Ellen takes on Palin.
Ellen takes on Palin.
Last month, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) told CBS that she wouldn’t “judge people” based on their sexual preferences. However, just a few weeks later, she admitted that she nevertheless doesn’t believe in marriage equality and voiced support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Today, Ellen DeGeneres responded to Palin’s comments:
I don’t know if you saw this, but vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said she’s in favor of a federal ban on gay marriage. Basically, she wants to change the constitution. So if you’re wondering — I’m sure you are — how I feel about this, I don’t like it. I don’t like it. I don’t agree. … And I don’t know what people are scared of. Maybe they think that their children will be influenced, and I got to say — I was raised by two heterosexuals and they did not influence me.
Watch it:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has come out against a federal ban on gay marriage. However, Palin yesterday reassured James Dobson that McCain has privately said that he will support far-right positions if he is elected president.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
.
I luv me sum Ellen…
.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 pmI think that Oprah has considerable more influence on her fans, but picking up another endorsement is a good thing.
Barrack pretty much shored up the daytime TV voters. (with the exception of Mrs. Hasselback)
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 pmGreat line ellen!!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pmGod knows Ellen is such a horrible person…
Palin needs to go back to the tundra and her “real Americans.”
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pmBrava to Ellen for stating one of the absolute truths — HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT CONTAGIOUS.
As I look around me, I see a more or less endless parade of heterosexual propaganda — advertising (when was the last time you saw a beer ad suggesting that drinking the correct beer would help you get a same-sex mate?), television shows (”The Bachelor” for gays?), Disney movies (the object is ALWAYS to marry a prince or a princess of the opposite sex), magazines, pulp romances, etc. etc. etc.
You would think that with all this heterosexual influence going on that homosexuals would be renouncing their orientation in droves to get in on the good life.
Yet they don’t. Because homosexuality isn’t a choice any more than heterosexuality is.
But somehow we have a lot of people in this country who are terrified that if gays are treated like people, there will be some sort of “rush” to join that lifestyle.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm“Let them love who they want to love.”
Amen.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
——————————————————————————–
But somehow we have a lot of people in this country who are terrified that if gays are treated like people, there will be some sort of “rush” to join that lifestyle.
If they would just come out of the closet, they wouldn’t have to be Republicans anymore.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pmUniversal marriage rights for all consenting adults is such an amazingly huge 14th Amendment slam-dunk.
I wish I could figure why proponents wiggle around at the edges of the matter. Unless they’re gonna overturn the 14th Amendment (along with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th, which are already moribund), the state cannot prohibit gay adults from enjoying the benefits of marriage it accords to straights. Completely unconstitutional. I know it never mattered to any of these cretins, but the matter is plain. The 14th Amendment prohibits States from bestowing rights on some folks which it withholds from others…
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pmSo, McPutz has said he will support far-right positions.
That sounds pretty Nazi-like to me.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pmLeave it to Ellen to give a gentle yet strong chiding to Sarah Palin.
I’m surprised the neocons have yet to make hay from her last name…well, somebody on the Internets probably has, but hasn’t it trickled up to The Corner or The National Review…?
Any day now, especially after this ‘attack’ by Ellen.
Whatta lotta porkchops.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pmtokin librul Says:
Unless they’re gonna overturn the 14th Amendment (along with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th, which are already moribund), the state cannot prohibit gay adults from enjoying the benefits of marriage it accords to straights.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
______
Which is why the wingnut strategy hasn’t been to ban gay marriage, but to insert an Amendment into the Constitution that strictly defines marriage. That way, they get around mucking about with the 14th. If you set the definition of marriage as strictly heterosexual, it’s impossible to violate the civil rights of two men or two women who want to be married – the term simply no longer applies.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pmMcCain/Palin are truly devisive people and want to further divide this country not just sexual preference but the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
And the middle class just vanishes into thin air.
McCain/Palin offer nothing for this country except the same tired old Bush policies.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pmEllen is fantastic. Keep up the good work!
I remember when it first dawned on me that some men and women were in same sex relationships. I was in my early teens, and living in the Bay Area, CA. I decided I had to sit down and decide what I thought about that. After a little while I decided that there was little enough love in the world, and I didn’t think it was up to me to decide who other people ought to love.
People need to get a clue…
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pmOne of the rupublican’s most favorite smokescreen issues. The horrible, fabric of society destroying, sanctity of marriage wrecking gays. I would love it if all these All-American, God fearing, holier-than-thou republicans would go off somewhere and form their own country. It would implode within 5 years.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmEveryone needs to vote on 11/4! Obama needs to win this one.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pmRepublicans think that they are the only one with rights.
