At Least The Crazy Candidate

[Guest]

from Delaware will get trounced tomorrow. Leave it to the GOP who could have easily won that seat if they had nominated a moderate Mike Castle. Maybe we'll get lucky and the other screwball from Nevada will also lose. Then there's that other extremist from Kentucky who wants to roll back the 20th century. Speaking of crazy candidates and their nutty statements, anyone know when Obama's death panels are going to begin their evil work?

[Guest]

Speaking of crazy, I think Barney Frank is in trouble.

[Guest]

Speaking of crazy, I think Barney Frank is in trouble.

myself, and wouldn't be terribly upset if he is sent packing.

[Guest]

...Maybe we'll get lucky and the other screwball from Nevada will also lose...


I pray you are right. Harry Reid needs to go.

[Guest]

I pray you are right. Harry Reid needs to go.

You got me on that one.

[Guest]

You got me on that one.


I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read your post. The death panel thing was a good one.

[Guest]

Death panels? About the time the boomers reach senility, I reckon.

[Guest]

from Delaware will get trounced tomorrow. Leave it to the GOP who could have easily won that seat if they had nominated a moderate Mike Castle. Maybe we'll get lucky and the other screwball from Nevada will also lose. Then there's that other extremist from Kentucky who wants to roll back the 20th century. Speaking of crazy candidates and their nutty statements, anyone know when Obama's death panels are going to begin their evil work?

A brilliant political analysis. You could be on MSNBC, you should call them. You'd fit right in. Such cogent observations.

[Guest]

If Castle was such a lock to beat Coons, why couldn't he beat O'Donnel??

[Guest]

and allow the crazy incumbents to remain unscathed?

btk

[Guest]

Speaking of crazy, I think Barney Frank is in trouble.

I did what I could being from District 4 in MA, now we wait :popcorn:

[Guest]

A brilliant political analysis. You could be on MSNBC, you should call them. You'd fit right in. Such cogent observations.

once before, Lou Card was right about you.

[Guest]

once before, you're a pompous ass----.


With all due respect, a pompous ass is someone who thinks themselves a bit better than anyone else, and thus far in this thread alone you have called a poster a name and a candidate crazy !

Maybe you should reconsider what you say at times ?

[Guest]

With all due respect, a pompous ass is someone who thinks themselves a bit better than anyone else, and thus far in this thread alone you have called a poster a name and a candidate crazy !

Maybe you should reconsider what you say at times ?

you have to admit that both descriptions are spot on.

[Guest]

you have to admit that both descriptions are spot on.

You sir lack wit and reason. But you being a liberal, we forgive you.

[Guest]

You sir lack wit and reason. But you being a liberal, we forgive you.

bowled over by the level of discourse that I see every day from you and your fellow conservatives on this forum. Such quips and repartee I have rarely seen before. William Buckley would be so proud.

[Guest]

once before, Lou Card was right about you.

Also, along with all the attributes previously discussed, now you have demonstrated that you all have a the same sense of humility and humor as the dearly departed Mr. Card. It is wonderful how you can engage in discourse with your fellow bloggers and continually demonstrate your knowledge and insight into the discussions you participate in. Kudos to such a brilliant thinker like yourself.

[Guest]

Also, along with all the attributes previously discussed, now you have demonstrated that you all have a the same sense of humility and humor as the dearly departed Mr. Card. It is wonderful how you can engage in discourse with your fellow bloggers and continually demonstrate your knowledge and insight into the discussions you participate in. Kudos to such a brilliant thinker like yourself.

like a pompous ass again.

[Guest]

the only analysis of crazy in this election cycle that i can offer is that the inmates are running the asylum called the federal government!

[Guest]

Bill: Why? Because Christine O'Donnell makes "great TV" and it's easier to repeat the endless supply of idiocy of hers that's on videotape than to go look for others.

[Guest]

Bill: Why? Because Christine O'Donnell makes "great TV" and it's easier to repeat the endless supply of idiocy of hers that's on videotape than to go look for others.

I'd really like to discuss her statements from any of the debates she had with the woeful Coons. What statements or responses of hers do you classify an "endless supply of idiocy"?

[Guest]

like a pompous ass again.

You only disgrace yourself sir. You reveal yourself more the fool with each response. Keep it up if you wish. Your legend is growing.

[Guest]

bowled over by the level of discourse that I see every day from you and your fellow conservatives on this forum. Such quips and repartee I have rarely seen before. William Buckley would be so proud.

