Supreme Court Sides With Administration, Corporations In New Decisions
Supreme Court Sides With Administration, Corporations In New Decisions
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bush administration, corporations, and a “pro-life” group in a series of decisions announced today, reaffirming the conservative, business-friendly bent the Court has taken under Chief Justice John Roberts
EPA’s responsibility to protect endangered species weakened:
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the federal government can avoid its responsibility to protect species under the Endangered Species Act by handing off authority to the states. The EPA routinely delegates administration of the Clean Water Act to states. The Court’s decision means the EPA does not have to ensure that states abide by the federal Endangered Species Act when they issue Clean Water Act permits. [National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife and a companion case]
Ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge Faith-Based Initiative:
In a 5-4 decision, the Court “barred ordinary taxpayers from challenging a White House initiative helping religious charities get a share of federal money.” A taypayers’ group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued eight Bush administration officials, including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, objecting to “government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.” [Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation]
Campaign finance restrictions weakened for corporate- and union-funded ads:
In a 5-4 decision, the Court loosened restrictions on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, “weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.” The court “upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.” [Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right-to-Life]
UPDATE: In all three decisions, the majority was formed by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.
UPDATE II: In implicit criticism of President Bush’s recent appointees Roberts and Alito, Justice David Souter chose to read his dissent in the campaign finance case from the bench “to signal his displeasure with the changing court.”
“The court (and, I think, the country), loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason, and there is no justification for departure from our usual rule of stare decisis here,” he said, referring to the court’s rule of following past judgments.
UPDATE III: Steve Benen has an excellent wrap-up.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
305 Responses to “Supreme Court Sides With Administration, Corporations In New Decisions”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Any questions?
The PEOPLE are no longer protected by the highest court in the land.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:54 amFinally, Christianity is not a sin. If we can fund abortions, we can fund faith-based initiatives.
The Supreme Court just took a hard right turn. AND after Stevens steps down this week, it will only get worse for the hateful, anti-free speech, left-wing in this country.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:56 amThe SC has become SO packed with Conserative cronies that put ideology before the Constitution, it will be DECADES before balance is restored to the court.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:56 am#3 - only if we're lucky. We need the Court to strike down's the left's attack on free speech via the Fairness Doctrine.
Thank God for Justice Alito.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:58 amYes because Supreme Court is filled with stooges. Thank some Democrats in the Senate for confirming Roberts as Chief Justice.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:58 amSCOTUS = BabyBushes
June 25th, 2007 at 10:58 amThe Supreme Court is forever.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:00 am#5 - there were 22 Democrats, to be exact.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:01 amwhen in the hell is the rest of our government going to cage these animals? maybe there is a benefit? maybe there will be so much outrage that new laws that prevent such abuse will get written?
that's funny, the world after shooter? won't be one. he is determined to kill us when he goes. maybe we will get lucky and will off himself before he can pull the trigger on the rest of us
June 25th, 2007 at 11:04 amTP Hate Machine,
Thank you for providing the hate today. You're so good at it.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:05 amThe only obvious reason for barring ordinary taxpayers from challenging the Faith-Based Initiative is because some ordinary taxpayer is going to bring up the pesky first amendment. That would put SCOTUS in the same position they were in with the Newdow case -- either cop out by dismissing on a technicality or justify the erosion of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
June 25th, 2007 at 11:06 amYes because Supreme Court is filled with stooges. Thank some Democrats in the Senate for confirming Roberts as Chief Justice.
Comment by Jay Randal — June 25, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Yep, we have Dems who are bought and paid Corporate lackeys too... And we need to start treating them like Republican lite... Starting with Lieberman.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:08 amThe Dems should have considered the long term damage that Alito and Roberts would cause. They should have used every tactic to stop these two. Plus these two lied when they said they would respect precedents. I also do not know why some of the judges did not quit while Clinton was president.
Funny how when the Dems were the minority they cried how they could not do a thing, now in the majority, they still can't do a thing.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:09 amCongress never okayed that faith-based crap.
Chimpy did it by executive order.
Faith-based funding violates the Establishment Clause.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am#11 - puh-leeze!!! Just suck it up. The left's bloody grip on the Court is over. While still a toss-up, the Court leans right for the most part. At a mininum, they won't allow Democrats to shut down the opposition via the fairness doctrine.
Interestingly enough, Bush's two picks sided against Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas and voted NOT to overturn McCain-Feingold.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:10 amStupid inbred Repuke troll.
Ignore his bizarro world rants.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:14 amThat would put SCOTUS in the same position they were in with the Newdow case — either cop out by dismissing on a technicality or justify the erosion of “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ€.
Comment by missmolly — June 25, 2007 @ 11:06 am
They aren't done with Michael Newdow...
I spoke with him last month, and he's not going anywhere. I also encourage anyone who might be able to help his case, to contact him. I offered to testify about egregious violations of student first amendment rights I've witnessed in my school district. It's time to stand up to the theocratic bullies trying to destroy our Constitutional freedom FROM religion.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:16 am#4
Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would allow all sides to be heard instead of the Conservative monopoly we have currently. Allowing more voices can't logically be anti free speech.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:18 amThis is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:18 amI don't know the ratio but I"ll guess Roberts , religious nut, Alito, religious nut, Thomas, religious nut and Scalia, off the charts, voted for keeping the Faith Based religious money grab.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:19 amI call the religious far-right in the US the American-Taliban. They want to force their sick dogma down our throats, but most of them are hypocrites who hire prostitutes for sex in secret.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:20 amWhat scares me most, is the concessions given to big business.
by the people for the people...
June 25th, 2007 at 11:21 amahhhh, the wonders of strict construction a.k.a. manipulate the constituion at will to serve the oligarchs and thoecrats.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:22 am.
#22 - I call far-left people like yourself traitors.
Your comment about the Taliban shows your ignorace and bigotry. I pray for your soul.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:23 amWhy does Roberts always look as if he's just won the sixth-grade spelling bee? The photo with this blog looks like Opie and Alfred E. Neuman.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amWell, what did I say about us having the SCOTUS in our pocket? Bush administration and DoJ will stonewall, stonewall and stonewall and eventually win by a Supreme Court decision. 5-4 most likely.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amBetween this and comments from jesus-junkies like TP Hate Machine it's clear: this country is no longer worth fighting for.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amCall it the corporate-fascist Supreme Court now. Thank some retarded Democrats in the Senate for confirming Roberts and Alito.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:25 amunbelievable, you've got one too many
"THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION",
only 4 judges on SCOTUS agree with you.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:25 am.
Plus these two lied when they said they would respect precedents.
Comment by trevjr — June 25, 2007 @ 11:09 am
I have come to the conclusion that in order to stay in the game, Republicans must talk like liberals, since the majority of people are progressive. After they are appointed, it is really too late to see that they don't walk their talk, and do anything about it.
It's how we wind up with these thugs in positions of authority - not just in politics - but in general.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:25 amI have long promoted the idea of bring Democracy to corporations. Presently, a corporation is ruled by the concept of one share/one vote. This is an idea that the GOP thinks applies to Congress as well and so you see them listen to citizens in direct ratio their bank account balance. I propose corporations be run by one shareholder/one vote. A radical concept.
Right now, small shareholders are treated like dirt. They have no voice and their share value is often sacrificed in mergers and acquistions by the big boys who pay each other enormous fees and bonuses. That ain't right. Since when do managers act like entrepreneurs? They're just bureaucrats and they measure success not by profits but by the size of the operation.
I say, if corporations are going to mess with democracy, we'd better bring democracy to the corporation. And let them look to their small shareholders.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:25 am"puh-leeze!!! Just suck it up. The left’s bloody grip on the Court is over."
One thing about trolls -- when they can't rebut facts, they are reduced to taunts (and I outgrew those in grade school). I'm actually more interested in the right's justification that funneling federal money towards faith-based groups isn't a violation of the first amendment.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:26 amLOL TP Hate Machine > you deserve to burn in Hell for your hypocrisy.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:27 amDamn, stupid religious conservatives are in for a big surprise when they finally die and discover THERE IS NO GOD.
But since they have no conscious, I doubt they'll discover the irony of their past, pathetic lives.
Heckuva job, neocons!
June 25th, 2007 at 11:28 amI pray for your soul.
Comment by TP Hate Machine — June 25, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Because that has done wonders for cancer patients and molested children?
Why don't you go find a corner somewhere, and start now...
June 25th, 2007 at 11:29 amSeriously, if the slime on the religious right want this country...let them have it.
The Chinese are going to own it all within 20 years anyway. The jesus-junkies will finally have that "War On Christianity" they have been hoping for for so long. They'll lose, of course.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:30 amwow
June 25th, 2007 at 11:30 amwhen it comes to the long term damage of republican rule, it is only the beginning.
Thank you Sandra Day O'Connor for F'ing America.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:30 am.
This just means it's time to see which religious groups are getting the cash.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:33 amIt USED to be "By the people, for the people"...
now it's just "by the cronies, for the cronies."
June 25th, 2007 at 11:33 amTHP, you're wrong, as is usually the case with conservatives. The Supreme Court until Bush 43 came along was for the most part guided by the constitution when handing down decisions. If you feel that previous courts were liberal, it is only so because American ideals are liberal, and these courts were defending and upholding the constitution. In fact, the founding fathers of this nation were liberal radicals and they left us with a liberal legacy. Unfortunately for the nation, conservative revisionists have been successful at rewriting history to influence public opinion and to begin to turn back the clock on liberty and the rule of law. The Roberts court, the present admistration, and the republican congress have used the constitution to wipe thier asses with. That, you idiot, is what you are heralding and celebrating. You are witnessing the dismantling of our constitution and you're happy about it you stupid ass backward conservative.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:34 amThe big joke is on the religious freaks, because Roberts is a closeted Gay guy. When he gets exposed someday, then he might end up being the first Chief of the court to resign.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:34 amWhy does Roberts always look as if he’s just won the sixth-grade spelling bee? The photo with this blog looks like Opie and Alfred E. Neuman.
Comment by bogtrotters — June 25, 2007 @ 11:24 am
That's funny!
June 25th, 2007 at 11:34 amThe last branch...bought and paid for...for decades to come.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:34 am#42: Uhh... right? Are you sure your gaydar is not malfunctioning?
June 25th, 2007 at 11:36 amunbelievable, you’ve got one too many
“THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATIONâ€,
only 4 judges on SCOTUS agree with you.
Comment by zoot — June 25, 2007 @ 11:25 am
LOL
These people have studied the Constitution, and the political history of our country. They know this isn't a Christian Nation. Yet, like those extremist Muslims they claim to hate, they themselves are no better for trying to force their religion on others. It's simply mental rape...
June 25th, 2007 at 11:36 amI call far-left people like yourself traitors.
Your comment about the Taliban shows your ignorace and bigotry. I pray for your soul.
Comment by TP Hate Machine
Right back at you traitor. And don't bother praying for progressives here. You obviously wouldn't know god if she was sitting on your lap.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:37 amBetween this and comments from jesus-junkies like TP Hate Machine it’s clear: this country is no longer worth fighting for.
Comment by Cobalt 90
You're right. It's time to start fighting "against" what we've become.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:38 amComment by MAF54
Well, we certainly KNOW your gaydar is quite accurate, you quirky gay-boy-lover you!
June 25th, 2007 at 11:39 amNo more bong hits for Jesus either. Damn.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:40 amSimply put....this is why elections matter!
June 25th, 2007 at 11:41 amHEY AMERICA!
BEND OVER AND FEEEEEL THE POWER OF JEZUUUSSS!!!!!
June 25th, 2007 at 11:41 amI have long promoted the idea of bring Democracy to corporations.
Comment by david — June 25, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Brilliant idea... But I bet it will go over as well as me trying to bring critical thinking skills to the public education system.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am"I’m actually more interested in the right’s justification that funneling federal money towards faith-based groups isn’t a violation of the first amendment."
Because religious groups are citizens with interests like anybody else. If La Raza (those crazy bums) can get our tax-payer dollars to run their hate machine, at least channeling money to a faith-based group is more dignified.
If the decision today barred any groups in this country - with the exception of Islamists - from receiving money, you'd all be jumping for joy. I think the new Supreme Court, thus far, is doing a good job.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:42 amWell shane, you can always go somewhere else.
Start your own commune.
Drink Cool-Aid.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:42 amMAF54 > LOL you better google Roberts as Gay and see what pops up. He had a pic taken of himself on holiday with 2 males showing off their food together. He got married as a cover, and adopted 2 kids, but he is Gay. I could care less if he was not a far-right religious hypocrite.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:43 amThe Chinese are going to own it all within 20 years anyway. The jesus-junkies will finally have that “War On Christianity†they have been hoping for for so long. They’ll lose, of course.
Comment by Cobalt 90 — June 25, 2007 @ 11:30 am
I wonder how the neocons justify being so deeply indebted to a country that is predominantly ATHEISTIC, and "COMMUNISTIC"... LOL
June 25th, 2007 at 11:43 amCoptroller, La Raza is not a hate machine you idiot. They advocate for equal rights for minorities you ignorant racist.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:44 amTP Hate Machine... Your name says it all. Far right extremists like you are the same sort who shoot abortion providers, blow up buildings like the Murrah Federal Building and beat and tie gay people to fences in rural Wyoming... leaving them to die. You have no relevance other than your insipid hatred for anything you are too feeble to understand. You serve no purpose on this planet other than to suck up oxygen. You are pathetic and sick.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:44 amNo more bong hits for Jesus either. Damn.
