The Right’s New Strategy: Anti-Alito = Anti-God
The Right’s New Strategy: Anti-Alito = Anti-God
This morning’s Washington Post previews the right-wing’s new counterattack against Alito opponents:
Several conservative groups, meanwhile, plan a major push beginning Monday to portray Alito’s opponents as anti-God. Talking points for the effort, which will involve ads and grass-roots organizations, were laid out in a strategy memo by Grassfire.org…
Here’s an excerpt from the memo:
First, let’s call out the groups that are attacking Judge Alito from behind their “independentcourt.org†moniker. Who do we find when we lift the veil? The ACLU, People for the American Way, NOW, NARAL, AFL-CIO, Human Rights Campaign, MoveOn.org, Americans United, NAACP, NARAL (see link at end for the full list). And what theme unites these groups? An agenda to purge any and all references to religion from our public lives.
But there a few members of the coalition that Grassfire doesn’t mention:
– The Interfaith Alliance (“A national grassroots organization of 150,000+ individuals of faith and goodwill drawn from more than 75 different religious traditions.)
– Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (“Representing Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, and Jewish national organizations.â€)
– National Council of Jewish Women
– Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
The memo says that these groups, and all of the others in the coalition, oppose Alito because they are “radical secularists.†These kind of dishonest tactics suggests that Alito’s backers are worried.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
There are substantial reasons beyond his stance on abortion to reject this candidate. Beware the over kill, and over emphasis of the abortion issue.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:53 amWhen, oh when, will they figure out that all we want is to put all religions (and atheism) on an equal footing? After all, we’re all Americans in good faith, right?
Oh wait. They have figured it out.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:03 amWhat’s their point? The constitution isn’t about God.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:39 amTigris Lily.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:48 amBingo!
God didnt write the constitution. Founding(Thieving)Fathers Did.
Let all Be FREEEEE!
Yea Right, What a Crock of a Constitution, Right?
But that is undeniably true, Judd. Noting a couple of leftwing quasi-religious-group exceptions doesn’t disprove the rule.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:56 amThose groups aren’t quasi-religious groups, they are religious groups. And, whatever you happen to think of them, they cannot be accurately described as “radical secularists.” This is desperation.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:03 amJudd, no one with a brain is fooled by a thin veneer of quasi-religion on an overwhelmingly radical-secularist group.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:07 amJudd, “Those groups aren’t quasi-religious groups, they are religious groups.”
I thought you liberals wanted to keep religion out of politics. Hypocrites.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:08 amThey Are Greedy for Money, Nothing More. Greed Drives Religion.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:08 amA Better way of Putting it. They Are Greedy For God.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:12 am(They really Dont want to Share Heaven with You.)
They expect you to buy your way to heaven just as they Supposedly Did.(hahahaha).
Soon they,ll realize that they actually bought the WRONG Ticket.
The Ticket they bought? One Way To Hell.
the scoudrels always are those who :
Rapt themselves around the :
The flag , religious symbols or any symbol that appeals to emotions . These symbols are used in the past and present to control , enslave the masses by unscrupulous so call political , religious leaders for their selfish agrandissement and rightiousness of their beliefs ( myths }.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:16 amAt the present we have a large population who buy their arguments and promises ,always promises , to be safe , financialy secure and above all to have a place in heaven .
Well beeing is only achieved thru personal ethical behaviour and hard work . Empirically those last attributes have been always, thru history the only sure thing .
To do otherwise is to accept war , inflation , depression , confusion ,civil unrest that lead to break down of civil societies and state.
Relegion and politics are big business. Some of the biggest profiteers are the telavangelests. This entire spin by the right is more of the “if you are not with us you are against us” Bush mentality. Yep! the same person who stole both elections, is against abortion and birth control,now. His past or when it suits him include paying for a girl friends abortion, drinking, drugs, insider trading fraud in his companies, AWOL, starting a war and killing 2124 service men and women, neglecting the south even to date, thousands of Iraq people killed. Distroying our econemy, enviroment and giving our country away to foreign powers holding our debt. Reducing all benefits to the poor and working class and rewarding the rich and biggest polluters..I’m sick of this mess and hope we impeach the entire lot of liers and thieves soon.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:21 am# 11
I like to mention the MILITARY as part of the selfish interests ( WAR ) their symbols are aside the flag , medals , so call heroism , uniforms , ranks . The promises of victories are the tools of their trade .
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:28 amDefense at Home , not foreign adventures , is the best use of the military and CIVIL police such as the FBI , CIA ,local police for the best protection of our country and the constitution written by wise men who new the ravages of oppression , aristocratic and religious .
And the opposing argument is that the extreme right wants fundamental christianity in every part of our government and personal lives. Because it’s not about allowing those who practice other religions to promote their faith on the American Political stage like christianity has (Christmas, Easter). No other religion is allowed to have paid holidays off to celebrate their religious holidays.
It’s really tiring to hear that we’re ‘antireligion’. No, I’m anti-fundamentalist christianity. Their doctrines are bigoted and prejudiced in nature and have no business dominating our government, let alone being in it at all.
Until it can be holistically applied where are faiths have equal ability to present their symbols and ideology, then none should.
That said, this string is a good example of how well organized the extreme right is; something I’m not seeing on the ‘opposing’ side. It’s time that we ‘liberals’ start making a coordinated and effective effort to take back our government!
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:31 amVenezuela on Thursday launched an ad campaign touting its cheap heating oil program for the US poor, as Washington faces criticism for doing little to protect consumers from high fuel prices.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:32 amWwallace is the determiner of whether or not someone is religious. There is real relgion, and then there is the Wwallce standard. Nothing patronizing about that position.
-GSD
So now the “nanny-state” much lamented by the right has been supplanted by the ‘Sunday-school teacher standard’, much loved by the right. They WANT religion forced down the throats of Americans…..You MUST say Merry Christmas, you must submit to overtly religious(Some would call them idols) symbols in and on public spheres..You must submit to laws that exclude other religions and secularism…
What say we allow some of the cities that have dominant Muslim or Jewish faiths to start posting Koran pages on court walls? Stars of David in police stations…How about the Moonies…..maybe they should demand some large statues of old Sun Myung himself in some town squares…
This is about forced religiousity, the last time our nationembraced the mingling of religion and law, 19 people were hung and one old man was crushed with stones.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:35 amTo Take Back Our Government, one must Accept the Fact that One is Not Free.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:35 amI don’t believe in invisible super-beings.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:38 amThat’s not an argument, it’s a bigoted rant.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:40 amAlso, with Alito. Why is the right wing so embarrased of their position on abortion? Some else said it right on. They hated Clinton and his lawyerly parsing of words, but Alito and even Roberts were more evasive than Bill Clinton in his grand-jury testimony.
Come on Alito, be proud of your anti-abortion stance. Have some balls wingers….
-GSD
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:42 amMack MacKenzie. Do you Believe in Freedom? (The Religous Right Believe that Jesus is Free). Do you believe that?
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:43 amHow can anything be free if it dosn,t exist?
It is bigoted to say that many in the Christian right want to force their religious into the public sphere through the judiciary? You better go read some of Roy Moore’s writings and speeches. He wants to do just that.
-GSD
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:44 amForced Religion? Don,t you mean Forced Freedom?
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 amYou should know, WW; you’re one of the biggest bigoted ranter of all.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:46 amChristians Don,t force religion, they force freedom.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:46 amthats the only way to make money.
the reason Churches Accept Sin, is to Keep Sinners Going to Church, And make Offerings(Moeny).
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:47 amI cant believe people are so naive about this.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:48 am#21 Yes, I do believe people have the right to be free, however that has nothing to do with invisible super-beings.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 amIf Sinners stopped sinning, The Churches would go out of Buisness.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 amOutlawing certain sexual acts is considered freedom? Maybe in Orwells 1984, not in my book. Outlawing abortion is freedom? Outlawing use of the day after pill? Outlawing contraceptives? Sounds like using the federal and state governments to dictate personal morality..not a hallmark of a free society.
-GSD
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 amThe “religious right”:
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:51 am
Oh yes. Please donate to my church. God called me on my cell-phone and told me that I will be “taken home” if I don’t raise enough money in the next month.
Remember old Oral Roberts placing the benevolent and loving God in the position of an extortionist.
-GSD
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:51 amActually, it has Everthing to do with Invisible Super-Beings.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:52 am(According to church teachings) The invisible super-beings
sat us Free.
How can that be if there are no invisible super-beings?
God who gave us life gave us liberty??????
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:55 amGod Gave us Life, Maybe, BUT, liberty?
What in the hell is liberty?
it sounds like a disease. Liberty of the pancrease
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:56 am“Who do we find when we lift the veil? The ACLU, People for the American Way, NOW, NARAL, AFL-CIO, Human Rights Campaign, MoveOn.org, Americans United, NAACP, NARAL….”
Obviously, these folks don’t believe in proofreading something before they send it out.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:01 pm1) Christianity doesn’t have exclusive knowledge on morality. With the current actions of Bush and several Republican representatives, I would say they haven’t a clue what morality is.
2) We’re in the 21st Century, WW. Many faiths have God(s); “it’s not just about christianity”. Some of our founding fathers understood this; they were deists. They accepted that individuals could (and did) understand and worship ‘god’ in many different perspectives. One size does NOT fit all!
3) If society as a whole cannot respect the multitude of other religious philosophies (or those who ascribe to no faith), then it is prudent that none be accented. The christian right has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are unable to achieve that level of understanding. They can’t even accept variations within the christian philosophy itself, let alone widening the spectrum!
Alito has demonstrated that he does not maintain objectivity with his judicial stances, and therefore, has no business being a supreme court justice. Objectivity is a strong factor in secular thinking. Maybe that’s the problem eh? The right doesn’t want objectivity; they want brainless followers who just drink the Koolaid without questions. Yeah, what a healthy society there, huh?!
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:04 pmWinter in Pakistan
Pakistani earthquake survivors fight for their lives once more as winter snow covers the ground.
Updated: 10:11 a.m. ET Dec. 3, 2005
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:05 pmMUZAFFARABAD, Pakistan – Doctors struggling with a constant flow of patients in a quake-ravaged Pakistani city warned on Saturday that the number of sick could swell dramatically in the coming weeks, as harsh weather creates conditions for pneumonia and other illnesses to spread.
#37.
Remember George W. Bush’s response to the right-wing criticism of Harriet Miers. “Just trust me, she is an evangelical Christian who will think like me and she won’t change her mind 20 years from now.”
That is some creepy shit.
-GSD
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:09 pmO.K Listen, For faith believes as well as non faith believers alike.
Here is the Problem. Since there is no invisible super-beings, That means we on this Planet are Alone And Must Help One another in order to Stay Alive. For if we Die, The End Of civilization will End.
We cannot choose and pick whom should live and whom should Die, for if we do, A whole lot more Wars are coming.and everybody will die.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:13 pmOR,
We can ALL Just Choose to End The World as we Know it, or move to another planet. But, Someone needs to LEAD!
No doubt, GSD. Terrifying to think that this man has control of our government. I didn’t think that two little hands could crush the gonads of so many legislators! He’s been allowed to run amok, and run our country into exorbitant debt while trashing our reputation with nary a whimper from our legislative branch. What’s up with that?
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:14 pmLet us all stay ” RATIONAL ” .
To do otherwise is to play in the hands of those who want to enslave .
Remember Vince Lombardi : ” fight ! fight ! FIGHT !
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:15 pmThe NAACP is anti-God? Now I’ve heard it all. Any group who says that is lying, pure and simple.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:15 pmMother Nature is Picking us Off in mass Doses, I don,t Think Mother Nature is in our favour right now.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:16 pmover a hundrd thousand dead from the earthquake in Pakistan.
You ALL Heard of the Tectonic Plates. You all Know they Move . You All know how Dinosaurs Became Extinct!
Mother Nature is Horrifying.
The good news is that the whack-jobs are
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:19 pmbeing forced to over-reach.
The anti-God meme may play to the fundies
(who probably see everything that way, and
believe the O’Lielly stupidity too), but
it is too over the top for the majority
who are now pretty suspicious of anything
coming from “commander codpiece’s” team.
Whos to say that another Ice Age wont Happen? Or, A great Flood? Or, Earthquakes of 10 or higher Magnitudes?
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:19 pmComets, Storms, Landslides,
Mother Nature is Evil.
Why do people fall for this garbage?
