Duly noted and corrected. I agree, and should have said 'it's the YEC's who want to teach (insert tactic) as a proxy for creationism/challenge evolution without scientific principles' that are the problem. But me typee to fast and didn't read it through. Thanks for getting my back.

339 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:35:28am

re: #325 MandyManners

I wonder if the Dominionists are the ones who came up with the Wedge Strategy

It was a Christian Reconstructionist who started funding it.

340 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:35:38am
341 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:35:44am

re: #308 Charles

Good catch! Yep, that was him.

Rhetorical question to ask you Charles, if you had checked the email. There is now NO doubts then. He has read the LGF threads on the positions here that we have NEVER implied or, ever said that Evolution and belief in God cannot coexist.

Thank you Charles.

342 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:37:02am

Obviously communists can accept reason and be brought about to change their position. There's quite a well known Lizard who can attest to that.

343 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:37:12am

re: #337 Sharmuta

Nor did you even address what I said. Go on- keep reasoning with these people damning LGFers to hell. Good luck.

Hey, what's so unreasonable about that? (wry smirk)

344 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:37:18am

O(ther)T

I don't understand why anyone still believes McCain ever wanted to win in the first place. He wasn't "reaching out" to social conservatives in an effort to win (by selecting Gov. Palin), he was doing so in an effort to fool conservatives into thinking that he wanted to win.

Apparantly it worked.

345 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:38:10am

re: #341 notutopia

Rhetorical question to ask you Charles, if you had checked the email. There is now NO doubts then. He has read the LGF threads on the positions here that we have NEVER implied or, ever said that Evolution and belief in God cannot coexist.

Thank you Charles.

I can see it soon becoming a qualification for church membership in some parts:

1. Must have had a membership and subsequently banned on LGF in defending the 'Word'.
2. If not had membership must have sent nasty emails.
3. Must have documented printouts as proof for validity.

/

346 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:38:36am

Here's our self styled Esq. again:

He's mostly right, but in one key point mistaken: ultimately the Constitution (and not the Gods in Black) *will* arbite on the lives of the unborn being recognized as fully human and protected by law. 'Twouldn't be hard: all we need to do is take that phrase "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" and make it part of the Constitution as it is the Declaration of Independence. 50 million dead babies cannot be right. God grant that there not be 60 million.

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

347 notutopia  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:38:55am

re: #345 Oh no...Sand People!

I can see it soon becoming a qualification for church membership in some parts:

1. Must have had a membership and subsequently banned on LGF in defending the 'Word'.
2. If not had membership must have sent nasty emails.
3. Must have documented printouts as proof for validity.

/

Heh.

348 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:39:59am
349 debutaunt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:40:43am

re: #272 ploome hineni

does he still post here?

I don't know, but the linked character looked a lot like him.

350 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:41:51am

re: #280 francisco d'anconia

Well put.

351 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:41:51am

re: #348 buzzsawmonkey

The last time a distinctly religious movement changed the Constitution, it gave us Prohibition--and made organized crime and racketeering a national phenomenon in America for the first time.

That dismal history should be recalled as a cautionary tale for anyone who is currently dreaming of a religiously-based Constitutional change.

And in a round-about way, we also got the Kennedys?

352 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:42:29am

re: #320 Scion9

Taft and Harding/Coolidge were flukes, and even Taft was at best lukewarm to business. The entire 20th century except for JFK's and RWR's tax cuts were big government full steam ahead, compared to the first half of our Republic's history.

As far as political ideology goes, the Democrats can claim Lincoln was a 'Progressive' all they want. I have read a lot about and of Lincoln and nothing I've read leads me to believe that he was "Progressive, read: Socialist". Lincoln was more or less a Federalist, that split with that ideology on its anti-democratic views. Claiming that the logical conclusion of Federalism in the mid 19th century is a Socialist state today is simply false.

You still do not explain TR's contribution to what was then called "mass politics" Essentially, there has been a steady move toward monolithic Federalism since 1789. Madison even recoiled at the though of what he had helped create. But, it was necessary. Otherwise, there would have been the separate states functioning as quasi-autonomous republics. The issue of the supremacy of the Federal government was settled in 1861-1865.

However, the issue then was what to do with the power. Not much, as it turned out, for the next thirty years. That's why there was the rise of the robber barons and the big banks. TR's "trust busting" was a means of the Federal government asserting its dominance. The imposition of a Federal income tax--by way of Constitutional amendment--is further evidence of the Federal consolidation of power.

The GOP has been more socially progressive (in the true sense of the word) than the Dems. It was the GOP contingent in Congress that pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act--in addition to all you have cited.

The problem is that there is a perception, going back decades, that the GOP is the party of big business. And there has been little the Party has been able to do to shake it.

353 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:42:31am
354 opinionated  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:43:24am
Get used to us. Otherwise, get used to outer darkness yourselves. The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

These people don't give a damn about the issues they purport to care about, they just want to extort and to feel important.

They issue threats to the GOP as if a GOP defeat does not obliterate the issues they are supposed to cherish.

If the Presidential candidate or the VP is not pure on their Bible, Guns, Gays and Abortion, then not good enough.

Maybe they missed the last election. Socialist militant abortion supporter Obama is now President. A stimulus bill that moves us to Socialism and ruin will be law. Appeasing our enemies is the new foreign policy.

They don't care.

They just care that the Republican candidate must come to them on bended knee, lie to them that their views will be instituted and swear fealty to them.

That that candidate will go down to defeat because the country is not buying what they are selling is not important.

Better an Obama with a Democrat Congress because in the "darkness" will be only the rest of us, these folks are separate, surrounded by the glow of their faith- which is all they need.

355 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:46:20am

Frankly, I think francisco is deluding himself if he thinks Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists will settle for anything less than the theocracy they desire. I don't believe they can be reasoned with. They can only continued to be denied that which they want.

356 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:46:39am
357 Max Darkside  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:46:59am

I'm Christian (I even was a student at a Seminary!). I'm here... because I like it here. Charles and all the lizards are some of the smartest people on the internet.

358 rawmuse  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:47:04am

re: #210 MandyManners

I don't care what someone believes as long as she or he doesn't try to force it down the throats of the citizens.

90 percent of what we call Government is precisely that, and is what we rail against daily. The trend is toward more throat shoving, not less.

359 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:47:15am

re: #340 ploome hineni

the Queen is head of the C of E

The Queen is the head of the Church of England, and she is also the head of State. Both positions are largely honorary or symbolic now.

I would say the best test for whether or not a given regime is a theocracy is to examine the purpose of the connection between the temporal and the spiritual components. Did the link between the temporal and spiritual forged by Henry VIII when he created the Church of England serve to impose Christian mores upon the people of England, or did it serve to impose an English secular agenda upon the Church? Remember, England was already a Christian country, mostly Roman Catholic.

The short answer is that the Pope would not grant Henry a divorce, so he made his own church.

360 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:47:30am

re: #348 buzzsawmonkey

The last time a distinctly religious movement changed the Constitution, it gave us Prohibition--and made organized crime and racketeering a national phenomenon in America for the first time.

That dismal history should be recalled as a cautionary tale for anyone who is currently dreaming of a religiously-based Constitutional change.

The last time we had an openly practicing Christian as President the Left accepted as being good was Carter.

361 yesandno  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:48:29am

Mr Kent...
Did I miss the class where it was proved without a shadow of a doubt that
Science=atheism or even that Atheism=science? Are we not overstepping to assume either is absolute?

362 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:48:37am

And we have our first pro-theocracy down-dinger: casoriole.

363 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:48:55am

re: #360 FurryOldGuyJeans

The last time we had an openly practicing Christian as President the Left accepted as being good was Carter.


in light of his most recent drek, I would argue he was a cino. . .

364 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:49:13am
365 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:50:30am

re: #364 buzzsawmonkey

Why, whatever do you mean? Obama is a practicing Christian, isn't he? He said so.

Do you see the Left proclaiming O as a man of faith and paragon of religious virtue as they were wont to do when Carter was in office? I don't.

366 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:50:32am

re: #364 buzzsawmonkey

Why, whatever do you mean? Obama is a practicing Christian, isn't he? He said so.

Black Liberation Theology: Karl Marx approved.
Gotta love it!
/

367 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:50:51am

re: #364 buzzsawmonkey

Why, whatever do you mean? Obama is a practicing Christian, isn't he? He said so.

Obama is as much a christian as I am a muslim.

368 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:50:58am

re: #354 opinionated

Yes- very true. . .

369 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:51:03am

Thanks for that H/T Charles, but never needed. Check your mail friend.

370 SlartyBartfast  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:51:30am

re: #362 Charles

And we have our first pro-theocracy down-dinger: casoriole.

Heh. "LGF Spy" rules!

371 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:51:32am

re: #363 DisturbedEma

in light of his most recent drek, I would argue he was a cino. . .

To the Left Carter was an example of what a Good Christian should be.

372 rawmuse  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:51:36am

re: #359 Alberta Oil Peon

Have been reading quite a bit about Henry the VIII of late. He and Cromwell were real pieces of work, they were.

373 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:51:39am

re: #365 FurryOldGuyJeans

Do you see the Left proclaiming O as a man of faith and paragon of religious virtue as they were wont to do when Carter was in office? I don't.

They skipped that part and went straight to him being God.

374 gopninja  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:51:50am

He's an idiot.