Comment by ForTruth — June 25, 2007 @ 11:40 am
I haven't heard about that case lately - has there been any ruling on the matter?
June 25th, 2007 at 11:45 amI think the new Supreme Court, thus far, is doing a good job.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
You'll be living with them longer than most of us. I'd be interested in your opinion on this court in 30 years.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:45 am#49: Quirky?
June 25th, 2007 at 11:45 amCaption:
Roberts (thinking to himself):
"Five more minutes with this Doofus and I'm set for life..."
Doofus:
"Straighten out that camera, will ya?
June 25th, 2007 at 11:45 amPeople will start ta think ahm beginin' to lean to the left!"
Well shane, you can always go somewhere else.
Start your own commune.
Drink Cool-Aid.
Comment by Happy Guy
Why? You neocons are the people who decided to destroy the Constitution and take away all the freedoms we've always enjoyed. You're turning us into a third world nation where 1% of the population has all the wealth and everybody else is struggling to get by.
What was wrong with the USA that you people decided that it needed to be changed so dramatically?
June 25th, 2007 at 11:46 amNo more bong hits for Jesus either. Damn.
Comment by ForTruth — June 25, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Can I still take Bong Hits for JEEBUS???
June 25th, 2007 at 11:46 amthe supreme court also limited free speech in schools.
i hope all the justices stay healthy until we can get emperor cheney out of office.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:46 amComment by Happy Guy
The libecrats in here haven't explained fundamentally how the decisions today are wrong. As expected, they've just repeated their usual jargon.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:47 amYep, Justice Roberts said the "bong hits for Jesus" sign was "cryptic" and the school principal was reasonable.
I'm with Shane. We can do bong hits for Jeebus now.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:48 amI think the new Supreme Court, thus far, is doing a good job.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 11:42 am
You also drink your own pee... What you think is hardly relevant.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:48 amIf we win in 2008, we'll be able to increase the number of SCOTUS judges and appoint a couple of liberal judges. That should take care of the problem.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:49 amFaggy Guy,
June 25th, 2007 at 11:50 amYou mean, like one of those countries who DOESN'T keep sticking it's head up it's ass, and creating more terrorists like the U.S. is hellbent on? You mean a place that WASN'T, and HASN'T been attacked by extremists? Do you ever wonder why those places aren't targets for terrorists?
Well, first, you'd have to pull your own head out of your ass and see if your brain didn't stay in your behind. Or continue your idiotic, inbred blind servitude, and watch your ass get blown to pieces by your 'leaders' whims.
Stupid IS as stupid IS.
And if there's anything worth salvaging here in America after the "Muslim-extremists" you helped create destroy it, Mexico and Canada could fight over us!
Professor Althouse notes, "the deniability is intact as ever. It's just three men with a pie... and a mustache... and a glow."
FRIKKIN HILARIOUS JAY RANDAL!!next you'll be telling us that the military is trying to make a gay bomb or put frikkin lazers on frikkin shark-
oh, wait...
nevermind.. :)
June 25th, 2007 at 11:51 amtake a hit for me!
June 25th, 2007 at 11:52 amYep, Justice Roberts said the “bong hits for Jesus†sign was “cryptic†and the school principal was reasonable.
I’m with Shane. We can do bong hits for Jeebus now.
Comment by ForTruth — June 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am
"I'm not NOT licking toads..."
June 25th, 2007 at 11:53 amThe libecrats in here haven’t explained fundamentally how the decisions today are wrong.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 11:47 am
This is NOT a Christian Nation. That's why.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:53 am"Coptroller, La Raza is not a hate machine you idiot. They advocate for equal rights for minorities you ignorant racist."
Comment by dantheman
Yeah, that's your jingle, isn't it? What's that song titled, "Decieving Happy Talk (tm)"?
La Raza should never be funded with tax-payers dollars, they're not working on behalf of the ENTIRE public. But the Supreme Court hasn't cut them off, right?
And please, put away your ____ist card for once. Do yourself a favor.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:53 amI didn't know CompTroller drank his own Pee. That's sick.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:54 am#70: That would not go down well politically. The public would see that as politicization of the judicial branch.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:54 am"This is NOT a Christian Nation. That’s why."
Comment by unbelievable
It's not an Islamic nation either, dim-wit. Don't shovel your crap onto others.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:55 am"You also drink your own pee… What you think is hardly relevant."
Comment by unbelievable
Liberals are all irrelevant. Pretty stupid, at that. Do America a favor and throw yourself off a bridge.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:57 amYep, Justice Roberts said the “bong hits for Jesus†sign was “cryptic†and the school principal was reasonable.
Comment by ForTruth — June 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Cryptic? So 'cryptic' speech isn't free then? Where exactly does the First Amendment say that we have a right to free speech except when it is 'cryptic'? And really - to whom is that cryptic outside of Roberts' s pea brain?
That's disgusting...
June 25th, 2007 at 11:57 amWhoops it was Whiteyfresh, not Shane, who had the idea of bong hits for Jeebus.
The Colorado river might have some nice toads to lick.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:58 amJustice Roberts needs to do a bong hit and think about it.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:59 amDon’t shovel your crap onto others.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
And you should NOT sh*t where you eat.
i.e. don't shovel religious fundamentalism fallacies onto others, stupid pig.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:59 am"You’ll be living with them longer than most of us. I’d be interested in your opinion on this court in 30 years."
Yeah, you should sign-up for an automatic e-mail reminder that will notify you if the court starts to become loony again. It'll help out with your busy libetrolling schedule.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:59 ami.e. don’t shovel religious fundamentalism fallacies onto others, stupid pig.
Comment by Not Canadian
Religious groups are interest groups, too. The court's decision circumvented your loonies, thank God.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pmI didn’t know CompTroller drank his own Pee. That’s sick.
Comment by ForTruth — June 25, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Yeah... There's a video of him in circulation on the internet. You might have seen it. Chimp drinking from a stream of his own urine? He alsois known for the video of stratch and sniffing his own rear-end, and then falling off a tree from the repulsion of his own odor.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:02 pmOMG Unbelievable,
June 25th, 2007 at 12:03 pmIt’s not an Islamic nation either, dim-wit.
Exactly. It's a SECULAR nation in trillions of debt to an ATHEIST and COMMUNIST nation... LOL
Don’t shovel your crap onto others.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I just quoted the Constitution... You're calling the Bill of Rights crap, eh? Figures...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pmI have that video of the Chimp drinking his own pee, I've had it for like 5 years. It's a classic. LOL
June 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pmI’m with Shane. We can do bong hits for Jeebus now.
Comment by ForTruth
Did I say that? I must have had a hit I don't remember. But if you think it will help, I'm there with you.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:06 pmIf the likes of Comptroller and every other friggin' chimp wanna flush this country down the drain, so be it. I know how to swim.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pmThe court’s decision circumvented your loonies, thank God.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Which Supreme Court justice are you considering to be your god?
Won't Jesus get jealous?
June 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pmwow, if the Trolls here had the same passion, but weren't acting like total idiots, there could be some REAL debate here...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pmReligious groups are interest groups, too.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
One thing your small mind needs to grasp:
THE
SEPARATION
OF
CHURCH
AND
STATE.
Look it up, it's in this crazy thing called the U.S. Constitution. It's totally wild man!!!! Go for it, you might *gulp* learn sum-thin'.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pmSorry Shane it was WhiteyFresh.
Without a picture of people in here, I sometimes get a couple of you mixed up. I'm more visual. That's my excuse.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pmComment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 11:42 am
You also drink your own pee… What you think is hardly relevant.
Comment by unbelievable
Why so hard on PoopTROLLER V-8, it's all he can afford to drink on his troll salary. He believes that deferred payment crap Rove's office feeds him.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pmThe 'Master Plan' is almost complete. With the OVP declaring itself free from the constitution, and the SCOTUS invalidating the bill of rights, it's only a matter of time before martial law is declared and the nukes fall on Iran. All hail The End Times. Is there no on who can save this country from these criminals? I thought not.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pmOMG Unbelievable,
Comment by ForTruth — June 25, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
If we can't educate them or chase them away with facts, might as well have fun with them whack-a-troll style :D
June 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pmIs there no on who can save this country from these criminals?
Comment by david
I'm hugging my AR-15 right now...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pm"I just quoted the Constitution… You’re calling the Bill of Rights crap, eh? Figures…"
Comment by unbelievable
No, you interpreted the Constitution from left-leaning viewpoint, the problem with posters here. And if I decide to view the Constitution centrally, it doesn't mean I am knocking the Bill of Rights. Interest groups receive funding, religious ones are no different.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pmHe believes that deferred payment crap Rove’s office feeds him.
Comment by shane — June 25, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Oh, call it psychological curiosity... :D
He also believes in Santa Claus, the toothfairy and invisible sky daddies that help him find his lost car keys... He's not one for critical thought.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pmHmm... faith-based funding is ok? Can I fund my local Taliban group without being hassled, then? I promise no money will go to women.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pm“I’m not NOT licking toads…â€
Comment by whiteyfresh
Just keep those toads happy, whitey. :)
June 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pm“I’m not NOT licking toads…â€
Comment by whiteyfresh
Why, they're tasty? And cheap. Or are you talking about me? sniff...sniff
June 25th, 2007 at 12:14 pm"Why so hard on PoopTROLLER V-8, it’s all he can afford to drink on his troll salary. He believes that deferred payment crap Rove’s office feeds him."
Comment by shane
What a justifiable rebuttal to today's ruling. There's a conservative slant, I think you should respect it, just how I stood back and respected Clinton's overrated presidency. I didn't waste my time complaining mercilessly.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:14 pmInterest groups receive funding, religious ones are no different.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Separation of church and state.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:14 pmI’m more visual. That’s my excuse.
Comment by ForTruth
heehee!
visualizing packin up another one?
POPStar(TM)!! what's happenig?
Have YOU had your Bong Hit for JEEBUS today?
;)
June 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pmNo, you interpreted the Constitution from left-leaning viewpoint
Yeah - teh Founding Fathers. They clearly stated in many places, including the Treaty of Tripoli that this is NOT a Christian Nation, and that there is a clear intention of the separation of church and state. They wrote and they defined it as I've stated. It's your side that keeps trying to re-define it into something it was never intended.
And if I decide to view the Constitution centrally, it doesn’t mean I am knocking the Bill of Rights. Interest groups receive funding, religious ones are no different.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
But you aren't viewing it centrally - you are viewing it extremistly.
It's not about equal funding, but about unequal funding an promotion by eliminating alternative choices. That is why we are so angry about this decision. It's setting up a monopoly where the Bill of Rights insisted one never exist.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI didn’t waste my time complaining mercilessly.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
You didn't care, you were playing The Legend of Zelda and trading Pokemon cards.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pm"He also believes in Santa Claus, the toothfairy and invisible sky daddies that help him find his lost car keys… He’s not one for critical thought."
Comment by unbelievable
You must have a narcissistic personality. I'm for critical thought, just not loony thought. You make the crazy mistake of taking your views too seriously.
Grow up.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pmLiberals are all irrelevant. Pretty stupid, at that. Do America a favor and throw yourself off a bridge.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
How about we throw you off a bridge instead DungTROLLER?
June 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pmPOPStar(TM)!! what’s happenig?
Have YOU had your Bong Hit for JEEBUS today?
;)
Comment by whiteyfresh
Hey whitey, good weekend?
I knew my day got off on the wrong foot -- no bong hit for Jeebus yet. :D
June 25th, 2007 at 12:18 pmHmm… faith-based funding is ok? Can I fund my local Taliban group without being hassled, then? I promise no money will go to women.
Comment by El Tonno — June 25, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Yeah, I wonder how readily they would hand me money for an Atheist-based initiative to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people? LOL
June 25th, 2007 at 12:18 pm>> I didn’t waste my time complaining mercilessly (during Clinton)
>> Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
That's probably because there were less Internets back then, right?
June 25th, 2007 at 12:19 pmYou didn’t care, you were playing The Legend of Zelda and trading Pokemon cards.
Comment by Zooey
That's right, I didn't care. I recognized even then that Clinton was a controversial and scandal-plagued President, yet I didn't care about my own parent's babbling against him because I knew there was an obligation to respect the office of the President.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:19 pmThat’s probably because there were less Internets back then, right?
Comment by El Tonno
The internet has nothing to do with the topic here, Mr. Taco.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pmJohn Paul Stevens will be retiring this Friday. It was always his intention to be replaced by the party who appointed him and insiders say he probably believes Bush would have not have the political capital to replace him with a conservative.
My guess is Bush will die trying. Force Democrats to play their hand if they have won.
Finally, the liberal reign of terror over the Courts is OVER.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pmMr. Taco.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Ah, the racism of the far right, SO predictable...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pmHmm… faith-based funding is ok? Can I fund my local Taliban group without being hassled, then? I promise no money will go to women.