“And what theme unites these groups? An agenda to purge any and all references to religion from our public lives.”
This is their stock in trade: mischaracterize the position of their opponents so as to cast themselves as victims. Oh yeah, the poor Christian, conservative victims. Cry me a river.
Somebody point out where any of these groups, or anybody at all, explicitly advocates eliminating religion from public life. It is a DELIBERATE LIE by cowards who cant face the fact that they have bought a pig in a poke, cant win arguments on the merits, and have to resort to lying and bullying.
You know they have a point though. they call us appeasers. To the extent that we fail to challenge them on their BS, they are right. They have tried to put us in a damned if you do/dont position. If we fight back, that increases the perception of their victimhood; and if we dont fight back, the bullies win without opposition.
We have to fight back. Be there no doubt. The only q. is how to do so effectively.
For starters, how about posting the Sermon on the Mount in every public square?
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:21 pmor the ten commandments?
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:24 pmJack O.
That has been one of the paradox’s of the right wing. They accuse the left of being soft, feminine, squishy, unwilling to fight, weak French, pathetic, gay, unable to stand up for their beliefs.
Then they flip the script. The left is violent, always on the attack, cruel, name calling, negative, powerful, thugs, they run the media, they set the agenda.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The Republicans are victims now. Even though they have the Whitehouse, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, large swaths of the media, big oil and Wall St. they are still the beleagured and victimized class.
It is really quite amusing to watch.
-GSD
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:32 pmYeah GSD,
To have all that power and still be “victims”
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:35 pmmust be so hard on their egos.
I-RIGHT-I IS SCARED SHITLESS ABOUT GOING TO HELL,ROFL,harharhar
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:42 pm“First, let’s call out the groups that are attacking Judge Alito from behind their “independentcourt.org†moniker. Who do we find when we lift the veil? The ACLU, People for the American Way, NOW, NARAL, AFL-CIO, Human Rights Campaign, MoveOn.org, Americans United, NAACP, NARAL (see link at end for the full list). And what theme unites these groups? An agenda to purge any and all references to religion from our public lives.”
Each and every one of those groups should be prosecuted under the RICO statutes.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:45 pmHow lovely,
The Radical Right-wingers are so desperate to regain their reputations that they are stooping this low to use God’s name to destroy those who know better about reality. And God wouldn’t even approve of how far those maniacs are going.
Even Dumbya claimed that God told him to invade Iraq. Nice!
You know I hear voices in my head. I don’t know it’s God but the voices tell me the same thing: “Destroy the Sith in 2006.” “Destroy the Sith in 2006.”
Hold on. The voice is telling me, “Send O’Reilly a Felafel
kit for X-Mas.” “Send O’Reilly a Felafel kit for X-Mas.”
I have to listen to the voices. I have to listen to the voices. I have to listen to the voices,etc.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:49 pmWhat bugs me most about this is the dishonest portrayal of secularism. There is nothing radical about secularism. Our own Constitution is 100% secular. Don’t we want a secular government in Iraq? Of course we do. In reality, secularism is the opposite of radical.
Secular doesn’t mean atheist. Atheists deny the existence of God. Secularists simply think the Government should be silent on the question. Thus, a secular government isn’t one that promotes atheism over religion, just one that does not contain any reference to or promotion of religion.
What is the difference? Take the example of the Pledge of Allegiance: secularists do not want “one nation, without any God, indivisible…” secularists want “one nation, indivisible.” Those are clearly different.
As GSD points out, the GOP strategy is all about playing the victim. They create boogeymen to scare people into following the GOP. Secularism is just one of the boogeymen, along with gays and immigrants.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:13 pmMan, I like this Statement
From:im4mary
No matter how ‘noble’ the intention to provide a ’service’ for someone else, it becomes tyranny when that service is forced upon them against their will.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:16 pmGood post, mrborna. The Pledge was changed in 1954 to include ‘under God’. I say we return the Pledge to pre-1954 status.
Excellent point: secularism is not analogous to atheism.
thank you finf.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:25 pmYou know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering. — The Doctor – Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:26 pmThank you all, for all you are doing to end this war, bring our troops home now, take care of them when they get here, and never again let this nation send our troops into an unjustifiable war, a war based on lies.
In Peace and Solidarity,
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:27 pmNancy Lessin and Charley Richardson
for Military Families Speak Out
-Aj
Agreed,
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:31 pmAgreed, not gonna happen. We also read to affirm not inform.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:35 pmJack O’Roses, liberals aren’t honest enough to explicitly advocate what they believe.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:41 pmIt seems to me that when you go down that list you see alot of groups that represent a huge portion of the population of this country. Trying to point out a weakness they have highlighted our strenth.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:41 pmwwallace,
You and the rest of the republicans are caught lying daily here, your understanding of honesty doesn’t put you in any position to judge others, but it does show that you’re a NAZI.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:45 pmMizzWrong,
You talk about Rico, and yet Focus on the Family is being investigated by the IRS for ELECTIONEERING, and you and the rest of the freerepublic act just like mobsters. You even sound as retarded as they do. Hypocrisy thy name is conservative republicanism.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:47 pmI predict Ryan bin Ladin will be totally unoriginal and call me bigoted names. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:47 pmSo the Elites are NOT SMART or CLEVER or ANYTHING but self Serving Wordly Posessesd FOOLS -Aj
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:48 pmThe NAACP is being investigated by the IRS.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:48 pmWwallace, you are ABOUT 8 life steps from total loss, I suggest correcting your trajectory. -Aj
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:49 pmActually, what’s ‘quasi-religiouos’ are republicans who believe in murder, torture, wars and everything else that their own religion FORBIDS. Heck even the jewish laws and traditions set such a high bar on the death penalty, that basically no one in the united states could be convicted under it. So any reichwinger who calls others ‘pseudo-religious’ is yet another republican retard who doesn’t know what ‘pseudo’ or ‘religious’ means. Clearly home schooling has destroyed the weak and fragile minds of the republican slow kids.
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:49 pmwwallace,
And yet the NAACP is not a religious organization, and focus on the family is ’supposed’ to be :()
Wow, you really a stupid little short man..
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:50 pm“I predict Ryan bin Ladin will be totally unoriginal and call me bigoted names. :()
Comment by wwallace ”
Truth doesn’t need to be original, merely correct.
As for original, how would you know what that is? Nothing you write is original. Monkies like you don’t have the brain power to ‘create’, but merely to mimic :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:52 pmSo any reichwinger who calls others ‘pseudo-religious’ is yet another republican retard who doesn’t know what ‘pseudo’ or ‘religious’ means. Clearly home schooling has destroyed the weak and fragile minds of the republican slow kids.
Agreed Ryan, They have so TWISTED values, Right and Wrong, and so many Lies, they are so internally Conflicted with Lies, they Cannot UNDO themselves from the INSERTIUM.-Aj
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:53 pmI predict whackowallace will attack me, and print unrelated whacko little sentences, instead of having being a man and admitting he’s wrong. :()
Distract, Devert, Devovle and Deny
That’s WhackoWallace and his tools of passive aggressive. Those are typical of people who aren’t smart enough to directly argue or debate honestly. He thinks he’s unique, but he’d find himself in any 1st year psyche book under pathetic…
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:54 pmI wouldnt worry to Much, the EDOMITE bible Bomb has been dropped into the Fundamentalist Falwellian, Robertson Camp, given their Fanatical Roman-esque blood-cult ways, will soon SPLIT. Quite Rapidly, if NOT already, that INFO bomb was dropped what A month ago? (Mendacity+Neocons CounterPunch Article)
The Preachers have begun to WRITE articles to Counterpunch DISTANCING themselves from BUSHCo as well as the TOOLEY letter (**) _I_(0_O) bUSH IS fecked. -Aj
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:58 pmDecember 3rd, 2005 at 1:59 pm
You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering. — The Doctor – Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Comment by not_gonna_happen
There you go again, not_gonna_happen #56, attacking the rightwingers.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but just because I-RIGHT-I and wwallace have their heads up a conservative ass does not mean they twist facts to fit their view. Like Bush and Cheney did to get a war going. And yes, RIGHT has a serious problem with gays due to being scared of his own sexual tendencies. And I’ll even concede that both RIGHT and wwallace have their nazi-assed views of the world are racist and debased, but as a rightwinger myself I really must protest…..
Say, do you think wwallace could be a woman? I mean, she sounds so frustrated, like a rightwing redneck kind of gal who needs to get laid, if you ask me.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:01 pmSolutions :
Cut the military budget by 50 % just a beginning .
do away with churh initiatives .
Tax all the churches .
Forbids all lobbyist representing corporations and religious organisations.
Only tax based political contributions .
Limit all polital public services to 2 terms , just like the presidency .
That will go a long way in eliminating corruption and favoring an economy based on competition .
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:01 pm#31 George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were well known deists (look it up) and understood God to be undefinable by man and certainly had no place in government. Jefferson and Henry were not in attendance at the constitutional convention (Jefferson in Paris, Henry rejected the idea wholesale). The word God appears no where in that document. The Constitution IS the document upon which our government is based, not the other writings of many of its authors, contributors or philosophical prgenitors. That these men wrote about God elswhere, but did not in the Constitution itself actually supports the idea that these founding fathers intentional seperated the church and the state.
MLK, like Jefferson and John Locke among otrhers, support the ideas of many spritual liberals (and there are many, many more of us than you seem to think), that the rights to freedom of religious expression are not granted nor taken away by any institution, even the church. The fact that the religious right in this country, like the Taliban in Afganistan, the Shiite Mullas in Iran and other fundementalist feel the need to have government acknowledge or support their faith only shows that faith to be too weak to stand on its own.
If the church cannot inspire the secular public, the government certainy will not.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:01 pmWhackoWallace is the same dumb monkey who said that Jesus didn’t want people to give to the poor. He’s not a sane, or even smart enough to be called a ‘half-wit’…
Poor little retarded monkey boy :() ROFL
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:02 pmHey Wwallace,
Its ACKuire Synthesize ACKuired Synthesized Discarded.
AKA ‘ACKSYN JACKSYN’ YOU HAVE BEEN DISCARDED.
The 3 way HAND Shake Remember? -Aj
YOU ARE Pathetic, WWallace, THINK on your OWN. Sheesh.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:03 pmWW is a pretty weak troll as they go around here.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:03 pmKinda like those “newbie” flame-war lovers
back in the early days of usenet.
So easy to make fun of it hardly seems worth
the trouble.
Ryan, do you think anyone pays trolls to be
trolls? I don’t mean our trolls necessarily,
certainly not all of them, but they really
do remind me of the paid “bashers” and “pumpers”
you see on the stock groups. Have you heard of
of this anywhere?
YOU HAVE BEEN BEAT DOWN AND DISCARDED NOW GO AWAY OR SHUT UP LURKER. -Aj
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:05 pmAll your juvenile name-calling will never change any of the truth I’ve posted here. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:08 pm#78 adjectiveman,
That’s a great post. I have read some of
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:09 pmthe writings of the founding fathers and
I find your short description captures what
I have learned from those reading very well.
Thanks.
#WW is a pretty weak troll as they go around here.
Kinda like those “newbie†flame-war lovers
back in the early days of usenet.
So easy to make fun of it hardly seems worth
the trouble.
Ryan, do you think anyone pays trolls to be
trolls? I don’t mean our trolls necessarily,
certainly not all of them, but they really
do remind me of the paid “bashers†and “pumpersâ€
you see on the stock groups. Have you heard of
of this anywhere?
Comment by afterthought — December 3, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
Reminds me of some Kind that Downloads a sub7 type proggie, then thinks hes a hacker, or some all powerful Internet Enitity…
~~~~
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:09 pmCmon Wallace,,WE ARE WAY PAST THAT..(MORON.(Quote Scotty Dr. Evil))
wwallace is living proof that the concept of an intelligent designer is a pipedream. The only way such stupidity could have any credence would be to give it a fantastic, unprovable source. Without the god myth, wwallace ceases to exist. Off to omniscient phantasm dreamland for you dude. Your superstitions have no place in a modern world. A cross. A deck of tarot cards. A damp mass of tea leaves at the bottom of a cup. A pagan tree that the christians stole for their own purposes. Or did the baby jesus have a nice blue spruce growing outside the manger in Bethlehem? No, I didn’t think so. Go worship your god wwallace. Just don’t smear your delusions all over society. We ain’t living in a theocracy yet though I know it’s a huge disappointment to you.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:10 pmSolutions :
Cut the military budget by 50 % just a beginning .
do away with churh initiatives .