What is it that you would like to dicuss WITHOUT THE NAME CALLING that seems to prevail in all of your conversations ? (I note you changed and edited your first response to RichieLion)

PLEASE...PLEASE....every time you are asked to discuss issues you end up making it a lecture series on how you feel about people on this board and NOT the issues.f

Let me give you a list to choose from (or choose your own)

The Health care bill

The Deficit

The war on terrorism and what part this country should play

Open and transparent government

You can pick and choose but please agree that other than a well aimed barb at someone you disagree with (ALL of the well aimed barbs must be shrouded in ACTUAL discussion of the issue you select) and not simply a lecture to, or look down, on other posters.

Your move

[Guest]

There's hope on the rise for a come from behind surge for the "crazy candidate" Christine O'Donnell. OOOOOHHHHH; the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'll have tomorrow if this underestimated and defamed woman prevails, OOOOHHHH, the anguish!!!!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/02/coons-camp-expresses-turnout-worries/

[Guest]

There's hope on the rise for a come from behind surge for the "crazy candidate" Christine O'Donnell. OOOOOHHHHH; the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'll have tomorrow if this underestimated and defamed woman prevails, OOOOHHHH, the anguish!!!!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/02/coons-camp-expresses-turnout-worries/

what, I'll make you happy and leave this board permanently if she wins that race. Now you can come back with your usual obnoxious, condescending response.

[Guest]

what, I'll make you happy and leave this board permanently if she wins that race. Now you can come back with your usual obnoxious, condescending response.

I only revert to what you call "obnoxious and condescending", (I just call it funny), when you cannot defend your opinions and views and then engage in personal attacks on me, or unwarranted and false attacks on others.

You don't have to leave the board and that would not make me happy. What would make me happy is for you to once be able to articulate a thoughtful response in place of your usual defamatory glib remark.

[Guest]

I only revert to what you call "obnoxious and condescending", (I just call it funny), when you cannot defend your opinions and views and then engage in personal attacks on me, or unwarranted and false attacks on others.

You don't have to leave the board and that would not make me happy. What would make me happy is for you to once be able to articulate a thoughtful response in place of your usual defamatory glib remark.

from now on to be a little less inflammatory. Sorry I got carried away on this thread. Peace.

[Guest]

from now on to be a little less inflammatory. Sorry I got carried away on this thread. Peace.

Right back at you actor. We start anew.

[Guest]

It is like deja vu all over again. Back when you know who was posting in political threatening to leave, and then apologizing and coming back. Now that isn't a jab or saying anything bad or hateful about anybody. It's just an observation. I mean...I'm just saying.

[Guest]

Richie: I haven't seen much from any of her debates, most notably her ignorance on the 1st Ammendment.

What I *have* seen are the numerous excerpts from her approximately 2 dozen appearances on Bill Maher's shows. Some of the lines that I can remember off the top of my head:

- Why aren't monkeys evolving into humans?

- Evolution is a myth

- Masturbation is adultery

- Condoms don't work at all

- Women should 'submit' to men

She is *willfully* ignorant and almost seems to revel in that ignorance.

Again, this is what I remember without resorting to research. I *know* there's a lot more that I'm forgetting. (Yes, I'm deliberately ignoring the 'dabbled in witchcraft' idiocy because, again, she doesn't know what she's talking about)

[Guest]

Bill Maher's show? OMG Consider the source. He was once funny and pertinent, about 20years ago. He is just a liberal shrill, now a days.

[Guest]

They were O'Donnell's own words. When accused of taking things out of context he (Maher) responded by playing the same clip, just a longer version to show just how NOT out-of-context those rather outlandish statements were (and still are, thanks to the magic of videotape).

She appeared on his show some 2 dozen times (I can't remember if the actual number was 22 or 26 but it was in that area).

I find myself increasingly disappointed at Maher's slow slide into being nastier and more of a "name caller" - in particular over the last 4 weeks.

[Guest]

djplong, are you saying you agree with Bill Maher regarding what he said about humans evolving from monkeys in that old clip with Christine ODonnell?

[Guest]

They were O'Donnell's own words. When accused of taking things out of context he (Maher) responded by playing the same clip, just a longer version to show just how NOT out-of-context those rather outlandish statements were (and still are, thanks to the magic of videotape).

She appeared on his show some 2 dozen times (I can't remember if the actual number was 22 or 26 but it was in that area).

I find myself increasingly disappointed at Maher's slow slide into being nastier and more of a "name caller" - in particular over the last 4 weeks.


There could be many many threads discussing the new practice of getting our "news" from comedy shows with a spin.

I have no opinion on the Delaware race, but quoting a political hack who failed as a comedian is just foolhardy ! After the MSM got hold of those old clips, this gal had no chance even if she had a message to deliver.