Comment by El Tonno
Then why is the ACLU and La Raza still in business? ACLU advocates opening gates to terrorists and releasing child molesters, probably for their own amusement.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pmYou must have a narcissistic personality.
Because I want all Americans to be free from religion as the First Amendment decrees? You need an English dictionary to lookup words you obviously don't understand.
I’m for critical thought, just not loony thought. You make the crazy mistake of taking your views too seriously.
I'm the one making pee jokes, clearly I'm taking everything too seriously...
You're clearly unable to debate the issue, since you wouldn't know critical thinking skills if they bit you in your rather sizable arse... It's why you pitch these temper tantrums instead of debating the issues.
Grow up.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
LOL... Yeah, and I'm too serious... LOL
June 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pmThis is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
Comment by unbelievable
You are right, just 80-90% of it is.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pmThat’s right, I didn’t care. I recognized even then that Clinton was a controversial and scandal-plagued President, yet I didn’t care about my own parent’s babbling against him because I knew there was an obligation to respect the office of the President.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
You're a good little robot, aren't you?
Later.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pmComment by Not Canadian
Who are you to talk? Liberals invented the "Oreo" slur, dingleberry.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pmFinally, the liberal reign of terror over the Courts is OVER.
Comment by TP Hate Machine
Yeah, it's real terrorism to uphold the Constitution for all Americans.
Oops! I'm late for my abortion -- tooooodles!
June 25th, 2007 at 12:25 pmComment by Zooey
"You’re a good little robot, aren’t you?"
"Later."
Nothing like a liberal oldie youth-basher. So articulate.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pmWho are you to talk?
Who am I to talk? I'm your worst f*cking nightmare, chickensh*tter.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:28 pmI'm just pointing out YOUR racism. It's yours, you own it, stupid old fart.
Liberals invented THIS COUNTRY, so why don't you Conservative whore's GET THE F*CK OUT first.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:30 pmComment by unbelievable
You make an accusation, I'm going to respond. You give broken-record responses to every person you debate here, so get some new material. I'm not a full-grow adult making "drink pee" jokes.
Adult liberals can no longer be role models. Tragic.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:31 pmYou are right, just 80-90% of it is.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Wrong. This is a secular nation.
Christians are only about 65-70% of the population, by the way... and, according to your idol O'Reilly, that number is decreasing as Atheism increases. Deal with it...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:33 pmInteresting what the CNN homepage has to say right now about this big news event.....nothing.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:33 pmWhoops it was Whiteyfresh, not Shane, who had the idea of bong hits for Jeebus.
The Colorado river might have some nice toads to lick.
Comment by ForTruth
Whew, for a minute I thought I was having an acid flashback!
June 25th, 2007 at 12:33 pmOops! I’m late for my abortion — tooooodles!
Comment by Zooey — June 25, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
LOL
June 25th, 2007 at 12:34 pmWho am I to talk? I’m your worst f*cking nightmare, chickensh*tter.
I’m just pointing out YOUR racism. It’s yours, you own it, stupid old fart.
Comment by Not Canadian
Yes, take your liberal Jeopardy somewhere else. While your at it, stay out of the workforce, co-workers don't need your socialist speak. Go learn to match a word properly with its definition.
Conservatives, thankfully, are getting rid of that conservative "worst f*cking nightmare." It's dwindling. We are a conservative nation.
______ist.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:34 pmTHE
SEPARATION
OF
CHURCH
AND
STATE.
Look it up, it’s in this crazy thing called the U.S. Constitution. It’s totally wild man!!!! Go for it, you might *gulp* learn sum-thin’.
Comment by Not Canadian
Separation of chruch and state does not appear in the constitution anyplace.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pmWithout a picture of people in here, I sometimes get a couple of you mixed up. I’m more visual. That’s my excuse.
Comment by ForTruth
I wish I was Whiteyfresh. He has way more fun than I do.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pmREALLY yep?
Gee, seems like the Bill of Rights is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
God, no wonder Neocons can't govern worth a sh*t!!!
June 25th, 2007 at 12:37 pmYou give broken-record responses to every person you debate here, so get some new material.
Are you crying or kicking the dog out of rage and jealousy now?
Your problem if you consider the truth a broken record....
I’m not a full-grow adult making “drink pee†jokes.
Who is too serious again? LOL
Adult liberals can no longer be role models. Tragic.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Because we have a sense of humor? You need therapy...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:38 pmTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
R.I.P.
Born: July 4, 1776
Died: December 12, 2000*
* Bush v. Gore, United States Supreme Court case decision December 12, 2000
June 25th, 2007 at 12:39 pmWrong. This is a secular nation.
Christians are only about 65-70% of the population, by the way… and, according to your idol O’Reilly, that number is decreasing as Atheism increases. Deal with it…
Comment by unbelievable
According to the last census it was 79.8%.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:40 pmYou are right, just 80-90% of it is.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Even if only ONE American citizen was a non-Christian, our Constitution still guarantees us freedom from religion. It is not a numbers game, it is a matter of fairness. Something our trolls know nothing about.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:40 pmSeparation of chruch and state does not appear in the constitution anyplace.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
It's the First Amendment...
And while it doesn't say that exact phrase, the people who wrote the original Amendments have clarified that that IS its intent.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pmWhat a justifiable rebuttal to today’s ruling. There’s a conservative slant, I think you should respect it, just how I stood back and respected Clinton’s overrated presidency. I didn’t waste my time complaining mercilessly.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Ahahahaha, ahahahaa, gasp, ahahahaha, chuckle, gasp, ahahaha. So you're saying, wait you're cracking me up, gasp, that you neocons stood back and respected Clinton. Ahahahaha, priceless, you're a funny guy CornTROLLER.
Oh right, you were what 15, six years ago? How is your "treatment" of Clinton relevant?
June 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pmNothing like a liberal oldie youth-basher. So articulate.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
I'm not bashing your youth, CT, I'm bashing your robotic thinking.
I respect the OFFICE of the president, but I don't stop thinking at that point.
I would like for everyone to pay the lowest possible taxes, but I don't stop thinking at that point.
I would like every person in this country to take personal responsibility like I do, but I don't stop thinking at that point.
Get my drift?
June 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pmREALLY yep?
Gee, seems like the Bill of Rights is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
God, no wonder Neocons can’t govern worth a sh*t!!!
Comment by Not Canadian
Where in the Bill of Rights is separation of church and state? It isn't, you are an idiot if you think otherwise.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pm"Are you crying or kicking the dog out of rage and jealousy now?"
You're only proving my point with your projecting.
"Your problem if you consider the truth a broken record…."
Again, projecting.
"Who is too serious again? LOL"
It's not about having/not having a sense of humor. It's about injecting disgusting projection into regular debate.
"Because we have a sense of humor? You need therapy…"
No, because you set the example by complaining mercilessly and conveying to the younger ones to be happy about nothing, complain until it's "perfect."
June 25th, 2007 at 12:44 pmAgain yep, if you've got a brain, now is the time to use it.
From unbe #141:
June 25th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
According to the last census it was 79.8%.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
That was 2000. This is 2007. Considering Christianity is declining, my numbers are closer to what is now than your statement of 80-90%.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pmWho are you to talk? Liberals invented the “Oreo†slur, dingleberry.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Do you have a link for that wild ass piece of bullshit or are you still making things up.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pm... but like most Repukes, go ahead and IGNORE what the framers had in mind when interpreting the Constitution, douchey-douche-baggers...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pmIt’s the First Amendment…
And while it doesn’t say that exact phrase, the people who wrote the original Amendments have clarified that that IS its intent.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,†thus building a wall of separation between Church and State
–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.
Comment by unbelievable
This is one letter by Thomas Jefferson, the first amendment does not say anything about separation. The first amendment in regards to religion gives anybody the free excercise of religion, nowhere does it put a wall between church and state.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:48 pmOops! I’m late for my abortion — tooooodles!
Comment by Zooey
How many years late is CompTROLLER's mother?
June 25th, 2007 at 12:48 pmThat was 2000. This is 2007. Considering Christianity is declining, my numbers are closer to what is now than your statement of 80-90%.
Comment by unbelievable
Any stats to back that up?
June 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pmAdult liberals can no longer be role models. Tragic.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Right. But you believe Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaught, Bill O'Reilly are role models. You poor misguided infant.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pmYou’re only proving my point with your projecting.
You point is that you cannot engage in intelligent dialog, so you resort to temper tantrums too? Well, thee we agree.
“Your problem if you consider the truth a broken record….â€
Again, projecting.
That wasn't even coherent.
It’s not about having/not having a sense of humor. It’s about injecting disgusting projection into regular debate.
Then why do you insist on doing it of you don't likeit so much? I know you cons are into voting against your own self-interests, so perhaps that explains it?
No, because you set the example by complaining mercilessly and conveying to the younger ones to be happy about nothing, complain until it’s “perfect.â€
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
As opposed to tolerating the Nazi's putting a sizable number of your countrymen into gulags? You really don't understand the danger in what these people are doing. And we're not 'whining', we are pointing it out for the sake of informing the masses - just as our forefathers wrote and distributed pamphlets in their time.
If you don't like it here, then leave. As I told your just sayin' pal yesterday - you cannot change other people... You can only control yourself. Start there. You have a lot to work on, and should stop wasting your time here trying to force others to be what you want them to be...
June 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAccording to the last census it was 79.8%.
Comment by yep
That's people who are listed as Christians on their birth certificates. Not people who walk around saying "Have you accepted Jesus as you personal savior?" Christians or fundie loonies as other Christians call them.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pm"Right. But you believe Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaught, Bill O’Reilly are role models. You poor misguided infant."
Comment by shane
I'm sure your projection gets you all warm and toasty inside.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:56 pmI’m sure your projection gets you all warm and toasty inside.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
What exactly does this sentence mean? Nothing? If you have something to say, say it. If you don't, then why post.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThis is one letter by Thomas Jefferson, the first amendment does not say anything about separation.
There's more if you'll stop being lazy and bother to educate yourself. Must we always do the work for you?
Actually, yes it does.
The first amendment in regards to religion gives anybody the free excercise of religion, nowhere does it put a wall between church and state.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
You just skip over the part about the government making no establishment of religion then? What do you think that part means? Thomas Jefferson wrote it, and then explained it. You can choose to ignore the facts, but doing so makes you lose any and all credibility in the matter.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pmHahahahaha! Sucks to be a leftie!
June 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pmSupreme court decisions regarding the separation of church and state, arranged by date:
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
June 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pmCity's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.
That’s people who are listed as Christians on their birth certificates. Not people who walk around saying “Have you accepted Jesus as you personal savior?†Christians or fundie loonies as other Christians call them.
Comment by shane
According to this Newsweek poll less than 3 years ago, "Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll on beliefs about Jesus."
"... 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
June 25th, 2007 at 1:02 pmAccording to this Newsweek poll less than 3 years ago, “Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll on beliefs about Jesus.â€
“… 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of Godâ€
Comment by yep
That doesn't make the US a christian nation, it simply means that christians live here.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:05 pm#81
You don't have free speech in a school. Get over it.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:05 pmAny stats to back that up?
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Since when isn't Bill O'Reilly good enough for you trolls?
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then: at the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians, and the percentage will dip below 70% in 2008
By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase of 281% from 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State. "The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at 22%."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
June 25th, 2007 at 1:05 pmA USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years. Results include:
About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
June 25th, 2007 at 1:06 pmAbout 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious
John Paul Stevens will be retiring this Friday. It was always his intention to be replaced by the party who appointed him and insiders say he probably believes Bush would have not have the political capital to replace him with a conservative.
Only if God retires him.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pm"You point is that you cannot engage in intelligent dialog, so you resort to temper tantrums too? Well, thee we agree."
Again, you're a projecting crazed woman. Who should care what you think? You're a freakin' hate-monger.
"That wasn’t even coherent. "
Of course it was. You are projecting. It's as simple as that.
"Then why do you insist on doing it of you don’t likeit so much? I know you cons are into voting against your own self-interests, so perhaps that explains it?"
What, exactly, are you talking about? Insist on what? Provide evidence to back up your assertion.
"As opposed to tolerating the Nazi’s putting a sizable number of your countrymen into gulags? You really don’t understand the danger in what these people are doing. And we’re not ‘whining’, we are pointing it out for the sake of informing the masses - just as our forefathers wrote and distributed pamphlets in their time. "
You are pushing your politically-tinged version of history on younger generations. "Islam is good, Christianity is bad." The masses SHOULD NOT be informed of your apparent hate speech. It's not good for the country because your presentation of "hate" is limited.
"If you don’t like it here, then leave. As I told your just sayin’ pal yesterday - you cannot change other people… You can only control yourself. Start there. You have a lot to work on, and should stop wasting your time here trying to force others to be what you want them to be…"
Liberals indoctrinate the children with their slanted crap. They're effectively molding, changing them for worse. The intent isn't to change the ideology of crazed liberals, it is to push them aside, contain them so they don't hurt anyone else with their deceiving propaganda. Conservatives are in it to challenge them and ensure they don't get the level of power (bad for the country) they desire. We aren't going anywhere, we are here to stay.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe Dems should have considered the long term damage that Alito and Roberts would cause. They should have used every tactic to stop these two. Plus these two lied when they said they would respect precedents. I also do not know why some of the judges did not quit while Clinton was president.