Tax all the churches .
*NOTED -Aj =)
Forbids all lobbyist representing corporations and religious organisations.
Only tax based political contributions .
Limit all polital public services to 2 terms , just like the presidency .
That will go a long way in eliminating corruption and favoring an economy based on competition .
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:10 pmWW #83,
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:10 pmI suppose that is true since you have never
posted any truth here.
adjectivman, #78: Your post is ahistorical bunk. Read #31 again. The Judeo-Christian traditions the left now wants to strip from public life have been integral to American history since the very beginning. This fact is undeniable.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:10 pmafterthought cannot refute any of the truth I’ve posted here.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:11 pmWW #90,
I counter with:
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:15 pm“I’m rubber and you’re glue…..”
Hee.
Do they pay you to troll here?
Wallace #71: what have I told you about making those little faces with the keyboard like :() and :)? Real rightwing, redneck conservative men like me don’t like that sissy-looking stuff.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the guys here are going to think you are just another frustrated rightwing bitch. I mean, like Ann Coulter, you know? Is that what you want? Drop the lame faces, pal, you are embarrassing us real men conservatives. Even the cross-dressers like I-RIGHT-I is offended.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:15 pmJoe, calling me names instead of making an argument? How liberal of you. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:20 pmwwallace believes that the civil rights are unreligious.
wwallace believes helping the poor is unreligious.
wwallace believes preventing oppression of women is unreligious.
It seems wwallace has done a nice job of stripping religion from his own values already. If this is what the relgious right considers ‘religious values in american politics’, then like good hypocrites it is THEY who are doing the stripping.
But passive agressive monkey wimps like wwallace can never see the truth, or argue with himself honestly enough to understand it. It’s how the weak minded republicans live in the world – delusionally.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:23 pm“Joe, calling me names instead of making an argument? How liberal of you. :()
Comment by wwallace”
But that’s the point, you don’t argue. You hit and run like a chickenhawk coward :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:23 pmI predict Ryan will continue to post bigoted and irrelevant blather, and call me names. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:24 pm“The Judeo-Christian traditions the left now wants to strip from public life have been integral to American history since the very beginning. This fact is undeniable.
Comment by wwallace”
This isn’t a fact, it’s an opinion, and a preconception.
Christmas was illegal in this country until the late 1800s.
Care to tell me which ‘traditions’ were there at the beginning? Because I’d be happy to give you ACTUAL facts to replace you uneducated opinion. But we both know that’s now why you’re here – to learn the truth that is.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:25 pmOH MY GOD.
In Louisville Kentucky a group of commandos in pink camoflage, sandals, with unshaved armpits armed with guitars, flowers,baskets of fruit, and dildos attacked a nativity scene and took baby Jesus hostage. They headed north, towards the blue-states in a Volvo with a ‘Save the Whales” bumper sticker. BE ON THE LOOKOUT.
Christmas is UNDER ATTACK by the liberals.
A CALL TO ARMS ALL CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS, THIS IS OUR RIECHSTAG MOMENT! CHRISTMAS IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY THE GAY SECULAR ARMY OF SATAN. GRAB YOUR SHOTGUN AND YOUR BIBLES AND RALLY THE FAITHFUL. ANNIE GET YOUR GUN. BUBBA, ZIP UP YOUR PANTS AND DROP YOUR STEP-DAUGHTER, THE TIME IS NOW!
-This satire brought to you by the Secular Army for the Separation of Church and State.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:26 pmwwallace attacks the NAACP and calls others bigots.
I predict wwallace will continue to say bigotted comments, and accuses others of doing his actions in a baseless manner.
Wait, that’s already happened :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:26 pm#93,
You aways say that. Do you really think
it gets you anywhere?
WW typical post sequence:
1) Post really stupid flame-bait until
someone calls you stupid (typically after you
have already named-called in the first post)
2) Complain about being a victim of name-calling
You played this pattern many times, but you
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:26 pmjust end up sounding like a whiner (sorry to
call you another name, NOT).
I predict wwallace will continue to avoid debating, while dishonestly accusing others of doing his actions.
Oh wait, that’s already happened :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:28 pmI predict Ryan will mimic me, since he has no originality.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:30 pm#98 GSD,
I actually did laugh out loud over that post.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:30 pmStealing Christmas? Wasn’t that the Grinch’s gig?
Hear, hear, well spoken Adjectiveman!
Is it me, or does :() look like a monkey’s face? Kinda like Curious George? Wwallace, you might want to pick a different emoticon.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:31 pm#102,
Are you really this bad at being a troll?
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:32 pmDoes Rove have a school you could go to or something?
Maybe get some tips from the other trolls?
Some of them are pretty good at being trolls.
I predict that wwallace will continue to post bigoted and irrelevant blather because he doesn’t work in facts. Like his idols at Fox News, his debating style is about refusing to acknowledge the validity of his opponents opinion and refusing to put foward any logical arguments of his own. Then to top it off, he’ll throw his hands up in the air and get all defensive like O’Reilly does to make the gullible public think he is the one under attack.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:34 pm#79 – adjectiveman: excellent post.
WW – you haven’t contributed any truth to begin with! You make Special Services look like an Ivy League school!
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:34 pmI predict Ryan will mimic me, since he has no originality.
Comment by wwallace — December 3, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
This is the ultimate ironic comment, coming from the copy & paste master.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:38 pm#89 ahistorical. Hmm. OK:
-The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”-George Washington
“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
-John Adams
-The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man
-Thomas Jefferson
-”History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”-Thomas Jefferson
It is not difficult to take a quote out of the context of history and support you own agenda. Even my high schoo students know that.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:39 pm#99 – GSD – ROFLMAO!!!!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:43 pm#109,
Another solid post.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:44 pmThose were a very smart bunch of guys.
How do you suppose THAT happened?
There are usually smart guys around, but
often they are over-ruled by those “less so”.
A magical moment in history, I suppose.
Joe, calling me names instead of making an argument? How liberal of you. :()
Comment by wwallace
You know, girl, I never called you a name. I said “the liberals here are going to think that.” Say, you know what? You really are much nicer than that asshole, I-RIGHT-I. BTY, he has a little bitty winkie so don’t bother with him.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I recognize your style. You sound just like aphrodite! Come on, tell me the truth: its really you in drag, isn’t it?
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:47 pmAdjectiveman, you must be an excellent teacher. I wish that I had had teachers like you when I was in school!
I find it interesting that John Adams refers to “the gods”, rather than ‘God’. Was he thinking of ancient Greece, with its democracy and its plethora of gods?
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:50 pm#113 Jane,
I was thinking the same thing about teaching
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:52 pmand remembering the few who left a strong
will to THINK in me.
adjectiveman: “It is not difficult to take a quote out of the context of history and support you own agenda.”
Then why did you do so?
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:59 pmFunny thing about the “religious” groups cited by the reverent Judd: the only behaviour they do not tolerate (how intolerable!) is the decision of traditional religions to teach their members “their rules”. The slogan of the Interfaith Alliance is telling: “People of faith and good will restoring healthy democracy.” (I thought the left HATED mixing politics and religion?? But NOT if you are a member of the Christian LEFT.)
No one is forced to join a religion and you are free to opt out if if you don’t care for the rules. But these “religious” groups have an “anything goes” mentality. Without exception, they have been ramming queer “marriage” (and a variety of alternative lifestyles) down our throats for years – pun intended. They are VERY concerned with life – except when it’s inconvenient. Pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-social ‘just-us’ – “What would (fill in the blank)…. God, Jesus,
Allah, Vindu, Brahma, Earth..Wind & Fire… do?”
The Christian
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:02 pm#115 WW,
Again, is that really the best you can do?
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:04 pmThat is a really sad comeback.
Afterthought, I was raised in Catholic schools, and despite the fact that I rejected the religion (I’m agnostic, “I don’t know and you don’t either”), the nuns were adequate if not awesomely inspiring teachers. My parents, who were both very religious, actually were the inspiration to think and learn. My dad, in particular, loved watching documentaries, National Geographic specials, you name it, if you could learn from it he would check it out. He managed to combine being extremely religious (he read the bible every morning AND went to church almost every day)and having an insatiable curiousity about so many things. Both of my parents died last December, and I really miss our discussions. So I guess that’s why I’m here, to hear and learn from so many different people (even some of the trolls!)
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:04 pm#115, Is that really the best you can do?
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:06 pmAfterthought,
yes, that is the really best wwallace can do. I submit #119 as evidence.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:08 pmFor the record, Gregor has posted nothing of substance.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:09 pm#115 – Because I actually know the historical context. Because I was demonstrating my point. To show MY mastery of Google. Take you pick.
Thanks, I enjoyed this little conversation. I’m out – peace.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:09 pm“No one is forced to join a religion and you are free to opt out if if you don’t care for the rules. But these “religious†groups have an “anything goes†mentality. Without exception, they have been ramming queer “marriage†(and a variety of alternative lifestyles) down our throats for years – pun intended. They are VERY concerned with life – except when it’s inconvenient. Pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-social ‘just-us’ – “What would (fill in the blank)…. God, Jesus,”
Nodoby is forcing homosexuality, abortion, or any other “sin” on you or anyone else. These people you are complaining about don’t have the influence to make anybody gay. All they’re saying is you don’t have the right to tell people they’re not allowed to be gay, have an abortion, be an atheist, etc.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:11 pmHey, aphrodite, its me Joe. Glad to see you put in here as I think wwallace was trying to get me to get into her pants but you know me, I played it real smooth. (She might have the clap, you know?)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your reference about “queers” and the pun about ramming it down our throats was so—-unchristian. I mean, say what you want about me, but offending I-RIGHT-I is uncalled for. Tomorrow at church you need to say three “Hail Mary’s.”
As for me, I like religion. I like the Bible, too. Hey, sugar, tell me the truth: do you really believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, lived in it’s stomach a few years, before it finally barfed him up on a beach all safe and sound? I mean, how could he breath down there like that in all that stomach acid and stuff?
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:19 pm#118 Jane,
These days you do not meet too many people
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:21 pmwho can balance strong religious beliefs with
insatiable curiousity.
It seems this conflict was not always so strong
in the past.
I think the problem is with organized
religion rather than faith. It is when men
try to control faith that things go wrong.
It must be a tough month with your loss last
year. Remember the discussions, it sounds like
they meant a great deal. I understand why.
For the record, Gregor has posted nothing of substance.
Comment by wwallace — December 3, 2005 @ 3:09 pm
Hahahaha!!!
For the record, wwallace never posts anything anywhere near substantial, only passive-aggressive posts and unsubstantiated claims.
What utter nonsense. The 9/11 Commission report is a joke.
Comment by wwallace — November 27, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
wwallace, you just made my day! Hahahaha!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:23 pmThanks, Afterthought, you’re very kind.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:35 pmTo Joe sixpack, Jane S.
Re: Wally’s stupid face
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:40 pm:()
Looks like a monkey?
Actually, every time I look at it, I see the face of the blow-up girlfriend he must have sittin’ next to him..!
Bottom line for me on this one is that when we question one’s beliefs because they don’t match our beliefs, that in itself is prejudicial. It’s that kind of prejudice that kept Catholics, Jews and blacks “in their place” for decades and even centuries. Of course, they don’t call it prejudice — they think we’re the ones who are the hatemongers.
I’m a Christian, a person of faith; and those of us on the centre and left who calls ourselves Christian have just as much right to do so as our brothers and sisters on the other side have. There may be reason to criticize or attack a belief system if the faith itself — not the people who profess it or misconstrue its beliefs — poses a clear and present danger to national security. That’s why it was wrong, for instance, to blame 9/11 on all Muslims, not just the heretics who subscribed to the the so-called “72 Virgins / White Raisins” strain of Islam and who were responsible for the attacks.
But it’s also wrong for the religious right to assume what they do. (Remember what Benny Hill said about what happens when we assume; you make an ass out of you and me. And we who oppose Judge Alito’s nomination to SCOTUS do so not on his faith, but his overall judicial philosophy.
“Justice” Sunday? How about We Love Joe McCarthy Sunday or Salem Witch Trials Forever Sunday?
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:44 pmTrue Blue, I hadn’t thought of that before, but now that you mention it…LOL!