[Guest]

Palin as the attack-ee of all opposition.

btk

[Guest]

You ever notice how that failed comedian from Minnesota never gets any heat? Talk about idiots.:duck:

[Guest]

BK: It was O'Donnell who asked why monkeys weren't "still evolving" into humans. She said this on Maher's old show, "Politically Incorrect". She also said that evolution is a myth.

This demonstrates to me that, not only does she not know what she's talking about (that's bad enough but can be dealt with), but that she proceeds from those ignorant assumptions.

First and foremost, evolution doesn't say we "descended from monkeys". What it says is that chimps, apes and humans HAD A COMMON ANCESTER millions of years ago. In other words, one fork of evolution produced chimpanzees and another fork produced humans.

Secondly, evolution is not a "myth". At *worst* you could call it a theory that has not been disproven but is not iron-clad because there are holes in the fossil record but SO FAR, everything in the fossil record follows along with what evolution describes. In addition she's out of touch with how long evolution takes (thinking that we should be able to see monkeys evolving before our eyes).

Now, to go any further down that subject (evolution) is a debate for another thread.

More on-topic is how candidates like them win their primaries in the first place. It just seems to me that there were a lot more "loonies" in the major parties this year than in years past. I mean, you could always find loonies in the minor, 3rd party and fringe parties. But now?

- O'Donnell, well documented.
- New York had a guy sending bestiality pictures in emails and saying "well, that's the construction biz".
- Rand Paul, an eye doctor certified by a board that HE STARTED (not the board that's been around for 100 years)
- In South Carolina a guy who didn't campaign but won the Democratic primary even though he was under indictment for stalking, could barely form whole sentences and appeared to live in his father's basement.

No, Republicans didn't have a monopoly on crazy candidates.

I'm of the mind that the gauntlet that the press and everyone else puts people through has so thoroughly discouraged good people from running that THESE are the kinds of people we get.

[Guest]

And what do these quirks have to do with running a GOVERNMENT? Are you saying that if a person believes that the earth is flat, it will make him less of a government hack?

I sense a double standard here. Strong independent woman like this lady and Palin get beaten up while the Nancy Pilosi's , who go along with the party lines, get a free ride?

[Guest]

And what do these quirks have to do with running a GOVERNMENT? Are you saying that if a person believes that the earth is flat, it will make him less of a government hack?

I sense a double standard here. Strong independent woman like this lady and Palin get beaten up while the Nancy Pilosi's , who go along with the party lines, get a free ride?

This is the reason why on all the debates between McDonnell and Coons she was asked her opinions on her beliefs instead of substantive questions on her views on the Constitution and her anticipated role in relation to it. She repeatedly tried, and with some success to do this anyway. Despite the picture painted in the news she mopped the floor with the woeful Coons who didn't even know what freedoms the First Amendment granted US citizens.

By the way dj, she was right about the words "separation of church and state" not being in the First Amendment albeit the televised ignorance of the college students and moderators who voiced shocked laughter. This is a great example of the brainwashing of the liberal elite.

All in all Ms. O'Donnell dragged the Delaware Republicans to the conservative side of the aisle and, like Sarah Palin, I expect you'll be seeing more of this talented woman all over television. I also expect her to be derided and called names by liberal talking heads and their disciples, much like the influential Sarah Palin, much to her delight, is derided and underestimated by these same culprits.

I can see 2012 from my house:pepper2:

[Guest]

This is the reason why on all the debates between McDonnell and Coons she was asked her opinions on her beliefs instead of substantive questions on her views on the Constitution and her anticipated role in relation to it. She repeatedly tried, and with some success to do this anyway. Despite the picture painted in the news she mopped the floor with the woeful Coons who didn't even know what freedoms the First Amendment granted US citizens.

By the way dj, she was right about the words "separation of church and state" not being in the First Amendment albeit the televised ignorance of the college students and moderators who voiced shocked laughter. This is a great example of the brainwashing of the liberal elite.

All in all Ms. O'Donnell dragged the Delaware Republicans to the conservative side of the aisle and, like Sarah Palin, I expect you'll be seeing more of this talented woman all over television. I also expect her to be derided and called names by liberal talking heads and their disciples, much like the influential Sarah Palin, much to her delight, is derided and underestimated by these same culprits.

I can see 2012 from my house:pepper2:

Good post RICHIELION. I often wonder why the women's groups do not get more upset at what, I at least, consider different treatment of women candidates versus men. Some of the questions would never be asked of a man and I wonder why since they are running for the same offices !

[Guest]

BK: It was O'Donnell who asked why monkeys weren't "still evolving" into humans. She said this on Maher's old show, "Politically Incorrect". She also said that evolution is a myth.