There's no law saying nominees have to tell the truth.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe SC has become SO packed with Conserative cronies that put ideology before the Constitution, it will be DECADES before balance is restored to the court.
Comment by Mugsy — June 25, 2007 @ 10:56 am
CONSERVATIVES put ideology before the Constitution?
Are you drunk, stupid or both?
Which wing of the court just re-wrote the public takings clause of the Constitution?
Which wing of the court upheld limits on political speech within two months before an election? (In spite of "Congress shall make no law..." etc, etc.)
Which wing of the court perverted the concept of equal protection by upholding race-based hiring and admissions?
Which wing of the court just gave constitutional protections to enemy combatants?
And this same group just decided that they are scientists, determining that carbon emissions are pollutants. Whatever your position on global warming, that is not a judicial function.
The conservative wing of the court is REINING IN this out of control judicial activism--which puts ideology before the Constitution.
You have to be a bit deranged to claim otherwise.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThat's real nice, TP. I give a whole list of SCOTUS decisions regarding the separation of church and state, and you delete them.
Wankers.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pmYou just skip over the part about the government making no establishment of religion then? What do you think that part means? Thomas Jefferson wrote it, and then explained it. You can choose to ignore the facts, but doing so makes you lose any and all credibility in the matter.
Comment by unbelievable
Actually it says "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."
This just means that the government can make no law to restrict the free excercise of religion and there is not an established national religion. That does not mean separation of church and state.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm"What exactly does this sentence mean? Nothing? If you have something to say, say it. If you don’t, then why post."
Comment by shane
You'll need to provide substantial evidence of how I supposedly see Coulter, Limbaugh, others, as a role model. Other than that, it's projection.
Is is that tough for you to figure out? Well, you're becoming senile right on schedule.
I will continue to post. There's a great rebuttal to nearly every liberal poster. The smart days of the Democrats ended in 1980. Your party has yet to show any signs of intelligence.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pmThat doesn’t make the US a christian nation, it simply means that christians live here.
Comment by Zooey
No, actually it means that the overwhelming majoritiy of Americans are Christian.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:15 pmComment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
CT, when you're responding to another commenter could you include the name in your response? It's hard to scroll back to figure out who you're responding to. Thanks.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pmOf course it was. You are projecting. It’s as simple as that.
From your use of the word, it's clear that you don't know what it means... Do you want me to explain it to you?
You are pushing your politically-tinged version of history on younger generations. “Islam is good, Christianity is bad.â€
Strawman. I equally think all branches of the Middle Eastern tree of monotheism are violent, destructive and superfluous.
Christianity = Islam to me.
The masses SHOULD NOT be informed of your apparent hate speech. It’s not good for the country because your presentation of “hate†is limited.
It's called freedom of speech.
And the hate is all yours...
Liberals indoctrinate the children with their slanted crap. They’re effectively molding, changing them for worse. The intent isn’t to change the ideology of crazed liberals, it is to push them aside, contain them so they don’t hurt anyone else with their deceiving propaganda. Conservatives are in it to challenge them and ensure they don’t get the level of power (bad for the country) they desire.
There is it... There's the hate. That was the hate speech right there. You're entitled to have it, but you have it without any facts to back you up.
We aren’t going anywhere, we are here to stay.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Why?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pmNo, actually it means that the overwhelming majoritiy of Americans are Christian.
Comment by yep
Which still does not mean that the US is a christian nation. Would you have the US be a christian nation the way Afghanistan was/is a Muslim nation? You do realize that's what you seem to be advocating, do you?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:18 pmA USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years. Results include:
About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves “spiritual but not religious†(up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious
Comment by unbelievable
This shows only people that are religous or go to church. It does not mean only 50% are Christian. It only means 50% go to church.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThere’s no law saying nominees have to tell the truth. Comment by m12 — June 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
There isn't? And that's your *gauge* of morality? You can lie, as long as it isn't *illegal*? That explains all of the *lies* you post on here - b!tch.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThis just means that the government can make no law to restrict the free excercise of religion
You keep putting that first or only... while glossing over the fact that the words 'no establishment' not only exist, but exist first in that sentance.
That does not mean separation of church and state.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
'no establishment' doesn't mean separation to you? By all means, sue your third grade teacher... Sheesh.
Roget's New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus -
Main Entry: establish
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: organize
Synonyms: authorize, base, build, constitute, create, decree, domiciliate, enact, endow, ensconce, entrench, erect, father, fix, form, found, ground, implant, inaugurate, inculcate, install, institute, land, lay foundation, live, lodge, moor, originate, place, plant, practice, provide, put, ring in, rivet, root, secure, set down, set up, settle, stabilize, start, station, stick
Antonyms: abrogate, disestablish, eradicate, invalidate, unsettle
June 25th, 2007 at 1:24 pmWhich still does not mean that the US is a christian nation. Would you have the US be a christian nation the way Afghanistan was/is a Muslim nation? You do realize that’s what you seem to be advocating, do you?
Comment by Zooey
I don't think we should be a "Christian nation" however, when such a large majority is Christian the will of the people should apply in some regard. What is wrong with the Supreme Court being in line with the majority of Americans?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:24 pmNo, actually it means that the overwhelming majoritiy of Americans are Christian.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Not overwhelming, AND declining...
June 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pmThere isn’t? And that’s your *gauge* of morality? You can lie, as long as it isn’t *illegal*? That explains all of the *lies* you post on here - b!tch.
Nope! Just ask David Souter, who lied to President Bush I repeatedly to get his nomination by claiming he was a conservative.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:26 pmThis just means that the government can make no law to restrict the free excercise of religion
You keep putting that first or only… while glossing over the fact that the words ‘no establishment’ not only exist, but exist first in that sentance.
That does not mean separation of church and state.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
‘no establishment’ doesn’t mean separation to you? By all means, sue your third grade teacher… Sheesh.
Roget’s New Millennium™ Thesaurus -
Main Entry: establish
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: organize
Synonyms: authorize, base, build, constitute, create, decree, domiciliate, enact, endow, ensconce, entrench, erect, father, fix, form, found, ground, implant, inaugurate, inculcate, install, institute, land, lay foundation, live, lodge, moor, originate, place, plant, practice, provide, put, ring in, rivet, root, secure, set down, set up, settle, stabilize, start, station, stick
Antonyms: abrogate, disestablish, eradicate, invalidate, unsettle
Comment by unbelievable
That still does not mean that the government must be separate from religion. Having the ten commandments in federal buildings does not establish any religion.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pmNot overwhelming, AND declining…
Comment by unbelievable
8 out of 10 is overwhelming.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:28 pmWhat is wrong with the Supreme Court being in line with the majority of Americans?
Comment by yep
The Constitution is set up to protect the minority from the majority -- as in slavery and civil rights. Get it?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:29 pmThis shows only people that are religous or go to church. It does not mean only 50% are Christian. It only means 50% go to church.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Actually, in conjunction with the first post, it shows that out of the 70% of Americans who claim to be Christain, that only 50% of those are actually actively going to church. Therefore, it's actually LESS THAN 50% of Americans who are active Christians - it's only 35% (half of 70%).
And this empty pew syndrome is apparent in a significant number of churches across the country...
Why? Because organized religion is unncessary.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pmYou keep putting that first or only… while glossing over the fact that the words ‘no establishment’ not only exist, but exist first in that sentance
Comment by unbelievable
You are glossing over the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" what law is being made if we have the ten commandments in federal buildings. What law is being made if there is prayer in school?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pmThat still does not mean that the government must be separate from religion. Having the ten commandments in federal buildings does not establish any religion.
Comment by yep
See the court cases cited in #161 -- all SCOTUS decisions regarding the separation of church and state.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:32 pmhowever, when such a large majority is Christian the will of the people should apply in some regard.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Precisely why we are a Republic. The Founding Father's feared the pack-mentality (or 'mob rule' as they called it) of people like you, so they made sure that America would not be a pure Democracy...
June 25th, 2007 at 1:33 pmThis is a vast oversimplification. There are voting and non-voting stocks. Non-voting are what the general public and employees are able to buy. That's how corporations fail, while their CEOs get filthy rich. Caveat Emptor.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:33 pmPrecisely why we are a Republic. The Founding Father’s feared the pack-mentality (or ‘mob rule’ as they called it) of people like you, so they made sure that America would not be a pure Democracy…
Comment by unbelievable
So you think that the majority of Americans should be discounted?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:35 pm"From your use of the word, it’s clear that you don’t know what it means… Do you want me to explain it to you?"
No, your definition would be slanted and extremely political.
"It’s called freedom of speech."
Then don't bash this court's decision. It's not as if they're trying to limit your free speech.
"And the hate is all yours…"
Sure lady, keep your "do no wrong" whining going, then do some more wrong while your at it. It won't help you, rest assured.
The facts are everything - the loony left blogs, the books, the commentators, the bias against homeschooling, every liberal-leaning web link. Keep your ideology away from America's children.
"Why?"
I just told you why. Another explanation: the job of the Conservative is to ensure that Government doesn't get too big and out-of-hand.
And by the way, Islam has already FAR exceed Christianity as being a violent religion. I don't think there's any way to compare the two.
Leave it to liberals to desecrate free speech!
June 25th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThat still does not mean that the government must be separate from religion. Having the ten commandments in federal buildings does not establish any religion.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Of course it does.
You'd be okay if they replaced the 10 Commandments with a 20' statue of Buddha, for which you the tax payer would pay? You're a liar if you say yes...
8 out of 10 is overwhelming.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Except that it's NOT 8 out of 10.
Only 3.5 out of 10 are practicing Christians.
Why do you cons ask for facts, and then when we provide them, you refuse to accept them? And it was a freaking religious website from which I got those numbers... Sheesh.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThere’s no law saying nominees have to tell the truth.
Comment by m12
Actually, I think there is. Nominees testify at Judiciary Committee hearings under oath. And I believe perjury is still against the law. Even if they weren't under oath, there's such a thing as misrepresentation.
But I suppose it's possible to claim to change one's mind -- "when I said I respected precedents I meant it, but now I see that Bush is the true light and what he wants is for the greater good of the country."
June 25th, 2007 at 1:40 pmComment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
"Do 40 percent of all Americans worship weekly? Surveys by Gallup and other pollsters consistently say yes, but scholars who’ve studied the question closely say the actual rate is around 25 percent.
While the higher figure has been disputed by numerous analysts for a decade, Boston University religion professor Nancy Ammerman said the 40 percent rate does show how many Americans still consider themselves regular churchgoers."
Again, the majority of Americans are Christians, but most of them not fundamentalists who want to control the country's politics.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pmOf course it does.
You’d be okay if they replaced the 10 Commandments with a 20′ statue of Buddha, for which you the tax payer would pay? You’re a liar if you say yes…
8 out of 10 is overwhelming.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Except that it’s NOT 8 out of 10.
Only 3.5 out of 10 are practicing Christians.
Why do you cons ask for facts, and then when we provide them, you refuse to accept them? And it was a freaking religious website from which I got those numbers… Sheesh.
Comment by unbelievable
If Buddhism accounted for 80% of the population I would not mind.
I am a Christian but have not been to church in ten years which is where many people fall. Just because people are upset organized religion or don't want to go to church that does not mean they do not believe in Christianity. Why is it that when asking for stats, liberals always give different stats in order to further their agenda? I asked for stats regarding percentage of Americans that are Christian, not the percentage that go to church every week.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pmYou are glossing over the part that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion†what law is being made if we have the ten commandments in federal buildings.
The law divined from displaying them. Hello? Are you really serious?
What law is being made if there is prayer in school?
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
The law divined from forcing people to pray who do not wish to do so...
"Law" isn't just a punishable offense for which you can go to jail. Here, since I know you don't own a dictionary:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pmSo you think that the majority of Americans should be discounted?
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Nope. The majority of Americans want a separtion of church and state. They understand what happened to Norway... A country with no separation of church and state in which just 2% of its population is now active in the state sponsored religion.
Youshould want a separation. Because what happens if the next guy decides to make Islam the national religion? Then what? Separation of church and state PROTECTS your right to whatever lunacy you wish to believe... Sheesh.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:45 pmWhat the ruling on the Faith-Based Initiatives means is that the Unitary Executive has found a way around the 1st Amendment.
The First Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law..."
It doesn't say, "...neither shall the President promulgate any rule or executive order..."
In other words, the Unitary Executive can use this ruling to circumvent, by Executive Order, the entire First Amendment.
As taxpayers, we have no standing to challenge such rules in Court. They can only be challenged at the ballot box, or via armed insurrection.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThe law divined from displaying them. Hello? Are you really serious?
What law is being made if there is prayer in school?
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
The law divined from forcing people to pray who do not wish to do so…
“Law†isn’t just a punishable offense for which you can go to jail. Here, since I know you don’t own a dictionary:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
Comment by unbelievable
I underdstand that law is not only a punishable offense. If a school holds a prayer and people are not forced to pray how are their first amendment rights being violated?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:50 pmIs is that tough for you to figure out? Well, you’re becoming senile right on schedule.