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:45 pmFor the record, Gregor never posts anything anywhere near substantial, only passive-aggressive posts and unsubstantiated claims.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:46 pmWell, shit. I guess aphrodite don’t want to discuss religion with me or answer my questions about Jonah and the whale. Evidently the Christian Right thinks Judge Alito knows the truth.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but has anyone read the first chapter of Ezekial about the flying saucers and the butt-ugly angels that were in them? Or am I going to have to find the truth about the flying saucers, and Jonah as well, from a school kid who got it straight from a class on “Intelligent Design” after Alito gets in office?
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:48 pmYeah, True Blue #128. That must be why, as a conservative redneck, I find the face she makes so humiliating. They remind me of the blowup doll I keep in my bedroom closet.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but have you ever tried to dress one of them up? I mean, and that gaping mouth—–if you ain’t horny, you damned sure don’t want to be sitting around looking at it.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:55 pm“For the record, Gregor never posts anything anywhere near substantial, only passive-aggressive posts and unsubstantiated claims.
Comment by wwallace”
Bahaha, this is how you know wwallace is really just a parody troll of reichwing morons. After all, considering that Gregor fills posts with quotes, links and detailed information, and wwallace’s very comment here is nothing more than a passive aggressive response – that’s REALLY funny.
I don’t know if you intend on being a parody of reichwingers and their stupidity wwallace, but boy you sure are good at making them look stupid!
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:57 pmSorry, Joe, I haven’t.
I’m a woman.
But thanks for the God-awful visual!
oops… I’m a liberal and I just mentioned God.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:59 pmWally will be comin’ at me for sure….
“No one is forced to join a religion and you are free to opt out if if you don’t care for the rules. But these “religious†groups have an “anything goes†mentality. Without exception, they have been ramming queer “marriage†(and a variety of alternative lifestyles) down our throats for years – pun intended. They are VERY concerned with life – except when it’s inconvenient. Pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-social ‘just-us’ – “What would (fill in the blank)…. God, Jesus,
Allah, Vindu, Brahma, Earth..Wind & Fire… do?â€
The Christian
Comment by mighty aphrodite”
Wait, you claimed you were jewish, how are you a Christian? Are you one of those whacko jews for jesus gals?
Also, people like you who are ‘homophobic’, suffer from a mental illness (just ask the APA). So you do realize that you’ve just shown that by mental health standards mizz MightyHermaphrodite that you’re mentally ill?
Also, what do you mean by ‘anything goes’, and why must you attack buddhism and hinduism? After all, most of the folks who are pushing for gay marriage in this country are self described christians and jews – or hadn’t you noticed that part?
You’re such a STUPID COW.
And the funniest part is that I debunked your claim that you were an attorney and in court last week. This last set of whacko remarks clearly shows that you, mizz wrong and wwallace are one and the same retarded little socially inept nerd.
If this is the best your political movement can do, no wonder your popularity is so low nationally. You’re such an embarrassment to yourself, and you’re too retarded to know it – that’s the REALLY funny part…
Bahaha, what do you know of Vishnu (not Vindu you STUPID COW) anyway? I know more about Judaism and Christianity than you do, and you clearly don’t even know the names of representations of the deity in other religions. IDIOT COW!
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:03 pmYou know MightyHermaphrodite, your fellow Austrian Hitler also renounced his jewish ancestry and became a reichwing Christian just like you. Are you sure your mother’s name wasn’t Hitler, because you sure sound like him!
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:05 pm#54 – Mr. Boma – Nice try on explaining secularism – but be a dear, and go visit the secular humanist, religious humanists, and the other humanist websites. Making fun of religion and “religious” people is a sport there. That’s OK – some of us love you anyway!!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:19 pmWhy, True Blue, a liberal should mention God. Don’t the gospels teach us that Jesus himself was a liberal?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is also why the Republicans scream damnation and hellfire in opposition to Jesus’s teachings!! As for God, Mary Baker Eddy once said, “God is incorporeal, divine, supreme, infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love.”
Whenever I think of that I remember the hatred preached by the Religious Right and wonder why they are so very wrong in their evangelical narrow, little hearts.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:19 pmWow, Joe.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:26 pmI’m impressed.
Thanks.
…& put “Dolly” in the closet, outta sight, would ‘ya…!
Ryan uses terms like “reichwingers” because he has no originality, and he is a bigot.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:27 pm#118 – My dad was a religious Catholic and my mother was Jewish – both had an insatiable thirst for knowledge(I could hear the Hational Geographic theme music!) – I know how much you miss your parents, and sympathize with you.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:30 pmreligion=superstition.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:31 pmtype 4=brainless
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:32 pmGee Wally,
How come you keep telling people they ain’t original, but you keepin’ postin’ that same thing over and over ain’t original, neither?
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:33 pmAnd, Wally, how come you keep gettin’ all mad at people just cause they don’t wanna do exactly what you tell them to?
Cause Dad told us that wasn’t very nice, and, ya know, I don’t think Jesus would think it was very nice either.
- The Beev.
#147, Heck no, Beev. But you don’t want Dad to holler, do ya? :)
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:37 pm“Ryan uses terms like “reichwingers†because he has no originality, and he is a bigot.
Comment by wwallace”
wwallace calls people names because he has no originality and is a hypocrite :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:37 pm“My dad was a religious Catholic and my mother was Jewish – both had an insatiable thirst for knowledge(I could hear the Hational Geographic theme music!) – I know how much you miss your parents, and sympathize with you.
Comment by mighty aphrodite ”
And yet you seem to have no thirst for knowledge, wow you must be a thorough disappointment. And that crap you posted last night about the biggest chunk of gas prices being taxes – completely amateur. A 5 second factcheck would have saved you the embarrassment of looking like a fool – which is how you look. But then again, everytime you post one of your crackpot lies, you always look like a fool, and it hasn’t stopped you. Guess having no self respect or dignity is the only thing you actually learned from your parents – I hope they didn’t intend to teach you how to be such a failure, but it is the one thing they succeeded in doing!
FYI, by jewish law, you are jewish, not christian.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:40 pmIf reichwingers actually believe in protecting marriage, they would put out an anti-divorce bill. See Jesus didn’t mention either homosexuality or abortion once, but he mentioned that divorce and especially remarriage was ILLEGAL more than once.
The ironic part is that reichwing christians and jews have a HIGHER divorce rate than any other groups in america. Athiests have fewer divorces – that’s the REALLY funny part :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:42 pmWell may -be , Ryan .At least she is proud of her ancestry and rightly so she does not appear to have either malice or prejudice .
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:46 pmIf there is a God most of us would not recognise its presence for we cannot see further than our noses. Mine is the Universe.
hardass,
Oh please, she’s full of malice and prejudice. Are you completely retarded, or illiterate? She just wrote whacko nonsense about every religion but her own, that’s by very definition called prejudice you IDIOT!
And she isn’t proud of her heritage, by being a NAZI she completely betrays it!
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:48 pmRyan accusing someone else of being full of malice and prejudice is like Ted Kennedy saying someone else is a fat drunk who killed his date. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:52 pmWell if you must resort to personel attack ,let me say with candor and respect , that you are the one who carry the swatzika in your heart. Man i lived until adulthood in Europe . I know fascism when i hear it , read it , smell it .
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:53 pmLook unto yourself and found some rational humility that i know is there.
MightyHermaphrodite, the next time you want to criticize helping the poor, go read. Matthew 25:31-46
And wwallace, no wonder you’re divorced if that’s how you treat your dates :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:54 pmhardass,
And yet MightyHermaphrodite (and you) are personally attacking me. So who has the swatztika in their hart?
I’ve spent a lot of time traveling, and have spent time in fascist latin america. You’re a witless retard if you don’t recognize republicans are fascist. And you’re also a HYPOCRITE for accusing me of attacking others, who are attacking me, and then yourself joining the attack. You are what’s called a ’sympathy troll’, and clearly a stupid one.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:56 pmhardass,
MightyMoron has been attacking me for months, this is a liberal blog, she needs to STFU, along with you if the most you can bring to the party is rants and retarded republican talking points.
You’re all such retarded partisan fools!
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:57 pmThanks, Aphrodite, that’s very kind of you. I do miss them both terribly, and this month is very depressing, but at least I still have a (very dark) sense of humor about the whole experience when they were both dying. Let me just mention two blackly humorous things about each of them, then I’ll drop the subject: my dad had to have a catheter, but he was getting a bit lost mentally (combo heart attacks/mild strokes), so most mornings one had to explain to him what it was and what it was for. So he kept trying to leave it behind when he would get up to go in another room, saying “I’ll just hang this on the doorknob here for now.” (Okay, it may not be funny to you all, but my siblings and I got a kick out of it!) My mum, who was so doped on morphine that it was a wonder she could speak coherently at all, actually dictated (to my sister and Wayne’s sister [Wayne's sister is married to my brother, yeah, that's another whole story]) what SHE wanted us to serve at her funeral party: “No cold cuts! I always hated going to a funeral meal that served cold sandwiches!” She was a pip!
Okay, enough about that! And yes, that National Geographic opening music always made me come running! Thanks again, Aphrodite.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:59 pm#124 – “Correct me if I’m wrong, but your reference about “queers†and the pun about ramming it down our throats was so—-unchristian. I mean, say what you want about me,…” – Joe Sixer
*****No, Joe, the term “queer” is not un-Christian – maybe you heven’t heard of the TV show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” or the militant group “Queer Nation” – besides doesn’t a show called “Gay Eye for the Straight Guy” sound like a 50’s sitcom re-run??
About Jonah’s whale – maybe he took Prilosec – regularly. You might try that – it might help your acid and belching.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:01 pmThe argument of the people who want to “bring back” god into government is that our founding fathers were overwhelmingly christian, ours is a christian society, and therefore it should continue to be overtly christian.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:02 pmThe only problem I have with that is that the founding fathers weren’t overwhelmingly christian. George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson were all Deists. Deists believe in God, a powerful force that set the world in motion, and then left it. No virgin birth, no judgement day, no miracles. No requirment of accepting the divinity of Jesus. John Adams was a Unitarian. Pretty much the same deal. Not a “Christian” church as Mrs. Dobson would describe it.
But let’s say I have it wrong, and history is wrong, and the founding fathers were all great devout born-again followers of Jesus. Why didn’t they write that faith into the constitution. Why does the preamble say “We the People…” instead of “God has spoken, and we are his insturment…” or something like that. Why is the only direct address to religion the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment?
It’s not as if official religion hadn’t been invented. King Henry VIII was the founder of the Church of England, and avidly persecuted members of other sects. Lutheranism was the official religion of Sweden, and my ancestors were pretty much driven out because they followed a different faith. The King of Spain was called “His most Catholic Majesty,” and in the 1400’s they mounted a blood purge to cleanse Spain of non-christian practices.
Our founding fathers knew about all this. Why didn’t they accept the idea that government and religion go together like-pigs and ham? Crime and punishment? Sin and divine retribution?
seo
“Radical Secularists”
Well if believing that we should follow the Constitution makes me “radical” than so be it. Afterall the Constitution is a secular document.
Perhaps they should read it sometime.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:02 pmSEO,
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:08 pmGreat post!
Insightful.
SEO, you’re argument is a strawman. No one is advocating writing religion into the Constitution or establishing a state religion.
Radical secularist groups, like the ACLU, are advocating establishment of atheism in the public square, in violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:08 pmRYAN ! For weeks i have read you erudite comentaries and looked forward to your next well research observation .Lately you seem to descend further and further into the abyss of certain extremists , i no longer know if you are sincerly in the camp of liberals or an agent prococateur , divide and conquer . Sometimes i read in you the brutality ,intense disrespect and cunning of a Karl Rove .
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:08 pmI am not much in turning the other cheek . So go on and take a WWW . You make fine pair.
#160 Good point, SEO.
In their time, every known country had an official religion and it was whatever the leader’s religion was. They felt that this really didn’t work very well for freedom loving people. It was why Europeans left for our shores, to escape religious persecution. The Framers felt that the best solution was for no official religion at all, and let people worship, or not, as they chose. That’s why we were founded as a secular nation, no matter what the right says about the subject.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:08 pmWe were not founded as a secular nation, that is complete nonsense. We have a secular government, and a Judeo-Christian nation.
Religion has always been an integral part of American public life. That is undeniable.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:11 pmas I recall, Frist help them say something like this at Justice Sunday I…
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:11 pmRespectfully, wwallace, I think you’ve got it backwards. The ACLU is not “advocating establishment of atheism in the public square”. They are trying to stop government from establishing any particular religion in the public square.