This demonstrates to me that, not only does she not know what she's talking about (that's bad enough but can be dealt with), but that she proceeds from those ignorant assumptions.

First and foremost, evolution doesn't say we "descended from monkeys". What it says is that chimps, apes and humans HAD A COMMON ANCESTER millions of years ago. In other words, one fork of evolution produced chimpanzees and another fork produced humans.

Secondly, evolution is not a "myth". At *worst* you could call it a theory that has not been disproven but is not iron-clad because there are holes in the fossil record but SO FAR, everything in the fossil record follows along with what evolution describes. In addition she's out of touch with how long evolution takes (thinking that we should be able to see monkeys evolving before our eyes).

Now, to go any further down that subject (evolution) is a debate for another thread.

More on-topic is how candidates like them win their primaries in the first place. It just seems to me that there were a lot more "loonies" in the major parties this year than in years past. I mean, you could always find loonies in the minor, 3rd party and fringe parties. But now?

- O'Donnell, well documented.
- New York had a guy sending bestiality pictures in emails and saying "well, that's the construction biz".
- Rand Paul, an eye doctor certified by a board that HE STARTED (not the board that's been around for 100 years)
- In South Carolina a guy who didn't campaign but won the Democratic primary even though he was under indictment for stalking, could barely form whole sentences and appeared to live in his father's basement.

No, Republicans didn't have a monopoly on crazy candidates.

I'm of the mind that the gauntlet that the press and everyone else puts people through has so thoroughly discouraged good people from running that THESE are the kinds of people we get.


Do you want me to post it djplong, or do you want to post the segment you have brought up here where Bill Maher said humans evolved from monkeys? You know the clip that Huffington Post broadcast about "science is about reality."

"Monkey's don't evolve in the time it would take to watch them," is Maher's response to Odonnell's belief that evolution is a myth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/christine-odonnell-evolution-monkeys_n_739131.html

[Guest]

Richie: It also doesn't say "gun rights" in the Consitution. But "the right to keep and bear arms", which is what that translates to, IS in there.

No, "separation of church and state" isn't technically in there, but "shall pass no loaw respecting an establishment of religion" IS in there, which is what that translates to, ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE THE CONSITUTION - the exact words in letters written later are "wall of separation".

O'Donnel thought, as many do, that the Constitution 'only' forbids an 'official religion'. They think it says "respecting an establishment of A religion" and it does NOT.. It's a VERY important distinction.

[Guest]

Yeah, he said monkeys don't evolve 'in the time it takes to watch them' but he knows that chimps are not going to evolve into humans - we don't know WHAT chimps will look like in a million years (assuming they aren't wiped out by any outside influences).

Again, it's the common misconception that frosts me. We did not evolve from apes or chimps. *All* higher primates evolved from a common ancester *that no longer exists*.

[Guest]

The founding fathers were good fearing people and did not want an "official" church run by government, like England had.

The founding fathers did not want government to infringe on our right to bear arms, no matter how some people "read" into it.

[Guest]

Ajack: They also knew the dangers of appearing to favor one sect over another. Read some of Jefferson's writing concerning Christianity. It backs up the view that religion and government should never be in bed with each other. While writing some vitriolic statements concerning Christianity ("In our practice of orthodox Christianity I can find not one redeeming virtue") he was quite tolerant of religions in general ("It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.")

[Guest]

When I saw the title of this thread I was sure it was about Alan Grayson.

[Guest]

When I saw the title of this thread I was sure it was about Alan Grayson.

My thoughts exactly. Now we need to get rid of Al Franken.:a20::a20:

[Guest]

Richie: It also doesn't say "gun rights" in the Consitution. But "the right to keep and bear arms", which is what that translates to, IS in there.

No, "separation of church and state" isn't technically in there, but "shall pass no loaw respecting an establishment of religion" IS in there, which is what that translates to, ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE THE CONSITUTION - the exact words in letters written later are "wall of separation".

O'Donnel thought, as many do, that the Constitution 'only' forbids an 'official religion'. They think it says "respecting an establishment of A religion" and it does NOT.. It's a VERY important distinction.


You're awful stubborn about this and your desire to "reword" the Constitution.
Let me try again so it might be understood.

Congress shall pass no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion.

Main Entry: respecting
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: regarding
Synonyms: about, as to, concerning, in connection with, in respect to, referring to, relating to, with reference to, with regard to

Where in the word "respecting" do you extract "seperation"?

Let me answer for you; NO WHERE!!!!! Just substitute any synonym for "respecting" in place of the word and, then again, tell me how you wrench "seperation" out of that word.