375 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:51:53am

re: #364 buzzsawmonkey

Why, whatever do you mean? Obama is a practicing Christian, isn't he? He said so.


yes of the GD America syn. . .:)

376 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:52:01am
377 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:52:11am

re: #371 FurryOldGuyJeans

To the Left Carter was an example of what a Good Christian should be.

A cino?

378 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:52:40am

re: #361 yesandno

Mr Kent...
Did I miss the class where it was proved without a shadow of a doubt that
Science=atheism or even that Atheism=science? Are we not overstepping to assume either is absolute?

If it isn't exactly his brand of faith then it's atheism.

379 yesandno  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:52:43am

re: #367 VegasRick

Obama is as much a christian as I am a muslim.

So does that make you a black theology Muslim?

/

380 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:52:55am

re: #355 Sharmuta

Frankly, I think francisco is deluding himself if he thinks Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists will settle for anything less than the theocracy they desire. I don't believe they can be reasoned with. They can only continued to be denied that which they want.

That is right. But I get a sense that many people who style themselves as creationists don't realize that they are being used as cannon-fodder by those groups. In my view, Francisco is trying to address that. Let's not alienate basically good-hearted but naive believers. Let's try to raise their consciousness instead.

381 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:53:01am

re: #373 Oh no...Sand People!

They skipped that part and went straight to him being God.

Did they collect 200 dollars? :)

382 horse  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:53:06am

re: #299 SlartyBartfast

Unfreaking believable. He probably views it like the city of Philadelphia viewed the Rocky statue.

Note to Obama: Churchill was a REAL leader in the real world. You may need to rub that statue's head every few days and hope some of his manly mana seeps into your clammy palms.

383 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:53:06am

re: #377 DisturbedEma

A cino?

More like fuckhead.

384 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:54:10am

re: #381 DisturbedEma

Did they collect 200 dollars? :)

Let's see...I know it's in this 1000 plus page stimulus bill somewhere...ah, here it is.

200...MILLION!?
/sarc I think...

385 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:54:27am

re: #379 yesandno

So does that make you a black theology Muslim?

/

I like to think of myself more like a "typical white guy" but I do have black hair!

386 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:54:34am

re: #380 Alberta Oil Peon

That is right. But I get a sense that many people who style themselves as creationists don't realize that they are being used as cannon-fodder by those groups. In my view, Francisco is trying to address that. Let's not alienate basically good-hearted but naive believers. Let's try to raise their consciousness instead.

but will they ever understand that it is only religious plurality that will mantain their freedom of religion? Or will they believe they are only powerful through hegemony?

387 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:55:15am

re: #384 Oh no...Sand People!

Let's see...I know it's in this 1000 plus page stimulus bill somewhere...ah, here it is.

200...MILLION!?
/sarc I think...

right under the "we're fucked" section. . .?

388 Oh no...Sand People!  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:55:44am

re: #387 DisturbedEma

right under the "we're fucked" section. . .?

ROFL!

389 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:56:12am

re: #385 VegasRick

I like to think of myself more like a "typical white guy" but I do have black hair!

what is typical for a white guy?

390 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:56:58am

re: #387 DisturbedEma

right under the "we're fucked" section. . .?

Is that the section right before the "we're REALLY fucked" section?

391 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:57:25am

re: #389 DisturbedEma

what is typical for a white guy?

Beer......and boobs.

392 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:58:20am

re: #380 Alberta Oil Peon

That is right. But I get a sense that many people who style themselves as creationists don't realize that they are being used as cannon-fodder by those groups. In my view, Francisco is trying to address that. Let's not alienate basically good-hearted but naive believers. Let's try to raise their consciousness instead.

But, AOP- that is exactly what I have tried to do here with my time on LGF. Taking the honest people who don't understand this controversy and pointing them to the Wedge Document and other sources, as well as trying to help them understand evolution. I have been consistent in this. And I don't consider it a waste of time in any way. So I don't really need someone who hasn't been paying attention telling me God and evolution are not exclusive. I've been fighting the good fight.

393 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:58:51am

What about "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"? If i recall correctly, that was one of the biggest thing about Christianity...

394 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:58:55am

re: #390 VegasRick

Is that the section right before the "we're REALLY fucked" section?

you read it too? what a load of shit, huh:)

//

395 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:59:31am

re: #391 VegasRick

Beer......and boobs.

you guys have boobs now? Shit, effing Darwin :)

396 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:59:38am

re: #394 DisturbedEma

you read it too? what a load of shit, huh:)

//

Yup.

397 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 10:59:50am

re: #386 DisturbedEma

but will they ever understand that it is only religious plurality that will mantain their freedom of religion? Or will they believe they are only powerful through hegemony?

Ema, I'm sure the real Dominionists and Reconstructionists know exactly what they are doing. And part of that is manipulating soft-headed Christians into buying into the agenda of the Discovery Institute by peddling the false dichotomy of Science vs Faith.

That's why I call many of the Creationists who pop up here "cannon fodder." They are being used, and lied to, by the shadowy figures that pull the strings.

398 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:00:08am

And we have our second pro-theocracy down-dinger: goforbroke.

399 VegasRick  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:00:40am

re: #395 DisturbedEma

you guys have boobs now? Shit, effing Darwin :)

Last night I had 4. Not counting mine.

400 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:01:01am

re: #398 Charles

And we have our second pro-theocracy down-dinger: goforbroke.

dear leader. . .is that you?

:)////

401 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:01:33am

re: #399 VegasRick

Last night I had 4. Not counting mine.

ummmm, TMI. . .I think :0

402 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:01:54am

re: #399 VegasRick

Last night I had 4. Not counting mine.

hey what happens in Vegas. . .

403 rain of lead  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:02:26am

re: #398 Charles
Hmmm.... do I hear stinky crakin his knuckles and taking a few warmup swings?

404 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:02:36am

re: #297 ploome hineni

would Kings who ruled by 'divine right' be thocracies

No, not technically. The two historic models of theocracy are Calvinism and Bay Colony Puritanism, and were remarkably similar.

A Monarch could be pious and demand his subjects be zealous Christians, but for the most part Monarchs were not interested in their serfs outside of taxing them, and keeping them happy enough to keep working for that reason. You have no say over what I can do, so I don't care what you think being the gist of Monarchist system to a certain extent. The divine right to rule was just a conception of where the government derived its authority.

A theocracy isn't demonstrably different in philosophical conception to Communism. The State is intensely interested in the views of the populous and seeks to 'synchronize' them with the views of the rulers. In such a way the government reflects the views and works benevolently on behalf of the populous, because it mandates such a belief be indoctrinated in said populous.

The religio-political ideology of society has the weight of God behind it rather than the Monarch. Government of law rather than fiat. In Massachusetts the power resided with theological scholars for the most part, who developed and interpreted the religious laws. No Kings and no divine rights necessary. A theocracy could have a King, but it would have to be some form of constitutional monarchy that preserves the theocratic relationship between the state and the people.

Early Jewish Kings probably would have fallen under the sphere of monarchism and not theocracy, but I don't know enough about that subject to say conclusively.

405 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:03:25am

re: #397 Alberta Oil Peon

Ema, I'm sure the real Dominionists and Reconstructionists know exactly what they are doing. And part of that is manipulating soft-headed Christians into buying into the agenda of the Discovery Institute by peddling the false dichotomy of Science vs Faith.

That's why I call many of the Creationists who pop up here "cannon fodder." They are being used, and lied to, by the shadowy figures that pull the strings.

And some of us have tirelessly tried to refute this nonsense. But others want to come in here and preach to the choir that we should reason with these people. Where has "fransisco" been? Why isn't "fransisco" putting in some time trying to deal with these people when they pop up on LGF? Sorry, but as one who has done her darnedest to reason with the very folks we're discussing, it's a little offensive to be told I'm not doing my share.

406 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:03:42am

re: #392 Sharmuta

But, AOP- that is exactly what I have tried to do here with my time on LGF. Taking the honest people who don't understand this controversy and pointing them to the Wedge Document and other sources, as well as trying to help them understand evolution. I have been consistent in this. And I don't consider it a waste of time in any way. So I don't really need someone who hasn't been paying attention telling me God and evolution are not exclusive. I've been fighting the good fight.

Well, Sharmuta, my readings of Francisco's posts suggest to me that he is also trying to do the same as you, but maybe his focus is not precisely the same as yours. Consider him as an ally, fighting the same war on a different front, perhaps.

407 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:06:18am

sigh. . .

408 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:06:44am

There must be some great sense of accomplishment attained when one downdings repeatedly an LGF thread.

409 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:07:28am

re: #408 unrealizedviewpoint

There must be some great sense of accomplishment attained when one downdings repeatedly an LGF thread.

self gratification. . .

410 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:07:52am

re: #406 Alberta Oil Peon

Well- then you'll forgive me if I feel I've been slapped in the face by a person who doesn't even know what I've done to help stop this nonsense.

411 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:08:59am

these are the people who demanded GW Bush over McCain in 2000, and got their way. In 2008 McCain tried to placate them by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP, but it wasn't enough and many millions of them sat home, thus helping to elect Obama. Part of the pie is never enough for this crowd....you either get behind their guy no matter how inexperienced (Bush) or they don't play.