If you own a business, you are free to put up all the “Merry Christmas” signs you want on your own shop. But for a government to do so would establish a preference for Christianity over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc. And the First Amendment was written to keep that from happening. You are still free to practice the religion of your choice or, in my case, not.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:15 pm#150 – Thank you, Hardass!! It was VERY enlightening to grow up in a loving, but VERY funny home. I have an uncle who is a Catholic Arch-bishop, another uncle who is a Rabbi, a cousin who is a cantor, an aunt who is a nun and a cousin who is a priest at the Vatican. I love science like the humanists, but I believe God is the brilliant designer of the science. (Men think they’re smart for discovering DNA – I believe God who designed such a wonderous signature is infinitely more brilliant.)
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:16 pmWe were not founded as a secular nation, that is complete nonsense. We have a secular government, and a Judeo-Christian nation.
Religion has always been an integral part of American public life. That is undeniable.
Comment by wwallace — December 3, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
Again, respectfully, if that is true, then why is the White House mailing out cards wishing everyone “Happy Holidays” and not “Merry Christmas”, since we know that the President is a born again Christian and the First Lady a Methodist?
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:19 pmJudeo-Christian nation.
Religion has always been an integral part of American public life. That is undeniable.
-Wally
Gee, Wally,
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:20 pmWe never went to Church.
Why do you keep sayin’ that stuff?
I told you Eddie’s bad, Wally.
He keeps gettin’ you inta trouble.
What about all the people comin’ years for all those centuries?
We still let them in no matter what their name or religion, right? So THEY could be free, right?
I dunno, Wally. Maybe you oughtta stop tellin’ everyone what to do.
-The Beev
This remains untrue:
No, the government is not required by the Constitution to ignore or undermine the culture of America. Christmas is a big part of that culture. Christianity is a big part of the culture. Nothing in the Constitution requires the government to pretend otherwise.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:20 pmYou would need to ask them that question. It has no bearing on the truth of my statement.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:22 pmChristmas is a big part of that culture. Christianity is a big part of the culture.
No, and No, on both points.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:24 pmThe only culture we have is CONSUMERISM!
No, the government is not required by the Constitution to ignore or undermine the culture of America. Christmas is a big part of that culture. Christianity is a big part of the culture. Nothing in the Constitution requires the government to pretend otherwise.
Comment by wwallace — December 3, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
The First Amendment requires the government to not favor one religion over another. And Christmas wasn’t even an official holiday until the mid-1800’s.
Baseball has been an integral part of our society for over a century, but nothing in the Constitution requires the government to promote it or even to recognize it in any official way.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:25 pmwwallace makes the statement: ” No one is advocating writing religion into the Constitution or establishing a state religion.”
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:26 pmI wonder if anyone, even wwallace, is qualified to say that “no one” is doing any particular thing. Perhaps wwallace is not advocating establishment of a state religion, but if he is “everyone,” I’ve been left out of the loop on his status.
I think that some people are advocating government support of religion, in the form of government payments to “faith-based” organizations that use their government funding to preach the gospel as part of their activities.
Pat Buchanen, for example, in his talk about the culture wars has made statements that sound an awful lot like establishment of a government policy that we are a christian nation.
I’m sure on the other side that there are extreme secularists who’d like to tax church real estate and income, and erase both “In God We Trust” and the masonic symbols from our currency. My guess is that this view isn’t widely held.
Right now the US is in an uncomfortable position. We are a rich nation dominated by white christian men. Neither rich people, whites, christians, nor men are a majority in the world. If we want to be respected we may need to carry a big stick, but to be truly respected, not merely feared, we have to respect other people.
I wonder if a guy like John Bolton understands that as he meets with radical christians at his office at the UN, inviting their involvment in setting US policy toward the rest of the world.
seo
#148 – “FYI, by jewish law, you are jewish, not christian.”
Comment by Ryan Neatkin — December 3, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
Gee, Ryan, you think??? Mazoltov!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:28 pmRecognising the fact that Christianity and Christmas are big parts of American culture is not favoring one religion over another, it is simply recognizing reality. The Constitution does not require the government ot ignore the culture.
When the president of the United States threw out the ceremonial first pitch in the World Series a few years ago, was that a violation of the Constitution? ROFL
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:28 pmSEO, the “faith-based initiative” merely requires that religious organizations be treated equally to secular organizations. Are you saying the government should discriminate based on religion, against religious organizations?
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:32 pm“And the funniest part is that I debunked your claim that you were an attorney and in court last week.” Ryan Neatnik
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:33 pmOh….you mean you didn’t understand the response? The part where the judge in our case adjourned court early?? Well, if the word “adjourned” is confusing – let me help – it means he E-N-D-E-D the court session early.
WW – 21st Century! Our American ‘culture’ involves Muslim, Hindu, Buddhism, Wiccan, and a multitude of others! To imply that ‘all’ Americans should follow a judeo-christian ideology is just, well, Un-American!
Judeo-Christian ideology does NOT have exclusivity to morality. Almost every religious organization promotes peace and tolerance to all people (ideally).
And for those who don’t follow any orthodox religious ideology, they are not to be considered immoral either.
It appears that those who promote the idea of stringent Christian doctrine should be the first to practice what they preach! From my perspective, these are the individuals who are first to condemn, criticize, categorize, and belittle anyone who does not ascribe to their religious beliefs.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:34 pmThose traditions do not have anywhere near the same prominence and influence on American history, traditions, and culture. To pretend otherwise is pure fantasy.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:37 pmRecognising the fact that Christianity and Christmas are big parts of American culture is not favoring one religion over another, it is simply recognizing reality. -Wally
IT’S NOT REALITY.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:38 pmGET IT THRU’ YOUR HEAD!
Church attendance has been going down for decades.
X-mas? I’d rather go to a Chinese Restaurant on X-mas than anything else.
What about Jewish people?
Orthodox Jews?
Asians?
Spiritual people?
Shinto’s?
Taoists?
Agnostics?
Atheists?
…etc.?
We are the MELTING POT, remember?
Everyone, all together.
There is no christian culture.
It’s simple bull, that you try to pass off as fact.
If it is fact, give us some. Some American christian stuff that is solely American/christian.
Christmas is such a big part of American culture, it is even a federal holiday. All of True Blue’s whining and lying will never change that fact.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:40 pmAphrodite, that sounds like a very interesting and fun upbringing–I can just imagine the discussions that went on in your house! (By the way, I now have the National Geographic theme stuck in my head from our earlier posts–damn it!)
Wwallace, you are right in that religion was an integral part of early American public life, but I believe it was for social/cultural reasons, i.e., the community church was a place to gather, see other settlers, hear news, etc. It was one place where you knew people would be on a certain day of the week.
The secular government is not “trying to ignore or undermine the culture of America”, it is trying to be fair and equitable to ALL cultures of America.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:41 pmNo facts, Wally
Just the facts.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:42 pmJane – Your parents sound like dears – bless their hearts! I am optimistic that most people have a common thread – whatever it may be. You and I can disagree vehemently on politics, social issues, punctuation (HA!) – all of which I think is healthy – but isn’t it wonderful to have loved our parents so – and been loved in return!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:42 pmFor many Americans, and I do not mean to offend any Christians out there, Christmas has nothing to do with Chritianity. For them, it’s a time to gather with family, exchange gifts (which they bought to help spur the economy), share stories and watch sports on TV.
Many people do attend Christmas services, even presidents have done it. But that doesn’t mean that the government is allowed to promote Christianity and ignore all the other faiths throughout the rest of the year.
As but one example (and I’m not picking on anyone here), what if the government announced that from now on, our government is going to officially celebrate Ramadan? Don’t you think you’d hear a lot of “That’s a violation of separation of church and state” from the religious right?
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:43 pm#187 ma,
I’m heartened to see that you see these as healthy disagreements. Personally, I try my best to avoid name-calling of the people themselves (I may not always be successful), and instead concentrate on attackming the merits of the arguments made.
And Jane’s parents were both very wonderful people who accepted me with a great deal of love and always treated me like one of their own. Truth to tell, they treated me better than my own parents did, but that’s a whole ‘nuther story (along with my sister being married to her brother.) I miss them both, too.
Please remember while we’re having these “healthy disagreements”: It’s not you I dislike, it’s the ideas put forth by conservatives. That you exhibit any desire to truly debate the issues (and not just resort to “that’s a lie” like some people) makes me hopeful that we can mutually reach an understanding.
The understanding being, of course, that you’re wrong. :)
(Just kidding!)
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:59 pm#184 illustrates one of the big problems with modern liberalism – the inability or unwillingness to recognize a common American culture.
Religion, especially Judeo-Christianity, remains an integral part of American culture, especially Christmas. To deny this obvious fact is like arguing the Earth is flat. It’s delusional.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:00 pmYou’re right, Aphrodite, we’ve both been very lucky to have had such great influences in our lives.
Now, see, everyone, if Aphrodite and I can agree on something, then there’s hope for all! I know it’s a cliche, but I really believe that most of us have much more in common than differences. (You can pick on that one, MA, I know it wasn’t grammatically correct!) If people were more tolerant of the diffences, fewer people would care what religious label other people wear.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:02 pmwwallace,
But the foundcers also recognized that religion in the hands of the wrong people could be a very dangerous thing, and that is why the Constitution specifically says that no public officer should have to pass any religious test.
Congress can recognize all the aspects of our culture that they want to (do we really need to have “National Dairy Month?), but religion is the one exception to this. They were well aware of how many people thoughout history died because their government wanted to promote one religion over another. They were aware of how many people died because they didn’t practice the “correct” faith. And they thought it would be much better oif the government stayed out of the area of promoting any religion over another.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:06 pm“but religion is the one exception to this”
No, that’s the opposite of what the Constitution requires. You want the government to be biased against religion, which is unconstitutional.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:08 pmWwallace, I’m generally a nice person, but you’re trying my patience. The government is against ONE NATIONAL RELIGION, not ALL religions. THAT is what the Constitution requires.
Are you going to make us keep repeating our same responses, the way you so often do?
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:14 pmYou want the government to be biased against religion, which is unconstitutional.
No, I don’t want the government biased against religon; I just don’t want the government to promote one religious ideology over another, which is what the Constitution requires of it. (There’s a difference between the two.) And the SCOTUS has said that if you’re going to promote one religion, you have to promote them all. All or nothing, not just Christianity only.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:16 pm#193, no Jane, the Constitution prohibits establishment of one official religion. The Constitution does not require the government to deny the reality that Judeo-Christianity is prominent in the American culture.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:20 pm#196 They don’t have to “deny the reality that Judeo-Christianity is prominent in the American culture.” They just can’t, as our official government, take part in it.
Why is this so difficult to grasp?
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:23 pmWayne, “No, I don’t want the government biased against religon”
Your earlier statement “religion is the exception” implies bias against religion.
Christmas is a big event in American culture. That is undeniable. It is not “promoting one religion” for the government to simply recognize that fact.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:23 pm“They just can’t, as our official government, take part in it.”
That is not whart the Constitution requires. The state is not required to deny or ignore the culture.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:24 pmChristmas is a big event in American culture. That is undeniable. It is not “promoting one religion†for the government to simply recognize that fact.
You’re conflating the economic, commercial aspects of Christmas in our American culture with the religious side of it. The government can tell people to go out and help the economy by buying Christmas presents, but it cannot put up displays that give people the idea that Christianity is some kind of official religion in this country, just like they can’t go out and tell people to observe Palm Sunday.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:30 pmQuotes by the Founders about God, a creator, or even Christianity are far from proving any endorsement of the Religious Right and their goal of establishing a theocracy.
So, I’ll see your quotes, wwallace, and raise you:
This is what Thomas Jefferson thought about the brand of Christianity now practiced by the Religious Right:
That’s right, Jefferson was a man of science (in a somewhat underdeveloped form). He even rewrote the gospels to eliminate any miracles, including the resurrection. He thought Jesus’ message about loving your neighbor and being inclusive was groovy, but that the power of the message came from its truth, and not the supposed divinity of the messenger.
Thomas Paine concurred:
Now, I will grant you that Jefferson and Paine were only a couple of the founders. So did any of the others agree with them on any of this?