A McCain presidency scares me. This country has gone too far right, and we must have some balance.
We need to be really vigilant about the whole “gay thing” popping up so close to Election Day. Just like it was used as a smokescreen to cover up the rampant election fraud in 2004, I predict “values voters” and the “Bradley Effect” to be used this year to cover up the true reason why Obama loses this year.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pmlarkohio,
I’m voting tomorrow, and anyone who is able to do so should vote early as well. I have a feeling voter turnout will be huge, and voting on 11/4, especially in high population areas, might be a bit of a nightmare. But vote make sure you vote — even if it’s difficult or time consuming!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pmMy son asks that whoever finds the “gay agenda”, to please let him know. He’s having trouble finding it on his own.
Thanks in advance.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pmZooey Says:
I’m voting on Saturday.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pmand i think there should be a constitutional amendment against successionist skanks running for vice president.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss Says:
My son asks that whoever finds the “gay agenda”, to please let him know. He’s having trouble finding it on his own.
Thanks in advance.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
_______
I’m pretty sure it involves a moratorium on pleated pants.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 pmBliss, here’s the homosexual agenda. ;)
Be afraid — be very afraid!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:36 pmZooey, in Ohio we have early voting. I voted about 10 days ago!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pmsorry, zooey. you’re wrong. the homosexual agenda is: http://www.bravotv.com/Project_Runway/season/5/index.php
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 pmlarkohio,
That’s cool. :)
I get a little over-excited.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 pmZooey Says:
I’m voting tomorrow, and anyone who is able to do so should vote early as well. I have a feeling voter turnout will be huge, and voting on 11/4, especially in high population areas, might be a bit of a nightmare. But vote make sure you vote — even if it’s difficult or time consuming!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
______
Seconded. I voted on Monday by absentee ballot, and encourage anyone else who can vote absentee to do so. Even though I’m going to be working at the polls this year, absentee is the only method I fully trust.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmThat’s it, Bozo, the fight is on.
Thumb wrestling, 3 out of 5. You’ll never take me, I’ve been working out. Bring it on…
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pmEllen you go girl!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pmI lived when my country stuggled with the Civil Rights Bill and I couldn’t understand why African Americans like myself had to have a Bill to give me the rights I thought I was born with. Yes I grew to understand as people like JFK, Dr.King and Bobby Kennedy helped me understand I was born with those rights it was a small group of racist who thought other wise. Now Ellen and all people should have the same rights. Now if they don’t why are they paying taxes to a Country that doesn’t treat them equal? Explain that me as if I’m a 6 year old.
Amen, Ellen. Enough said.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pmlol, zooey, one thing you do not want to do it tell an east coast gay guy to “bring it”. it usually comes with a bouquet of flowers and a nice after dinner wine.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pmBozo,
So the thumb wrestling is off? ;)
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmCalifornians: vote NO on proposition 8 (Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry)
The scary proponents are gathering in prayer circles – telling all that same-gender marriage will have to be taught in school (the proposition has absolutely nothing to do with education). The proposition wants to invalidate the same-gender marriages – and write the hate into the state constitution.
Vote progressive and bring this country back from the brink of the abyss…
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pmThese kind of Constitutional amendments are popping up in a lot of states as well. In my state of FL, we have one coming up. It reads” This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Our local paper here (which also endorsed Obama) has recommended a “No” vote. The “pro” argument from the sponsors is that it will “protect children.” The “con” argument is that it will have an adverse affect on unmarried couples living together regarding their health care and pension benefits. In other words, it will have an especially adverse affect on the bajillions of elderly people in this state who don’t marry because they don’t want to jeopardize their Social Security or their pensions.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmHere’s some info on the guy sponsoring the “Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.” What can ya say?
http://progressflorida.org/page/content/stemberger
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pmHellen Rocks!!!!!! Another American Hellen that Rocks!!!! The other one is Hellen Thomas!!!! Something about this name… beautifull!
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pmWatch today’s DemocracyNow! It talks about election fraud and it may be happening as we speak!
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pmHow long has the straight world treated marriage as a commodity? For most of human existence, marriage has been more a financial transaction than the union of two people in love who’ve built a life together.