I will continue to post. There’s a great rebuttal to nearly every liberal poster. The smart days of the Democrats ended in 1980. Your party has yet to show any signs of intelligence.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
So you think if a 53 year old becomes senile that is right on schedule.
You should continue to post, I'm not trying to stop you. You trolls are informative in that you show us the talking points you neocons are being fed.
Funny though you people elected Bush and then you talk about Democrats not having any sign of intelligence. We've never elected such a dim bulb as our leader, if he's the best you guys have then so be it. If he's not then you loyalists who voted for him twice are not too bright.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:50 pmAs taxpayers, we have no standing to challenge such rules in Court. They can only be challenged at the ballot box, or via armed insurrection.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Another nail in our coffin...
June 25th, 2007 at 1:52 pmBy the way, for all who perceive the Supreme Court as hopelessly conservative for the next several decades, may I remind you that there is no set number of Justices on the Court.
There is nothing to prevent Congress and the President from increasing the number of Justices and filling those new slots with whatever candidates happen to fit with the prevailing Party's ideology.
With the Presidency, a majority in the House and 67 votes in the Senate, the Democratic Party can pack the Supreme Court.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThen don’t bash this court’s decision.
That's my freedom of speech to do so, and I will...
I just told you why.
No you didn't. You just used words you don;t understandin an attempt to insult me... LOL
Another explanation: the job of the Conservative is to ensure that Government doesn’t get too big and out-of-hand.
Well, that's where you should have a problem with Bush - he has grown the government.
But, your goal is silly. Size doesn't matter, as long as it's reasonable. What matters is efficiency. And liberals stand for EFFICIENT government.
And by the way, Islam has already FAR exceed Christianity as being a violent religion. I don’t think there’s any way to compare the two.
The history of the world does exist outside of your microscopic view of it.
Actually there is a way:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_crusades.htm
http://www.islam101.com/terror/mythViolence.htm
Leave it to liberals to desecrate free speech!
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
I don't see you being banned or your rants being deleted... Hmmm...
June 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pmActually, I think there is. Nominees testify at Judiciary Committee hearings under oath. And I believe perjury is still against the law. Even if they weren’t under oath, there’s such a thing as misrepresentation.
But I suppose it’s possible to claim to change one’s mind — “when I said I respected precedents I meant it, but now I see that Bush is the true light and what he wants is for the greater good of the country.â€
I do not believe they are under oath. Link?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI do not believe they are under oath. Link?
Comment by m12
They don't have to be under oath. Lying to Congress is illegal, or so your party tells us when they don't want administration officials under oath to testify.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:59 pmComment by Zooey
You're so diplomatic, Zooey. A real inspiration.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIf Buddhism accounted for 80% of the population I would not mind.
And what if it were Islam?
I am a Christian but have not been to church in ten years which is where many people fall. Just because people are upset organized religion or don’t want to go to church that does not mean they do not believe in Christianity.
Actually, it does. What you people are is 'spiritual but not religious'. That's fine. I actually wish people would decide for themselves and stop needing to call it Christainity out of fear or some irrational need to belong...
Why is it that when asking for stats, liberals always give different stats in order to further their agenda?
And I gave them to you exactlyas you asked. Don't start lying now because I did...
I asked for stats regarding percentage of Americans that are Christian, not the percentage that go to church every week.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
And I posted that FIRST. Here it is again:
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years — about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then: at the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians, and the percentage will dip below 70% in 2008
By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase of 281% from 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase — almost a doubling — from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State. “The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at 22%.â€
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
June 25th, 2007 at 2:00 pmOf course, Congress could specify that none of the funds allocated to the Executive Branch be used for "faith-based" iniatives.
But Republicans would likely filibuster such a bill/amendment, as it micromanages the office of the Unitary Executive.
Unbelievable, I appreciate your post on %s of religions, especially where it says Wicca is the fastest growing religion in terms of percentage growth.
Given the groundwork here for a Unitary Executive to create "faith-based" initiatives, wouldn't it be ironic if a President converted to Wicca while in office, and used that foundation to promote Wicca?
For those that do not know, the basic beliefs Thomas Jefferson were closer to Wicca than to Christianity. So, if we want to turn to the religion of the founding fathers....it ain't Christianity!
June 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pmokay Liberals , you too Zooey , one , two , three WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
June 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pmThey don’t have to be under oath. Lying to Congress is illegal, or so your party tells us when they don’t want administration officials under oath to testify.
Lying under oath is illegal, yes. I do not know who says it is illegal to lie otherwise, but they are incorrect.
Like I said earlier, David Souter lied to Bush Sr.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:02 pmYou’re so diplomatic, Zooey. A real inspiration.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Thanks, CT.
I don't know what comment you're referring to, so frankly I don't know if you're complimenting me, or being sarcastic.
I'll take it as a compliment. :)
June 25th, 2007 at 2:02 pmokay Liberals , you too Zooey , one , two , three WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Comment by FDR — June 25, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Yeah, thanks for the "shout out."
This one's specifically for you FDR: F*ck off.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI appreciate your post on %s of religions, especially where it says Wicca is the fastest growing religion in terms of percentage growth.
Sure thing... I'm not afraid of the truth :D
Given the groundwork here for a Unitary Executive to create “faith-based†initiatives, wouldn’t it be ironic if a President converted to Wicca while in office, and used that foundation to promote Wicca?
I would love to see that! No doubt the cries from the 7% of Evangelicals in this country and the 35% of church going Christians would be for Impeachment...
For those that do not know, the basic beliefs Thomas Jefferson were closer to Wicca than to Christianity. So, if we want to turn to the religion of the founding fathers….it ain’t Christianity!
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 25, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Exactly!
June 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pmYour posts are back, Zooey... #161.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:06 pmI'm taking a break to go make Greek stuffed tomatoes... Should take a while. Will be interesting to see what nonsense the trolls post in the interim... Sure to amuse, if not totally scary...
But I do have to thank them for one thing - giving us the platform for disclosing the truth through debunking their nonsense... Gotta love it!
June 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pmCompTROLLER V-1 Zooey is a Liberal Troll , 3 metric tons od solid evidence would not change that girls mind as with a 3 yr. old , she is not capable of understanding or caring about a differing opinion
June 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm"That’s my freedom of speech to do so, and I will…"
But you advocate the denial of funding, that same funding afforded to your own Democratic interests groups, from religious groups - also interest groups. You can have your free speech, but your anti-Christian bias (especially since they aren't the focus on the War on Terror) makes you look weak and welcoming to terrorist ideology.
"No you didn’t. You just used words you don;t understandin an attempt to insult me… LOL"
More unsubstantiated jibberish.
"But, your goal is silly. Size doesn’t matter, as long as it’s reasonable. What matters is efficiency. And liberals stand for EFFICIENT government."
There has been plenty of documented corruption on behalf of Liberal politicians (the latest of the pack: criminally indicted William Jefferson, 16 counts) Size does matter because it costs money - taxpayer dollars - to run government programs that need to be cut and aren't efficient. Nibleness and effiency can and should go hand-in-hand.
"The history of the world does exist outside of your microscopic view of it."
As a sum-up, and as a theme of the War-on-Terror, radical Islam is the focus. Any history you perceive of Christianity is irrelevant at this time. The focus is gutting dominant, radical Islam. We can only focus on one thing at a time. Why are you wasting your time worrying about Christianity? Islam wants to see the West disintegrated, the place you call home. They want to see this country exterminated.
"I don’t see you being banned or your rants being deleted… Hmmm…"
They would be if you were the administrator of this site. Don't try to lump yourself with the current TP administrators. While they allow my dissent, you have no part of it.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pmBriseadh na Faire this sounds very Wiccan to me , NOT!!!! what an Idiot
Today's News
More Boortz
Boortz Bio
Boortz FAQ
Photo Gallery
Boortz Books
Boortz Appearances
Audio Archives
Get the Boortz Newsletter
Contact us
How To Contact
E-mail The Show
Speaking Engagements
Syndication Information
More Boortz
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows: New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
June 25th, 2007 at 2:16 pmComment by Zooey
No, I was complementing, not specifically to any posts. You provide some good fundamental advice despite our heavy differences in political views.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:16 pmPerhaps Liberals should take the time to read the Declaration of Independence before making stupid comments about the Author
June 25th, 2007 at 2:20 pmI call the religious far-right in the US the American-Taliban. They want to force their sick dogma down our throats, but most of them are hypocrites who hire prostitutes for sex in secret.
Comment by Jay Randal — June 25, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Remind me, who jammed affirmative racism down our throats? I don't recall voting for that, and I don't recall at time when it ever enjoyed popular support. Nevermind the fact that it's blatantly unconstitutional. When did we all vote on abortion rights, anchor babies (another 'gift' from leftwing judicial activists) and gay marriage?
And let's not forget the decimation of the Bill of Rights by the court's left wing.
On issue after issue, the left has been unable to convince a majority of Americans to accept their views--which have never enjoyed much popular support. And failing to achieve your agenda democratically, you've tried to circumvent the will of the people and the Constitution by seeking out extremist leftwing judicial activists to jam it down our throats. Your agenda is NOT wanted by the people, but it somehow ends up getting shoved down our unwilling throats anyway.
But the recent grownup arrivals on the court are finally starting to rein in the damage wrought by the deviant ACLU wing of the court.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pmYou see, but you do not understand. Did you not read,
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God"
and,
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator"?
Those are not references to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
Perhaps, before you post again on the topic, study Christianity, Wicca, Universalism, Deism, and the beliefs of Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Then you will have enough of a background to engage in a reasoned discourse.
Unless, of course, you like being dismissed as a blathering idiot.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pmThere’s no law saying nominees have to tell the truth. Comment by m12 — June 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
There isn’t? And that’s your *gauge* of morality? You can lie, as long as it isn’t *illegal*? That explains all of the *lies* you post on here - b!tch.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — June 25, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Yes, this was another precedent broken by the left, in the case known as Clinton v. Jones
June 25th, 2007 at 2:34 pmInteresting, the latest supporter of NeoCons has taken George Orwell's name.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:37 pmIf you all would actually take the time to read the decision you would discover that the Supreme Court was within the law in making that decision. You would also discover that Old George and his pack of neocon lawyers have struck again and found a way AROUND the constitution. Primarily because they use "general" (my term) funds to pump up these religious fanatics and not funds specifically generated by Congress for the "faith-based" initiative. The Courts says, in essence, that ONLY CONGRESS can correct this matter.
So, leave the F****KING Repugnant Trolls in this thread alone! and write your congressman instead!
It would seem that liberals need to find their own group of evil lawyers.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:37 pmInteresting, the latest supporter of NeoCons has taken George Orwell’s name.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 25, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
The man was prescient, quite the visionary--he nailed you Stalinists neo-coms to a tee. Right down to the latest, well, Orwellian name change to "progressive."
June 25th, 2007 at 2:42 pmCompTROLLER V-1 Zooey is a Liberal Troll , 3 metric tons od solid evidence would not change that girls mind as with a 3 yr. old , she is not capable of understanding or caring about a differing opinion
Comment by FDR
Gosh darn it, you know me better than I know myself.
Sheesh....exposed by a blathering idiot. How will I live with myself?
June 25th, 2007 at 2:46 pmNo, I was complementing, not specifically to any posts. You provide some good fundamental advice despite our heavy differences in political views.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Thank you, CT.
I do my best -- most of the time. :)
June 25th, 2007 at 2:47 pm#201
"I underdstand that law is not only a punishable offense. If a school holds a prayer and people are not forced to pray how are their first amendment rights being violated?"
Let's see. The adminsitrator or teachers says: "Now kids, bow your heads in prayer." Johnny doesn't bow his head. Teacher says: "Johnny! BOW YOUR HEAD! Show some respect!". Johnny still doesn't bow his head and stares directly back at the teacher with a puzzled look on his face. Teacher says:"Johnny, you go sit out in the hall right now until the REST OF US ARE FINISHED PRAYING!"
And please, don't tell me that doesn't happen or didn't happen. It happened to me many many times. But I am stronger than most.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:50 pmFDR is Patrick1nut.
You can tell by the poor sentence structure, the inability to spell correctly, and the cut and pasting from right wing blogs.
As well as the stupid a$$, mean spirited ad hominem attacks.
Geez, I wish these idiotic trolls would stick to one name
June 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pmGeez, I wish these idiotic trolls would stick to one name
Comment by DRxJ
I think they keep forgetting their names. Being a trollie is so confusing....
June 25th, 2007 at 3:12 pmLooking back at the photo at the top, you'd HAVE to be retarded to think this picture represents you well, Chimpy.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:30 pmThis is just sour grapes by the Roberts supreme court since Bush is leaving office in 18 months. The next president won't exploit and manipulate religion the way Bush has. So Roberts wants to stir up Bush's base with these peripheral issues before 2008. pretty pointless.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:14 pmLet’s see. The adminsitrator or teachers says: “Now kids, bow your heads in prayer.†Johnny doesn’t bow his head. Teacher says: “Johnny! BOW YOUR HEAD! Show some respect!â€. Johnny still doesn’t bow his head and stares directly back at the teacher with a puzzled look on his face. Teacher says:â€Johnny, you go sit out in the hall right now until the REST OF US ARE FINISHED PRAYING!â€
And please, don’t tell me that doesn’t happen or didn’t happen. It happened to me many many times. But I am stronger than most.