So you have to then refer to "letters" written by a founder, or a activist court "re-interpretation" to justify your bastardizing of this solemn document. The Constitution, as written had to be debated and ratified by the Congress and I don't think they would appreciate it that you are "reinterpreting" and "redefining" it after the fact.
As I have stated previously the Constitution, unlike the Bible, was not written in metaphors or parables. It's a simple and succinctly written document that leaves no room for creative reading. This is yours and the activists in the highest courts dilemma in trying to institute your own biases in the nations founding documents.

I know by now that you won't accept this because anti-religiousity seems to be a prime aspect of "your religion", but the truth is the truth no matter how you rail against it.

[Guest]

You got it wrong again.

You said "respecting the establishment of religion". It reads "respecting an establishment of religion"

That's a HUGE difference. "an establishment of religion" refers to things like churches, schools, etc. "THE establishment or religion" covers a LOT more than that - it could be argued that would include the very belief in God to begin with.

[Guest]

djplong, I remember you said you were interested in history. Take a look at this. It is very edcuational for everyone. I think it is a real treasure.

It is the Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the
United States by Arthur J. Stansbury, 1828. At one time it was used in schools.

I love this quote from the book,

"...remember that this precious Constitution, thus wise, thus just, is your birth-right. It has been earned for you by your fathers, who counseled much, labored long, and shed their dearest blood, to win it for their children.

"To them, it was the fruit of toil and danger ---to you, it is a gift. Do not slight it on that account, but prize it as you ought. It is yours, no human power can deprive you of it but your own folly and wickedness. To undervalue, is one of the surest ways to lose it.

"Take pains to know what the Constitution is ---the more you study, the higher you will esteem it. The better you understand your own rights, the more likely you will be to preserve and guard them.

"And, in the last place, my beloved young countrymen, your country's hope, her treasure, and one day to be her pride and her defence; remember that a constitution which gives to the people so much freedom, and entrusts them with so much power, rests for its permanency, on their knowledge and virtue...

"The virtuous citizen is the true noble. He who enlightens his understanding--controls his passions--feels for his country's honor--rejoices in her prosperity--steps forth to aid her in the hour of danger--devotes to her advancement the fruits of his mind, and consecrates to her cause, his time, his property, and his noblest powers, such a man is one of God's nobility... We have seen such men among us; we hope to see many more."

Starting on page 68, the issue of religious freedom is discussed.




http://www.americanjusticefoundation.com/Research/Resources/Elementary%20Catechism%20on%20the%20Constitution.p df

[Guest]

You got it wrong again.

You said "respecting the establishment of religion". It reads "respecting an establishment of religion"

That's a HUGE difference. "an establishment of religion" refers to things like churches, schools, etc. "THE establishment or religion" covers a LOT more than that - it could be argued that would include the very belief in God to begin with.

That's nuts!! There's no elemental difference of the facts or meaning thereof, even with my misnomer. You still are bastardizing the meaning. Congress cannot establish a religion; granted. Congress does not have to hide religion from your presence in the public square.

[Guest]

BK: I'm reminded of a line from "National Treasure". "People just don't write like that anymore".

[Guest]

Richie: Again, you did it. You used "establish" as a verb and not the noun that it was originally written. That's the single-most common error I've ever seen when it comes to reading the Constitution (the second being what the meaning of "well-regulated militia" is).

Read the writings of Jefferson and Madison.

And NO Congress does NOT have to hide religion from the public square - that's been established time and time again. What HAS been prohibited is preferring one over the other. You can't allow a nativity scene and prohibit a menorah.

What DOES happen is that local districts in their brainless and spineless wisdom decide they don't want to dip their toe into the controversy and prohibit EVERYTHING.

[Guest]

Richie: Again, you did it. You used "establish" as a verb and not the noun that it was originally written. That's the single-most common error I've ever seen when it comes to reading the Constitution (the second being what the meaning of "well-regulated militia" is).

Read the writings of Jefferson and Madison.

And NO Congress does NOT have to hide religion from the public square - that's been established time and time again. What HAS been prohibited is preferring one over the other. You can't allow a nativity scene and prohibit a menorah.

What DOES happen is that local districts in their brainless and spineless wisdom decide they don't want to dip their toe into the controversy and prohibit EVERYTHING.

The key word in the sentence is "respecting". That's the defining word in the sentence that conveys the meaning that is intended. That's your mistake and not mine. I have to read no writing besides the Constitution to understand the meaning. You have to reference other writings to suit your preferred definition and try to justify it.

[Guest]

The "key word" is THE WHOLE SENTENCE. If you concentrate on just one word, one COULD say "They said Congress - so that means New Hampshire can have an official religion".