If anything, it is some contemporary straight marriages that are the real threat to the “sanctity of marriage”:
Liz Taylor: 8 Marriages
Larry King: 7
Richard Pryor: 7
Newt Gingrich: 3
Ted Turner: 3
Jennifer Lopez: 3
Rush Limbaugh: 3
Nick Cage: 3
Angelina Jolie: 3
Jane Fonda: 3
So, thank you to Ellen for speaking up – there’s lot’s more to say!
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmThis summed it up very elegantly.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 pmRegardless of an appeal to Civil Rights the numbers are against it.
Seems TP should be promoting PartyA-PartyB marriage by reporting how many people will benefit from this state imposed practice. Why are numbers never discussed when the subject of homosexuality appears on TP?
bit thinks the reason this never happens on TP is because the numbers are so small that they don’t support any controversy associated with PartyA-B marriage.
Massachusetts reported earlier in the year that 3,000 PartyA-B, same-same gender, couples had be issued marriage licenses. This was before that state removed its residency requirements. (They wanted some of the $s action.) This means that 6,000 people out of a population of 6,437,193 had chosen to participate in a state created union. That’s 0.09% of the population which is about 3.11% of the homosexual population. Even he same-same gender people are uninterested.
This is truly a non-issue which is the way Senator McCain has treated this issue.
California has reported about 11,000 couples being issued the PartyA-B since may 15. CA does not have a residency requirement, but 22,000 people would represent only 0.06% of the population of that state.
Mass removed the residency requirement because there was some money to be made…west coast mecca and east coast mecca.
Forcing the acceptance of same-same gender marriage is part of the homosexual agenda. While the numbers suggest that it’s a non-issue, promoters and advocates are going to try and force the rest of the nation of accept it.
This cultural phenomenon is an attack on both Christianity and the nation.
bit believes there is no reason to expect this phenomenon to help keep the “United” in United States.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pmWonder what Ellen means when she says, “Basically, she wants to change the constitution.”
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution was written to support immorality, and the practice of homosexuality is immorality.
Natural marriage, which bears the mark of the Creator, has never been “permitted” by the state. This is the way that most Conservative Christians believe: marriage is older than both religion and government.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pmebbAndflow Says:
Californians: vote NO on proposition 8 (Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry)
The scary proponents are gathering in prayer circles – telling all that same-gender marriage will have to be taught in school (the proposition has absolutely nothing to do with education). The proposition wants to invalidate the same-gender marriages – and write the hate into the state constitution.
Vote progressive and bring this country back from the brink of the abyss…
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Apparently the most recent, most up-to-date, most influential governing words on marriage are the words of Christ from Matthew 19. Here Christ says that the Creator intended for a man and a woman to be one flesh in a marriage. This state of “one flesh” is only achieved between a man and a woman.
The writers of the U.S. constitution would have known this.
This declaration by Christ should be conclusive, definitive, and complete for Christians.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pmVote Yes!!! on proposition 8.
The original wording of the proposition is below.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=78634
Remember that the May 15th ruling of the CA supreme court, which overturn the wishes of 61% of the CA voters, was a vote of 4 to 3.
Is that one justices, or only one justice, deciding the will of the people of CA? There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution what was intended to regulate marriage.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pmWhere there four justices, or was there only one justice, deciding the will of the people of CA?
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution intended to regulate marriage.
Marriage was, and is, an institution apart from government.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pmbitblt Says
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution intended to regulate marriage.
Marriage was, and is, an institution apart from government.
____________________________________________________________
So by your logic, there’s no good reason for our government to make it illegal.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmem>misshusseinmolly Says:
bitblt Says
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution intended to regulate marriage.
Marriage was, and is, an institution apart from government.
So by your logic, there’s no good reason for our government to make it illegal.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Based on bit’s understanding government simply recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman. The government neither permits nor forces a man and a woman to marry. The government imposes limited regulation, like blood tests, and records the marriage. The recording is only important for the management of, taxing and dividing, property and for responsibility for children. Government has an interest in property and responsibility for children. The recording step is only slightly more formal that recording the marriage in a parish Bible.
For same-same gender people government has to impose the recognition. People don’t recognize, and probably never will due to the “one flesh” characteristic, same-same gender marriage. Same-same gender sexual relationships are not and cannot be marriage, by definition.
These observation are not based on logic. They are simply observations.