Comment by Oldfart
Little Johnny is not being forced to pray. He can think about the cute girl in the class or what he wants to do during recess. It is not infringing on his first amendment rights in any way.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAnd these are the same guys who said that they would not legislate from the bench, right? Please.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:38 pmIf Buddhism accounted for 80% of the population I would not mind.
And what if it were Islam?
I am a Christian but have not been to church in ten years which is where many people fall. Just because people are upset organized religion or don’t want to go to church that does not mean they do not believe in Christianity.
Actually, it does. What you people are is ’spiritual but not religious’. That’s fine. I actually wish people would decide for themselves and stop needing to call it Christainity out of fear or some irrational need to belong…
Why is it that when asking for stats, liberals always give different stats in order to further their agenda?
And I gave them to you exactlyas you asked. Don’t start lying now because I did…
I asked for stats regarding percentage of Americans that are Christian, not the percentage that go to church every week.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
And I posted that FIRST. Here it is again:
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years — about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then: at the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians, and the percentage will dip below 70% in 2008
By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase of 281% from 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase — almost a doubling — from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State. “The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at 22%.â€
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Comment by unbelievable
Yes even Islam if it held 80% of the population. As for your numbers again, I don't care how many people go to church, my statement was regarding people that are Christian, a person does not have to go to church to be Christian. You are simply skewing facts.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pmBut you advocate the denial of funding, that same funding afforded to your own Democratic interests groups, from religious groups - also interest groups.
Prove I said that, with my own words.
Hint: I didn't. You are just pretending I did so that you can make a false claim about what I believe.
Yeah, you're just brimming with integrity.
You can have your free speech, but your anti-Christian bias (especially since they aren’t the focus on the War on Terror) makes you look weak and welcoming to terrorist ideology.
No it doesn't.
“No you didn’t. You just used words you don;t understandin an attempt to insult me… LOLâ€
More unsubstantiated jibberish.
It's funny really, how you are copying the things I first say to you. Well, immitation is the sincerst form of flattery...
There has been plenty of documented corruption on behalf of Liberal politicians (the latest of the pack: criminally indicted William Jefferson, 16 counts) Size does matter because it costs money - taxpayer dollars - to run government programs that need to be cut and aren’t efficient. Nibleness and effiency can and should go hand-in-hand.
You say PLENTY and then you just list one... LOL
I'm not a Democrat by the way.
As a sum-up, and as a theme of the War-on-Terror, radical Islam is the focus. Any history you perceive of Christianity is irrelevant at this time.
No it isn't. It's totally relevant as we are currently attacking a country filled with Muslims that never attacked us (Iraq). That's the present.
The focus is gutting dominant, radical Islam. We can only focus on one thing at a time.
Maybe YOU can't multi-task, but other peope can and do.
Why are you wasting your time worrying about Christianity?
Because it's an equal part of the problem of religious 'wars' on others who are not like them... (see Iraq).
Islam wants to see the West disintegrated, the place you call home. They want to see this country exterminated.
So do you.
They would be if you were the administrator of this site.
So your a psychic now? LOL
Don’t try to lump yourself with the current TP administrators. While they allow my dissent, you have no part of it.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 25, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
I just debunk your lies and nonsense. Frankly - keep yapping - you just prove the lunacy of the far right every time you press the post button.
And you're a bit of an experiment...
June 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pmAnybody else think that Justice Roberts looks like Frank Burns?
June 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pmAnd these are the same guys who said that they would not legislate from the bench, right? Please.
They aren't. The funding policy was enacted by the President, not the courts.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:47 pm#118
I believe that Stevens bit is actually a fabrication, good sir.
He is a partisan warrior and will die rather than retire during this President.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:49 pmYes even Islam if it held 80% of the population.
I don't buy it. It doesn't agree with your general anti-Islam views.
As for your numbers again, I don’t care how many people go to church, my statement was regarding people that are Christian, a person does not have to go to church to be Christian.
Argue with the bible then... It's not my rule:
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
You are simply skewing facts.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Nope - just posting facts. You don't like these facts you you try to reinterpret them or blame me for misrepresenting them, when I just pointed them out.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pmThey aren’t. The funding policy was enacted by the President, not the courts. Comment by m12 — June 25, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
So your argument is the *executive* is now the *legislative* branch? Poor st*pid little b!tch, you do consistently step in the piles of sh*t you confuse as your own intellect.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pmI believe that Stevens bit is actually a fabrication, good sir.
He is a partisan warrior and will die rather than retire during this President.
Comment by m12 — June 25, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
More projection - poor st*pid little b!tch. You may be *partisan*, but you are no *warrior*. You're a whiny BORING Zzzzz little lunatic fringe idi*t that posts lies, disinformation, hate speech and distortions, while *rationalizing* that lies are *good* if your side tells them. You're a little st*pid little lemming Nazi that's too cowardly to live in reality. You aren't worth the pile of sh*t you wallow in - dum bass.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI don’t buy it. It doesn’t agree with your general anti-Islam views.
What have I said that is anti-Islam?
Nope - just posting facts. You don’t like these facts you you try to reinterpret them or blame me for misrepresenting them, when I just pointed them out.
The facts are 80% of the population sees themselves as Christian. Your interepeted facts are meaningless.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:09 pmSupreme Court Sides With Administration, Corporations In New Decisions
wow, didn't see that one coming
June 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pm#245
What projection? The man has had 7 years to retire under this President. He was certainly old enough even in 2001.
The only conclusion we can make is that he has no plans in voluntarily retiring under a Republican President. Perhaps God will have a hand in that matter.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pm#244
Nope. Reading comprehension is fundamental!
June 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pmBy the way, I apologize for all of my foul, gutter language.
It's just that if I didn't include a lot of profanity, people might notice that I'm not very bright and really don't have much to offer in the way of facts.
I'll try to tone it down.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pm#250
I accept your apology. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. Although, I must say that I did notice that you don't really offer anything much besides extreme temper tantrums. But I'm glad that you've taken the first step in fixing the problem--which is admitting that you have one.
Godspeed.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pmThe Supreme Court has been taken over by extremist Justices Like Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and kennedy. The little person no longer matters to them. The law no favors Corporations, Rightwing hate groups, Abortion groups and the Republican Party. The next thing they intend to do is declare the Constitution useless. In my opinion this country is headed for the worst period in it's history. When the highest court become a clearing house of Republican ideas, we are in more danger than we were on 9-11 from terrorist. This men who mean to do us harm wear black robes instead of white robes with pointed hoods.
It was apparent that Justices Roberts and Alito both dislike blacks and minorities and anyone who isn't a white male and Republican. This court has done more to destroy the Constitution than anything anyone else could ever attempt. All I can say is God help us when they are done.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pmComment by The Unknown Democrat — June 25, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Unknown Democrat, for Whom Much is Unknown...
The Supreme Court has been taken over by extremist Justices Like Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and kennedy. The little person no longer matters to them.
Correct--the Constitution is what matters to them. And that's all that should matter. As Roberts said in his confirmation hearings, "If the Constitution says the little guy should win in a particular case, then the little guy wins. If the Constitutiton says the big guy should win, then the big guy wins."
See, Roberts is doing what he's supposed to do: Apply the Constitution and the law to get to a particular outcome; not start with a desired outcome and concoct an opinion to meet that outcome (ie, judicial activism).
The law now favors Corporations, Rightwing hate groups, Abortion groups and the Republican Party.
Which hate groups are those: The ones who attack conservative speakers on campus by pieing them in the face, shouting them down or attacking them physically? The ones that demonstrate at RNC conventions and riot like lunatics? The ones who trash conservative news publications on college campus?
The next thing they intend to do is declare the Constitution useless... This court has done more to destroy the Constitution than anything anyone else could ever attempt.
Well, after what the leftwing of the court has done to the Constitution, it IS useless. The left wing of the court has shit all over the Bill of Rights--destroy free speech rights, attacks gun rights, eviscerate property rights, pervert the concept of equal rights and has concocted a whole slew of law out of whole cloth.
In my opinion this country is headed for the worst period in it’s history.
After the takeover of Congress by a bunch of fruitcakes, I couldn't agree more.
When the highest court become a clearing house of Republican ideas, we are in more danger than we were on 9-11 from terrorist.
The Republican ideas you're afraid of happen to be the ideas the framers laid out. And, as we all know, you despise those ideas and you and your ilk have worked tirelessly to destroy them.
This men who mean to do us harm wear black robes instead of white robes with pointed hoods.
Truer words were never spoken. Those four--Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg and Stevens, joined occasionally by Kennedy and before that O'Connor--have repeatedly trashed the Bill of Rights, destroying our freedoms and liberties.
It was apparent that Justices Roberts and Alito both dislike blacks and minorities and anyone who isn’t a white male and Republican.
You're such a moron that it's hard to know where to begin.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:39 pmThis court is a mockery of real justice. Anyone can appoint men of little to no integrity and buy their vote, that does not equal justice. History, on the contrary has shown that such men will be shown true justice, just look what happened to Saddam Husein. Enjoy your power while you wield it gentlemen, but don't kid yourselves, you wouldn't know justice if you fell face first into it! You bring nothing but disgrace on this great nation. We shall prevail despite you.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:49 pmThank God for Ralph Nader!!!!!
June 25th, 2007 at 11:57 pmSocial Darwinism rises again. See:
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm
June 26th, 2007 at 1:45 amReligion IS business. It's no different than catering to big business. It's a cash cow with massive profits. Of course Republicans want to milk this cow too, and not because they are religious. No Republican gives a crap about god, just money.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:35 amRefering to comment by TP Hate Machine — June 25, 2007 @ 10:56 am
"Finally, Christianity is not a sin. If we can fund abortions, we can fund faith-based initiatives."
What a ludicrous statement - drawing a comparison between enforced taxation to fund the pushers and abusers of religious nonsense, and an important aspect of society's health and welfare system.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:15 amA victory for States' rights and the constitution. Robert's is living up to his expectations.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:34 am"Religion IS business"
Environmentalism is Religion --> Religion is Business
therefore environmentalism is business....
OH NO, we better watch out for "Big Environmentalism" and the evil corporations!
June 26th, 2007 at 7:38 amHurray for Thomas! stare decisis is useless when the court has come up with nonsense and passed it off as legal reasoning for years. There are 3 things that will come of this court: a) A rolling back of commerce clause legistlation, giving more power to the states b) a careful eye on executive power (alito and thomas have nice libertarian streaks) c) MAYBE the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which by the way would just put the matter up to THE STATES, who should have the right to decide for themselves. STATES RIGHTS BABY!
June 26th, 2007 at 7:59 amWhat have I said that is anti-Islam?
Here's a hint: Whenever you catagorize people as 'out to get us', it isn't a ringing endorsement of them....
The facts are 80% of the population sees themselves as Christian. Your interepeted facts are meaningless.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Wrong. The facts said that only 70% of Americans call themselves Christians, but that only 35% attend chruch regularly. The bible says that Christ is the church, therefore only 35% of Americans are practicing Christians - a number which has been and is in decline. No interpretation required - just reading comprehension skills.
Those numbers came from a religious tolerance website, too...
June 26th, 2007 at 9:41 amPerhaps God will have a hand in that matter.
Comment by m12 — June 25, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Considering there is no god(s), it's not looking good for you.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:43 amI accept your apology. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong.
Comment by m12 — June 25, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Neither was that VVGRU nor was he wrong.
Funny how curse words with *s offend you, but killing innocent Iraqi civilians doesn't...
June 26th, 2007 at 9:45 amMAYBE the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which by the way would just put the matter up to THE STATES, who should have the right to decide for themselves. STATES RIGHTS BABY!
Comment by Ernesto — June 26, 2007 @ 7:59 am
Clearly you missed what happened in conservative South Dakota when the voters decided on abortion for their state:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/SD/2006-11-08-abortion-ban_x.htm
"SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — A ballot measure that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota was rejected on Tuesday.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:49 amWith 59% of the precincts reporting, opponents of the ban had 55%, or 98,182 votes, to the supporters' 45%, or 79,444 votes."
Here’s a hint: Whenever you catagorize people as ‘out to get us’, it isn’t a ringing endorsement of them….
The facts are 80% of the population sees themselves as Christian. Your interepeted facts are meaningless.
Comment by yep — June 25, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Wrong. The facts said that only 70% of Americans call themselves Christians, but that only 35% attend chruch regularly. The bible says that Christ is the church, therefore only 35% of Americans are practicing Christians - a number which has been and is in decline. No interpretation required - just reading comprehension skills.
Those numbers came from a religious tolerance website, too…
Comment by unbelievable
I have never said that Muslims are "out to get us"
I have pointed out two sources that show 80% of Americans are Christian, the most recent census and a newsweek poll from less than three years ago. Even you can't read your own stats, which say 76.5% see themselves as Christian, not 70%. Your 70% is based on whether or not the slide will continue at .9% a year, which is completely speculatory as there is no data to prove that.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:25 amI have never said that Muslims are “out to get usâ€
Are you saying that you don't think Muslims are our to get us?