It really is time for a strong, sane 3rd party, possibly made up of PUMAS, conservative democrats, and fiscally conservative republicans. The GOP has unfortunately become a wholly owned subsidiary of the "religious right" and dislodging them from that position is going to be worse than de-ticking a wayward hound.

412 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:09:20am
413 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:09:44am

re: #380 Alberta Oil Peon

That is right. But I get a sense that many people who style themselves as creationists don't realize that they are being used as cannon-fodder by those groups. In my view, Francisco is trying to address that. Let's not alienate basically good-hearted but naive believers. Let's try to raise their consciousness instead.

I agree, it's what I was going on about earlier on another thread. I see SO much posted assuming that this is not going to be possible, so the first communication, even if it's not rude, results in a pile-on of rudeness from the Lizards. At the first sign of disagreement. I understand sometimes people lose their patience with the out-of-line crowd. Please don't assume that your "target" is incapable of a change of heart and mind, right off the starting line. Also, not every single person who has been registered a while and posts infrequently is a "sleeper". Don't let impatience lead to paranoia. We're gonna fracture this party a thousand ways if we do that, and if we refuse to engage in other than insulting dialogue out of an assumption that the person simply MUST be too dense for reason.

414 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:09:56am

It's kind of amazing to me that these Fundamentalists want to live in a theocracy, since Jesus never wanted to found a Theocracy at all....that was the whole point: revolution from within, not without. It's as if they have learned absolutely nothing from the story of Jesus whatsoever.

415 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:10:43am

re: #410 Sharmuta

Well- then you'll forgive me if I feel I've been slapped in the face by a person who doesn't even know what I've done to help stop this nonsense.

Could you please point me to the specific words of Francisco that so offend you?

416 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:13:03am

re: #415 Alberta Oil Peon

I already posted what comment pissed me off.

417 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:13:23am

re: #409 DisturbedEma

self gratification. . .

I'd like to see one of them register with the Dickensian nic of "Master Bates"

418 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:15:08am

re: #417 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'd like to see one of them register with the Dickensian nic of "Master Bates"

for sure :)

419 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:18:48am

re: #411 funky chicken

these are the people who demanded GW Bush over McCain in 2000, and got their way. In 2008 McCain tried to placate them by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP, but it wasn't enough and many millions of them sat home, thus helping to elect Obama. Part of the pie is never enough for this crowd....you either get behind their guy no matter how inexperienced (Bush) or they don't play.

It really is time for a strong, sane 3rd party, possibly made up of PUMAS, conservative democrats, and fiscally conservative republicans. The GOP has unfortunately become a wholly owned subsidiary of the "religious right" and dislodging them from that position is going to be worse than de-ticking a wayward hound.

Which I cannot for the LIFE of me understand. . .how is this situation preferable to Palin?

how can dear leader's first acts. . .all in the face of their agenda and beliefs. . .not be more painful to see? Such a disconnect. . .

420 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:20:09am

I blame TV. Even the SoCons watch too damn much. It's like a brain-sucker.

421 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:23:43am
What are the fruits of scientific atheism when applied to human behavior and governance?

Auschwitz. Gulag. The Laogai. Reeducation camps. Babi Yar. Dachau. Srebrenica. The Cultural Revolution.

The list of science Nobel Prize winners advocating extermination of Jews? Nada.

The list of science Nobel Prize winners glorifying the Gulag? Nada.

And so it goes. There is just absolutely nothing to back up this blood libel on science. What has happened is that guys like Marx asserted that their claptrap was science. Marxtion Science is like Creation Science and Christian Science and Scientology: these guys all want the name of science attached to their belief system because if it's science, it's empirically grounded. Which it isn't.

Then when these belief systems lead their believers into error and sin, who gets the blame? Not Marx, not LRon, not Hitler or Stalin or Mao [scientists? Hah!]...no. It's all the fault of Louis de Broglie. Or Marie Curie, or Charles Darwin, or Arno Penzias.

Science, unfortunately, does not include a code of ethics that would apply to life in general. It can't, and still be science. There are good codes out there, embedded in Bible and Torah/Talmud and Buddhist writings. If you could strip out the bloodier-minded parts of the Quran, or write them off as historical edicts, meant for only one time and place, maybe even what would remain of that book.

There may be others; I'm no scholar of religion. Thanks, Christians and other believers, those who uphold and defend the ethical core. Science has little to contribute on that front. The best we can do is to carefully avoid setting bad examples.

No thanks to the Discovery Institute and its crowd of huckster theologians. You-all set very bad examples. How can it possibly work, to try craft and cunning and lies to advance the good? Won't that tactic always fail? Who is the champion and patron "saint" of lies?

422 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:28:48am

re: #421 lostlakehiker

Updinged. In fact, have some of my extras.

423 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:29:34am

re: #421 lostlakehiker

hey now- next you will say that killing in the name of religion is not logical. . .

///

424 S'latch  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:29:48am

As a Jew, I have a lot of experience with people shitting on my alters. They are everywhere, some are religious, some are atheist, and I am used to it. Outer darkness is my tenement.

425 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:30:28am

re: #420 Taqiyyotomist

I blame TV. Even the SoCons watch too damn much. It's like a brain-sucker.

for sure. . .even the Duggers are chaning their minds. . .

426 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:30:36am

I am probably going to be eviscerated for this question...
but here goes:

Part of the stimulus:

No grant may be used for "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities— (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity;

This is very broad. Some Christians feel this means any school that allows campus religious groups to meet in school buildings after hours will be barred from receiving funds or have to ban the groups from meeting on campus. Surely no one here feels that allowing campus religious groups to meet equates to the government establishing a religion. I feel this section is too broad and I stand with others that complain about it. What say you? Do you agree with me, is it too broad?

427 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:31:08am

re: #328 Wm T Sherman

Immigration lawyer, office in Detroit, looney religious world-view.

Huh.

it is rather interesting, isn't it? maybe this guy is a Dinesh D'Souza type who thinks "traditional" muslims are natural allies for "conservatives."

428 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:31:41am

re: #424 Lawrence Schmerel

As a Jew, I have a lot of experience with people shitting on my alters. They are everywhere, some are religious, some are atheist, and I am used to it. Outer darkness is my tenement.

As a fellow Jew, I will add I am used to being consigned to hell on regular basis all while being demonized. . .so yeah, what you said

429 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:32:00am

re: #414 Summer

It's kind of amazing to me that these Fundamentalists want to live in a theocracy, since Jesus never wanted to found a Theocracy at all....that was the whole point: revolution from within, not without. It's as if they have learned absolutely nothing from the story of Jesus whatsoever.

1000 updings if I could

430 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:32:35am

re: #429 funky chicken

1000 updings if I could

Sounds like a job for the ACORN treatment. . .

431 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:33:00am

re: #421 lostlakehiker

If you could strip out the bloodier-minded parts of the Quran, or write them off as historical edicts, meant for only one time and place, maybe even what would remain of that book.

Unfortunately, this is impossible. Anything that remained that would seem ethical was only stolen/plagerized from the Jewish and Christian texts. Also, the bloodier-minded parts of the Quran cannot be "written off" as historical edicts. Those parts of the Bible which are actually historical edicts for one time and one place and one people, are not "written off" as such. They ARE such.

432 horse  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:34:00am

re: #405 Sharmuta

I just wanted to thank you for putting up with my questions a little while ago and providing the responses, along with others, that helped me understand the situation. I imagine mine were the same naive questions raised hundreds of times; but it is the act of having an actual rational dialog with someone that helps sort fact from fiction.

I have read this site for a couple years and finally got registered recently. I read a lot of the prior postings, but the scope and forced agenda of the creationists still never sank in until I asked my own "dumb" questions and made my own naive comments regarding the situation. The feedback I received enabled me to rationalize the threat for myself.

The summary I now understand:
- ID=creationists, both are religious and neither are scientific
- Evolution is a heavily substantiated scientific theory (would probably be a law if there weren't so many variables and uncertainty factors making universal equations difficult)
- Belief in a creator and the scientific theory of evolution are compatible; there are several major religions that do indeed support evolution
- Supporting any laws or regulations that put forth religious positions as public government positions is not conservative nor American
- Religious and non-religious can share political agendas, but it really helps if we keep the same separations in place as in our country's governing documents

433 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:34:59am

re: #426 TooDamNice

I fully agree with what you have stated. That is a well-grounded fear. The left can define "establishment" however the hell they want, and they frequently do. Ask Mike Adams. FIRE is going to be busy the next few years. Maybe ACLU will take a token case or two.

434 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:36:02am

The title "Esq." or "Esquire" as used by American lawyers is one of the most pretentious pieces of foolery there is. I laugh my ass off every time I see it.

Many large legal firms eschew it, it's so preposterous. In fact, some of the old-line firms will send back documents that use "Esq." to refer to lawyers and ask that they be resubmitted without it.

Faugh.

435 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:37:09am

re: #429 funky chicken

1000 updings if I could

Thank you. =)

Well, I feel that it's a point which has to be hammered home. They're not really followers of Jesus if they believe in founding a Theocracy...they're just religious fanatics with no fundamental understanding at all.

436 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:37:19am

re: #398 Charles

And we have our second pro-theocracy down-dinger: goforbroke.

A question re the ding coding.

I think, perhaps if there is only one up and one down, then they both disappear. I gave an up and when I refreshed it to see if there was a down, not only did the count go back to zero, but no dingers showed, even as my option to upding was grayed out.