Well, according to Catherine Drinker Bowen’s Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin suggested bringing in a clergyman to pray for progress after 5+ weeks of stalemate and rancorous disagreement. Up to that point, not a single session had featured any prayer, and Franklin’s motion was voted down by a majority. That is awfully strange that there was no prayer if the Framers were writing a Christian document, isn’t it? I guess they weren’t so religious after all.
But clearly Franklin must have been a devout Christian to make such a motion, right? Well, guess again:
Like Jefferson, Franklin was a Founder who thought Jesus had a groovy message, but didn’t buy his divinity.
So now we know that the Founders were not Christian in the sense that the Religious Right is. But that is actually irrelevant. The point is that they did not want the mixing of religion and politics.
We will start with what Jefferson thought about religion mixed with politics:
Big deal, right? Everyone knows Jefferson was kind of a fanatic on this subject. What about the others? Further proof that the Founders disagree with the Religious Right’s view of Christianity’s influence on our government comes from the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which the Senate ratified and John Adams (a Unitarian) signed. Article XI of the Treaty states:
Note that the Senate at this early juncture was filled with Founding Fathers. Surely if they felt the country was founded on Christianity, they would not have approved this language in the treaty.
Still, the most important evidence that the Founders rejected Religious Right style mixing of religion and politics is in the Constitution itself. The Constitution contains zero mentions of any God. But it does have the establishment clause of the first amendment which Jefferson points out, creates the wall of separation:
A wall of separation between church and state is the definition of a secular government. Need more proof from the Constitution? Check out Article VI, paragraph 3, which also shows a desire for separation:
So, two mentions of religious separation, and zero mentions of God, Jesus, or any other deity. Get it, wwallace? Secularism is not radical or evil, it is what this country was designed to be. You can be religious, believe in a creator, even be a Christian, and still understand that our government was meant to be and should remain secular. I wonder why these Bush appointed judges, who are supposed to be originalists, don’t understand this…
One last comment. Complaints about the religious left getting involved in politics may have a point. However, those progressive churches are primarily working to further human rights and social justice, and I think that is far different than the Religious Right trying to force their specific religious dogma into national law.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:32 pmYes, wwallace, Christmas is a big “event” in American culture, but these days more it’s more as a consumer-driven holiday. Gift-giving seems to be more the theme, whether one is religious or not, even whether one is Christian or not. I’m not sure I understand what exactly you want the government to do, officially, to “acknowledge” that some form of Christian religion is a large part of American culture. And if, and I shudder to think of it, the government suddenly decided to screw the Constitution and establish a national religion, which Christian sect would get the pick? Roman Catholics? Protestants? Methodists? Baptists? Mormons? What would you prefer?
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:36 pmThank you, mrboma, thank you, thank you, thank you. My head was starting to get sore from smashing it into the keyboard (not to mention damaging my boss’s laptop.) And I didn;t have time to go do the research you obviously did. Well done. I knew about the Treaty with Tripoli, but I hadn’t gotten around to bringing it up yet.
Despite being atheist, I still try to live by the maxim, “Treat other people the way you would like them to treat you.” I don’t always succeed, but on any given day, it’s more likely than not how you’ll see me behave. It’s the main reason I don’t like the idea of killing anyone.
And isn’t that what’s important?
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:42 pmLet me echo Wayne’s thanks, mrboma. You made me want to go out and buy Miracle at Philadelphia! I need to learn more about our history; although Wayne is infinitely more well-versed in it than I am, I’m trying to catch up.
Also, I’m glad that you chimed in, we were beginning to think that this was the “Wayne, Jane and Wwallace Show”!
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:49 pmWhy can’t people just learn to accept people for who they are whether your a chistian, athiest or a buddhist. I think nobody knows what freedom is because freedom means different things to other people until we acknowledge that there is nothing as such thing as freedom.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:51 pmTHIS POST IS FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS WE WERE FOUNDED ON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES:
Treaty of Tripoli
Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the “Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,” most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli.
In Article 11, it states:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington’s last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O’Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:02 pm
mrboma, No one on the right is trying to establish a theocracy. Stop lying.
Wayne, putting up Christmas displays at Christmas doesn’t give people who aren’t secularist zealots the idea that the government is trying to make Christianity the official religion. The Constitution doesn’t require the government to establish your hostility to religion.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:04 pmBecause they really aren’t originalists. Anyone who claims to be an originalist, yet does not believe we are a secular nation, is nothing more than a bullshit artist.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:04 pmAnyone who says America is a secular nation is living in a fantasy world.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:08 pmthis will tell you all you want to know what is going on. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:08 pmSecular humanism sure did wonders for the Soviet Union. ROFL
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:10 pmMr. Borna – a resounding “here here” and standing ovation!!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:15 pmYou’re post is so very much appreciated, copied and pasted.
wwallace reminds me of a frat boy at a party, a little liquored up, making provocative comments. Hoping to get a rise. I wonder if the RNC gives him a little extra for hardship posting…
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:15 pmseo
SEO, ad hominem
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:19 pmThe foundation principle of the nation is based on a theistic world view –
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Wwallace, you didn’t answer my questions in #201–what exactly do you think the government should do to “acknowledge” that a lot of Americans are Christians? What particular sect of Christianity? Which particular sect do you want to win if the government established a national religion?
We keep talking about the “Religious Right”–does anyone know what denomination they are, or, they say they are? They certainly don’t act like most of the Roman Catholics that I know and grew up with.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:22 pmJane, your questions are canards. No “particular sect” of Christianity celebrates Christmas.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:25 pmWayne, putting up Christmas displays at Christmas doesn’t give people who aren’t secularist zealots the idea that the government is trying to make Christianity the official religion. The Constitution doesn’t require the government to establish your hostility to religion.
Christmas trees are allowed because they are also used by people who don’t practice Christianity. But for a local, state, or federal government to put up a Nativity scene without symbols of other religions along with it would violate the establishment clause. Plus, I don’t remember mentioning Christmas trees, I talked about religious symbols in general.
And in case you haven’t been paying attention, the Religious Right is very much trying to establish, what amounts to, a theocracy ion this country. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, among others, have said that they think our laws should be based on Biblical teachings. Not all religions use the Bible (whichever translation) as their guide.
And I’m not asking the government to establish my hostility to organized religion, I’m asking them not to make me follow any particular one, or use my tax dollars to promote one over another regardless of how many people in this country practice it. That’s what having a secular government means.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:32 pmYou keep saying that; it’s still nonsense. Merely recognizing that which is already part of the culture doesn’t establish an official state religion. That’s ridiculous.
That’s ridiculous. It’s nothing more than crazy conspiracy wacko talk.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:37 pmWwallace, I came back to check on you, and you’re still being obtuse. I didn’t ask you which Christian sect celebrates Christmas, I asked you, if the government decided to screw the Constitution and establish a national religion, which would they pick? They can’t just say “Christianity”, there’s dozens of different sects of Christianity. So, which do you think the winner would be?
This is a pretty simple question, so I don’t know what the problem is with getting an answer!
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:49 pm“if the government decided to screw the Constitution and establish a national religion, which would they pick? ”
Since no one is advocating that, the question is irrelevant.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:52 pmwwallace-
So the most popular African-American organization is seen as the Big Bad Guys and that the homogenized milk and cookies Focus On The Family should be seen as the saviors of the world.
For you it’s a shame that I’m African-American because the kind of garbage that’s been spewing from you all day has
proven to me that you want to turn America back to the days when people like me weren’t allowed to tell the bus driver
to shove it when we are being told to sit at the back of the bus.
But you just go right ahead and call me racist because I’m not and my best friend is Caucasion. But believe me, your hypocrisy and lack of respect for the heroes of the civil-rights era, will lead you into a much darker path as Hitler went when his hatred of the Jewsish people was born.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:53 pmWwallace, you’re irrelevant!
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:55 pmJimbo is obviously a racist.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:56 pmMr Falwell wants the Ten Commandments (a religious document) to be the basis of our laws.
http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/falwell/jf_ort_100103.html
“The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple,” says Pat Robertson. It is “to mobilize Christians — one precinct at a time, one community at a time — until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system.” Robertson predicts that “the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade.” And, “We have enough votes to run this country…and when the people say, ‘We’ve had enough,’ we’re going to take over!”–Pat Robertson
Here’s more of his “wacko talk”: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/quotes.html
They do want our laws to be based on the Bible. They just want to follow it themselves.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:05 pm“The understanding being, of course, that you’re wrong. :)
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:08 pm(Just kidding!)”
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — December 3, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
*****Funny, Wayne – I was JUST thinking the SAME thing! HA!
Ooh, Wayne just proved that Pat Robertson wants Christians to be involved in their government! How sinister! Impressive! ROFL
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:15 pm#226 mighty aphrodite,
Well, it appears that we agree on something :)
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:17 pmI hate to break it to you but the foundation of America is the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Laws are debated at whether they are “Constitutional” not whether they are “Declaration of Independecable”.
The Declaration severed our ties with King George. The Constitution created our Nation.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:18 pmWow, I never thought I’d say this, but, Aphrodite, I’m glad you’re back! I’d rather debate with you ANY day instead of wwallace, he’s just too dense! Can you understand what exactly he’s getting at?
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:19 pmCorrection, I left out the word “don’t”. That last line in #225 should read “They just don’t want to follow it themselves.”
And yes, he wants Christians to be involved in running the government (from the top) because he doesn’t believe anyone else can do it correctly. He also believes a bunch of crazy things, on account of he’s a lunatic.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:20 pmThank you # 200 .MRBOMA .
A well stipulated case for the seperation of state and governmrnt .The very pillar for the foundation of this United States and the very reason for all of us who suffered from oppression ,any oppression to live here either by choice or chance of birth to nurture and protect this constitution , for without it there is a United states of America ,by any means possible .
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:20 pmIf the ballot box and democratic process is so corrupted that the citizenry is deprived of its right to liberty ,justice ,freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness , there is no choice but to take arms and reestablish goverment as our forefathers saw fit .
Wayne, I agree pat Roberston is a lunatic. He represents only himself.
But the fact Christians want to be represented is unremarkable, everyone wants to be represented.
Disenfranchised, the foundation principle of the nation is based on a theistic world view, the law that defines the federal government is the Constitution.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:25 pmaddentum to 231 .
Meant to say : SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH.
Fortunetly for all of us we are still far for a call to arms.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:25 pm“SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH.” appears nowhere in the US Constitution. Perhaps you prefer the Soviet constitution.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:31 pmPat Robertson claims to speak on behalf of a lot of people. And he wants our government to be based on his religious views because he thinks all the others are wrong.
Do you honestly think that if he did win the presidency back when he ran in the ’80s, that his government wouldn’t be even more “pro-Bible” than this one?
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:35 pmAnybody else (besides Wayne and I) remember Bush the First’s story about when he was shot down over the ocean, and his thoughts when he was waiting for rescue? He was thinking about his family, and “…the separation of church and state…” Was that strange, or what?
Not that this has anything to do with this current debate, I just thought that it was funny. Then again, I’m silly-tired.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:39 pmWayne, Roberston claiming something doesn’t make it true, does it?
Of course he wants the government to implement his views. And you want the government to implement your views becasue you think opposing views are wrong. Nothing remarkable about that.
Do you believe it was wrong for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to push his views, which were heavily influenced by his religious views? Or are you a hypocrite?
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:40 pmCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:45 pm“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage – - – -torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians – - – - which does not change its moral color when it is committed by our side. The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:46 pm-George Orwell
Making local communities tear down public Christmas displays clearly violates the free exercise clause.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:50 pmNone so blind as though who will not see.
And it would not be unconstitutional for the government to implement my views because they’re not based on any religious text.
And Dr. King was fighting for equality for all citizens reagrdless of race or religion. And he never wanted to be president (as far as I know.) But I seriously doubt that you’ll find evidence that he wanted the Ten Commandments to be posted in every government office and school, which religious conservatives do want (like former Alabama Judge Roy Moore.)
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:54 pm#All your juvenile name-calling will never change any of the truth I’ve posted here. :()
Comment by wwallace — December 3, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
Only One IDIOT could keep lying as much as Wwallace.
How are you doing George?
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:55 pmI’ve been involved in church life for more than 50 years. The church, not the state, is where I get my religious instruction and where I worship.
No governmental institution (local, state or federal) should exercise any religious function whatsoever. The leaders of government are not equipped to pray, preach, or lead worship in any form. The purpose and function of the state is to govern ONLY. Religion is the sole province of the communities of faith (churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc.) Similarly, governing is the province of the state. AND THE TWO SHOULD NOT BE MIXED OR CONFUSED. I’m old enough to remember when really good Baptists would go ballistic whenever the school tried to have prayer — prayer was just too holy a thing to have some unwashed Lutheran pray in front of a class room!