I have pointed out two sources that show 80% of Americans are Christian, the most recent census and a newsweek poll from less than three years ago.
No, your poll said people who called themselves Christian . I can call myself a man, but I am still a woman. You can call yourself anything you want, but reality is in whether or not you actually walk you talk that matters. Even the Bible says that you must attend church to be a Christain, because that is vehicle through which you are Christian. Again. I'm not making up the rules - just pointing them out.
Even you can’t read your own stats, which say 76.5% see themselves as Christian, not 70%.
I can read it. It was based on a 7.5 year old survey. Things change. And they factored in for that.
Your 70% is based on whether or not the slide will continue at .9% a year, which is completely speculatory as there is no data to prove that.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Yes, there is proof, and they gave the data to validate the trend. They pointed out the trend. And there is plenty of proof that people are becoming less religious. You just refuse to accept or admit it because you think that by calling yourself a Christian, it makes you one. It doesn't.
7.5 years ago, only 76.5%. Now, it's down to 71%. You don't have to accept it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the reality. This is not a Christian Nation. Period.
Again, if Bill O'Reilly can accept it, why won't you?
From conservative Gallup poll (this is an independent validation to my claim that belief in god is declining):
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your belief about God: you believe in God, you don't believe in God but you do believe in a universal spirit or higher power, or you don't believe in either?" .
God UniversalSpirit Neither Other Unsure
5/10-13/07 78 14 7 - 1
5/2-4/04 81 13 5 - 1
12/9-12/99 86 8 5 1 -
Clearly, fewer people each year believe in a god. From 86% in December 1999 to 78% in May 2007. Not everyone who believes in a god is a Christian, by the way. So if only 78% currently believe in a god, then 80% of the population cannot be Christian. And gallup is conservative.
Again, I've proven my case with conservative and religious information...
June 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am"It is not unusual to spot minor ebbs and flows in what adults believe. However, the 2007 study of the nation’s core beliefs found that five out of six theological perspectives have shifted in recent years away from traditional biblical views. This includes perspectives about three spiritual figures: God, Jesus, and Satan.
Most Americans still embrace a traditional view of God, but they are less likely than ever to do so. Currently two-thirds of Americans believe that God is best described as the all-powerful, all-knowing perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today (66%). However, this proportion is lower than it was a year ago (71%) and represents the lowest percentage in more than twenty years of similar surveys."
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=271
June 26th, 2007 at 11:29 am"The study also examined people’s spiritual identity. For instance, 83% of Americans identified as Christians, yet only 49% of these individuals described themselves as absolutely committed to Christianity. The remaining portion of the adult population (about 17% of Americans) was split almost equally between those who aligned with another faith and those who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic. These indicators of faith identity are also on par with earlier Barna research."
June 26th, 2007 at 11:31 amYou know, George Bush is looks a lot like a grown up version of Alfred E. Neuman from Mad Magazine. Coincidence?
June 26th, 2007 at 11:55 amBill of Rights
June 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pmAmendment 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.
Yes, there is proof, and they gave the data to validate the trend. They pointed out the trend. And there is plenty of proof that people are becoming less religious. You just refuse to accept or admit it because you think that by calling yourself a Christian, it makes you one. It doesn’t.
7.5 years ago, only 76.5%. Now, it’s down to 71%. You don’t have to accept it, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is the reality. This is not a Christian Nation. Period.
Comment by unbelievable
They pointed out a trend that lasted 10 years before. There is no data to show that it has followed the same trend since then. You are hand picking data to and twisting facts to prove your point. If somebody calls themself a Christian it does make them a Christian in terms of this debate, they still believe in the same things that church goers believe in they just don't attend church. You are clearly giving mixed numbers here, now you are showing where 83% of the population is Christian, but only 49% are completely committed to Christianity. The 83% completely condradicts your previous numbers. As for only 49% being completely committed, that just means that only 49% are fanatics. Thank you for showing that the overwhelming majority is in fact Christian! The sad thing is that you don't even realize that you continue to prove my point that clearly this is a nation where Christianity is by far the main faith.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pmNo, I don't believe that Muslims are out to get this. I really don't understand where you could have gotten such a thought from my posts. You clearly like to change facts.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/
"March 30, 2007 - A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such."
June 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pmhttp://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html
Not a Christian nation, lets see what some of the framers of the constitution think.
Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
John Adams ; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.
The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.
Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.
In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'
It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pmSo, is there another taxpayer status I'm not aware of besides "ordinary taxpayers", what else is there?
June 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pm#275 George Washington was not a founding father, just a military man elected by the people to be president.
If you want a quote war please name your time and place other then that you're still a moron.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:55 pm264.
Funny how curse words with *s offend you, but killing innocent Iraqi civilians doesn’t…
Comment by unbelievable — June 26, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Funny how killing Iraqis offends you, but yanking a live child out of the womb by his feet, puncturing his skull and sucking out his brains doesn't.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pm#275 George Washington was not a founding father, just a military man elected by the people to be president.
If you want a quote war please name your time and place other then that you’re still a moron.
Comment by John Giotta
He was president when the constitution became effective. He was the first president in our history and you don't think he was a founding father?
June 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pmFinally, Christianity is not a sin. If we can fund abortions, we can fund faith-based initiatives.
I propose that instead of beating around the bush we just make Southern Baptist Christianity the official religion of the United States. Then we can make English the official language and force everyone to convert to Southern Baptist Christianity. So if you're Catholic or a Presbyterian or a Lutheran or an Anglican you better hop to quick and get baptized all proper like or face deportation! After all this is a Christian nation and always has been so if they don't like it they can all just leave! Pass some laws so we can deport or arrest them!
That way when these damned leftie pinko commie hippy atheist abortionist fags act up we can just stick them in re-education camps and if they won't convert well then just execute them. That way our righteous Christian tax dollars aren't paying to feed a bunch of damned atheists. They're all going to hell anyway, Jerry Falwell said so!
/sarcasm off
Seriously, enough with the damned persecution complex. Christianity in this country has never been persecuted. It has in fact always enjoyed special treatment because there's always another crooked politician who's willing to do it no matter what the Constitution says. You want to see persecution? Go to Pakistan. When you get murdered with an Ax just because you're Christian THEN you can claim you're a poor oppressed person.
Questioning your faith, calling you on your bullshit hypocrisy and not wanting to give tax money to your church is NOT persecution. Nobody is putting a gag in your mouth because you worship Jesus, whatever your pastor is telling you. Nobody is being tortured because they're Christian. Nobody in this country is bashing in your doors because you're Christian. Nobody in this country is being lynched or beaten to death because they're Christian. Nobody in this country has ever sent to prison because there was a law saying Christians couldn't marry or pray. You know who has had all these things happen to them? Every group who isn't Christian and by whom? right wing assholes who are using the Christian faith to justify the hatred in their own souls so they can oppress everyone else.
The Faith Based Initiatives is U N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L because it has purpose of funding religion using taxpayer dollars and because it has a documented history under the Bush regime of denying anyone who wasn't in a Christian sect any funds at all. It's discriminatory and it's illegal. Just because this Supreme Court has been stacked with Conservative morons doesn't mean that program is Constitutional. Eventually it'll be overturned.
So get off your high damned horse, shove your martyr complex up your ass and go read the Constitution. If you can't abide by those simple rules, GO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Freedom OF religion means all religions, not just yours and a separation of church and state means that I shouldn't be mandated by the Feds to pay for YOUR freaking religion. I don't care if you worship watermelons, Jesus or air.
I'm sure Saudi Arabia would just LOVE to have a theocrat like you but you're sure as hell not an decent American.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:30 pmThey pointed out a trend that lasted 10 years before. There is no data to show that it has followed the same trend since then.
Yes there is and I posted corroborating proof from another independent cource to show that it's a fact that god belief is on the decline in our country.
You are hand picking data to and twisting facts to prove your point.
No, that's what YOU are doing. I'm just showing you the evidence. Because you don't like it, you twist it.
If somebody calls themself a Christian it does make them a Christian in terms of this debate, they still believe in the same things that church goers believe in they just don’t attend church.
Seems that the bible and the religion disagree with you.
In order to be a Christian, you have to act like one, and that includes church attendance.
You are clearly giving mixed numbers here, now you are showing where 83% of the population is Christian, but only 49% are completely committed to Christianity.
Not mixed at all. No two polls will be exact.
And, 49% of 83% is still close enough to 35% to support my point.
The 83% completely condradicts your previous numbers.
Nope. Do you not understand how they conduct polls?
As for only 49% being completely committed, that just means that only 49% are fanatics.
Wait a minute - you're against interpretation, which is what you are doing now.
No, it doesn't mean fanatics, it means committed. Stop doing the very thing you claim to be against.
Thank you for showing that the overwhelming majority is in fact Christian!
No, it isn't. Only about 35% are active Christians. The other 40% just pretend to be out of fear...
How can you call yourself a Christain and then not go to church?
The sad thing is that you don’t even realize that you continue to prove my point that clearly this is a nation where Christianity is by far the main faith.
I proven my point. That a lot of American are hypocrites and cowards who claim to be something they aren't. I also proved that Christianity is declining in the United States, as I stated. I've proven my points. You're just proving that when you don't like teh facts, you cheat, lie and hide under the bed.
No, I don’t believe that Muslims are out to get this. I really don’t understand where you could have gotten such a thought from my posts.
LOL Of course you don't. You rabid cons never get much...
You clearly like to change facts.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
No one can change facts. LOL
But you certainly don't like them very much and try to change them to feel better about the fact that more people each year reject irrational religious beliefs.
“March 30, 2007 - A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such.â€
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
I'm guessing you didn't read that whole paragraph. You just got excited at the 91%. However, what that poll actually says is that 87% of the 82% of relious people claim to be Christain.
82% of 87% is 71.14%!!!!! LOL... That actually CONFIRMS my first poll...
Again - you can call yourself a Christian, but it doesn't make you one. It does make you a hypocrite however.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:05 pmStart contributing to a 3rd party now. Wake up to this 2party system that is a lie. Democrats have become just a smoke screen if not always to elite run politics. For there desperate genocide attack on Muslims for oil and lose of freedom to control the masses here at home. Prepare for and to take your sacrificial blood bath as the surge progresses til democratic written oil contracts are signed, and US women die in child birth, and the poor in this country are raped by corporations and religous bigots who support one another. Cindy was right, denounce!
June 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pmhttp://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html
Christian Nation? BIASED!
Not a Christian nation, lets see what some of the framers of the constitution think.
Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: “…God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?â€
He actually said:
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
-- Benjamin Franklin
John Adams ; “The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.â€
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: “…Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?†Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me.
You also call yourself something you're not (Christian).
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature.... [In] the formation of the American governments ... it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven.... These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1788, from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an “indissoluble†bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.
You are making up crap now... This is the truth:
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a ‘National Denomination†(like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.†Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term “separation of Church and Stateâ€) he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.
No, he made it quite clear that we are to be a country free FROM religion. That's what "establish no" means.
After all, these are Jefferson's true feelings about Christianity:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
--Thomas Jefferson
He also said:
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his “Farewell Addressâ€: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.†Sure doesn’t sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.
You really don't get that they knew religion was the wayto control the masses? In public, they were politicians saysing what politicians say toget the votes - what you want to hear. In private, and in establishing our country, they were honest about the fact that they were NOT Christians and that this would not be a Christian nation:
From the Treaty of Tripoli (1796)
ARTICLE 11.
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 tranquility 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.
Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.
Only to someone desperate to think so. You're having to 'interpret' what theymeant. Whycan't you post verbatim, them justflat out saying 'This is a Christian Nation"? Because you can't, and all you have is intepreting it to be what you wish to see...
In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: “in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.’
We were talking about the Founding Fathers, try to stay on topic... I realize whomever you are plagerizing went this route, but we weren't discussing 1854.
It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the “separation of Church and Stateâ€, people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
It is.
This is NOT a Christian Nation.
It never was, and as the 35% of active Christians in this country dwindles each year, it never will be.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:24 pmFunny how killing Iraqis offends you, but yanking a live child out of the womb by his feet, puncturing his skull and sucking out his brains doesn’t.
Comment by lambchops — June 26, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Yeah, because that very rarely happens in this country, and when it does, it's to save the life of the mother, not a non-viable fetus.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pmFrom the Treaty of Tripoli (1796)
ARTICLE 11.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pmAs 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 tranquility 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.
I’m guessing you didn’t read that whole paragraph. You just got excited at the 91%. However, what that poll actually says is that 87% of the 82% of relious people claim to be Christain.
82% of 87% is 71.14%!!!!! LOL… That actually CONFIRMS my first poll…
Again - you can call yourself a Christian, but it doesn’t make you one. It does make you a hypocrite however.
Comment by unbelievable — June 26, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Now lets read this really slow in order for you to grasp it entirely.
"Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam"
It says that 87 percent say that they identify with a specific religion. 82% of respondents (not just ones that say they identify with a specific religion) say they are Christian and 5% follow a non Christian faith.