437 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:38:36am

I think there are some really unfair characterizations going on on this thread about the reasonableness of LGF on this topic. Not a single article that's been posted about evolution or ID has been unreasonable, but it's been met consistently with unreasonable responses such as damning us to hell, hate mail, and name calling us "atheists", just to name a few. And this is not coming from LGFers- this is coming from the creationists that we're now being told to try reasoning with. If presenting facts about evolution and the motivations of the ID movement is unreasonable, than I guess I don't know what to say other than I think it's completely unfair to say this site and it's commenters defending science are the ones needing to be more reasonable when we have gone out of our way to be just that.

438 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:39:11am

P.S. They use it because they know that most people would rather watch a back-to-back showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" than have anything more than absolutely necessary to do with a lawyer. Hence, Dewey Cheatam Howe, Lwr., just wouldn't work on an envelope. So they style themselves "Esquires".

Laughing my ass off every time I see it...

439 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:39:22am

re: #426 TooDamNice

I believe you have no posted the actual language of that article. Every version of it that I have seen states that the provision is to not fund infrastructure that is predominantly used by a religious group; not barring funding of said infrastructure if is used by a religious group at all.

Obviously if a religious group meets on campus, that campus is not predominantly for the meeting of that religious group.

440 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:41:04am

re: #432 horse

Thank you. I'm glad I could be of help. It means a lot to me when people get back to me that I've done so. So again- thank you.

441 Dan G.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:41:21am

re: #33 Sharmuta

This is the theocrat's Big Lie.

442 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:43:05am

re: #432 horse


- Evolution is a heavily substantiated scientific theory (would probably be a law if there weren't so many variables and uncertainty factors making universal equations difficult)

Your summations were pretty good overall. =) However, Scientific Theories do not "become laws". That's a common misconception. There are laws which fit into theories. Theories, in a sense, envelop laws - not the other way around. For instance, there is the "Law of Gravity" and then the "Theory of Gravity". The Law of Gravity gives the equations of gravity. It simply states what will happen on a calculable level. The Theory of Gravity encompasses the Law of Gravity, and tries to explain why gravity works that way. You can't actually get higher than a Theory in science.

Evolution is no different. Things evolve. That is a law. The Theory of of Evolution tries to explain how and why. It encompasses the law and explains the entire system - just like the Theory of Gravity, or Atomic Theory, or Quantum Theory. We know these things happen - there are laws which define their nature. We try to explain why and how with Theories which envelop them. =)

443 jcw46  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:45:27am

re: #26 summergurl

Newbies---- (((spit)))))

Lurkers ---- (((spit)))

444 NonNativeTexan  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:46:56am

re: #437 Sharmuta

They are people on both (all) sides who go to far. I recall
someone posting that everyone stepping through the
creationist museum doors be sterilized. My point is there
are always going to be a few, I just hope it stays the
minority.

445 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:48:01am
The GOP cannot win without us.

That is an interesting take. Assuming that we do require ourselves to vote for someone (my parents taught me that it is the main duty that citizens in a democracy have), how is this going to work from the perspective of LGF? It occurred to me that I need to ask Charles if he is seeing a connection between the DI/creationist people and the VB/ RS types.

446 Basho  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:48:49am

re: #437 Sharmuta

I think it's completely unfair to say this site and it's commenters defending science are the ones needing to be more reasonable when we have gone out of our way to be just that.

Exactly. Especially when we're under no such moral obligation:
[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

447 Basho  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:49:29am

re: #446 Basho

I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance — oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here.

448 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:50:05am

re: #417 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'd like to see one of them register with the Dickensian nic of "Master Bates"

Or Phil Ayshow.

449 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:52:07am

re: #436 Naso Tang

A question re the ding coding.

I think, perhaps if there is only one up and one down, then they both disappear. I gave an up and when I refreshed it to see if there was a down, not only did the count go back to zero, but no dingers showed, even as my option to upding was grayed out.

Click the rating number to see the list of dingers.

450 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:54:19am

re: #446 Basho

Well- I do my best to be reasonable with people that I sense are making honest inquiries. Like Horse up there. There have been others who came back and said I helped them understand, and it means a lot to me. But I'm sorry- I just have to draw a line when getting a finger wagged proverbially in my face that I and others here need to be more reasonable. We're not the problem.

451 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:54:46am

re: #439 Scion9

I believe you have no posted the actual language of that article. Every version of it that I have seen states that the provision is to not fund infrastructure that is predominantly used by a religious group; not barring funding of said infrastructure if is used by a religious group at all.

Obviously if a religious group meets on campus, that campus is not predominantly for the meeting of that religious group.

I did not post all of it, just the pertinent part. Here it is:

"PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities - (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."

452 jcw46  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:55:55am

re: #437 Sharmuta
Any thread remotely associated with evolution appears to be a red flag and after they see it waved, they either don't continue reading or their comprehension level falls to zero and they read what they think it says.
As far as using the GLAAD slogan; from what I've read of their rhetoric, they seem to have more in common, emotionally and verbally, with the radical left-wing than with Christianity.

453 AuntAcid  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:58:10am

re: #442 Summer

... with great increases in understanding the universe through science comes great swaths of people who seem to be devolving, risking the take down the rest of the world by the sheer weight of their combined ignorance. I won't go quietly...

454 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:00:07pm

re: #451 TooDamNice

Like I said. The leftists will take (C)(i), the first sentence, and make the phrase "used for" stand for as little activity as they deem fits the term "use". We shall see.

455 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:00:40pm

re: #74 ratherdashing

I took the "outer darkness" to mean the political type and not the spiritual type. He's talking about Republicans being outside of political power without Christians. He's not talking about being sentenced to spiritual darkness or separation.


That ain't so hateful a comment.

Oh, please. The tone of his entire screed is one of receiving political and spiritual salvation through accepting the moral leadership of Christian Conservatives.

Ain't gonna happen.

456 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:00:52pm

re: #431 Taqiyyotomist

Unfortunately, this is impossible. Anything that remained that would seem ethical was only stolen/plagerized from the Jewish and Christian texts. Also, the bloodier-minded parts of the Quran cannot be "written off" as historical edicts. Those parts of the Bible which are actually historical edicts for one time and one place and one people, are not "written off" as such. They ARE such.

There have been times and places where Christians have taken those parts to be examples for emulation. I agree with you that they were mistaken.

And it might be possible to make the case that the Quranic bloody verses are inconsistent with other parts of the Quran when interpreted as being edicts for all times and places, but not inconsistent when interpreted as being limited in scope. And if you then reason from the assumption that there aren't actually any contradictions, you arrive at the conclusion that the bloody verses are indeed limited in scope.

Well, exegesis of the Quran is not my strong point, but we can hope that somebody will come along who can make this case better.

457 Basho  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:01:02pm

re: #452 jcw46


As far as using the GLAAD slogan; from what I've read of their rhetoric, they seem to have more in common, emotionally and verbally, with the radical left-wing than with Christianity.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

"Part of Hoffer's thesis is that movements are interchangeable and that fanatics will often flip from one movement to another. Furthermore, Hoffer argues the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable: religious, nationalist and class-based movements tend to behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values are diametrically opposed."

458 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:06:21pm

re: #456 lostlakehiker

There have been times and places where Christians have taken those parts to be examples for emulation. I agree with you that they were mistaken.

And it might be possible to make the case that the Quranic bloody verses are inconsistent with other parts of the Quran when interpreted as being edicts for all times and places, but not inconsistent when interpreted as being limited in scope. And if you then reason from the assumption that there aren't actually any contradictions, you arrive at the conclusion that the bloody verses are indeed limited in scope.

Well, exegesis of the Quran is not my strong point, but we can hope that somebody will come along who can make this case better.

Christians believe that the Bible was written by human beings, under Holy inspiration, while the official position of Islam is that the Qu'ran (literally, the Recitation) was dictated to Muhammed, from Allah (God) by the Archangel Gabriel, and is word-for-word accurate and correct for all time. Thus, while there is a reasonable split between Fundamentalist Christians, who take the Bible literally, and the rest of Christians, who see parable, poetry, metaphor, simile, era-linked human prejudices, contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, no such split is officially possible within Islam. All observant Muslims are expected to submit to the literalist stance; in fact, Islam translates as Submission.

459 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:06:22pm

re: #456 lostlakehiker

"exegesis of the Quran is not my strong point"


Ditto, and, unfortunately, Reason is not a strong point of the current, that is to say, last few hundred years', crop of Muslim leaders. Or maybe it is, since they've reasoned exactly as I have on this...that the Quran does indeed call for a bloody and/or deceitful takeover of the entire worrld. The Imams and I only differ on the SOURCE.

460 Dom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:07:39pm

re: #451 TooDamNice

I did not post all of it, just the pertinent part. Here it is:

"PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities - (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."


It is very specific that the stimulus funds cannot be used for religious purposes, also clearly implying at the end that a school would be entitled to funds for general use. Forgive me if (as a Brit) I'm missing something about the stimulus bill, but I don't think it's meant to replace the education budget, and I don't think it's any kind of a religious crackdown. It is there to stimulate the economy, getting liquidity to wherever (in theory) it is most needed.