My point is that one of those words has been frequently misinterpreted (and another word added) and THAT changes the meaning of the whole thing.

[Guest]

The "key word" is THE WHOLE SENTENCE. If you concentrate on just one word, one COULD say "They said Congress - so that means New Hampshire can have an official religion".

My point is that one of those words has been frequently misinterpreted (and another word added) and THAT changes the meaning of the whole thing.

That's a real bit of overreaching on your part. It's really not complicated. The word "respecting" is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. It describes the quality, state or action that a noun refers to.

The noun that the adjective "respecting" is modifying is the word "establishment".

Word: respecting
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: regarding
Synonyms: about, as to, concerning, in connection with, in respect to, referring to, relating to, with reference to, with regard to

Word: establishment
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: organization; creation
Synonyms: enactment, endowment, formation, formulation, foundation, founding, inauguration, installation, institution, setting up

So, in fact, what the sentence in the Constitution is saying is that Congress shall not enact any law REGARDING the CREATION of religion ...... PERIOD!!!

[Guest]

Thank you for at least making my point. Except I think you mistyped it. Using your definition substitutions it would read

"Congress shall pass no law REGARDING an ORGANIZATION of religion" although it sounds a little sillier when you say "REGARDING an CREATION of religion" and I think it would be more grammatically appropriate to say "REGARDING a CREATION of religion" - again with creation being a noun, not a verb. It would have been even EASIER to misinterpret if they'd used 'creation'. But still, even in that form, 'creation' as a noun still applies to a church, a school, a business or anything else created by a particular religion.

[Guest]

Thank you for at least making my point. Except I think you mistyped it. Using your definition substitutions it would read

"Congress shall pass no law REGARDING an ORGANIZATION of religion" although it sounds a little sillier when you say "REGARDING an CREATION of religion" and I think it would be more grammatically appropriate to say "REGARDING a CREATION of religion" - again with creation being a noun, not a verb. It would have been even EASIER to misinterpret if they'd used 'creation'. But still, even in that form, 'creation' as a noun still applies to a church, a school, a business or anything else created by a particular religion.


If I "made your point", you must now agree with me that the Constitution of the United States does not, in fact, call for a separation of church and state but merely an edict that there would be no official state religion. This is why prayers are still said in Congress. Thank You.

Also you can see a new thread by Taltarzac that also makes my point by pointing out how people have misread the point of the letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury Ct. penned by Jefferson for many years, and exposes the "mythical separation of church and state"

[Guest]

Richie, to paraphrase others, can you tell me a place where religion and politics mix well? Here are the examples that I think of when I hear about that mix:

The Inquisition
Northern Ireland
Iran and Islamofascism.
The Vatican priest abuse scandal
The Dark Ages
The Salem Witch Trials

Combine that with the Christ himself saying how private and personal religion is - and how one should view with skepticism the person who is loudly proclaiming him faith - and that should be enough.

But remember many of Jefferson's quotes - I've quoted him before and shouldn't need to do it again.

[Guest]

United States of America "In God We Trust".

[Guest]

Richie, to paraphrase others, can you tell me a place where religion and politics mix well? Here are the examples that I think of when I hear about that mix:

The Inquisition
Northern Ireland
Iran and Islamofascism.
The Vatican priest abuse scandal
The Dark Ages
The Salem Witch Trials

Combine that with the Christ himself saying how private and personal religion is - and how one should view with skepticism the person who is loudly proclaiming him faith - and that should be enough.

But remember many of Jefferson's quotes - I've quoted him before and shouldn't need to do it again.

That's fine and I don't disagree with your conclusions about what happens, and has happened, in the name of religion. God knows I've been trying to get people to understand and believe that we are, in fact, at war with Islam whether we like it or not, because the vast and overwhelming majority of Islamists believe their religion requires them to convert us all, or kill us all, or die trying.

My only opposition to the anti-religionists is their attempting to ban me or anyone else from exercising our religion in any venue we please at point of "law" as was granted and guarantied me by the Constitution of the United States and the blood of our forefathers.

You may disagree or disapprove of how some people pursue their religious beliefs, and you have every right to show your displeasure and even protest their religious actions, BUT NOT WITH THE POWER OF THE LAW.

[Guest]

I don't know much about this, but it doesn't seem to hold anyone back here...

I think that the separation of church and state is good...although on the surface it doesn't seem to be. When my children went to school and then my grandchildren too, I wouldn't have argued if there was something taught about religion or prayers prayed if it agreed with the religion our family followed. BUT, I wouldn't have liked it at all if the religion taught and the prayers prayed were not what we believed. I would say the same thing about creationism being taught in schools. Who is to stop a lot of different theories of origin taught that are religious. Some of us would agree with them completely and some of us wouldn't. We can choose if our children get sex education. It makes me feel bad that our kids aren't really allowed to be taught values the way we were as kids, but unfortunately not everyone agrees about values.