It seems to me that certain evangel-nazi leaders want to spread their version of ‘christianity’ by controlling government executive functions, legislative actions and judicial interpretations. Many of their churches have chosen to follow a preverse gospel of pious hatred instead of the humbling and overwhelming love of God.
In reality this current wave of religiosity is nothing more than contemporary twist on 16th century practice of selling indulgences. These solemn assemblies, needing lots of money to aggrandize themselves in the name of the Gospel, now sell to the common person trinkets of divine asssurance and certainty that their fears and prejudices are forgiven AS LONG AS they believe the way the church teaches. And especially, that all who do not so believe are damned. Just ask any fan of the “Left Behind” books.
Rant over.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:00 pmWayne, as in the case of Dr. King, there’s nothing in the constitution prohibiting citizens from advocating views that are influenced by their religious views.
No one said Dr. King advocated Ten Commandments displays, etc. Try to focus. His views were heavily influenced by religion.
“…each individual has certain basic rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state. To discover where they came from it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity, for they are God-given…”
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:02 pm- Martin Luther King Jr.
Tom Hunter in a Nazi. Clearly, the only reason he’d go into a church would be to burn it down.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:03 pmThey aren’t making local communities tear down public Christmas displays. Look, you’re talking to someone who think we are a secular nation, and I have no problem with having a Christmas tree on public property. However, the Constitution forbids the endorsement of religion in general. Not just A religion, but religion as a whole. Therefore religious displays–such as a nativity scene or a Jewish Star–don’t belong on TAX PAYER FUNDED PROPERTY.
It is that simple. You are wrong about this issue. The Constitution backs up OUR position. If you don’t like the US Constitution, start a rebellion or move to another country. Take your pick.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:06 pm#245, And as much as I respect Dr King (and everyone who has a real – as opposed to politically convenient – belief in their faith), I think he was wrong about our rights being “God-given.”
And you can “advocate” views all you want, but you can’t let any religion dictate what the laws of our country should be. That has been the point I have trying to get across to you.
I invite anyone reading this thread whom I respect (I think you know who you are) to tell me where I have been inconsistent in my views (other than typos), and if I can’t explain myself, I’ll admit I’m wrong and move on to another topic.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:10 pm“the Constitution forbids the endorsement of religion in general.”
It does no such thing. Unless you’re referring to the Soviet constitution.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:10 pmWayne, Christians such as Dr. King having their religion influence their views does not constitute “religion dictating what the laws should be.”
If you apply that standard only to religious people you agree with, then you’re just being self-serving, and unprincipled.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:13 pmwwallace,
Do your own thoughts ever interact with one another, or do you just jump in and try to refute one aspect while ignoring everything else you’ve tried to advocate?
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:18 pmWayne, your ad himinem in #250 is unclear, could you clarify. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:20 pmwwallace,
It wasn’t an ad hominem attack, it was a logical and reason-based question based on you postings.
Okay, I’ll clarify. You don’t ever seem to string two or more thoughts together. It seems like you just want to naysay anything said here, and when you’re faced with a rational response for why you’re wrong, you jump to another subject or just say “that’s an opinion.” That’s what I meant. Clear enough.
And that’s not just an opinion, it’s a fact.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:31 pmw o w…wwallace, i sure hope that mold is broken…
listen, and “correct me if i’m wrong” (thanks joe) – i’m a lapsed catholic myself, 53…i remember it wasn’t too long ago that jews and catholics, especially jews (from my perspective) were very much discriminated against…hasn’t it been just recently that the religious right has been so generously inclusive of the jewish religion, to have even used that term “judeo-christian” so often lately? i hear it has more to do with their “end of days” beliefs than any true benevolence…
i just find that interesting…
to the schnieders – great posts as always…your patience this night is amazing…
#78 & 109 adjectiveman and #200 mrbama – thank you!
and #98 – thanks for that wonderful laugh! much needed as always!
bookmarked all…g’nite
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:41 pmThanks, katy. perhaps I’m a masochist at heart, but in a weird sort of way it’s been fun.
These were the kinds of discussions I wanted to have with my ex-friend before he pulled the plug on our friendship because he couldn’t come up with a positive reason to re-elect Bush in 2004. (But he sure could bring up Clinton.)
This wwallace character really reminds me of him, except my friend didn’t spell as well as wwallace does, and was even less grammatically correct.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:47 pmHey, thanks, Katy! Wow, I went to heat up a slice of pizza, and look at all that went on!
I hate to break this party up, but, Wayne, we gotta get out of here (as usual, we’re posting at the office) and go feed the kids, I mean kitties.
This time it’s really Goodnight!
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:47 pmChristmas is a big event in American culture. That is undeniable. It is not “promoting one religion†for the government to simply recognize that fact.
Comment by wwallace — December 3, 2005 @ 6:23 pm
What does this mean? How is the government supposed to recognise that “Christmas is a big event in American culture”? Isn’t it recognised by the fact that it is an official holiday? What else is needed?
Schneiders, your patience makes me believe there is stil hope for human kind. Great posts.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:49 pmThanks, Ryan. :)
I appreciate everyone’s support who jumped in when my head wounds got the better of me. Much obliged.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:49 pmThanks, Gregor. It’s exhausting!
I’ll leave it to the rest of you to find some semblence of rationality with wwallace. Good luck.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:52 pmC’mon, honey, let’s go home–if you’ve got head wounds, I’d better drive!
Thanks Gregor, Ryan, everyone. See y’all on Monday.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:53 pmEveryone practice saying Justice Alito because he will be seated on this Court. AND if liberals dare try to filibuster, you will see conservative mobilize in force. The left’s grip on the Supreme Court is slipping. Ginsburg is dying, Stevens is dead and Justice Souter will get lonely.
#256 – you are a piece of work. With idiots like you ranting on about Zionism, we can rest easy knowing that liberal’s will lose the debate.
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:54 pmi loved it when “god” dropped the roof of a church on his believers while worshipping him……..lololololololoLOLOL!!!!!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:02 pmHasn’t that happened more than once??
You dillusionists better get some new contractors,
the ones your hiring might be building faulty roofs
on PURPOSE!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOlololol
Gregor, all that’s required is for the un-American radical secularists at the ACLU to stop infringing on peoples’ right to put up public Christmas displays.
Wayne, “You don’t ever seem to string two or more thoughts together” is by definition an ad hominem. Your ignorance of the term is noted. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:04 pmRyan, “You do realize that republicans are about as popular as ebola right now don’t you?”
That must be why the voters put them in control of the House, Senate, and presidency. ROFL
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:06 pmRyan is a fascist. He obviously shares most of his political views, especially his religious bigotry, with Adolph Hitler.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:07 pm“The international monitors and the exit polls disagree with you.”
Koo-Koo, Koo-Koo! *ROFL*
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:13 pmNo, the US Constitution. Read it sometime…
Amendment I
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.
Notice it does not say an establishment of A religion. It say “respecting an establisment of religion.
The US Constitution clearly forbids the endorsement of religion in general.
Look just be happy with your Christmas Tree ok? You’re lucky we don’t take issue with that–and trust me, we could if we wanted to be really uptight about the establishment clause.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:20 pm“endorsement” and “establishment” are two different words, you illiterate.
The US Constitution in no way requires the government to ignore or undermine America’s Judeo-Christian heritage.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:26 pmIT IS NOT A HERITAGE, YOU FU**ING IDIOT!!!
I have had enough of you.
I was baptized Catholic. BFD. Was God EVER present when I was opening presents?
NO!!!!!
I went to College. That’s when I took a course on MYTHOLOGY.
It’s all a freakin myth, you moron.
Parables on love.
Acceptance.
There is NO heritage of Christianity!
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:33 pmI asked you for facts to back up your lame ass statement.
What have I gotten?
NOTHING. ZIP. ZERO.
You have no facts. You just post some ridiculous statement and never follow up.
Kinda like the Repugnant Party.
PLEASE…. I implore you…
SHUT THE FU*K UP!
True Blue is obviously bitter.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:36 pmNo, just sick of you. Post facts to back yourself up, or go away.
Even my kid just said to me “Didn’t the Pilgrims come here to get away from being forced to follow a religion?”
HEAR THAT, WALLY???
MY CHILD UNDERSTANDS BETTER THAN YOU>
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:39 pmTrue Blue hasn’t posted any facts like I have. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:39 pmNOT ONE FACT HAVE YOU POSTED, YOU IDIOT!!!!
GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS OUR HERITAGE.
ANYTHING.
YOU JUST BLURB THESE PATHETIC ONE OR TWO SENTENCE THINGS, (MUST BE YOUR COGNITIVE LIMIT)
AND THAT’S IT!
nEVER BACK ANYTHING UP.
JUST ATTACK SOMEONE ELSE WITH YOUR ONE SENTENCE CRAP.
YOU REALLY ARE PATHETIC.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:42 pmTrue Blue obviously has some psychological issues. Perhaps a good mental health professional could help.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:44 pm:()
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:45 pmSo I guess you’re “with” your girl while you’re typing your rants?
Seems like the frantic blurbs of someone in the midst of “your situation”
:() = doing an inflatable girlfriend.
Facts, asshole,
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:46 pmor don’t come back.
BACK UP YOUR CLAIM.
True Blue is having weird fantasies about me. How creepy. Seek help.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:47 pmC’mon, DAZZLE us with your dissertation on how Christianity is an American Heritage.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:47 pmTrue Blue is having weird fantasies about me. How creepy. Seek help.
Comment by wwallace
Obviously didn’t read what we all said about you some 150 posts ago.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:49 pmTypical.
#291: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/03/anti-alito-anti-god/#comment-271151
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:49 pm…actually, at this point I would mind fantasizing about you…
on the rack…
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:51 pmgetting the real William Wallace treatment…
#294 is another example of that tolerance liberals are so fond of. ROFL
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:53 pmHe is in DESPERATE need of anti-pyschotics, Ryan.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:53 pmDon’t you agree?
Ryan is mimicing like a monkey, how cute. His mother must get a kick out of that, if she ever comes down to their basement where she has Ryan locked up, to check on him. :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:54 pmFACTS!!!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:54 pmDo you have ANY?!!?
Post them our get out.
Ryan,
more of the blow up thing that even Joe Sixpack acknowleged Wally does.
Wow.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:56 pmHe’s out of control, right?
#301: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/03/anti-alito-anti-god/#comment-271151
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:57 pmWow.
Wally has a girlfriend…
Wally has a girlfriend…
Wally has a girlfriend…
AND, she’s deflatable when he’s DONE!
FACT.
It’s already been posted. And agreed to.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:58 pmSo it’s NOW FACT.
It’s a FACT, EVERYONE!!!
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:00 pmWally’s a blow-up gigalo
I know, Ryan,
You’ve always been “a mirror” as far as I’m concerned.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:04 pmYou get what you give, as far as your posts go, and I admire that.
People are nice, you’re nice.
Mean, well, they get what they deserve.
A Ryan-izing!”
wwallace posts facts like… err.. uhmm… facts? :()
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:06 pmWelcome, Gregor,
I think someone dissed you on this post,…could it have been Wally?
I always like your posts.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:10 pmYou seem a learned man.
I’m sorry he’s been such a d*ck to you.
Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the “Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,” most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli.
In Article 11, it states:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington’s last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O’Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
source
And how about this one wwallace?…
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:12 pmWorry not, True Blue. I am not sure what post you are referring to, but yes -it was probably him
Thanks for the kind words… I have done my share of reading ;-)
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:16 pmOK, Folks,
It’s 11:20
Haven’t heard from Wally since 10:57.
Must be the Shift Change @ Troll Central
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:17 pm#223
wwallace, why are you so racist toward African-Americans? All we ask is equality and respect. You act like we want to take over the world. You might want to read up on the past, current and future of the history Blacks from the Black perspective, not the KKK, David Duke, Dubya, Chuckie Manson, Strom Thurmond version that you so advocate.
Recommended readings:
Roots/Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley
Succeeding Against The Odds by John Johnson
Voices and Silences by James Earl Jones
Leaving America by Randall Robinson
Eyes On The Prize by Juan Williams, before he became Fox’s Slave Boy.