The authority for natural marriage, a man and a woman, comes from the Bible, which also says why there is marriage. This is the “by definition” above. This authority has long been accepted by people who don’t know or don’t care about its origin, and no court in the world can make anyone accept that two same-same gender people are married.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:49 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
bitblt, if you don’t agree with same sex marriage, then don’t become gay and get married.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
This is probably good advice. Is it the best you have?
Apparently most “gay” people don’t become gay and get married, either.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
bitblt Says:
The authority for natural marriage, a man and a woman, comes from the Bible, which also says why there is marriage.
America is a secular nation. Our laws are not based on the bible. Fact.
By the way, Jesus never once discussed homosexuality. Ouch. Fact.
bit’s sure you want to get this correct.
One can not say categorically the Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and wife abuse and alcoholics. Bible is very clear that not everything Jesus did or said was recorded.
One can categorically say that Jesus never said anything in the Bible about homosexuality or wife abuse or alcoholics.
Using your logic, it is recorded that Jesus mentioned Sodom, and he didn’t say it was a mistake.
One can categorically say that Jesus said in the Bible that the Creator intended that a man and a woman would be “one flesh” in marriage.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pmNewsflash : Marriage is older than the bible, so the argument that authority for marriage comes FROM the bible is bunk. You fail it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 pmbitblt says:
“The authority for natural marriage, a man and a woman, comes from the Bible, which also says why there is marriage. This is the “by definition” above. This authority has long been accepted by people who don’t know or don’t care about its origin, and no court in the world can make anyone accept that two same-same gender people are married.”
Natural marriage, which bears the mark of the Creator, has never been “permitted” by the state. This is the way that most Conservative Christians believe: marriage is older than both religion and government.
Way to refute your own argument, Bitblt.
Bonus round:
misshusseinmolly Says:
bitblt Says
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution intended to regulate marriage.
Marriage was, and is, an institution apart from government.
____________________________________________________________
So by your logic, there’s no good reason for our government to make it illegal.
So that’s two instances now of you refuting your own argument.
This is like shooting fish in a shotglass… with a rocket launcher.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm…and somewhere there’s a fundie nutjob feverishly backtracking through the hammered strokes of a keyboard.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:16 pmbitblt Says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bitofanidiot babbles again
Wonder what Ellen means when she says, “Basically, she wants to change the constitution.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most likely that a federal ban on gay marriage would violate the 14th amendment.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution was written to support immorality, and the practice of homosexuality is immorality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to YOUR sick, twisted, bigoted and frankly STUPID take on the issue. One that, not suprisingly, is NOT the final say on the matter.
Natural marriage, which bears the mark of the Creator, has never been “permitted” by the state. This is the way that most Conservative Christians believe: marriage is older than both religion and government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And in many ancient cultures also included gay marriage. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or is the ignorant talking point the only thing that fills your empty head?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:56 pmbitblt Says: #40
You really are stupid bit. The numbers are not talked about because they are irrelevant. Should miscegentaion laws have been kept on the books because a low number of people wanted to marry across the races? You really are a moron you know? What do you even MEAN state imposed. Exactly where in the WORLD is the state MAKING people of ANY kind get married? You really ought to just stop posting you are so stupid you are doing your cause no good at all.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pmbitblt Says: #41 what was the point of your post? That the talking points were SO ignorant you thought you ought to repeat them in the vain hope they would magically begin to make sense from the force of repitition?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:01 pmbitblt Says: #43 BIT MY GOD YOU ARE IGNORANT. Justices do not DECIDE the will of the people you bitiot. They decide the LAW and the constituionality of laws. When we decide the will of the people it is done with things called ELECTIONS. I cannot believe how dumb you are.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pmbitblt Says:
Apparently most “gay” people don’t become gay and get married, either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am sorry but the level of STUPID in that statement hurts my eyes
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 pmbitblt is a bit of an idjit, ain’t he.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pmOh Shit did I miss the partially consumed lunch entree?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 pmDRxJ Says:
bitblt is a bit of an idjit, ain’t he.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think he is so dense light actually bends around his head
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 ambitblt, er Daryll…
YOUR GOD…
YOUR BIBLE…
YOUR ETHOS…
Theocratic much?
What about
MY GOD…
MY RELIGION…
MY ETHOS…
I know, I know, in YOUR America, I don’t count. Just the same way that I don’t count in Sarah’s America either.
Pray to your god that she doesn’t peg you silly…
See, in THE United States of America, the First Amendment means I don’t have to recognize YOUR god as the “DECIDER” of all that is moral and ethical. See, in “REAL” America, Democracy depends upon differences agreed upon. And so far, we can agree, YOU HATE GAY AMERICANS BECAUSE YOUR BIBLE TELLS YOU SO.