82%(christian)+5%(non Christian)=87%( total perecentage that follow a specific religion).
Not 71%.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pmUnbelievable, I will leave you with this one last thing. You keep commenting on what "real" Christians are, but honestly that is not for you to decide. It will be decided on everybody's judgement day. If somebody sees themselves as Christian that means they believe that god created us and his son Jesus born to the virgin Mary for our sins, you can put up parts of the bible that talk about going to church all you want, that does not change how at least 80% of the population feels. Whether you like it or not, 4 out of every 5 people in this country are Christian and politicians are elected by the people and have a duty to serve their constituents. We may not have an official religion, but we are a country that is overwhelmingly Christian.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pmhttp://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
We are asked about this one on a fairly regular basis. As with many spurious Jefferson quotes, it is frequently seen on various Internet sites. Many sites do not cite a source, but a good number of those that do attribute this quote to a letter from TJ to a "Dr. Wood." As far as we know, TJ never wrote to an individual calling him/herself Dr. Wood. Another suspicious element is the statement that he does not find in Christianity "one redeeming feature." One presumes that Jefferson did, in fact, find some redeeming features in Christianity, otherwise he would not have taken the time to paste together his own versions of the Bible. See the report Jefferson's Religious Beliefs for more information.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:04 pmARTICLE 11.
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 tranquility 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.
You do realize that when the Treaty of Tripoli was renegotiated eight years after it was broken by Tripoli later and article 11 was dropped? It is also important to note that the Arabic version of the treaty that was for the Muslim nation of Tripoli did not even contain article 11.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:53 pmFunny how killing Iraqis offends you, but yanking a live child out of the womb by his feet, puncturing his skull and sucking out his brains doesn’t.
Comment by lambchops — June 26, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Yeah, because that very rarely happens in this country, and when it does, it’s to save the life of the mother, not a non-viable fetus.
Comment by unbelievable — June 26, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Bull. It's NEVER used to save the life of the mother. Ever. And it's done to viable fetuses. And it happens often.
Your points are nothing but pure regurgitation of feminist dogma and propaganda.
Why the reluctance to acknowledge the truth?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pmNow lets read this really slow in order for you to grasp it entirely
It says that 87 percent say that they identify with a specific religion. 82% of respondents (not just ones that say they identify with a specific religion) say they are Christian and 5% follow a non Christian faith.
That is NOT what it says. You added the 5% part - that was NOT in your original post. There are more than 5% of the country that are a different religion besides Christianity.
82%(christian)+5%(non Christian)=87%( total perecentage that follow a specific religion). Not 71%.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Only when you add your extra line...
Cheater.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:18 pmI will leave you with this one last thing.
Sure...
You keep commenting on what “real†Christians are, but honestly that is not for you to decide.
Strawman. I sais ACTIVE Christians. You can't 'win' unless you lie about what I claimed.
It's also not for you to decide - it's for the religion and the religion relies on the bible which says you must attend church to be a Christian.
It will be decided on everybody’s judgement day.
There is no such thing. You believe a lie.
If somebody sees themselves as Christian that means they believe that god created us and his son Jesus born to the virgin Mary for our sins, you can put up parts of the bible that talk about going to church all you want, that does not change how at least 80% of the population feels. Whether you like it or not, 4 out of every 5 people in this country are Christian and politicians are elected by the people and have a duty to serve their constituents.
Of course, you're one of the foolish ones who thinks that you're hedging your bets by just claiming to be Christain, thinking it will be enough to save you. Read the bible. It's not enough. Those who don't practice in accordance with the word, as as doomed as those who don't believe at all. And as a former Christian, I'll tell you that life is sooooo much better without the constant fear and judgment.
We may not have an official religion, but we are a country that is overwhelmingly Christian.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Only if you consider 35% overwhelming, and no doubt, you do. LOL
We are asked about this one on a fairly regular basis. As with many spurious Jefferson quotes, it is frequently seen on various Internet sites. Many sites do not cite a source, but a good number of those that do attribute this quote to a letter from TJ to a “Dr. Wood.†As far as we know, TJ never wrote to an individual calling him/herself Dr. Wood. Another suspicious element is the statement that he does not find in Christianity “one redeeming feature.†One presumes that Jefferson did, in fact, find some redeeming features in Christianity, otherwise he would not have taken the time to paste together his own versions of the Bible. See the report Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs for more information.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
You take issue with one of his MANY quotes I posted? There actually IS a reference:
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods (undated), referring to "our particular superstition," Christianity, from John E Remsburg, Six Historic Americans: Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Franklin Steiner, Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents (1936), "Thomas Jefferson, Freethinker"
Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.
[Creeds] have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of Christendom a slaughterhouse, and at this day divides it into castes of inextinguishable hatred to one another.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Whitmore, June 5, 1822, quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... what has no meaning admits no explanation.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander Smyth, January 17, 1825
We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to the god of the Jews under Moses, in his letter to William Short (August 4, 1822)
It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams (August 22, 1813), Works, Vol. IV, p. 205, Randolph's edition
The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible. The religion of Jesus is founded in the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknowledged.
-- Thomas Jefferson, equating the Dogma of the Trinity with polytheism and calling it more unintelligible than paganism, in his letter to Rev Jared Sparks upon receipt of the latters' latest book (November 4, 1820)
The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822 Jefferson's Works, Vol. IV, 360, Randolph's ed.
In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and prayer parties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a hen-pecked husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in terms as amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use a mere earthly lover.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822
A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:31 pm-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814, referring to the University of Virginia
If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it."
June 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pm-- Thomas Jefferson, in a reply to John Adams' letter, quoted by Joseph Lewis in his address "Jefferson the Freethinker," delivered at a banquet of the Freethinkers' Society of New York on the evening of April 13th, 1925, at Hotel Belleclaire, 77th Street and Broadway, New York City, in honor of the 182nd anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson.
You do realize that when the Treaty of Tripoli was renegotiated eight years after it was broken by Tripoli later and article 11 was dropped?
Does matter. It doesn't change the fact that in 1796, it was clearly stated the the United States is NOT a Christian Nation.
You really can't handle it can you?
It is also important to note that the Arabic version of the treaty that was for the Muslim nation of Tripoli did not even contain article 11.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Again, irrelevant to the fact that it was stated.
Does matter if they wrote it in purple crayon upon pink drapery fabric - it's still a fact that it was definitely stated that the US is NOT a Christian Nation. While, you could not produce anything that stated the opposite, and have decided to run away now...
Yeah, call yourself a Christian all you want... We both know it's a lie.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:37 pmBull. It’s NEVER used to save the life of the mother. Ever. And it’s done to viable fetuses. And it happens often.
Stop lying. You have no facts, just a load of nonsense.
United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year
0.08% isn't ALL THE TIME. Join reality. It hurts less.
There are at least three medical procedures associated with late-term abortions:
Dilation and evacuation (D&E)
Early induction of labor
Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or D&X), sometimes referred to as "partial-birth abortion"
Abortions done for fetal abnormality are usually performed with induction of labor or with IDX; these procedures result in an intact body that the parents can hold and take pictures of as part of their mourning process. Elective late-term abortions are usually performed with D&E.
And very few 'partial birth' abortions are performed of that 0.08%
Your points are nothing but pure regurgitation of feminist dogma and propaganda.
No, they are the result of rejecting patriarchy, and seeing the reality that women are equal to men. You can't handle that. Not my problem.
Why the reluctance to acknowledge the truth?
Comment by lambchops — June 26, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
LOL... You mean the truth about needing to oppress women to compensate for a very small winky? I thought that was obvious, and didn't need to be stated.
You've been debunked. Go suck your thmb now...
June 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pmYou do realize that when the Treaty of Tripoli was renegotiated eight years after it was broken by Tripoli later and article 11 was dropped?
Does matter. It doesn’t change the fact that in 1796, it was clearly stated the the United States is NOT a Christian Nation.
You really can’t handle it can you?
It is also important to note that the Arabic version of the treaty that was for the Muslim nation of Tripoli did not even contain article 11.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Again, irrelevant to the fact that it was stated.
Does matter if they wrote it in purple crayon upon pink drapery fabric - it’s still a fact that it was definitely stated that the US is NOT a Christian Nation. While, you could not produce anything that stated the opposite, and have decided to run away now…
Yeah, call yourself a Christian all you want… We both know it’s a lie.
Comment by unbelievable
It does matter because this is one obscure treaty that has nothing to do with the constitution. The fact that article 11 was taken off the treaty and is not in Arabic is very relevent. It was written in there by one man and just passed through. It in no way gives an official stance of the country.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:42 amNow lets read this really slow in order for you to grasp it entirely
It says that 87 percent say that they identify with a specific religion. 82% of respondents (not just ones that say they identify with a specific religion) say they are Christian and 5% follow a non Christian faith.
That is NOT what it says. You added the 5% part - that was NOT in your original post. There are more than 5% of the country that are a different religion besides Christianity.
82%(christian)+5%(non Christian)=87%( total perecentage that follow a specific religion). Not 71%.
Comment by yep — June 26, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Only when you add your extra line…
Cheater.
Comment by unbelievable
It does in fact say that other religions only make up 5% of the population.
"...with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam."
Please learn to read, it really will help your cause.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:45 amStrawman. I sais ACTIVE Christians. You can’t ‘win’ unless you lie about what I claimed.
Comment by Unbievable.
And I am talking about Christians, which account for 80% of the poplulation. One does not have to go to church to go to heaven, perhaps you should actually try reading the bible before proclaiming to know about it.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amIt does matter because this is one obscure treaty that has nothing to do with the constitution.
It doesn't matter because it wasn't obscure, andit was generated by the same folks who established this country and wrote the Constitution.
They flatly and clearly stated that the US was not a Christain country. Doesn't matter if it was written on the wall at Wendy's. They said it and you have NOTHING but ad hominems in response.
The fact that article 11 was taken off the treaty and is not in Arabic is very relevent. It was written in there by one man and just passed through. It in no way gives an official stance of the country.
Comment by yep — June 27, 2007 @ 11:42 am
It was not written by one man in private. It was written and endorsed by the men who founded our country. If anyone knows the intent of their separation of church and state, it is they.
Or are you saying that the Founding Fathers didn't know what they were saying?
You're desperate now and it's obvious...
June 27th, 2007 at 2:14 pmIt does in fact say that other religions only make up 5% of the population.
Then it is wrong.
Probably because it was just a quick telephone poll. It wasn't as elaborate as other polls that were conducted over time, and analyzed.
Please learn to read, it really will help your cause.
Comment by yep — June 27, 2007 @ 11:45 am
That's funny. Not only am I more literate than you, because I was able to find a comprehensive poll, but it's YOUR cause that needs help... Or rather the cause of the 35% active Christians who needs help... You're just a lying wannabe.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pmAnd I am talking about Christians, which account for 80% of the poplulation.
No, you're talking about people who claim to be something they aren't because they are hedging their bets that just calling themselves Christains will be enough to get them into a heaven should it exist. That's about 35% of teh population. The other 35% of active Christians are what I was talking about. You tried to claim I said REAL Christians when I said active. Sounds like you have a guilty conscious. Probably because you're trying to get something without earning it.
One does not have to go to church to go to heaven, perhaps you should actually try reading the bible before proclaiming to know about it.
Comment by yep — June 27, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I've read the entire bible. Most Atheists have. It's why we know it better than you hypocrites who claim to be something you aren't. The bible says - no church, not a Christian. Fortunately for you, in the end, it won't matter anyway because when you die there is eternal nothingness... But, it's funny to see you think you're fooling a god you claim is omniscient... LOL
June 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pmI’ve read the entire bible. Most Atheists have. It’s why we know it better than you hypocrites who claim to be something you aren’t. The bible says - no church, not a Christian. Fortunately for you, in the end, it won’t matter anyway because when you die there is eternal nothingness… But, it’s funny to see you think you’re fooling a god you claim is omniscient… LOL
Comment by unbelievable
I have also read the entire bible, it does not say that you are not a Christian if you do not go to church.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:29 pmI have also read the entire bible, it does not say that you are not a Christian if you do not go to church.
Comment by yep — June 27, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Clearly you're lying about that.
I already posted one of several passages that say that Christ = the church, and therefore attendance only = Christian.
Just stop lying. You're not an active Christian by your own admission. It's just one more step to admit that you're jusr pretending to be a Christain to hedge your bets. It doesn't matter what you actually believe - it's not up to you anyway... Good luck with wasting your life over it... LOL
June 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI already posted one of several passages that say that Christ = the church, and therefore attendance only = Christian.
Just stop lying. You’re not an active Christian by your own admission. It’s just one more step to admit that you’re jusr pretending to be a Christain to hedge your bets. It doesn’t matter what you actually believe - it’s not up to you anyway… Good luck with wasting your life over it… LOL
Comment by unbelievable
"Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior"
Ephesians was written by Paul to people that were already Christian, it was aimed to point out that all Christians are part of the church and the church is part of all Christians. One does not have to go to church to be part of that, but why would I expect you to understand what you are reading as you couldn't even understand a simple articl with percentages. So you can talk about me wasting my life over my beliefs but I will not be the wasting eternity by not believing.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:35 pm