461 horse  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:10:38pm

re: #442 Summer

That is what I was trying to communicate. That we would have a Law of Evolution in similar format to other scientific laws if we had the equations. If we had universal equations for the various relationships in evolution, it would probably go a long way to correcting misconceptions created by mischaracterizations. It helps rationalization and validation in the eyes of normal people when they can view relationships in equation format.

I do understand scientific theories are supreme and encompass any applicable laws; they are the scientific explanations of complex interactions, factually based and vetted via rigorous scientific method. My undergrad was in physics, playing with lasers and a nuke reactor, good times :) I am just a little weak in the clear physical communication of thoughts arena, which is why I like simple bullet lists, and equations. lol.

462 Elkafir  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:12:31pm

Mocking, ridiculing and alienating our allies when Islamonazi appeasing socialists control the White House, the Legislative, the Executive and 95% of the media.
Unity is what we need most, yet we are tearing each other apart.
Not smart. Not good.

Koskooks and DU-ers must be filled with joy reading these posts.

463 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:14:06pm

re: #426 TooDamNice

I feel this section is too broad and I stand with others that complain about it. What say you? Do you agree with me, is it too broad?

I agree that it is poorly written and will encourage abuses that were probably not intended.

That said, out of the entire stimulus bill, THIS is the hill Huck has chosen? Not the billions to community "organizers", the fact that this legislation may well send us into an actual depression, the welfarization of America that will keep millions in poverty....

Sorry, This doesn't even make the top 10 in my list of heinous provisions.

464 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:14:08pm

re: #449 Charles

Click the rating number to see the list of dingers.

I'm not making myself clear.

In #345 I gave an upding, giving a score of 1.

I later clicked on the "1" to refresh and it went to zero and showed no dingers at all, plus my green + was grayed out. I'm guessing there was a downdinger per your earlier post, but perhaps there is a bug in the code for this particular condition. I should see one up from me and another down from someone. I don't see any.

465 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:16:30pm

re: #462 Elkafir

Mocking, ridiculing and alienating our allies when Islamonazi appeasing socialists control the White House, the Legislative, the Executive and 95% of the media.
Unity is what we need most, yet we are tearing each other apart.
Not smart. Not good.

Koskooks and DU-ers must be filled with joy reading these posts.

Allies don't demand respect and obedience.

466 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:16:32pm

re: #462 Elkafir

Mocking, ridiculing and alienating our allies when Islamonazi appeasing socialists control the White House, the Legislative, the Executive and 95% of the media.
Unity is what we need most, yet we are tearing each other apart.
Not smart. Not good.

Koskooks and DU-ers must be filled with joy reading these posts.

um, yeah- let's just UNITE and worry about what we stand for later. . .

467 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:17:31pm

re: #460 Dom

It is very specific that the stimulus funds cannot be used for religious purposes, also clearly implying at the end that a school would be entitled to funds for general use. Forgive me if (as a Brit) I'm missing something about the stimulus bill, but I don't think it's meant to replace the education budget, and I don't think it's any kind of a religious crackdown. It is there to stimulate the economy, getting liquidity to wherever (in theory) it is most needed.

If an independant campus religious group uses a buliding off-hours to hold a meeting and pray, would that be used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity? If so, those bulidings would not be eligible for stimulus funds for repair or whatever.

468 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:17:32pm

re: #465 Wendya

Allies don't demand respect and obedience.

and they do not demand submission and freedoms as a price . . . .

469 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:18:35pm

re: #460 Dom

He is worried that 'private' colleges will bar religious groups from campus to meet the provisions of the article and be eligible for the funding. The article does not say that though.

Used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity.

It does not specify the provisions for funding of multipurpose building repair, construction, or renovation. This means literally what it says. Use for specifically those purposes, and no funding.

The clause that does apply to multipurpose building repair, construction or renovation that immediately follows states...

Or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

So anything that isn't used solely, or substantially for religious purposes can receive funding. The article has to be taken as a whole.

470 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:19:14pm

re: #463 Wendya

I agree. No sense of priorities. Then again, everyone picks their battles. There are so many things to fight against in this bill, some will be neglected. There are only so many congressfolks. And there's more crap items in the bill than there are congressfolks to fight.

But you're right, I would have focused on a bigger, far worse pork-slab.

471 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:19:29pm

re: #467 TooDamNice

If an independant campus religious group uses a buliding off-hours to hold a meeting and pray, would that be used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity? If so, those bulidings would not be eligible for stimulus funds for repair or whatever.

They would be eligible for funds if they modified their policy to exclude any use of a religious nature.

472 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:20:13pm

re: #470 Taqiyyotomist

I agree. No sense of priorities. Then again, everyone picks their battles. There are so many things to fight against in this bill, some will be neglected. There are only so many congressfolks. And there's more crap items in the bill than there are congressfolks to fight.

But you're right, I would have focused on a bigger, far worse pork-slab.

so many to choose from. . .

473 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:20:44pm

re: #469 Scion9

So anything that isn't used solely, or substantially for religious purposes can receive funding. The article has to be taken as a whole.

That actually isn't what it says. And you know leftist lawyers are going to nit pick this to death until it finally ends up before SCOTUS.

474 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:21:02pm

re: #463 Wendya

I agree that it is poorly written and will encourage abuses that were probably not intended.

That said, out of the entire stimulus bill, THIS is the hill Huck has chosen? Not the billions to community "organizers", the fact that this legislation may well send us into an actual depression, the welfarization of America that will keep millions in poverty....

Sorry, This doesn't even make the top 10 in my list of heinous provisions.

Well Huck is a minister so this touches a nerve for him. (I am NOT defending him or standing with other statements that he has made.) Plenty of others are attacking the rest of this ridiculous stimulus bill.

475 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:21:03pm

re: #471 Wendya

They would be eligible for funds if they modified their policy to exclude any use of a religious nature.

That is not a correct reading of the Bill. You need to take both clauses together. The first item begs the question, and the second answers it.

476 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:21:44pm

re: #462 Elkafir

Mocking, ridiculing and alienating our allies when Islamonazi appeasing socialists control the White House, the Legislative, the Executive and 95% of the media.
Unity is what we need most, yet we are tearing each other apart.
Not smart. Not good.

Koskooks and DU-ers must be filled with joy reading these posts.

I should have blocked your sorry ass when you posted comments calling for the mass deportation of Muslims from America, and to amend the Constitution to strip them of citizenship.

That mistake is now remedied.

477 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:09pm

re: #475 Scion9

That is not a correct reading of the Bill. You need to take both clauses together. The first item begs the question, and the second answers it.

LAWYERS are going to be interpreting this, hon.

Many of us feel the 2nd amendment is a crystal clear assertion of the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms but that hasn't stopped the government and various other groups from twisting and redefining it over the last 100+ years.

478 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:19pm

I suspect that this is the sort of fellow who also believes that since a retail stores and workplaces promote "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christimas," that such is indicative of a "war on Christmas (and by default, Christians)".

479 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:35pm

This is the deleted comment by 'ElKafir' I'm referring to, and it wasn't the first:

We must separate ourselves from this cancer of civilization called Islam.

Mass deportations. Start with the non-citizens. Then continue with the naturalized and US born or converted muslims. Declare Islam a threat to the very existance of the Republic and its Constitution (afterall, in Islam the only accepted law is the Sharia and muslims everywhere in the world are taught their first duty is to obey the Islamic law and only after that to obey the laws of the countries they live in - with the condition those laws aren't contradicting the Islamic laws).

Amend the Constitution, strip them all of citizenship, offer them the chance to become apostates and remain here in the civilized world or deport them if they refuse.

Make conversion and preaching Islam a crime punished either by life in prison or deportation. That would be a humaine measure when compared with the punishment for renouncing Islam in most islamic countries is death by decapitation.

480 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:52pm

re: #476 Charles

I should have blocked your sorry ass when you posted comments calling for the mass deportation of Muslims from America, and to amend the Constitution to strip them of citizenship.

That mistake is now remedied.


Good deal

481 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:24:37pm

re: #479 Charles

mercy!

482 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:25:04pm

re: #469 Scion9

I'm no lawyer, but I think you're seeing a tighter definition in there than actually exists. I think that #467's scenario is quite possible, even probable.

The "or" is very important there.

Definitions for "facilities" and "used for" are also quite vague, or open to any and all interpretations.

483 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:25:59pm

If you want to know why the so-called anti-jihad movement has been taken over by fascist sympathizers and outright bigots, that comment is an object example.

484 swamprat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:26:10pm

re: #426 TooDamNice


I say that maybe rootin' and squealin' around the governments' trough might not be the place for a religious school. Let the stimulus be, or not be, accomodating to religion. Let the money be used to exclude schools that allow services. We all make choices. Some how we all got along before the government started handing out great armfuls of cash. You don't suppose this endevor will addict many institutions to the almighty dole, do you? You don't think that maybe some will prostitute their values in order to get some of that valuble government pork, do you?

Hang on. We've only started. The best way to rob someones' independence is to give them what they want or need. Look up Balaam and his amazing talking ass. The jews could not be directly defeated, so they were literally seduced. Sex and money are the biggest controllers of the world.

The fun ain't half begun yet.

485 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:26:37pm

re: #473 Wendya

That actually isn't what it says. And you know leftist lawyers are going to nit pick this to death until it finally ends up before SCOTUS.

They would lose in the Supreme Court and very likely before that. This isn't abnormal language for a Bill.