I like it a lot to see the Christmas lights at our local police station in West Chester. But, I kinda wonder if my Jewish friends feel a little hurt by that.

This is not an easy question and there are no easy answers.

[Guest]

Ok, RichieLion, I think we're getting somewhere here. You said you didn't want any law preventing you from practicing your religion "in any venue (you) please"

Can you expand on that? Where is it that you want to practice your religion where you are not allowed to (or are under threat of proposed/pending legislation that WOULD prevent it)?

[Guest]

Ok, RichieLion, I think we're getting somewhere here. You said you didn't want any law preventing you from practicing your religion "in any venue (you) please"

Can you expand on that? Where is it that you want to practice your religion where you are not allowed to (or are under threat of proposed/pending legislation that WOULD prevent it)?

It's not really a matter of what I want. It the point of what is and has been prohibited because of the deconstruction of the intent of the first Amendment.

The Bible, and Christian principles in general, are being censored from our public schools and, in fact, from the whole “public square.” Under the guise of adhering to the “separation of church and state doctrine,” judges and other government officials are disallowing Christianity in all venues administered by the United States government. Now, many people believe that the American government was designed to include “a wall of separation” between church and state.

Robert L. Cord, a professor of political science a Northeastern University writes in his book, Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction,

“Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit."

This appears to be a reasonable understanding of the First Amendment; far more reasonable than asserting that it erected an wall of separation. And it becomes even more reasonable when one considers the words and actions of America's settlers, founders and leaders.

It doesn't seem likely that the founding fathers included the First Amendment in the Constitution to prevent Christianity from influencing state-established institutions; but in fact, America's founding fathers expected our nation to be, on the whole, Christian, and our government to reflect that. This is evident by the fact that the first act of the United States Congress was to authorize the printing of 20,000 Bibles for the Indians.
When you look at our history, you cannot avoid the conclusion that America was founded on Christian principles and with the assumption that her citizenry would adhere to those same principles. When George Washington, under the new Constitution, received the request of both Houses of Congress concerning a national declaration of a public day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, our first President issued a "National Thanksgiving Proclamation" without any apparent concern that he might be mixing government and religion. I think if they were alive today our founding fathers would be considered extreme right wing zealots.

The moral framework of the world pretty much guarantees terrible disaster for the country that grants sovereignty to something other than God, because in such circumstances sovereignty ultimately becomes the property of the state. When the state holds ultimate authority, government officials may commit whatever atrocities they like upon their subjects, because only the state may determine what is right and wrong. America's religious liberty is based on the founding father's declaration that our rights were inalienably bestowed by the Creator. If our freedoms are now instead granted by the state, then the state may take them away at any time. If we no long recognize the Creator in our public discussions, we have surrendered our rights to the power of the state.

I'm getting a little long winded, but I hope I've expanded to your satisfaction. I really am enjoying this DJ.

[Guest]

I can only find one real hole in what you wrote - any other differences I have with your position are minor. But you said:


The Bible, and Christian principles in general, are being censored from our public schools and, in fact, from the whole “public square.” Under the guise of adhering to the “separation of church and state doctrine,” judges and other government officials are disallowing Christianity in all venues administered by the United States government.


It is simply not true. What *is* true is that *if* you allow (to take a classic case) a nativity scene on the common, you *have* to allow a menorah or other religiouse symbols. You cannot show preference for one over the other.

Schools *are* allowed to talk about the Bible - *and* other religions.

HOWEVER - gutless and lilly-livered politicians don't want to step into waters where they actually have to THINK or perhaps defend an unpopular position (like if a pagan group wanted a Yule display in a more conservative community) so they take the "no tolerance" approach (which I equate to 'no thinking').

Yes, we were founded by Deists who where *greatly* influenced by Christian (many say judeo-Christian) principals. But they were smart enough to know the dangers of "one sect versus another" and said none could appear to be akin to the Teacher's Pet.

223 years of challenges has meant a lot of analysis and legal hair-splitting has happened over the years. It's easy to see where that can cause a lot of frustration. I mean, having a high-school football team say a prayer before a game doesn't seem like much (and if it's a Catholic high-school, there's no problem with that). But if it's a public school, what happens when the first Jewish kid in on that team and gets beaten up because he doesn't "accept Christ as his Lord and Saviour" (as happened in Texas, if memory serves)?