Publications:
Jet
Ebony
Essence
Black Enterprise
Read up on them and tell me if those who struggled and continue to struggle are racist.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:21 pmHi Jimbo,
LOVED ROOTS!
Cried my eyes out.
And we still have no idea, and can’t really even imagine,
what they went through – and what African Americans still go through.
Terrible.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:24 pmI should be better informed and will read from your list.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:25 pmThank you, Jimbo.
See, Ryan, Shift Change.
Nothing from Trolls.
You’ll see action again AFTER they’ve been
*de-briefed*
But for now, nothing.
Actually, we should seize this opportunity for actual intellectual discourse…..
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:36 pmTrue Blue-
You are all heart. By the way, back in 1990, I met Alex Haley in person following a lecture he gave in Pittsburgh and signed my copy of Roots. It was an honor to have met him. I keep it in a safe place and it’s truly a valued
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:42 pmtreasure of mine.
Ryan,
Another lie is this notion that abortion has always been illegal.
That has been proven false.
In Colonial Times, life was defined by what they called “quickening”, or the actual movement of the fetus.
Before that time. it was perfectly legal to “resume menstration” as they put it.
These people are such dopes. I know that’s not very nice, but Wally has me surly tonight.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 pmOh,
Thank you, Jimbo.
I would have been quaking in my boots to actually meet Alex Haley!
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:53 pmI bet it was great! That’s wonderful!
It really took Mr. Haley, I think, before anyone would take the atrocities for *real*, if you know what I mean.
America is great at “sweeping under the rug” and this one just took that thing and flung it wide open!!
Wow.
I know that sounds lame, but it’s all I can come up with.
I’ll be waiting on your answer to Ryan as well.
I live in the worst part of Massachusetts there is for racial equality. I grew up in one of the best.
Go figure. I can’t wait to get the heck outta’ HERE, that’s for sure.
Too many people like “Wally”.
True Blue & Ryan
Perhaps some of the trolls need to be reminded of the story of a woman who had a clear vision of God telling her to save her country from occupation by another and that she did so with a huge army and did it so valiently. Something that would never happen in Bush country.
And how was she thanked? The Cardinal who had a perverse vision of God and jealous of her own valient bravery, had her executed with the approval of her King. She was only
nineteen years old.
By the way, her name was Joan of Arc.
If the trolls aren’t convinced, they could go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
Maybe they’ll be enlightened, maybe…..Nah! Trolls don’t read. Reading, they think, hurts their brains.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:00 amRyan,
#320 -yes, I’ve always loved reading. Ever since I was very young.
Anyway… I hope to be able to drop by tomorrow.
If I don’t, say hi to wwallace for me, will ya?
December 4th, 2005 at 12:02 amOoooooohhhhhhhh,
Good one…!
December 4th, 2005 at 12:02 amRyan-
My favorite right now, believe it or not,is Aaron MacGruder, creator of the Boondocks. I’m sure you read that
December 4th, 2005 at 12:03 amcomic everyday. I haven’t seen the TV version, yet. But I heard it was hilarious.
post 334 meant for #332…
December 4th, 2005 at 12:04 amsorry.
I keep forgetting to do that…
I LOVE BOONDOCKS!!!
LOVE LOVE LOVE IT!!!!
I love the whole “Katrina” line .
Sad. True.
It’s now part of my top 3.
Bloom County
Calvin and Hobbes
Boondocks
(Chronological order. Don’t make me choose…!)
Is it available “On Demand” with Comcast?
December 4th, 2005 at 12:09 amRe-runs of “Boondocks, I mean…
That’s OK, True Blue.
By the way, it’s been over an hour since the trolls went away. Uh, you don’t think the intelligence and the facts that we posted scared them down back to their caves do you?
I hope wwallace is reading what I offered him. If he can read.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:12 amJimbo,
December 4th, 2005 at 12:14 amEvidently he can’t seem to comprehend the Truth!!
Once that get’s put in front of him he seems to lose any cognitive skills!
Well, Jimbo,
I haven’t heard from you in ~ 10 minutes, so since it’s 12:28EST here and I’m dog tired, I’m going to pick this up tomorrow.
I really liked talking with you.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:23 amHave a good night.
C-
Well,
We will find out later. Have to watch Ebert & Roeper.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:25 amSee Ya!
My lack of confidence in Alito has nothing to do with my lack of confidence in God.
Christians hate women and Alito hates women.
I’m a woman, so I have no use for either of them.
Nuff said?
December 4th, 2005 at 12:33 am#219 – “there’s dozens of different sects of Christianity”
Article a few years ago linked to some irs.gov page listing over 3500 different tax-exempt Christian sects. Perhaps someone with better Google skills than I can track it down again.
December 4th, 2005 at 2:12 amMan will never be free until the last king is strangled with the intrails of the last priest. Denis Derdoit. Mans greatest opporsors are the government and the church.
December 4th, 2005 at 7:42 amWhy aren’t these Christian groups being investigated and why doesn’t the IRS take away their tax exempt status? There are churches being threatened by the government for saying much less. There are churches being investigated for saying that we should love everyone regardless of race, creed, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The separation of church and state in this administration has continued to shrink–we are on the verge of creating a theocracy, just like we are foolishly doing in Iraq.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:16 amWow, so much anger, so much narrow thinking.
wwallace, you truly amaze me. Yes, the word ‘Creator’ is in our founding documents. That creator could be Mohammed, Vishnu, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Mithras (who was the original Dec25 virgin-birth baby), or Cotton Mathers, and yet you seem to think that they (the Founding Fathers) were specifically talking about YOUR version of God. They must talk to you the way that God seems to talk to Our President.
Jesus wanted the moneychangers out of the temple… if you make our whole country a temple, can we throw out all the banks and burn down wall street?
AFAICT, you seem to be stuck in a Trumanesque 50’s timewarp where a non-believer of the Christian God is an enemy of all Amercians.
But you are right… we should embrace our religiosity as a country. Christmas has been a federal holiday for about a century, how about we give some other religion’s celebration a century of favoritism. We could take a week off for Ramadan (would go well with Thanksgiving and save our education system for paying for school lunches) Instead of the Christmas, we could close everything down for a week for the Fesival of Lights. Heck, we could have Flying Spaghetti Monster Day in the spring.
Its so much fun to plan what to do with our new Religious America once we arent chained in to the same old silly Christian Holidays (and what happened to All Saints Day or Ash Wednesday, all people want to talk about is Halloween and Fat Tuesday, how Christian is that?)
ok, now that we’ve seen what silliness comes from embracing Religiosity as a country, you can feel free to call me names, I know you wanna.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:25 amReligion truely is the opiate of the people. Throughout recorded history, more people have died for some “religious cause” than an others acts of aggression. Religion in and of itself is not bad, it is when people lose perspective and become fixated on a single way or belief of living that all others (non-believers) are wrong and rejected. God will decide who was right or wrong when he is ready. It is not up to us to judge the lives of others.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:02 amencourage fear + sow division = GOP strategy for victory
December 4th, 2005 at 11:18 am“But there a few members of the coalition that Grassfire doesn’t mention:
– The Interfaith Alliance (“A national grassroots organization of 150,000+ individuals of faith and goodwill drawn from more than 75 different religious traditions.)
– Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (“Representing Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, and Jewish national organizations.â€)
– National Council of Jewish Women
– Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
The memo says that these groups, and all of the others in the coalition, oppose Alito because they are “radical secularists.†These kind of dishonest tactics suggests that Alito’s backers are worried. ”
There is nothing religious about the above groups. They are indeed radical secularists of the worst kind. They pretend to be people of faith yet not one group holds to the tenets of the faith they claim to believe.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:28 pmWow, so much anger, so much narrow thinking.
wwallace, you truly amaze me. Yes, the word ‘Creator’ is in our founding documents. That creator could be Mohammed, Vishnu, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Mithras (who was the original Dec25 virgin-birth baby), or Cotton Mathers, and yet you seem to think that they (the Founding Fathers) were specifically talking about YOUR version of God.
Comment by Rev. Metheus
Anyone with so much as a high school education understands who the Founders were speaking about. They make it quite clear. In that day they would have taken someone like you and hung him for fool and detriment to civil order and common morality. Those were the good old days.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:33 pmReligion truely is the opiate of the people. Throughout recorded history, more people have died for some “religious cause†than an others acts of aggression.
Comment by David B
More people have died in just the last 100 years thanks to the man who coined the “opiate” phrase than in all the wars religious or otherwise in all of recorded history.
Public schools are a disgrace.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:39 pmIm happy to be anti-god if it means I’m also anti grassroots.org!
December 4th, 2005 at 1:49 pmWe have one founding document. That document is the US Constitution. There is no mention of God, or a Creator in that document. We are founded on a secular document–the US Constitution—and thus, are a secular nation.
December 4th, 2005 at 2:46 pmThe History Channel did a show about “Cults” this weekend. It was very interesting learn that Christianity like all religions began as a “cult”.
Since the beginning the “cults” have divided into “subcults”, eg, Catholism, Mormon, Lutheran, ect…
Some “cults” have decent honest leaders. Most don’t.
December 4th, 2005 at 3:23 pmthis is the first step by the evangelicals to gain control of the government.after gaining control,the non-christian groups in this country will be forced to accept christianity.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:18 pmPeople don’t just die for religion, people also die for some unjust cause for some ideology like communism, so-called freedom of capitalism which reagan-bush talks about, or islamic and christian fundamentalism. If people start thinking about real issues like hunger, disease, and the manipulation of third world countries which causes terrorism and unify as a people and cast are stereotypes aside the world can be a better place or no lets just be ignorant sons of bs
December 4th, 2005 at 6:17 pmThe Right’s New Strategy: Anti-Alito = Anti-God
Nothing surprises me anymore with the radical right. Alito is probably one of the most out of touch judges in the right wing bench of judges. He despises the United States and hates the Constitution. He dreams like most Republicans…
December 4th, 2005 at 6:30 pmAlito depises the United States and hates the Constitution? That esplains why the left, Europe, the Middle East and Al-Jezeera hate Alito….he agrees with them too much….they hate competition…
December 4th, 2005 at 11:16 pmWWallace, perhaps you should check your history better. Washington and Jefferson, and most of the founding fathers were Deists, and many were Freemasons too. Freemasons continue to fight for seperation of church and state around the world. Here is a link to a description of Deism in case you need to know how it is not Christianity: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-77.
Jefferson detested religion to the point that he banned any theology courses from be taught at UVA when he was running the show there. Most of the founder’s religious views and ideoligy would be be labeled heretics or non-believers by the right’s modern day Pharicies like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and Reed. But they have done something far different, re-write history to say the founders were Christian. The God that Washington and Jefferson are talking about is not the God from the Old Testatment or New Testament, he is simply a creator or creating force that does not intervene in human affairs.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:27 pmIn additional responce to the wallace fellow, I copied this weeks ago on an unrelated thread In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,
Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.
The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:
Thomas Jefferson:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again:
Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. …Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson’s word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
John Adams:
Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?
Also Adams:
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here’s Thomas Paine:
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).
Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to ‘God’ to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator’s name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).
It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins…and you will have sins in abundance.
The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.
Finally let’s hear from James Madison:
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God’s authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they—the Baptists—who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a “one-way wall” that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto the Lord that which is the Lord’s.
In the last five years the Baptists have been taken over by a fundamentalist faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the affairs of the government and it is they who insist the government should meddle in the beliefs of individuals.
The price of Liberty is constant vigilance. Religious fundamentalism and zealous patriotism have always been the forces which require the greatest attention.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:30 pmMore fallacious arguments from the typically wrong religious right.. How can someone be “anti” anything not proven to exist?
December 5th, 2005 at 2:01 pmAnti-Alito, Anti-God
From Thinkprogress, the Washington Post’s Charles Babington:
December 5th, 2005 at 2:08 pmSeveral conservative groups, meanwhile, plan a major push beginning Monday to portray Alito’s opponents as anti-God. Talking points for the effort, which will involve ads and grass-roots …
[...] Right-winger Jay Sekulow, who has helped the White House with its Supreme Court nominee strategy and chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, has created his own Christmas resource center and hints that more ads pairing Alito and Christmas and attacking Alito’s critics as “anti-God” may be forthcoming: This is going to be the dominant theme on the Alito nomination until the end of the year-the convergence of a Supreme Court nomination, the Christmas season, and a judge who has a well-staked-out position on support for religious expression. [...]
December 6th, 2005 at 1:14 pm