Where did Jesus Christ instruct us to HATE our neighbors?
Where did Jesus Christ instruct us to JUDGE our neighbors?
Be the Christian Jesus is… would you?
Or leave your christofascism behind, for it is NOT America!!!
.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am#50 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————-
“Apparently most “gay” people don’t become gay and get married, either.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Well, I have to agree with Bitbit on this one. Most gay people don’t “become gay”. They were gay to begin with. Why would they want to change the way God made them? That would be anti-God!
Most gay people, now-a-days don’t get married, either. It’s not an available option in most states, and getting married to someone of the opposite sex to “hide” is much less common than it used to be in previous decades.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:30 am#42 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————-”This state of “one flesh” is only achieved between a man and a woman.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
No, that’s just simply not true. In fact, I can send you some videos in which two men or two women are becoming “one flesh” to show you how wrong you are. ;-)
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:36 amMax-1 Says:
.
.
.
See, in THE United States of America, the First Amendment means I don’t have to recognize YOUR god as the “DECIDER” of all that is moral and ethical. See, in “REAL” America, Democracy depends upon differences agreed upon. And so far, we can agree, YOU HATE GAY AMERICANS BECAUSE YOUR BIBLE TELLS YOU SO.
.
.
.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
Do you intentionally misrepresent bit? There’s no hate in bit’s posts, and as far as the “…because your Bible tells you so,” you got a book, chapter, and verse for that assertion?
Or, does max-1 intentionally misrepresent the Bible, too?
BTW, what influence did your god and your religion have in the formation of the U.S.? What positives have your god and your religion contributed to the U.S.? Will these contributions continue sustaining the nation?
bit believes that without the influence of Christianity and the Bible there would not be a United States, certainly not the U.S. we know. As someone put it Judaism and Christianity practically invented Western Civilization, from which we all benefit.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written to insure that the Federal Government would not favor one Christian denomination over another Christian denomination. There’s nothing in the First Amendment that suggests all faiths or all religions are equal.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 amthe brown acid Says:
.
.
.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Are you unaware that Old Testament – a part of the Bible – history covers periods of time when there were no organized religions? In Matthew Christ quotes from Genesis when He remarks that a man and a woman will be “one flesh” in a marriage. The scripture Christ quotes is certainly an event that occurred before there was religion or government.
There was marriage in the OT before there was Judaism, which certainly means there was marriage before there was Catholicism and all the little Protestant outgrowths.
Marriage is an institution that is older that religion or government. Jesus didn’t say that marriage came from Judaism or from the Romans ( the government at the time of the His quote). He said it came from the Creator.
Perhaps instead of
“The authority for natural marriage, a man and a woman, comes from the Bible, which also says why there is marriage.”
this is better.
The Bible says that the Creator instituted marriage in Genesis. Jesus endorses this view and specifically the relationship between a man and a woman being “one flesh” when he quotes Genesis in Matthew 19.
bit understands that for Christians Jesus is the ultimate authority here.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am#69 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————
“There’s nothing in the First Amendment that suggests all faiths or all religions are equal.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Just as there is nothing in the First Amendment that suggests that Christianity is in any way BETTER than any other faith or religion! Your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pmDemocrat Soldier Says:
#69 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————
“There’s nothing in the First Amendment that suggests all faiths or all religions are equal.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Just as there is nothing in the First Amendment that suggests that Christianity is in any way BETTER than any other faith or religion! Your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 p
bit agrees that this is what one would conclude from a plain reading of the First Amendment.
Forturnatley, much of the context of the First Amendment has been preserved as below.
It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity. As an example of this expectation of a predominant religion consider what
George Mason, often called the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” proposed as the wording for the First Amendment.
Quoted from
Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
If anyone has any reference to any document written in the U.S. from about 1776 to present time, which suggests that a Mohammedan could, would, or should be President of the U.S., bit would appreciate seeing it?
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pmbitblt Says:
George Mason was a conservative of his day and his TAKE on the Constitution is NOT in any way the last word on the matter. Ben Franklin said lighthouses were more important than churches. Thomas Jefferson said he knew of no example of a priest ridden people remaining free. The Treaty of Tripoli says DIRECTLY that our country was NOT founded on Christianity. You are brainwashed and your braindead take on this issue is basically meaningless
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:46 pm