By the same token, *nobody* should be able to tell you me or anyone else how to worship behind closed doors, on private property or anywhere else that isn't on public land so long as nobody's rights are being violated (i.e. sharia law, the Catholic priest scandal, Bakker's fraud, etc).

And, Richie, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your willingness to expand upon your views. Too often, these days, we're influenced by sound-bite mania. You'd think that with a half-dozen 24/7 news channels, they'd have time for REAL news, not just reporting what was in Paris Hilton's purse during her last arrest or which rehab facility Lindsay Lohan has checked into.

[Guest]

I can only find one real hole in what you wrote - any other differences I have with your position are minor. But you said:



It is simply not true. What *is* true is that *if* you allow (to take a classic case) a nativity scene on the common, you *have* to allow a menorah or other religiouse symbols. You cannot show preference for one over the other.

Schools *are* allowed to talk about the Bible - *and* other religions.

HOWEVER - gutless and lilly-livered politicians don't want to step into waters where they actually have to THINK or perhaps defend an unpopular position (like if a pagan group wanted a Yule display in a more conservative community) so they take the "no tolerance" approach (which I equate to 'no thinking').

Yes, we were founded by Deists who where *greatly* influenced by Christian (many say judeo-Christian) principals. But they were smart enough to know the dangers of "one sect versus another" and said none could appear to be akin to the Teacher's Pet.

223 years of challenges has meant a lot of analysis and legal hair-splitting has happened over the years. It's easy to see where that can cause a lot of frustration. I mean, having a high-school football team say a prayer before a game doesn't seem like much (and if it's a Catholic high-school, there's no problem with that). But if it's a public school, what happens when the first Jewish kid in on that team and gets beaten up because he doesn't "accept Christ as his Lord and Saviour" (as happened in Texas, if memory serves)?

By the same token, *nobody* should be able to tell you me or anyone else how to worship behind closed doors, on private property or anywhere else that isn't on public land so long as nobody's rights are being violated (i.e. sharia law, the Catholic priest scandal, Bakker's fraud, etc).

And, Richie, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your willingness to expand upon your views. Too often, these days, we're influenced by sound-bite mania. You'd think that with a half-dozen 24/7 news channels, they'd have time for REAL news, not just reporting what was in Paris Hilton's purse during her last arrest or which rehab facility Lindsay Lohan has checked into.

I actually do have a little problem of the politically-correct reasons for the dominant Christian community to have to hide their religion in the public square to protect those that might be offended. If they are merely offended and not harassed, or beaten up as you said, I say it's a small price to pay to live in the freest greatest nation ever given man by God.

If a bunch of players want to get together to say a prayer before a game, in any venue, it should not be looked at as anything but a good thing. The non-Christian could merely stand aside or say his own prayer in his own way if he wishes.

Our money says "In God we trust." and the U.S. Congress starts its daily session with a prayer. The same U.S. Supreme Court that has consistently struck down organized prayer in public schools as unconstitutional opens its public sessions by asking for the blessings of God.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional for including "under God" on June 26th 2002, and then one day later, the Supreme Court rules that tax-supported vouchers can be used to help parents pay tuitions to religious schools.

Is saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance "an establishment of religion?" Does prohibiting a teacher or coach from leading their class or team in a voluntary prayer "prohibit the free exercise" of religion? Is there any point of compromise at which religion and government can co-exist?

I believe that anyone who lives in this Christian created and still Christian dominated country where, by law, they are not discriminated against in regard to their own religion or religious practices, should be encouraged and thankful for people who are trying to live a good modern Christian way of life. If everyone behaved as a good Christian, in an ideal sense, the problems of the world would be mostly solved. Of course, this is all idealistic as Christians are still human and therefore very fallible. Of this, based on your posts, I know you are quite aware of.

[Guest]

I'll take your examples for response..

The players before a game? Tough call. It's supposed to be about teamwork but the Jewish kid is left out of that. Until said kid starts getting harassed, though, it's a gray area that might do well to consider another solution (see *)

The money? It says God (common to almost every religion), not "Jesus our Lord and Savior" (much more specific). I don't have a problem with that.

Congress starting with a prayer - is it forced participation? In addition, it's not a law.

The USSC? I think one of the jsutices would have to challenge that as other don't have legal standing.

The Pledge? "Under God" was added in 1954 in reaction to the "godless communist" threat.

Vouchers for religious schools? I'm kinda neutral there so long as religious indoctrination isn't part of the curriculum.

As far as leading in a voluntary prayer, it saddens me that the solution isn't self-evident. I moved to NH in 1974. The school day was started, after the announcements over the PA with a "moment for silent meditation". If you wanted to pray, you could. If you didn't want to, that was fine. Everbody happy.