486 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:26:48pm

re: #479 Charles

Good GRIEF. You're more patient than I am. That would have been the raison de banstick for me.

487 the_flying_pig  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:26:56pm

I'm a secular Christian (and yes, that's an oxymoron) but I respect the US Constitution and the Establishment Clause. And I oppose any form of religious supremacy from all religions and cults.

488 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:27:30pm

re: #469 Scion9

He is worried that 'private' colleges will bar religious groups from campus to meet the provisions of the article and be eligible for the funding. The article does not say that though.


So anything that isn't used solely, or substantially for religious purposes can receive funding. The article has to be taken as a whole.

I wish you were right, but I fear that you are not. It is yet another perceived attack on religion in this country. This I is feel is why some misplaced attacks on evolution are made here. Christians are particularly sensitive lately and rightly or wrongly take out their frustration on people they feel are continuing this attack.

489 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:27:50pm

He'll be happier at jihad watch.

490 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:30:13pm

re: #483 Charles

If you want to know why the so-called anti-jihad movement has been taken over by fascist sympathizers and outright bigots, that comment is an object example.

Is DI related to these people?

491 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:30:19pm

re: #484 swamprat

This isn't about a religious school at the government trough, except on its face. What about a public, state school that has a religious group that meets in any building on campus for prayer or praise? If they feel like they're gonna get less dough from the stimulus, what types of assembly and expression are they going to feel compelled to ban on their property, that is, their "facilities"...?

492 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:31:05pm

re: #464 Naso Tang

I'm not making myself clear.

In #345 I gave an upding, giving a score of 1.

I later clicked on the "1" to refresh and it went to zero and showed no dingers at all, plus my green + was grayed out. I'm guessing there was a downdinger per your earlier post, but perhaps there is a bug in the code for this particular condition. I should see one up from me and another down from someone. I don't see any.

Hmm. Well, I do see your ding when I click the number. I'll watch out for this, but I need to duplicate a problem before I can debug it.

493 the_flying_pig  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:32:04pm

re: #434 Cato the Elder

You know, esquires meant young men who wanted to be knights by apprenticing with experienced knights. That's so medieval.

494 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:32:30pm

re: #475 Scion9

That is not a correct reading of the Bill. You need to take both clauses together. The first item begs the question, and the second answers it.

But there is an "or" in the clause: "PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities - (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; OR (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."

I think they are 2 different statements - the first being very broad.

495 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:32:34pm

re: #484 swamprat
The jews could not be directly defeated, so they were literally seduced. Sex and money are the biggest controllers of the world.

The fun ain't half begun yet.



WTF is this supposed to mean?

496 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:32:59pm

Wow that dude wouldn't have even got a warning with me, probably not even a mention AFTER banning him, except maybe a special message on login.

497 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:33:40pm

re: #445 Sunlight

That is an interesting take. Assuming that we do require ourselves to vote for someone (my parents taught me that it is the main duty that citizens in a democracy have), how is this going to work from the perspective of LGF? It occurred to me that I need to ask Charles if he is seeing a connection between the DI/creationist people and the VB/ RS types.

Pat Buchanan: 'Intelligent Design' Advocate.

Pat Buchanan meeting with Vlaams Belang leaders.

498 DisturbedEma  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:33:56pm

re: #496 Taqiyyotomist

Wow that dude wouldn't have even got a warning with me, probably not even a mention AFTER banning him, except maybe a special message on login.


like. . . what. . . umm, "nice try ass hat, you are banned"

:)

499 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:34:31pm

re: #491 Taqiyyotomist

This isn't about a religious school at the government trough, except on its face. What about a public, state school that has a religious group that meets in any building on campus for prayer or praise? If they feel like they're gonna get less dough from the stimulus, what types of assembly and expression are they going to feel compelled to ban on their property, that is, their "facilities"...?

Good point. I know that many public schools rent their bulidings for church services. I wonder if this will be affected. Wow. I didn't think about that.

500 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:36:18pm

re: #498 DisturbedEma

like. . . what. . . umm, "nice try ass hat, you are banned"

:)

Something like that. Yeah. :)

501 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:36:34pm

re: #484 swamprat

I say that maybe rootin' and squealin' around the governments' trough might not be the place for a religious school. Let the stimulus be, or not be, accomodating to religion. Let the money be used to exclude schools that allow services. We all make choices. Some how we all got along before the government started handing out great armfuls of cash. You don't suppose this endevor will addict many institutions to the almighty dole, do you? You don't think that maybe some will prostitute their values in order to get some of that valuble government pork, do you?

Hang on. We've only started. The best way to rob someones' independence is to give them what they want or need. Look up Balaam and his amazing talking ass. The jews could not be directly defeated, so they were literally seduced. Sex and money are the biggest controllers of the world.

The fun ain't half begun yet.

WTF?!?!

502 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:37:16pm

re: #499 TooDamNice

Good point. I know that many public schools rent their bulidings for church services. I wonder if this will be affected. Wow. I didn't think about that.

The claim that the language in the stimulus bill is "anti-Christian" is completely nonsensical. This is nothing more than a standard disclaimer based on the Establishment Clause. It's being ginned up by religious extremists to whip up the base. It's complete BS.

503 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:37:19pm

re: #477 Wendya


Many of us feel the 2nd amendment is a crystal clear assertion of the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms

It actually says the right of the People, meaning all individuals everywhere. The supreme Court agreed that baring the ownership of firearms by individuals is unconstitutional. The unfortunate nature of DC not being a state apparently exempts it from the 14th Amendment, and the Heller decision isn't binding across the States.

However, the language of that amendment is far from clear. It is in fact much less clear than the language of the article posted from the stimulus. There are also two versions of the 2nd Amendment, with different punctuation, which is in itself an indictment that the clerk wasn't able to determine if the language regarding militia and the People were serial statements independent of each other, or was a single statement.

504 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:37:22pm

re: #497 Charles

That connection would get me onboard... creationism/DI as a marker of other connections and possibly intentions. Sometimes I have a thick skull.

505 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:40:02pm

re: #492 Charles

I tried a little debugging. I closed and restarted my browser, and now I see my ding, and no down ding, which I had assumed was there due the zero.

I'm using Chrome lately due to some problems with Firefox, but this is the first oddity I've noticed.

Who knows? Stuff happens. Sorry if I wasted your time.

506 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:41:21pm

re: #501 TooDamNice

WTF?!?!

Most people can be bought.

The impetus behind this porkfest is creating government dependence by terrorizing the citizenry with tales of death and destruction caused by non action. Once they get people on the government teat, they know they've got most of them for life.

This is nothing more than a trumped up vote buying scheme.

507 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:41:32pm

re: #499 TooDamNice

It's my main concern with this (tiny) part of the Porkulus. I've attended small churches who have yet to get a buiding of their own, who rent space on sunday in a public school. In fact, it happens all the time, all over the country. No more, though, quite probably. That's okay, Christians don't need buildings to worship in. They got along just fine for hundreds of years without the public school buildings to use as gathering places. Oh wait. Most one-room schoolhouses were also church on Sundays.

508 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:42:05pm

re: #505 Naso Tang

I tried a little debugging. I closed and restarted my browser, and now I see my ding, and no down ding, which I had assumed was there due the zero.

I'm using Chrome lately due to some problems with Firefox, but this is the first oddity I've noticed.

Who knows? Stuff happens. Sorry if I wasted your time.

Never a waste of time to report a bug...

509 swamprat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:42:24pm

re: #491 Taqiyyotomist

What about it? Let them exclude or not. Frankly, frig em. This isn't oppression. Not even a test of faith. Somehow, I think we will survive. (Not fair? Well life isn't fair, but we will manage.) Cheer up! Those Muslim "meditation rooms" might have to pack it in as well. ( But I sure wouldn't bet on it!)

510 krisstingle  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:42:32pm

Can't shit on our altars! WOW,you are no Christian Mr Kent, Esq.

511 Wendya  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:44:01pm

re: #503 Scion9

However, the language of that amendment is far from clear.

Either you're a lawyer or you slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

Do you really intend to suggest the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights grants power to the Governments?

I've never understood the mental contortions required to come to that conclusion.

512 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:44:27pm

re: #497 Charles

And Charles, in the US, do you see the ID type threat as larger than the anti-capitalist, marxist type threat (current govt, which may or may not defend the homeland)? In Europe, I've always seen the VB type threat as a larger demonstrated threat than the jihadis (until Iran starts chucking bombs). But the FSU/China marxists have been even worse than the VB types. It does seem like a swirling mess.

513 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:44:37pm

re: #502 Charles

The claim that the language in the stimulus bill is "anti-Christian" is completely nonsensical. This is nothing more than a standard disclaimer based on the Establishment Clause. It's being ginned up by religious extremists to whip up the base. It's complete BS.

Are you sure? Allowing campus religious groups (Christian or otherwise) to use buildings after-hours does not rise to the establishment level, at least I don't think it does...

514 Catttt  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:45:54pm

A lot of these ID/creationist people who post here (not all) are casting a lot of stones. They get themselves worked up, and the next thing you know, you are being cussed at or damned to hell. Which leads me to a rare (for me) joke posting to lighten the mood a wee bit, perhaps:

Jesus was standing on a hill talking to his people.

''He who hath not sinned, cast the first stone."

Just then a stone came flying from the back of the crowd and hit him hard on the head. ''Ouch, Mom! I hate when you do that!"

515 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:46:08pm

re: #494 TooDamNice

Dude. It is one sentence separated by a semicolon. They are addressing a restriction for funding two different categories of involvement with restricted institutions. Those that are used for religion purposes; and those substantially used for religious purposes.

Does the gymnasium qualify as being used for religious purposes? Yes, there is a Bible club there; funding denied. Ok, now lets finish reading the sentence. Does the gymnasium qualify as being substantially used for religious purposes? No; funding granted.

The second clause is the binding one in this scenario. If funding was barred based on clause one in this scenario, the second would be obsolete. No funding would ever be eligible for being considered for denial, because substantial religious practice is irrelevant if any religious practice is grounds for denial before getting to the end of the article.

The only reason to include the second half of the sentence is as a modifier of the first. Reading the first half of the sentence in a way that makes the second never apply is not logical, and not legal. The intent of the framer is clear.

516 Haverwilde  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:49:46pm

re: #357 Max Darkside

I'm Christian (I even was a student at a Seminary!). I'm here... because I like it here. Charles and all the lizards are some of the smartest people on the internet.

Which Seminary, and when?

517 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:50:15pm

re: #509 swamprat

What about it? Let them exclude or not. Frankly, frig em. This isn't oppression. Not even a test of faith. Somehow, I think we will survive. (Not fair? Well life isn't fair, but we will manage.) Cheer up! Those Muslim "meditation rooms" might have to pack it in as well. ( But I sure wouldn't bet on it!)

And that's the only bright light I see in this little section of law. But I wouldn't bet on it either. I was only half-sarcastic when I said Christians don't need buildings. I'm sure most young churches would rather stand in coats in some nice farmer's barn than in a room with Dear Leader O's face beaming down at them! Those meditation rooms are paid for by the da'wa funds from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, anyway. Is a meditation room a "facility" according to this language? Or is it just a part of a larger facility? If it's the latter, then the larger facility could be denied funds for repairing the bathrooms on the other side of the building from the meditation room. Or the sidewalk outside. Or, I don't know, the faculty parking lot, since the whole campus could be considered a "facility" which is being "used for" one of the things in (C)(i).

518 TooDamNice  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:50:20pm

re: #515 Scion9

I guess we disagree. I would think if your interpretation were correct an "and" would have been used instead of an "or".

519 Haverwilde  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:52:59pm

OT: Regarding the non-Bishop Williamson and the lifting of his ex-communication.
As was mentioned here he was told to shut up and recant by the Pope, but apparently the Schismatic group he was with also told him to shut up and then fired him from his seminary position. He still has no standing as a priest and must go through a long process if he wishes to return to the priesthood. Another virulent anti-Semitic Schismatic priest was ex-communicated, only this time by the same Schismatic group. Although the Pope was widely criticized for his lifting the order of ex-communication, it apparently is having a positive effect on the Schismatic group as they move toward reconciliation with the larger Catholic Church. It is gratifying to see that the anti-Semitic vermin are getting shoved aside in the process.

520 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:54:14pm

re: #511 Wendya


Do you really intend to suggest the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights grants power to the Governments?

No, I don't agree with that interpretation, and neither did the Supreme Court. However this is the exact language of the Amendment as it was ratified.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the People to keep and bear arms, has absolutely nothing to do with a State running a well regulated militia. The fact that that phrase is there begs the question. There is no logical reason for that sentence to be constructed that way.

Of course, being that apparently Madison himself didn't seem to think that citizens walking around on the street, and Congressman killing each other in pistol duels was such a big deal gives a lot of historical evidence towards the father of the Bill of Rights believing that bearing arms was a right. Plenty of insight into the intent of the framer. Nothing to do with the language of the Amendment itself.

521 swamprat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:56:08pm

re: #495 DisturbedEma

The fun ain't half begun yet.


WTF is this supposed to mean?

It is supposed to mean that a lot of religious schools might decide to take the money and forgo their former religious affiliations....because of money.

522 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:57:35pm

re: #515 Scion9

Dude. It is one sentence separated by a semicolon. They are addressing a restriction for funding two different categories of involvement with restricted institutions. Those that are used for religion purposes; and those substantially used for religious purposes.

Does the gymnasium qualify as being used for religious purposes? Yes, there is a Bible club there; funding denied. Ok, now lets finish reading the sentence. Does the gymnasium qualify as being substantially used for religious purposes? No; funding granted.

The second clause is the binding one in this scenario. If funding was barred based on clause one in this scenario, the second would be obsolete. No funding would ever be eligible for being considered for denial, because substantial religious practice is irrelevant if any religious practice is grounds for denial before getting to the end of the article.

The only reason to include the second half of the sentence is as a modifier of the first. Reading the first half of the sentence in a way that makes the second never apply is not logical, and not legal. The intent of the framer is clear.

Exactly right.

523 swamprat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:00:14pm

re: #521 swamprat


Also many industries might become defacto nationalized. I am serious.

524 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:03:51pm

re: #518 TooDamNice

I guess we disagree. I would think if your interpretation were correct an "and" would have been used instead of an "or".

(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; AND (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

This totally changes the entire meaning of the article. It no longer restricts funding to the same things. It is now less restrictive. It bars sectarian instruction, religious worship and a department of divinity that also must be substantially subsumed by a religious mission.

A divinity department isn't by default substantially subsumed by a religious mission, but it is likely chartered as a nonprofit for a religious organization.

Or and And obviously have different meanings. A footbath would likely be barred from funding under the original language, but not when you substitute AND for OR, as said footbath wouldn't meet both criteria (it doesn't meet any of the first, and all of the second).

525 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:04:28pm

re: #515 Scion9

Dude. It is one sentence separated by a semicolon. They are addressing a restriction for funding two different categories of involvement with restricted institutions. Those that are used for religion purposes; and those substantially used for religious purposes.

Does the gymnasium qualify as being used for religious purposes? Yes, there is a Bible club there; funding denied. Ok, now lets finish reading the sentence. Does the gymnasium qualify as being substantially used for religious purposes? No; funding granted.

The second clause is the binding one in this scenario. If funding was barred based on clause one in this scenario, the second would be obsolete. No funding would ever be eligible for being considered for denial, because substantial religious practice is irrelevant if any religious practice is grounds for denial before getting to the end of the article.

The only reason to include the second half of the sentence is as a modifier of the first. Reading the first half of the sentence in a way that makes the second never apply is not logical, and not legal. The intent of the framer is clear.

So it is left open for (someone) to decide... Scouts, out; foot baths, in; prayer group, in... I mean is the second half in there to let local favors be granted?

526 swamprat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:06:14pm

re: #517 Taqiyyotomist

Just so. We got along fine without buildings for many years.

527 Maximu§  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:11:11pm

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

The Jackboots on the Right are just as scary as the Jackboots on the left.

528 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:11:20pm

re: #462 Elkafir

People who want to jack with the constitution are not my allies, regardless of their political spectrum or beliefs. They never will be, and that holds true for most americans as well. These sunsabitches in DI need to be kicked to the curb, regardless how much cash they flash.

529 clgood  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:14:43pm
Good grief. What do you even say to something like that?

I think a proper response might be

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
530 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:14:58pm

re: #527 Maximu§

When the jackboots of the left come for YOU, who will you count on for support? You can’t shit on our altars and then ask for our help. It doesn’t work that way.

The Jackboots on the Right are just as scary as the Jackboots on the left.

See 497 and 512... can we just get rid of all the Jackboots?

531 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:18:08pm

re: #528 Thanos

People who want to jack with the constitution are not my allies, regardless of their political spectrum or beliefs. They never will be, and that holds true for most americans as well. These sunsabitches in DI need to be kicked to the curb, regardless how much cash they flash.

Thanos - You saw this, right?
[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

532 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:18:38pm

re: #525 Sunlight

Scouts, out; foot baths, in; prayer group, in... I mean is the second half in there to let local favors be granted?

By my reading, if any of those would be excluded it would be the footbath as they only have one purpose, and as such are substantially subsumed by a religious mission and kaffir literally can't use them because we have cooties that can wash off.

Scouts and prayer groups use facilities that are used for things other than the first criteria, and those other things are what those facilities are substantially subsumed with; not a religious mission.

That is about as clear as I can get. I've been up for a while so maybe I'm not being as clear as I think I am; but I would advise staying calm.

533 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:21:44pm

re: #532 Scion9

By my reading, if any of those would be excluded it would be the footbath as they only have one purpose, and as such are substantially subsumed by a religious mission and kaffir literally can't use them because we have cooties that can wash off.

Scouts and prayer groups use facilities that are used for things other than the first criteria, and those other things are what those facilities are substantially subsumed with; not a religious mission.

That is about as clear as I can get. I've been up for a while so maybe I'm not being as clear as I think I am; but I would advise staying calm.

Uh, Scouts are already out... booted. So maybe they can get back in. Because people who don't go to church really don't have much opportunity to be around scouts and maybe join.

534 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:24:14pm

The BSA has raised multi $millions to buy their own land near the AP Hill site they've used for years as a jamboree site. Because they figured it will be cheaper than the lawyers to defend the lawsuits for using any public land.

535 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:26:50pm

re: #532 Scion9

And by the way, I'm not a religious person, but I was raised in a religious household and the rest of my family still is, including actual members of Protestant clergy among my immediate relations.

I'm from a very 'progressive' state, am a strong believer in religious freedom (and generally the right for people to think whatever they want) and am very familiar with religious bigotry and snobbery in far-left circles.

The majority of my experiences in a 'Church' growing up were also in a makeshift one in the basement of a high school, so I'm also aware of what the more hysterical implications of this article are.

I just think it is wise to not to overreact. If this language actually meant anything, there are a lot of very religious congressmen in both the GOP and Democrat party that have heard about it by now, that are also very well versed in the law. If it meant what people think it means, we would be hearing about it a lot louder, and a lot more frequently than just from the sources that we have.

536 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:31:57pm

Test

537 swamprat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:32:51pm

re: #501 TooDamNice


re: #495 DisturbedEma

Balaam realized that Israel could not be militarily defeated by the kingdom of the Amorites. So the Amorites subverted Israel most amorously. Almost worked, too. I have equated subversion by sex with subversion by money, but I think the analogy is fairly accurate.

538 Scion9  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:33:16pm

re: #534 Sunlight

The BSA has raised multi $millions to buy their own land near the AP Hill site they've used for years as a jamboree site. Because they figured it will be cheaper than the lawyers to defend the lawsuits for using any public land.

From what I understand about the Boy Scouts is that they were denied their tax exempt status as a nonprofit because they went against established public policy in regards to discrimination (which is law I don't agree with by the way, but that is neither here nor there).

They were never considered a religious organization, and I suppose rather their facilities were subsumed by a religious mission or not would be up to debate, but I suspect they would be considered so from my own personal experience as a boyscout.

If they were not, this article would not apply to them either way, but it is likely there are other similar clauses for other types of nonprofits; especially recalcitrant ones.

539 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:38:42pm

re: #462 Elkafir

Mocking, ridiculing and alienating our allies when Islamonazi appeasing socialists control the White House, the Legislative, the Executive and 95% of the media.
Unity is what we need most, yet we are tearing each other apart.
Not smart. Not good.

Koskooks and DU-ers must be filled with joy reading these posts.

They shouldn't. Exposing idiotarianisms of all stripes wherever they rears their ugly heads is an eminently consistent position.

540 pygmalienation  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:42:38pm

re: #421 lostlakehiker

Upding for that!
It seems to escape some "religious" folks that lies, deceit and duplicity are NOT of G_d.

541 wiffersnapper  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 2:08:27pm

Here's the mail, it never fails, it make me wanna wag my tail, when it comes I wanna wail, MAAAAAAAAAAIL!

542 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 2:33:38pm

re: #531 Sunlight

No I hadn't that's not a website I visit or trust, but the Huckster said it himself, so it's valid data.

543 theheat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:11:57pm
Good grief. What do you even say to something like that?

STFU comes to mind, but that's not very crafty.

Coincidentally, in a post a couple days ago, I said these people were out, they're loud, and they're proud. Yes, just like the gay slogan.

The GOP CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US.

Keep telling yourself that, buddy. That one never fails to make me double over laughing. It's the standard Fundie retread argument. Like, who else would they vote for? If they start their own party, they can't carry the majority, so that leaves them either voting for 'those godless liberals' or the GOP. Gee... lemme see... decisions, decisions. The GOP has their vote, no matter who they nominate. All their threatening and posturing and threats of boycotting doesn't change that.

If the GOP wants to wise up and become attractive to the majority again, they'll quit jumping every time the far right nutjobs crack their whip. This group only has relevance because the GOP keeps handing it to them on a silver platter.

544 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:16:41pm
545 uptight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:36:50pm

It pisses me off that God believers ascribe the Nazi Death camps and Stalism to Atheism.

Atheism just means that you DON'T believe in God, not that you do believe in any particular alternative.

Hitler may have been an atheist, for all I know, but that's as relevant to the holocaust as his vegetarianism.

You can't even argue that not believing makes one more susceptible to committing atrocities. Some of the worst atrocities in history have been made by people who do believe in God. Indeed some of those atrocities have actively been made in the name of God (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, Islamic terrorism etc).

When atheists do actively back an atheist cause, they moan about intelligent design or the separation of church and state. Nobody gets killed in the "name of atheism".

546 Sunlight  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 4:37:48pm

re: #542 Thanos

No I hadn't that's not a website I visit or trust, but the Huckster said it himself, so it's valid data.

I only picked that website because it was the first one not MSNBC on the google list. I don't read many websites... but I had seen something on this about Huckabee earlier somewhere and it seemed appropriate for this thread.

547 alexa kim  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 7:30:20pm

Most of the time, I have time to skim most postings and their comments and actually read just a few. Most of the time, I comment only when I'm really interested in the subject, and that still depends on time.

So I think I'm sounding like my moderate self when I opine about evolution and creation.

Then I get set upon like I've just said "Let's lynch a koala!"

Ok, so I'm seeing Charles mention, several times, that he keeps getting hate mail of the order of magnitude only hellfire and brimstone believers can summon from wherever they summon it.

Am I being identified with the hate-mailers?

548 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 12:05:36am

re: #547 alexa kim

Most of the time, I have time to skim most postings and their comments and actually read just a few. Most of the time, I comment only when I'm really interested in the subject, and that still depends on time.

So I think I'm sounding like my moderate self when I opine about evolution and creation.

Then I get set upon like I've just said "Let's lynch a koala!"

Ok, so I'm seeing Charles mention, several times, that he keeps getting hate mail of the order of magnitude only hellfire and brimstone believers can summon from wherever they summon it.

Am I being identified with the hate-mailers?

I know that I'm associating you with the gratuitous down-dingers.

re: #539 Salamantis

And repaying you in kind.

549 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 2:59:13am
550 Mr Secul  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 5:15:41am

re: #549 ebed_melech

Are you five years old?

551 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 8:37:17am

re: #549 ebed_melech

Charles you'll ruin the US by attacking its foundations like this.

You have some nerve, don't you -- after spewing idiotic young earth creationism all over LGF, and being allowed to keep your account regardless, now you've graduated to accusing me of "ruining the US."

Get off my site.

552 Randall Gross  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 8:59:09am

re: #546 Sunlight

I try not to send too much traffic to sites on the left so if I find something like that I hit the "youtube" logo to bust it out of frame, and then link the video instead of the site.

553 Yashmak  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 9:20:23am

re: #543 theheat

Keep telling yourself that, buddy. That one never fails to make me double over laughing. It's the standard Fundie retread argument. Like, who else would they vote for? If they start their own party, they can't carry the majority, so that leaves them either voting for 'those godless liberals' or the GOP. Gee... lemme see... decisions, decisions. The GOP has their vote, no matter who they nominate. All their threatening and posturing and threats of boycotting doesn't change that.

Moreover, if they stay home, they guarantee the left wins. If they push issues like intelligent design and certain other so-con issues that the moderates of the GOP find abhorrent, some of those moderates flip and vote either for the dem candidate, or an independent, again likely handing the left a victory.

Folks like this guy forget that the Republican party is comprised of millions of voters, all with subtly different stances on the issues. We're not a homogeneous collection of voters who all share the same views.

554 FuzzyBunny924  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 3:43:49pm

As a secular, non-religious person who believes in the theory of evolution and the separation of church and state...I have to say that labeling this guy's note as "hate mail" appears a little thin-skinned. Sure he has a different point of view, and he is expressing it clearly, and as a previous commenter noted, passionately.

Isn't labeling someone's ideas that you disagree with as "hate speech" something a lot of us here are passionately against? Where is the 'hate' in his speech that deserves such condemnation? I'm not saying I agree with the guy...I don't...but damn, how about enjoying the spirit of free and open debate. Jeez.

555 alexa kim  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 7:09:40pm

re: #548 Salamantis

Salamantis, I'm beginning to think that you have an issue with anyone who disagrees with you for it is you who is the serial gratuitous down-dinger. I didn't start the just-because down-dinging, you did, on me, merely because you think yourself superior.

I don't believe the up/down-dings are meant for indulging petulance.

When I have minused your comments, it's because I genuinely believe you've said something gratuitously vulgar, insulting, snarky, snide, outrageous or off-topic.

I wish to come here and comment on the topic given, without fear of harassment or ad hominem.

Now be a gentleman for a change and step off. Either comment about the topic or not, but you have to stop bullying me.

556 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 7:49:59pm

re: #555 alexa kim

Down-dinged for gratuitous and unsupportable ad hominem.

I have already presented an example of a gratuitous down-ding of yours, where you offered no substantial responses to my contentions:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Please inform the list where anything I said in that post was incorrect, much less "gratuitously vulgar, insulting, snarky, snide, outrageous or off-topic."

Except when returning a tit for your tat, I have replied to the posts of yours that I have down-dinged, and made it amply and abundantly clear why I disagreed with them.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

557 alexa kim  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 8:14:34pm
Except when returning a tit for your tat...

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

I'd like you to stop bullying me.

558 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 9:21:42pm

re: #557 alexa kim

I'd like you to stop bullying me.

Downdinged for lying.

I'm not bullying you. I'm holding you responsible for the content of your posts (which is completely unlike your behavior towards mine, which you have downdinged without substantial reply).

And I will continue to do so until the cows come home and lay down and die, and rot, and sequoias grow on their corpses.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh