Allison Kilkenny, a self-styled “political humorist,” ripped the Catholic Church on the Huffington Post on Thursday for threatening to pull the plug in its social services in Washington, DC if same-sex “marriage” is legalized there. Kilkenny labeled the Church the “Inexplicably Evil Organization Most Disconnected From Real People,” and bashed Pope Benedict XVI as a “decrepit former Nazi youth.”
The “humorist” (pictured at right, courtesy of Wikimedia) began her screed, titled “Catholic Church Threatens to Stop Feeding Homeless Over Gay Marriage,” by comparing the Church to Goldman Sachs, and used her “evil” label only after three sentences (perhaps showing a bit of restraint on her part): “A few days ago, I wrote about Goldman Sachs’s transition from a bank holding company into a public relations disaster machine. I argued that Goldman’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, has been behaving like he wants to be attacked by a ferocious mob. Now, it appears the Catholic church is determined to unseat Blankfein in the ‘Inexplicably Evil Organization Most Disconnected From Real People’ category.”
Four paragraphs later, after spinning the content of the Archdiocese of Washington’s November 10 letter to the DC city council (which warned that the proposed legislation which would legalize same-sex “marriage” wouldn’t “permit Catholic Charities and other religious service organization to freely function as religious entities serving the needs of the District” and called for the expansion of “appropriate safeguards to protect religious freedom and to preserve the ability of...service providers to continue to serve the...unmet needs of the residents of the District”), Kilkenny used the tried-and-true priest sex abuse bludgeon against the Church (language warning):
So this “Please Stop Being An Asshole, You Guys” law is really the thing that has sent the Archdiocese flying off a cliff. The child molestations, and filing sticky-fingered priests from diocese to diocese is all part of God’s grand plan, but showing the slightest bit of consideration for gay couples is just too much [emphasis hers].
Beyond being simply mean and intolerant, this is just a stupid strategy for the Catholic church to employ. It may be a symbol of religion, but the church is also a business that needs to expand its customer base, or it will become extinct like Greek polytheism or New Coke.
The Huffington Post writer spent the rest of her tirade rehashing tired left-wing talking points against the Church’s teaching, dipping from time to time into plain anti-Catholic (and anti-Christian in general) bigotry. She also made sure to include a shot at Pope Benedict XVI, raising his forced conscription into the Hitler Youth in another predictable move:
And don’t give me that “It’s in the Bible so we can’t change our beliefs!” crap. Religions stray from the Bible’s teachings all the time the second people realize they’re being unspeakably cruel to a society’s sect. The Bible was used to legitimize slavery, and yet we don’t do that anymore, so surely Catholics can make the same jump when it comes to gay marriage....The Catholic church got so desperate to expand its ranks that it recently offered Anglicans sanctuary under the Virgin Mary’s skirt, supposedly to hide from all of the icky gays and lesbians the Anglican church has embraced (in a Christ-like fashion, some might say)....
As the Catholic church continues its march toward antiquity, I won’t be shedding any tears. In addition to preying on the fears and prejudices of the unenlightened masses, I have no tolerance for tax-exempt pyramid schemes that take money from poor people to build golden houses in Italy for a decrepit former Nazi youth, who now wears a funny hat and occasionally blathers in a dead language about hating gay people, suppressing women, and always -- always -- refusing to wear condoms.
What’s so strange is that the Catholic church itself seems determined to perish. Attitudes toward gay people are dramatically changing in this country, and yet the church remains stuck in its corner, fingers in ears, eyes shut, refusing to accept that the tide is turning.
This sort of far-left hate speech isn’t strange (while we’re on the topic of “strange”) to HuffPost. The Media Research Center released a special report in September 2007 documenting the “flame-throwing, name-calling, and hate speech against conservatives” that was all too common during the Huffington Post’s first two years. Kilkenny’s screed is just the latest example of the site’s intolerance of right-of-center perspectives.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why don't YOU go feed the
November 12, 2009 - 18:46 ET by bse5150Why don't YOU go feed the homeless, you silly scrunt?
The Catholic Church, problems aside, have done more for the homeless, unemployed, and drug addicts with no payback for HUNDREDS of years while you do nothing but bitch and tell us how wonderful that jackass in the White House is.
If I had to listen to you for five minutes, I'd do the right thing and slap you in the mouth. Some Catholic nun should have done that to you ages ago.
Hurray 5150!That was
November 12, 2009 - 18:53 ET by the strugglerHurray 5150!That was awesome.I agree whole-heartedly.
5150
November 12, 2009 - 19:12 ET by irishguyI know I had a few nuns that would of knocked those goofy glasses right off her face! Not to mention that smug expression...
Thank you!
November 12, 2009 - 19:38 ET by Tugboat PhilI'll also bet this Obammette spends a lot of time excoriating Islamic countries for actually executing people for being homosexual. Oh wait, that'd require a degree of courage.
Gun Control - The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
I'm sure this "journalist"
November 12, 2009 - 20:41 ET by celatorI'm sure this "journalist" is preparing the article excoriating the beating and beheading of women in Riyadh's infamous "Headchop Square" when "caught" wearing lipstick which is "too red" or falling in love with a male who is not approved by the father.
And, of course, we look forward to reading the article she is now researching which will be an expose of the Muslim mercy killings in Europe and in THIS country committed by angry Muslim fathers who do not approve of the behavior of their daughters. So they kill them.
If I may appropriate a concept written about by Dietrich Bonhoeffer called Cheap Grace, she exhibits Cheap Outrage to a degree which makes her look like a cross-eyed buffoon.
Her selective outrage reveals her poisonous bigotry, doesn't it?.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Well put, Area 51
November 12, 2009 - 19:38 ET by CO2MakerI misread you signatue: madcow 51? Related to Rachel? <g>
It's clear that li'l Allison hasn't been getting any lately. Uh, grace, that is. Self-indulgences? Plenty. Real indulgences? not so plenty.
Try this thought experiment. Say this phrase:
"And don't give me that 'It's in the Koran so we can't . . . aaccahchhhahggggg . . ."
By the way, when she referred to Goldman Sachs and then CEO Blankenfein, is she covertly slamming Jews, too? Judging from her name, I'd say she's Irish by ancestry, perhaps a "recovering Catholic" by the vitriol of here hatred, and probably unloved by the looks of her, literally.
When you keep attacking...
November 12, 2009 - 18:47 ET by SlyrrWhen you keep attacking someone, eventually they'll recognize you as a threat and start defending themselves.
All who believe in God and try to keep his commandments - the godless who hate religion are arming for war. With each passing day, they reveal again and again that they are spoiling for a campaign to stamp out religion while hiding behind the mask of 'tolerance'.
People will only put up with so much...
Every time is see a liberal
November 12, 2009 - 18:52 ET by BKeyserEvery time is see a liberal young woman with glasses...
Don't blame the glasses
November 12, 2009 - 19:01 ET by Matthew BalanIt isn't the glasses. Otherwise, Sarah Palin could be labeled left-wing.
Something about that style
November 12, 2009 - 20:09 ET by BKeyserSomething about that style though...
like these
and these
This photo....
November 12, 2009 - 19:00 ET by TexndocThis photo has got to be one of the funniest pics you've ever chosen. I don't even have to read what she has to say to tell you it's goopy nonsense, that she worships at the altar of Mother Earth and is a vegan, and that I have no interest in whatever she's selling.
I would say she qualifies
November 12, 2009 - 19:04 ET by nwahsI would say she qualifies as militantly gay. The hate of the Church just oozes from her pores. She's both savagely judgmental and tolerant in the same paragraph. Basically she's a hypocrite.
right you are
November 12, 2009 - 19:59 ET by lotrHate and hypocrisy oozes from her pores.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
"People... Against...
November 12, 2009 - 21:06 ET by Dan Diego"People... Against... Goodness... And... Normalcy. P, A, G, A, N. P.A.G.A.N.!" - Joe Friday 1987
What is she so concerned about?
November 12, 2009 - 19:10 ET by c5thenIf the Catholic Services are forced out of the DC market because of something stupid and childish like principles and values, won't MoveOn or the SorosFoundation step in and fill the void?
Christ forgives all who sin. HE only has two requirements: 1) Repent and ask for forgiveness. 2) Stop sinning.
The hard thing for liberals is that it's not us who get to decide what is a sin and what is not. It is GOD who has already told us. We have only to make a choice.
Throw 'da bums out!!!
Before it's too late.
www.loyaltoliberty.com
Do it for the children
November 12, 2009 - 22:09 ET by ThisnThatActually, if she's so concerned about the poor, why doesn't she advocate for abandoning this stupid gay "marriage" thing, for the sake of the children? Why are queers so selfish that they would do anything, especially if it endangers the children? Or the poor?
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
Mr President what happened to no man left behind?
November 12, 2009 - 19:13 ET by lareeEven the President noted that Pvt Francheska Velez was expecting a baby.
Adding
my voice 13 Charges of murder should be 14 charges of Murder. Who is
going to speak up for Baby Velez? 12 Soldiers 1 civilian and one unborn
baby. That’s 14 counts.
http://youhavetobeth...
Catholic Church
November 12, 2009 - 19:22 ET by burtonrobsonHigh five to 5150!!!
Calling Keith Olbermann!
November 12, 2009 - 19:31 ET by HockeyKidCalling Keith Olbermann! Your abandoned baby sister has escaped the clinic again. Please return her at once, or we'll have to start charging you noise pollution cap fines.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I guess it bugs her that
November 12, 2009 - 19:38 ET by Radical1979I guess it bugs her that the government and pc police can't dictate to the Catholic Church. This is why the charity should be private, there are expectations of those receiving help, and people can be held accountable.
If she had an ounce of intelligence she'd know the Pope doesn't "blather on" about hating gays or suppressing women. But it would be to much to expect a liberal to know what they were talking about.
Another thing people miss about the Church
November 12, 2009 - 19:47 ET by nwahsAnother thing people miss about the Church is it isn't and never was, a democracy. It based in religious doctrine. Its not up for debate. This came to light recently in New Orleans when the Arch Diocese began closing and combining different parish churches. There were very angry people who did not want to see their life long churches, churches they married in and baptized their children in, close. They engaged in various forms of protests, including church sit-ins.
All for naught. The Catholic Church is not swayed ( and shouldn't be) by civil disobedience. Its sanction comes from God. People so caught up in American politics will never get that aspect of the Catholic Church.
I'm still here :)
nwash, not sure what "I'm
November 12, 2009 - 19:57 ET by Radical1979nwash, not sure what "I'm still here" refers to, but glad to see it!
As you get up in age
November 12, 2009 - 21:08 ET by nwahsIts kind of what you say every morning.
Yup...
I'm still here :)
By the way, does she view
November 12, 2009 - 19:48 ET by Radical1979By the way, does she view Islam as an inexplicably evil organization?
Nah, they're the victims.
Wake up Girl
November 12, 2009 - 20:14 ET by ptsonWhy indeed would a religious organization behave in such an evil manner? WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DEFINE EVIL? The obvious answer to you question is beyond your grasp, you single-mindless little perv. IT is called PRINCIPLES! A concept of witch you are obviously unaware. The answer to the other question, for now, ISLAM is good, as it opposes the evil empire. (US) Someone please tell her THEIR position on GAY anything!
Yeah, I left a comment over
November 12, 2009 - 20:18 ET by robertlbryantYeah, I left a comment over there asking if she has ever bashed Islam. I'm waiting to see if they approve it or not. I doubt it.
When she writes a column
November 12, 2009 - 21:09 ET by moderncommentaries83When she writes a column upbraiding Muhammed for being a homophobic child molester (one of his "wives" was a 9-year-old), then maybe her argument will hold weight.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Oh yes, marching in the Gay Pride parade in Teheran
November 13, 2009 - 11:57 ET by CO2MakerI'm Gay, I'm Muslim, and I'm ... gahkkk gkkkk gkkkkshhh gurgle gurgle gurgle"
Religion helping the poor
November 12, 2009 - 19:48 ET by newstogodHmmm, just as soon see the church go back to Italy. Churches are about the least effective way to help the poor. Think of it, if we could just get 15% of everyones income surely feeding the poor would be a non issue. Religion is a total waste --- a fairy tale -- it's ruining the world.
What do you think the most
November 12, 2009 - 20:03 ET by Radical1979What do you think the most efficient way to help the poor is? Through government? Acorn? In my area Catholic Social Agencies place many foster children. Our local area church collects food weekly and monthly pools it with the local food bank (run by several denominations of churches). Local area churches also provide meeting places for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and AA.
Religion contributes a lot to the world.
Out church which is Baptist
November 12, 2009 - 20:36 ET by ricklailOur church which is Baptist has a fund that helps those in need. We don't give money but the fund will buy them groceries, pay power bills, help them with gas if they need to etc. It is well regulated. When I say buy gorceries I mean something to eat, not junk food like the government allows food stamp receiptiants to buy. It is very effeceint. Only those that truly need get help. Many people come by the church asking the pastor for a check. When he tells them if they need something we'll buy it for them but we don't give $$$$ they move on. Ten percent of our offerings got into this fund each month.
Who do you think took care of the needy in biblical times? It was the Church. It is the job of the family to produce society. The church to provide for that society and the government to protect society.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
Rick, your post is a good
November 12, 2009 - 20:53 ET by celatorRick, your post is a good reminder of the wonderful work Baptists do in their communities. In our community, they run a food kitchen, after-school programs, take care of unwed mothers in their most vulnerable time, and many other charitable activities. As a Catholic I am so pleased the Baptists are here.
Our church runs a temporary shelter for the homeless, a clothing give-away and counseling services, and we always look forward to the support the Baptists give us in our own efforts. Wonderful people.
In our community, most if not all, of the churches of whatever denomination as well as the Synagogue we have all have their own volunteers and fund raising efforts to help those in need. They do it quietly, effectively and ask for nothing in return.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Hi Rick, you might want to change the last letter of the first
November 12, 2009 - 20:54 ET by pahuberword of your post headline ; )
Statement debunked
November 12, 2009 - 21:14 ET by moderncommentaries83Just today, a local columnist ran a story on how the state of Wisconsin has botched the takover of a food program. Here are some of the highlights:
So for every 100 people who call, 13 of them have to wait more than 3 months for help with food. Tell me, could you go three months without food?
Every week, my parish collects food for the poor which goes directly to the food pantry run by our collective of parishes. People can go the same day and get food, and the parish food pantry is staffed by volunteers and stocked by donated food. In other words, there is no cost to the taxpayer.
And other than providing education, health care, housing, food, and other outreach, I can totally see how the Catholic Church has contributed nothing to society...because you're the type of person who believes if "charity" doesn't come from the government, it doesn't count.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
ruining the world
November 13, 2009 - 00:05 ET by konoThanks, 'newstogod'. I've worked with dozens of people who have left everything behind to serve God and the poor with the Church. They ask for nothing in return but to be permitted to bear witness to their faith by providing that assistance.
They all appreciate your affirmation, I'm sure.
nothing is news
November 13, 2009 - 00:10 ET by konoPS: Nothing is news to God, which ironically turns your chosen userid into an unintentional self-abasement.
It is baffling
November 12, 2009 - 19:59 ET by RHawkinsWhy do some people so hate religion, God and anyone who believes? Is it because those who know God have hope for an eternal future and they don't? They just can't stand to see anyone happy. It is like what I see as the current version of equality. Bring everyone down to your level instead of bringing everyone up. Anyone who has more money than them (whoever that happens to be at the moment) is rich and should have their wealth taken away. Anyone who has faith and hope that 'they' don't should have that taken away as well.
Spare Me
November 12, 2009 - 20:23 ET by easygoerThe Catholic Church is evil, as opposed to Islamofascists who are merely misunderstood.
I always heard that hell
November 12, 2009 - 20:26 ET by ricklailI always heard that hell was not going to be hot enough for some people. This might just be one of the better examples.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
Amen. 'Doubling down on
November 12, 2009 - 20:53 ET by bigtimerAmen.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
It has come to this
November 12, 2009 - 20:38 ET by octaviojBishops are against Obamacare? They are evil. That is just stupid. Has she ever researched catholicism? There is a principle of catholic social teaching called subsidiarity. That has been a doctrine since the late 19th century and states that the government should only take responsibility for things that cannot be done at the local level or by individuals, which is clearly not the case with healthcare. Catholic teaching also states that compassion comes from individuals, not government and the latter cannot replace the former. Has she ever heard of those? It is increasingly apparent that liberals like to criticize that which they do not understand and they tend not to even do a small bit of research on the matters.
Why should we?
November 12, 2009 - 20:49 ET by moderncommentaries83Why should we?
Setting aside for a moment the fact Christ instructed us to care for the poor, sick, elderly, etc.
Why should we provide these services when people like Kilkenny are just going to use this as a way to force us to accept gay marriage?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
AWWWWW
November 12, 2009 - 20:55 ET by jacktheripperthe follies of youth....a laptop and an agenda
Proud HillBilly from NNY
Been checking back on this
November 13, 2009 - 01:09 ET by RescuedByRushBeen checking back on this thread since it was first posted, trying to think of a way to say what you just said without being mean or waxing on forever. Here's to you... Well and succinctly said. I imagine that this "woman" (girl) will be fifty years old and still not have garnered the experience necessary to reflect on her own immaturaty that spawned this childish rant. Self examination is not something that she's yet considered, and she's not chosen a chamber that will prompt her to do so. Too bad.
"What’s so strange is
November 12, 2009 - 21:05 ET by dr2b"What’s so strange is that the Catholic church itself seems determined
to perish. Attitudes toward gay people are dramatically changing in
this country, and yet the church remains stuck in its corner, fingers
in ears, eyes shut, refusing to accept that the tide is turning."
yeah the attitudes are changing so dramatically that all 31 times its been but to a state vote to give them marriage "rights" they lost everytime.. big tide turning there
I guess..
November 12, 2009 - 21:22 ET by ConservativeClarkI guess it would take one "Inexplicably Evil Organization" (The Huffington Post) to recognize one. I dont actually think that Catholics are evil (im married to one), but im inserting lefty logic here.
What is with all the 'comedians' turned political experts??
November 12, 2009 - 22:04 ET by Patrick MichaelI mean you have Kathy Griffin, Ted Danson, Joy Behar, Whoppi Goldberg Janeane Garofalo, and now this moron. The sad thing is that all of these people think they are both funny and smart while in truth they are neither.
Stay Free!!!
aspiring scuzzbucket
November 13, 2009 - 00:21 ET by konoOn first seeing this Allison critter, I couldn't help thinking she's a budding Janeane Garofalo disciple. She just needs greasier hair and some tattoos.
As for comedians-turned-pundits, Dennis Miller does a pretty good job. Part of it is that he admits his limitations in various areas, sticks to the areas he knows, and jokes about all the rest. Too many of the Liberal comedians-turned-pundits suck, precisely because they feel compelled to orate on any issue put before them (usually with a series of broken non-sequiturs interrupted by cliches and stale talking points).
The Church
November 12, 2009 - 22:20 ET by jpalm32Ok! Listen a moment. I am a Catholic and think the church brought this on themselves for supporting the Kennedy, Kerry, Palosi, Dodd.....
Strongly supported them! Gave some annulments after being married and having 6 kids. (In secret)!
Support illegal aliens!
What to they want us to do?
Black church leaders are ACTIVE for their causes.
When is the church going to active all the time for Republicans that support our morals?
I'm very Catholic. I feed
November 12, 2009 - 22:29 ET by rbosqueI'm very Catholic. I feed the poor from our Church Pantry every Tuesday and I visit the sick on Sundays- and as an Extraordinary Minister, I bring Communion to them. In all the years I've done this I have yet to meet a liberal at least visit the sick. Of course, I am not alone, others have done this for centuries and will continue until the end.
It seems that the most needy however, seems to be this person. If she had ANY sense at all she'd go to Confession then to Communion. Otherwise, she's just another lost misfit.
You meant to say, "I feed on hate" rbosque
November 16, 2009 - 15:41 ET by 007memoYou meant to say, "I feed on hate" rbosque.
"In all the years I've done this I have yet to meet a liberal at least visit the sick." That statement (or would you call that an "affirmation" of your faith) is repugnant, rbosque.
And you claim "I'm very Catholic." - who knows, but you're not very Christian, rbosque.
"Of course, I am not alone, others have done this for centuries and will continue until the end" You're right, others have demonized those they disagree with, just as you do. Such hate you spew.
How do you imagine yourself different than those you criticize with such vitriol?
In your own words, rbosque "maybe (you) can see (your) own ignorance. Maybe."
007, having been unable to avoid reading your posts I find it
November 16, 2009 - 15:42 ET by pahuberhard to find someone, other than kennedy/nwaahs that is more hateful or spiteful than you.
Your last post was almost comical in the hypocrisy.
Find a site more accommodating to your style of ramblings and spite and maybe you will be much happier.
Contradictions collapse
November 16, 2009 - 18:45 ET by UnsaneYou lecturing rbosque or anyone else on hate is like a drunk lecturing me on the virtues of being a teetotaler.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
rbosque...
November 16, 2009 - 16:05 ET by JerI don't question your honesty or the sincerety of your statement [although it is somewhat remarkable that you are familiar with the political and social views of all others you have encountered during your visits], but if you are suggesting there are no or hardly any liberals of any denomination or faith involved in the worthy activities you describe, then you are profoundly and sadly mistaken.
Jer
Charity and the Left
November 16, 2009 - 18:24 ET by Unsanebut if you are suggesting there are no or hardly any liberals of any denomination or faith involved in the worthy activities you describe, then you are profoundly and sadly mistaken. A book was recently published by a Leftist who would contradict you. About a year ago now, I think. He desperately wanted to paint Rightists as stingy, cold hearted SOBs. But he made a decision in favor of intellectual honesty - he saw that it ws in fact the Leftists who are the tightwads and the least generous in terms of charity.
In fact, I'd posit that Leftists do NOT want to give to charity unless forced to, via taxation. Leftists could probably do much to resolve the health care issue on their own with charitable contributions. But they don't want to do that, so they want to turn the government into a massive United Way.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The poorer, the more generous with their Charity, unsane.
November 17, 2009 - 01:24 ET by 007memoThe poorer the person, the more generous with their Charity.
The Red States are the poorest States in the country. There's no accounting for the poor voting against their fellow poor and voting Republican.
And the book didn't say that they were tightwads, just comparatively give less.
And liberals are much, much more generous about being taxed to take care of the poor and others in need. That's a fact also, and no less generous a gesture toward the goal of helping the poor. So the Liberals are more likely to vote for aid to the poor, knowing full well it will cost them much more money in taxes. God bless the Liberals.
And Conservatives are much more likely to vote for more guns and killing machines than to vote for programs that help the poor. So what's your point?
Hey, I think the same book related that the stingiest of all were the secular conservatives.
okay.....
November 12, 2009 - 22:55 ET by John WIJust another ignorant liberal chick.......(too bad, she's not doing herself any favors).
She and many like her shouldn't be allowed to vote. She hasn't grown up yet.
Hey liberal chick! Get married, have some children, buy a house, work a job..........get some normalcy in your life. You are not that enlightened or open minded.
You are walking a road that many have walked before, nothing new.
Like I explained in another post earlier today....
November 12, 2009 - 23:16 ET by stage9God haters are the masters of "straw man" tactics, where they misrepresent their opponent’s position and then proceed to refute that misrepresentation (i.e., the “straw man”) rather than what his opponent actually claims or believes.
Ms Kilkenny is also using the the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. Huh? Wha..?
With the question-begging epithet, the arguer uses biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic. For example, if a reporter said,
“This criminal is charged with violently murdering the innocent victim,” she would be using a question-begging epithet because she has used biased language to make a case that is not yet logically established. It would have been more objective for her to say,
“This suspect is charged with killing the other person.”
Ms Kilkenny called the church an “Inexplicably Evil Organization Most Disconnected From Real People,” and bashed Pope Benedict XVI as a “decrepit former Nazi youth.”
She also says:
"The child molestations, and filing sticky-fingered priests from diocese to diocese is all part of God’s grand plan, but showing the slightest bit of consideration for gay couples is just too much [emphasis hers]."
Such statements are designed to stir people’s emotions, thereby distracting them from the realization that no logical case has been made.
When people use mere rhetoric without providing a logical reason for their position, we must realize that they have not made a logical argument; they are simply being arbitrary.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
Well put. This liberal needs
November 12, 2009 - 23:31 ET by rbosqueWell put. This liberal needs to take a logic class, maybe she can see her own ignorance. Maybe.
I highly doubt she will see
November 12, 2009 - 23:37 ET by Scuba DudeI highly doubt she will see it rbosque. The look on her face is one of smugness, the type of smugness one gets when mommy and daddy are paying all her bills so she can hang out in the coffee shop with all her "cool" friends and mock those that actually make something of their lives. As my Dad and Uncle would say, "A hard day's work and a cold shower would kill her".
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
smugness, inexperience and
November 13, 2009 - 01:14 ET by RescuedByRushsmugness, inexperience and naivete.
Just thought I'd finish what you started...
as usual from any liberal...
November 13, 2009 - 00:13 ET by caiobabethey're expecting to make news by commentary and thus stir up confrontation. But they should know that the Catholic Church never left the decision making up to polls or the masse in general.
God always seemed to have it his way. I wonder why???
Really, does anyone think that the population of Sodom so many thousands of years ago were asked if the life they led was against God's Plan for their Souls? I don't think so, yet God gave them chance after chance to produce yet one good person...there was not even one.
and then He had it His Way. That was Justice.
She Really Needs A Lesson In My Code Of Chivalry...
November 13, 2009 - 00:51 ET by The7SticksReally, that's the best this girl can do? Here's my code of chivalry regarding being a professional anti-Catholic:
1.) Never attack someone for what they believe, attack them for their actions (hence the reason I keep referring to the case of Pope Pius XII having been complicit in aiding Adolf Hitler and the Nazis during the Holocaust, because there's no way denying that fact. Read Hitler's Pope in order to find out.)
2.) The church's teachings should be directly attacked, not metaphorically attack, as this amateur does using the Church sex-abuse scandals. That's why I refer to Jabba the Don-of-Puke and his Catholic League of Douchebags as such: They try to wave their finger at us, we bite that finger and devour it for brunch.
If she thinks she is more than a match for Thomas Nast, she is surely mistaken.
7...
November 13, 2009 - 01:31 ET by B-townGiant1.) "Hitler's Pope" was discredited by any historian or academic not grinding an agenda. It was commonly referred to as, "libelous."
2.) Obviously you have a problem with Bill Donahue. I think you are the same troll I destroyed a few weeks ago right here. You just decided to slink away, tail between your legs, and come back with a different handle.
Begone, lesser human. You are not worthy. You, and your writings, are excrement.
Tsk, tsk, B-town. Your smug dismissal belies your inferiority.
November 13, 2009 - 02:33 ET by 007memoTsk, tsk, B-town. Your smug dismissal belies your inferiority.
'Twas I who in fact destroyed you and your argmentum ad hominem and exposed you as non compos mentis.
"You, and your writings, are excrement." Methinks you need extreme unction to cleanse yourself of your excrement unction.
"007memo" must be the
November 13, 2009 - 21:32 ET by lotr"007memo" must be the "different handle" for "the7sticks" referred to in the above post.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
007 also goes under kennedy, nwaahs, 7sticks and much more.
November 16, 2009 - 15:45 ET by pahuberMy guess, mom's basement or manifesto type shack with limited heating and internet.
007
November 13, 2009 - 21:50 ET by general companySpeaking of being destoryed not like you have any room for smugness.
And I dont even have to resort to your shill hyperventilating.
Looks like Sticks gets his sources from the same place you do
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You "destoryed" me as you destroy the Eglish language, general
November 16, 2009 - 18:10 ET by 007memoYou "destoryed" me like you destroy the English language, general.
As usual, your link proved nothing but your own inability to understand simple words and their meaning.
007 no speaky da' Eglish so good.
November 17, 2009 - 12:03 ET by Mike76You really shouldn't make fun of other people's spelling, when you can't spell yourself, James Bond.
*chuckling.*
What the hell is this? A
November 13, 2009 - 21:49 ET by MightyMouthWhat the hell is this? A game of World of Warcraft?
move along troll
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Oh, please, spare me. All
November 14, 2009 - 15:27 ET by moderncommentaries83Oh, please, spare me.
All the blather about Pope Pius XII being "complicit" during the Holocaust is, in a word, bullsh*t.
Jews - actual, practicing Jews like rabbis and not the "culturally" Jewish kind - have said this. Many consider Pope Pius XII a "righteous gentile" for his work in aiding and hiding Jews from the Nazis - him along with tens of thousands of other Catholics, all of whom risked everything they had, including their lives, to protect Jews from the evils of the Holocaust.
More to the point: if Pope Pius XII was an accomplice of the Nazis, why did Hitler order the Vatican be raided, and the Pope and Cardinals killed? Oh, that's why...Pope Pius XII opposed Hitler and his "final solution"... Pope Pius XII knew this and said if he were captured or forced into exile, he was leaving Rome not as the Pope, but as a commoner, in order to preserve the Holy See.
I highly suggest you read The Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David Dalin because drawing the "Pope Pius XII aided the Nazis" card makes you look like an idiot.
Pot, meet kettle. What a childish ad hominem.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
The7Sticks needs a lesson in heroic Catholic love of neighbor
November 13, 2009 - 21:53 ET by lotr"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
There is no right and wrong
November 13, 2009 - 01:46 ET by ThoreauThat is the mantra of evil. She would have gotten a great job in the Third Reich. She missed her calling.
I'm appalled that the church would make such a threat
November 13, 2009 - 02:40 ET by 007memoPutting all rhetoric aside, I'm stunned and appalled that the church would make such a threat, let alone carry it out.
Putting all rhetoric aside,
November 14, 2009 - 18:47 ET by general companyAre you just as shocked about Unions, media, DNC, Kos kids, Hoffpo, and all of our supposed Representatives threats? Yea, didnt think so.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
False equivelence to Christian Hypocrisy, general
November 16, 2009 - 12:50 ET by 007memoThat is a false equivelence to Christian Hypocrisy, general.
What the Catholic Church threatens is not WJWD.
This is of no relevence to the discussion whatsoever and is simply mindless blather "Unions, media, DNC, Kos kids, Hoffpo, and all of our supposed Representatives threats"
Your joking 007? Right?
November 16, 2009 - 13:13 ET by general companyFunny how you libs hold the Church to one standard and you thuggish arm of the Dim party to another. How come your all in favor for censoring Religious speak, or ignore and even excuse the appalling behavior within your own party? Also amusing how you guys constantly ridicule the religious and the Church, then whine when they are against your perversity. Oh well, start addressing your issues before you solicit my outrage,,,ok?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I said I was appalled at the Catholic Church, General.
November 16, 2009 - 13:28 ET by 007memoI said I was appalled at the Catholic Church for this unchristian action, General.
I've never ridiculed the church, nor excused the appaling behavior of my "party', nor censored religious speak etc, etc. It is your dishonesty that ascribes to me all of those simple minded sterotypes and assumptions.
Who is the accuser 007?
November 16, 2009 - 13:55 ET by general companyI said I was appalled at the Catholic Church for this unchristian action,
And why?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
What the Catholic Church threatens is not WJWD.
November 16, 2009 - 13:29 ET by 007memoWhat the Catholic Church threatens is not WJWD.
Move off the thread NWAAAAAAHs
November 16, 2009 - 15:48 ET by pahuber:0
Tired of how you want to judge us awful Christians already.
Nice try puddin
November 16, 2009 - 19:01 ET by RESTLESS 1But Jesus would help, and then send them off to "...sin no more."
So, that being the case, I'm sure you are behind any effort by the Church to proseletise these poor souls, and convince them to turn from their evils ways?
And by the way, "separation church and state" is a lie. It is not in the Constitution. Actually, forcing the Church to solemnise gay marriage is unconstitutional. You see, the state may "...make no law respecting religion, nor abridge the free exercise thereof..."
Forcing religions to go against their beliefs is certainly evidence of abridgement of their free exercise.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
You warp facts, restless. Religion never mention in Constitution
November 16, 2009 - 22:17 ET by 007memoYou warp basic facts, restless, Religion is never mentioned in the Constitution.
You assert that "Forcing religions to go against their beliefs is certainly evidence of abridgement of their free exercise."
But no one is forcing "religions" to do anything. However, if a faith based organization takes Federal Funding, they must follow Federal Law. Pretty simple and logical for a Nation of Laws to require just that.
"I'm sure you are behind any effort by the Church to proseletise these poor souls, and convince them to turn from their evils ways?" Church's are free to do what they like with souls at their own Church Services.
In fact, as a matter of policy, the Catholic Chuch (to their infinite credit) does not require those they aid to sit through a good Proselytizing in order to qualify for help, Federal Funding or not.
And by the way, your claim that "separation church and state is a lie. It is not in the Constitution." No, it's simply in the first Ammendment to the Constitution.
And by the way, church and state are not joined in the Constitution either, maybe that's because religion is not even mentioned (nor God, nor any Church) anywhere in the Constitution. But you don't wonder why our founding fathers left out any mention of religion, do you?
Note, the Constitution does have one tangential reference to religion: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Be off with you then, and "sin no more", restless.
LIE!!!!!
November 16, 2009 - 22:23 ET by Scuba DudeYou stated: "You warp basic facts, restless, Religion is never mentioned in the Constitution.
"
That is a lie.
Here is the 1st Amendment:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
Wow, looky there, religion mentioned TWICE!!
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
General defined the Constitution as not including ammendments
November 16, 2009 - 23:39 ET by 007memoGeneralcompany (in a bizarre and irrelevent tangent) defined the Constitution as not including any of the ammendments, since they weren't part of the original document that the Founding Fathers approved, or whatever... So I didn't bother to argue, hence avoiding going off in 50, irrelevent, directions. It was in that context that I made my comments.
And restless says that "separation of Church and State is a lie, it's not in the Constitution". And you say I lie because it is in the Constitution... oh I just can't keep track.
Instead of little, niggling, irrelevent tangents, why not just stick with the larger point we can all agree on; The Constitution's sole references to religion clearly delineate a separation between Church and State.
Anyway, thank you for proving my point for me, scuba.
memo
November 16, 2009 - 22:46 ET by RESTLESS 1Are you even trying? I mean, you can only be this dense on purpose, right?
"You warp basic facts, restless, Religion is never mentioned in the Constitution."- So, where is it mentioned that Religious symbols should be banned from govt. properties, or prayer banned in shcools?
"But no one is forcing "religions" to do anything. However, if a faith based organization takes Federal Funding, they must follow Federal Law. Pretty simple and logical for a Nation of Laws to require just that."- You still have not answered the question posed to you above: How far a stretch is it to dictate that a church's tax exempt status constitutes taking federal funds? And do you really expect us to believe that the left would stfu on religion if they weren't tax exempt, and took no federal funds?
"And by the way, your claim that "separation church and state is a lie.
It is not in the Constitution." No, it's simply in the first
Ammendment to the Constitution."- No, it's not, and all of you bluster will not change that. The first amendment in no way separates church from state. It forbids the state from making a national religion, or making laws that people must belong to one religion, or refrain from another. It does not forbid the state from celebrating religions, or that it must celebrate religions evenly. This is pure bs as directed from the bench. This has been pointed out to you many times, but you seem willfully ignorant on this.
"And by the way, church and state are not joined in the
Constitution either, maybe that's because religion is not even
mentioned (nor God, nor any Church) anywhere in the Constitution."- So in essence, the state is not to create a religious state, nor is it prohibited from endorsing or celebrating one. See, that wasn't so hard.
"But you don't wonder why our founding fathers left out any mention of religion, do you?"- I presume it to mean it never occurred to them that dimwit liberals would have such a problem with others' beliefs. They probably never thought this country would be home to such p@ssies as to get the sore ass over public displays of faith.
"Note, the Constitution does have one tangential reference to religion:
"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States."- So the lack of religion is no great feather in the cap either, right?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
All of your arguments are fallacious, Restless.
November 17, 2009 - 01:00 ET by 007memoAll of your arguments are fallacious, Restless.
So, where is it mentioned that Religious symbols should be banned from govt. properties, or prayer banned in shcools?” Put up a picture of Mohammed in the classroom, or tell some students to face Mecca and pray, and you’ll learn right quick about the Constitution.
How far a stretch is it to dictate that a church's tax exempt status constitutes taking federal funds? Irrelevant, that question has already been settled - there is no slippery slope there.
“And do you really expect us to believe that the left would stfu on religion if they weren't tax exempt, and took no federal funds?” I don’t care what you believe, nor does your Government, about what the left will say since it’s a free country.
"The first amendment in no way separates church from state.” Allrightythen, where in the Constitution does it mention religion or a Church and it’s "joining" with our government?
“So in essence, the state is not to create a religious state, nor is it prohibited from endorsing or celebrating one.” This I’ll rate this as one of your granddaddy fallacies. Which brand of religion is this religiously diverse nation going to be willing to embrace, even if the Constitution would allow it? Cut me a break, our forefathers knew better than to permit this. We would then be a theocracy like Iran, I guess.
“"But you don't wonder why our founding fathers left out any mention of religion, do you?"- I presume it to mean it never occurred to them that dimwit liberals would have such a problem with others' beliefs. They probably never thought this country would be home to such p@ssies as to get the sore ass over public displays of faith.” Not me, I presume it would mean protection of the few from the tyranny of the many, whacked out, religious wing nuts.
And this is the pinacle of fallacious arguments: “Forcing religions to go against their beliefs is certainly evidence of abridgement of their free exercise.” No one is forcing such - if a church takes Federal Funding from the US Governement, they must follow Federal Law just like the rest of us Americans do every day. No one is forcing them to take Federal Funds.
Plus, at least 85% of Americans define themselves as religious. No one is forcing anything on 85% of Americans, even if “they” wanted to (whomever the boogeyman “they” may be).
007postit,
November 17, 2009 - 01:06 ET by pahuber"All of your arguments are fallacious..."
Yes, now to make it accurate look in the mirror and continue saying this over and over and over :)
Why? Why are you
November 14, 2009 - 21:52 ET by moderncommentaries83Why? Why are you appalled?
Why should Catholics let the state spit in our faces and tell us what we can and cannot believe, condone, recognize, or solemnize? It stuns you that people don't want to be taken for granted and dumped on?
The "public use" clause in the DC gay marriage bill leaves wide open the door to some gay activist suing the Church into doing something we morally object to (solemizing a wedding, using Church facilities for gay "weddings", placing children with gay couples). They will say that because we provide services to others, including the poor and homeless (being poor and homeless is not contrary to Catholic teaching), we have to recognize gay marriage (which is contrary to Catholic teaching) or we're being "discriminatory."
The gay community is forcing our hand. They are the ones who would rather everyone approve of the way they choose to have orgasms than let the Church be and do services to the poor. In other words, we have no choice.
We will NOT compromise our teachings or beliefs to accomodate the politically correct. We will NOT affirm that gay marriage is in any way equal to sacramental marriage. We shut down our adoption program in Massachusettes because we refused to compromise our beliefs. Children suffered; the gay lobby doesn't care.
In America - where religious freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment without pre-conditions or exceptions - we have a right to practice what we believe in peace. And if we are threatened for our beliefs, we have no choice but to close ranks.
Really, frankly, this is all designed to do one thing: they will force churches out of public service (not just Catholic churches, either) by threatening them with legislation that compromises religious doctrine. When churches can no longer provide social services to the community, the government will consider us useless and work to shut us down. Destruction of Christianity in America is the ultimate goal; these things are just the building blocks.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
The States actions conflicts with Church Doctrine, Surprise!
November 16, 2009 - 13:39 ET by 007memoThe State's actions conflict with Church Doctrine, Surprise, Surprise!
Evidencing the wise decision of our founders to separate church from state.
Where,
November 16, 2009 - 13:58 ET by general companyEvidencing the wise decision of our founders to separate church from state.
Find it, the way you have phrased it here does not exsist. This is a liberal lie.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
"Seperation" of Church and State is a Lie!
November 16, 2009 - 18:43 ET by MightyMouthAll the constitution says is that:
A. The state shall not set up a Church or Religion.
B. It will not force you to join it.
PERIOD!
And by the way Secularism IS a Religion called Humanisim!
So the government is by definition in direct violation of the Constitution and needs to be changed!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Noone forcing Church's hand. There is separation of Church/State
November 16, 2009 - 14:29 ET by 007memoNo one is forcing the Church's hand. There is separation of Church and State in this country. Ours is not like a Middle East Islamist State.
"They will say that because we provide services to others, including the poor and homeless (being poor and homeless is not contrary to Catholic teaching), we have to recognize gay marriage (which is contrary to Catholic teaching) or we're being "discriminatory.""
No they don't!!! "They" do not say you have to recognize gay marriage, not ever. The law says you have to obey the laws of the state if you take money (funding) from the state.
And "they" pass laws regardless of the Church's opinion because of that separation of church and state thing that you coveniently forget about.
"They are the ones who would rather everyone approve of the way they choose to have orgasms than let the Church be and do services to the poor."
Once again, "they" pass laws regardless of the Church's opinion because of that separation of church and state thing. It is the church that chooses not to help the poor because of those laws, don't pretend otherwise.
"They will say that because we provide services to others, including the poor and homeless (being poor and homeless is not contrary to Catholic teaching), we have to recognize gay marriage (which is contrary to Catholic teaching) or we're being "discriminatory." No, only if the Church takes money from the state.
What I do prefer is that my state not co-habit with my Church. That is supported by the Constitution.
And as far as having no choice is concerned, Jesus would never withhold sustenance to the starving because of disagreements with the State, IMHO.
With those of your ilk, it's not about saving the least of thy brethern, it's really about politics. That's what I'm appalled by.
Hey, dipstick,
November 16, 2009 - 18:34 ET by UpNorth"No, only if the Church takes money from the state".
Any thoughts on whether one of the liberal judges in the District will interpret the Church being tax-exempt for property taxes, is an acceptance of money from the state? What will then follow is the "state" forcing the Catholic Church to recognize gay marriage and all the attendant debauchery that that entails.
You sound as confused on this as 0 is on protocol of bowing to foreign rulers and figureheads.
And monkees may fly out of your butt, upnorth
November 17, 2009 - 01:05 ET by 007memoAnd monkees may fly out of your butt, upnorth.
Never gonna happen, long ago settled, no slippery slope. Move along, nothing to see here.
LOL, 007postit, it's getting late for you... I know because
November 17, 2009 - 01:10 ET by pahuberyou're describing your dreams to us now!
AH, the typical lib
November 17, 2009 - 18:23 ET by UpNorthfascination with anal dreams yet again. The supremes have yet to make it the law of the land, so yeah, it can happen. I know, I know, you're right and the rest of the world is wrong. Go play in traffic, you're boring.
Sure it can happen, upnorth, the boogeymen lurk everywhere.
November 17, 2009 - 18:55 ET by 007memoSure it can happen, upnorth, the boogeymen lurk everywhere. But still, monkees will fly out of your butt first.
Make a cogent point
November 17, 2009 - 18:59 ET by Blonde...or seek life elsewhere.
We have a plethora of trolls here, and you are not even an amusing one.
I hope he fails, too.
Anti_Catholic
November 13, 2009 - 05:23 ET by LaValletteAllison Kilkenny, a self-styled “political humorist,” ripped the Catholic Church on the Huffington Post:
Boring!!!!!!!!
Boooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnng!!!!!!!!!
This is a recordiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggg!!!!!!
Have heard it all before!!!!!!!!!!!
Nothing new!!!!!!!!!
i suppose she means-
November 13, 2009 - 09:06 ET by JIMMY1660a different opinion is wrong and bigoted?
i was not sure about abortion-until the young lady explained how under ultrasound she saw a fetus trying to avoid the probe trying end the fetus life.
abortion is murder, same sex marriage is anti nature-where in Gods scheme of things do the animals other than humans do such things? None.
The Church helps us live our lives by the rules.
Live by your rules and live by the consequences.
BHO- Is the Anti Christ
No no no. B&O isn't the anti-Christ
November 13, 2009 - 13:08 ET by CO2MakerHe's the antipasto. Not to be confused with Miss DiPesto. Or antimacassars. Or antimatter, for that matter.
If you use Nature as evidence, nurture some scienitific curioisi
November 13, 2009 - 13:56 ET by 007memoIf you use Nature as evidence, nurture some scienitific curioisity, Jimmie.
"same sex marriage is anti nature-where in Gods scheme of things do the animals other than humans do such things? None." Well actually it isn't anti nature, it happens quite often in nature and is perfectly natural. You would know that if your science books hadn't been censored for you, or maybe you simply failed to ever read a science book.
And as for abortion and nature (don't claim I'm defending abortion, for simply pointing out how wrong you are on nature), infanticide is very, very common in nature. Animals will "often eat their young", or another animals young (or eggs for that matter, hmmmm, eggs?). Before you use nature as an example to support your argument, next time learn some science before you make such a complete fool of yourself.
"The Church helps us live our lives by the rules." No, by their rules, which is fine only for those who subcribe to those rules - after all this is America.
"BHO- Is the Anti Christ" And this statement tops it. Not only are you living in the dark ages of science, you're living in the darkest ages of Christianity.
If you have a retort, Jimmie, I assume it will include some stakes, tinder and flames.
Wanna blow our minds here at NBs? Say something
November 13, 2009 - 14:06 ET by pahuberintelligent... for once.
You object to facts and science, like a flat earther, pahube
November 16, 2009 - 16:03 ET by 007memoYou object to facts and science, like the flat earther jimmie1660, pahuber.
If you had any intellectual integrity, you'd admonish jimmie 1660 instead of me.
007, I have yet to see you use anything other than hostility to
November 16, 2009 - 16:16 ET by pahuberdiscuss anything w/ anybody.
Doesn't smugness count?
November 16, 2009 - 16:19 ET by SickofLibsDoesn't smugness count?
Doesn't irony count?
November 16, 2009 - 18:24 ET by 007memoDoesn't irony count?
You can't get much more smug than that "sickoflibs" handle.
Irony counts
November 16, 2009 - 18:26 ET by Cool ArrowWith your handle leading off with two insignificant digits.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
00: that's not ironic, that's my true take on things
November 16, 2009 - 18:44 ET by SickofLibsWanna explain "007memo"?
Or was PinkPorcupine taken when you signed up?
I wear my disgust on my sleeve. Sue me.
"I wear my disgust on my
November 16, 2009 - 18:55 ET by Jer"I wear my disgust on my sleeve."
So I've noticed. Might I suggest using a handkercheif?
Jer
Jer:
November 16, 2009 - 18:59 ET by SickofLibsYou should know this, but please see latest federal guidelines re: sleeves vs kleenex.
And don't forget to check me out on almostdailyzingo.com.
The beauty of the
November 16, 2009 - 19:16 ET by JerThe beauty of the handkerchief: stops germs, but disgusting...it's not.
Jer
Unless you're the one doing the laundry
November 16, 2009 - 21:26 ET by SickofLibsBut that's rarely me.
Or if your stuff is in that load
One thing for sure
November 16, 2009 - 19:03 ET by general companyHe has no humility, and he runs around here proving it. Easily the loudest uninformed person on these boards, with Sticks a very close second.
Sometimes I misspell easy words, to help his self asteam
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
GC: If I was just assured he was wearing pants,
November 16, 2009 - 19:09 ET by SickofLibsI'd feel much better about it.
But I just have this creepy feeling...
Uninformed is what general calls people who site facts that
November 17, 2009 - 19:06 ET by 007memoUninformed is what general calls people who site facts that conflict with his opinion.
I also give no quarter to the general for linking to wing nutty opinion sites as support for his opinions.
I dont need your quarter 007
November 17, 2009 - 19:15 ET by general companyNitwits like you are a dime a dozen, I and others will always be here to slap down belligerent screaming liberals like yourself. Besides, your arguments are so bad, its easy.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Hi SoL, he's filled his quota for smugness long ago.
November 17, 2009 - 01:12 ET by pahuberHe has yet to try intelligence... he can always dream ; )
Animals will "often eat
November 16, 2009 - 22:40 ET by lotrHigher order mammals, especially human beings, do not.
And yet here you are, promulgating a different set of "rules."
Just an observation: I've noted a number of different appeals to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution above that have gone unanswered. "Separation of church and state" [sic] is not found there or anywhere else -- an inconvenient truth for anti-Christian liberals.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
The joining of church and state is certainly never mentioned, lo
November 17, 2009 - 21:31 ET by 007memoThe joining of church and state is certainly never, not ever, not once mentioned in the Constitution, lotr. No mention whatsoever.
Now there is an inconvenient truth for you.
So how do you conclude that religion or churches should have anything whatsoever to do with our governement? By virtue of the fact that it's not even hinted at?
And sorry, but I don't have any idea what your point is here:
Higher order mammals, especially human beings, do not.
And yet here you are, promulgating a different set of "rules."
true, but...
November 17, 2009 - 22:10 ET by lotrThat's true, but just how is the Roman Catholic Church (or Christian churches in general) joined with the federal government?
If one reads the First Amendment carefully (freely available on the Internet), the fundamental principles are the Freedoms of Religion and of Speech (I often refer to this as the Freedom of Thought). Note that "Separation" falls out of that -- the State may not interfere with the "free exercise" [sic] of religious belief (not merely the "private practice," mind you); inversely, a particular religion cannot be "established" by the government, for that would prohibit the free exercise of the religions of others. Note also that the freedoms of religion and speech are inextricably linked -- it is not a coincidence that they are lumped together, and it's not a coincidence that they are the First among the Bill of Rights. One cannot freely exercise one's deeply held beliefs without having the freedom to speak out, and act, on them. Thus, "Separation" is precisely the opposite of the secularist agenda that religious belief be banished from the public sphere. Were this ever realized, God forbid, the 1st Amendment right will have been rendered null and void, and the result is called tyranny.
To clarify my points:
1. The first was to rebut the comment that animals eat their young. Higher order mammals (e.g., chimps and humans) don't.
2. The second is to point out that we all have sets of rules (moral and/or ethical) that we seek to impose on others. That's what "rules" are, after all. Otherwise they aren't rules. The question then becomes, which is the correct/best set of rules. Christianity unapologetically "proposes" what that set of rules are. You may disagree, but it is still their right to practice their 1st Amendment exercise of religion (and freedom of speech) to convice you and others otherwise (and vice versa).
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Should the state interfere
November 17, 2009 - 23:14 ET by JerShould the state interfere with a religious belief in polygamy? Or the religious-based exclusion of medical treatment for children? How about a religious belief that embraces bestiality or child sacrifice?
Personally, I am exposed to, or can choose to be exposed to, a considerable degree of "speaking out" by a wide variety of religious witnesses, evangelists, and advocates on radio, TV, the street corner, at my front door, etc. The claim that the government is attempting to expunge all traces of religion from the life of the ordinary citizen is a grotesque exaggeration--but politically useful nevertheless.
Jer
response to Jer
November 18, 2009 - 10:19 ET by lotrThe obvious answer to those rhetorical questions is "no." So now I ask: Does that mean that the State is "establishing" a religious viewpoint (e.g., Christian)? For these are "taboos" based upon Judeo-Christian ethics/morality, including the exclusion of medical treatment, which may be considered an offense against corporal mercy (and love of neighbor). My point? All laws are based upon some sort of morality or ethical code (cf. my comments to 007) -- the two cannot be divorced. We may deduce certain moral codes from more fundamental principles, but eventually we must arrive at a set of "first principles." That is what Christianity claims to have uncovered, and what both the Constitution and Declaration appeal to, if not directly by name.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, it is true that religious free speech is alive and well -- God bless the USA. However, my NB colleagues and I shall continue to remain vigilent. The Constitution notwithstanding (indeed, another on this thread has referred to it as a "living document"), humanity has not "transcended" its age-old tendencies toward oppression, tyranny, etc. I am not alone in perceiving a slow errosion of religious freedom, and it has nothing to do with my employing it toward some sort of political gain (as an anonymous blogger who has a day job). The mantra "Separation of Church and State" is constantly used in an incorrect manner by secularists to mean the total banishment of religion from the public sphere (e.g., removing the U.S. moto "In God We Trust" from the currency, being told to STFU on issues such as abortion, etc.)
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
The "Father of the Constitution" was a Secularist, lotr.
November 18, 2009 - 01:49 ET by 007memoThe "Father of the Constitution" was a Secularist, lotr. And his 10 Amendments to that Constitution, including the 1st Amendment, were ratified as the Bill of Rights. While James Madison wasn't the only Secularist, this most prominent Founding Father's intention of Separation of Church and State were clear.
So, while you make some points with your rhetoric, and I even agree with point number 2, I must summarily dismiss this statement by you: "Thus, "Separation" is precisely the opposite of the secularist agenda that religious belief be banished from the public sphere. Were this ever realized, God forbid, the 1st Amendment right will have been rendered null and void, and the result is called tyranny."
And this part; "that religious belief be banished from the public sphere." No one is going to be banishing religious beliefs, not now, not ever. How would that be possible with 85% of Americans considering themselves Christians. Is this fear relateded to that trumped up "War on Christmas" conspiracy fear? I bet that this Christmas Fox News doesn't even bother to trump up that one again - that conspiracy ship sailed long ago.
"That's true, but just how is the Roman Catholic Church (or Christian churches in general) joined with the federal government?" I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I was continuing a point discussed at length earlier, assuming you had been part of that discussion.
The basic point being that church and religion are not given any prominence or stature in the Constitution, so why the demand that they be given prominence and influence on our Government?
And someone linked to FindLaw.com to support their case that there is no seperation between Church and State, but it confirmed the opposite as far as I can tell. So from there I quote:
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15
And further, while many Americans prefer to believe otherwise and continue to subscribe to the idea that "The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9 "
But the reality is that "This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.''
And I know I can't rest my case here cause we just scratch the surface, but I must point out the reason we can be still arguing the Seperation issue 200+ years later is because the Constitution actually is a "living" document.
Here's the FindLaw link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#f5
delayed response to 007
November 18, 2009 - 12:43 ET by lotrBriefly...
I would have to research James Madison some more to understand what his religious convictions were. While I will certainly agree that the vast bulk of Constitution provides the details for a system of representative goverment devoid of references to "a Higher Power," the Preamble and Declaration of Independence preceding it do make both veiled (in the former) and explicit (in the latter) reference to that Higher Power, and indeed, they must, for that provides the First Principle basis behind it all.
"War on Christmas conspiracy" -- look, I am the biggest "anti-conspiracy-theorist" you are ever going to find. There's no "War on Christmas conspiracy," and I don't think anyone, including FNC's O'Reilly (notice the difference -- a commentator versus a network), says there's a conspiracy. That said, there has been, without question, a radical attempt by secularist powers to ban the term "Christmas," and associated symbology, from the public sphere.
Yes, it is tyranny to oppress the free exercise of "religious belief" (aka, "world view"). For all of us, assuming we are human, adhere to some sort of "world view" (aka, a belief system) including so-called "atheists" and "agnostics," who are free to opine their disbelief in the Christian Deity without being subject to execution.
"The basic point being that church and religion are not given any prominence or stature in the Constitution, so why the demand that they be given prominence and influence on our Government?" See my above comments -- the Constitution lays out the details of governance, but the basis behind that governance must necessarily derive from a "belief system." And because moral principles are the basis to law and goverment, it is folly to demand that they be divorced.
And finally, I cannot let your last comment go unanswered. Sorry, but, last I checked, the Constitution is not living -- it sits there the same as it was when drafted, albeit the showing signs of its 200+ year age. Its text is unchanging and not dependent upon whim. Indeed, that's the reason for writing (or recording) anything -- to leave a permanent record. What is "living" is us along with our ability to comprehend (or miscomprehend) the words.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Brilliant, lotr -
November 18, 2009 - 12:59 ET by BO STINKSA rational, well thought out response to someone (double 00's) who is irrational and emotional. Double 00 is definitely a 'Tool of a Tyrant.' Btw, I appreciate Jer's thoughtful in-depth opinions even if I disagree with them.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
Thanks, BO...
November 18, 2009 - 18:52 ET by JerThe sting of your disagreement is made far more bearable by the gracious manner in which it's delivered.
Jer
thanks BO
November 18, 2009 - 22:31 ET by lotrVery glad to hear someone is reading (and appreciating) these late postings on this thread. I don't know enough about 007, other than he doesn't appear to be a troll, which is why I took the time to respond.
And you gotta respect the Jer... he ain't no dope.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Briefly, I wish I had more time, lotr, but I've gotta get up
November 19, 2009 - 02:20 ET by 007memoBriefly, I wish I had more time, lotr, but I've gotta get up early in am:
1.) What you consider as "veiled" and "explicit" references to a higher power in the Constitution and Declaration, others consider an irrelevant reference to a higher power. The dearth of references to a higher power or religion speaks volumes as far as I am concerned.
2.) As for the "War on Christmas conspiracy" as promoted by Fox "Commentators", in which you respond: "and I don't think anyone, including FNC's O'Reilly says there's a conspiracy", I assume you are a more recent Fox viewer. O'Reilly, if not the originator of the grand conspiracy, certainly was out front and most vocal on promoting and prolonging it, with John Gibson coming in a close second.
But the bottom line is that it was entirely a Fox promoted conspiracy - I rarely heard the "War" mentioned in the MSM otherwise.
I probably shouldn't have brought up the "War" in the context of our discussion since it is a tangent.
And I appreciate your comment about the Commentator O'Reilly: "notice the difference -- a commentator versus a network." I have pointed out the difference between Fox Journalists and Fox Commentators often on NB.
As for your assertion about "a radical attempt by secularist powers to ban the term "Christmas", etc, I believe that whatever advances that "secularist powers" have gained are completely irrelevant to the "spiritual powers" of this Christian nation (85% of the population). Removing religious symbols from the public square won't affect my faith, nor any other Americans, one wit.
And I say Happy Holidays to strangers whose religion I'm unaware of out of respect for them, and have no fear for my family and friends and the nation that doing so will dissipate anyone's opportunity to worship as freely as we've done for hundreds of years.
The United States is one of the most religious countries (certainly the most religious of all Democracies) in the world because of, not in spite of, our dogged attention to Separation of Church and State. I'm pretty sure most other Democracies have now or have had at one time or another a State Religion (Christian of course), seemingly to that religion's detriment.
3.) I'm not sure what this is in response to: "Yes, it is tyranny to oppress the free exercise of "religious belief" (aka, "world view")..." but I don't think you'll get any disagreement from me.
4.) And Thomas Jefferson was a Secularist himself and had also gone to pains in his writings to help make that clear. I can readily come up with many quotes from several of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, witch you would consider to be radically Secularist. And I can also find quotes by those same Founders that seemingly contradict that Secular view. And there's the rub. When Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paine etc, etc, seemingly contradicted themselves in their own writings, how could we as a nation ever reconcile a national conscious on religion - hence the Founders wise allowance for a clear Separation of Church and State, IMHO.
And the "belief system" you refer to, and moral principles: "And because moral principles are the basis to law and goverment, it is folly to demand that they be divorced." I wouldn't mind exploring this further but it would take me too much time to solidify my own thinking, so I'll leave it at this - I just think we need to divorce religion, not a belief system that is certainly influenced by religion, from our government.
"And finally, I cannot let your last comment go unanswered. Sorry, but, last I checked, the Constitution is not living". I was being ironic with that comment I made, and wrote it as a tweak to the strict constructionists among the commenters here - I do think it was a very valid point though.
Quick reply
November 20, 2009 - 10:48 ET by lotrI was in the process of responding to this last night when our internet went down. Anyhow, I don't want to belabor this too much further, but I'm glad that it appears that I may have got you thinking a little bit about this stuff. One primary point that I am trying desparately to make clear is that the dreaded word (in liberal circles) "religion" means nothing more than "belief system," something which we all have -- none of us can lay claim to being "without belief."
The Consitution of the USA deals primarily with the details of a representative government, but the basis for that government came from a belief system. I cannot disagree more with your first comment, which implies that because the Constitution was not a theological treatise, the founders must've all sought to establish the "secular paradise" being persued by elements on the Left today. Of course, it is rather silly to think that the Constitution would need to discuss God in detail order to prove there was a belief system behind the whole notion of a "representative government" in the first place. And there already existed a large Volume dedicated to the topic of God (aka, The Bible).
Glad we are on the same page when it comes to network versus commentators. I too say "Happy Holidays" in public settings (e.g., on the job), but it is not without resentment, for this is the result of an external restriction placed upon me, the result of runaway political correctness. If I lived in, say, Israel, I would not dare to presume to expect everyone stop referring to their Jewish holidays by name for my sake.
Your comment about the founders "contradicted themselves in their own writings" is a valid point, although it runs to an issue deeper than can be solved here. This being that there is a paradox in our system of government.
On the one hand, the whole reason for the American Revolution and the establishment of representative democracy was that "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This is a belief system, a first principle that provides Authority. The specific belief system they had in mind was that of the Judeo-Christian God, who, among other things, gave persons radical free-will, including the freedom to reject Him. That, in a nutshell, is the basis for the "Freedoms of Speech and Religion." And there lies the paradox: The Freedom of Religion derives from the Judeo-Christian belief system. Thus, a belief system has been assumed by the State which ulitimately denies the "State establishment" of that or any other belief system.
I think they knew about this paradox -- they weren't dumb -- and they walked the fine line between "establishment" and "secularism" (the denial of the moral first principles that provide the basis and guidance to government). If I had time, I would spend more time to think and write more clearly on this, but alas...
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
I will respond when I have some time, lotr
November 21, 2009 - 03:06 ET by 007memoI will respond when I have some time, lotr, but my weekend is very busy.
Not that I expect you to read it when I finally post it, but it is a very interesting subject to me and the exercise makes me think, analyze and solidify my own thinking, so I will post it anyway.
Our difference, in the final analysis, may be in whom we trust. I quite frankly don't trust religious leaders and subscribe to CS Lewis's admonition that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." And I especially don't trust politicians that use these religious leaders to advance their own "goals".
I also subscribe to these sentiments of our Founding Fathers:
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." Thomas Jefferson
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." Thomas Jefferson
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison
The "where in nature"
November 16, 2009 - 16:10 ET by balboaThe "where in nature" argument is bad. Where in nature do you see a whole host of things that humans do? Tattoos? Chewing gum? Fake tanning? Bungee jumping? Typing? Juggling? Prop comedy?
As the devil feels a chill
November 16, 2009 - 19:13 ET by RESTLESS 1For once, we agree, Bal. It seems many animals kill their young, and fornicate with the same sex. They're animals!!!! They're stupid. Let's not be like the animals, shall we?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
by the same token
November 16, 2009 - 22:49 ET by lotrSo are murder, suicide, massacre, terrorism, torture, incest, pedophilia, orgies, necrophilia, etc. The difference between these and "chewing gum" being that they are inherently inorganic, which I think is what is meant by "where in nature."
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
can you imagine waking up next to her in the morning
November 13, 2009 - 11:51 ET by larry on LIshe is what is called 'coyote ugly', you chew your arm off rather than disturb her.
Rod Serling must be around here somewhere
November 13, 2009 - 11:52 ET by cocodrieI didn't know I was evil but I do know I'm catholic. We need more "evil" people who want to spare the lives of unborn babies and have their children marry someone of the opposite sex.
Our attitudes may change but God said that His word does NOT change. Homosexuality was wrong in the beginning and it's still wrong today.
You can tell God how stupid and wrong He is on judgement day. Oh, that's right. On judgement day we don't get to speak, we have to listen.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Soooo...when are the
November 13, 2009 - 20:53 ET by RR GOPSoooo...when are the Communists going to lower the boom on the Roman Catholic Church in America?
Seems like there's been a heck of a lot of anti-Catholic chatter amongst the Leftards over the last year or so...perhaps it's just wishful thinking on their part that their dear Comrades running the government will do a King Henry VIII?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
There's been a heck of a lot of anti-Catholic chatter amongst NB
November 16, 2009 - 15:02 ET by 007memoThere's been a heck of a lot of anti-Catholic chatter amongst NB commenters as well, rrgop.
I've distinctly noticed the underlying animus to the Church and Catholics in general by commenters right here on NewsBusters, let alone by the "leftards".
The fact that Christians can't agree amongst themselves, poignantly illustrates the wisdom of our founders who so presciently leglislated the separation of Church and State.
The US constitution is not
November 16, 2009 - 15:10 ET by Jack BauerThe US constitution is not "legislation". The founders did NOT legislate the "separation of church and state."
But keep up the good work demonstrating your profound ignorance. In that, you deliver a masterclass every post.
Play your little disembling games, jackbauer, you'll confuse few
November 16, 2009 - 17:28 ET by 007memoPlay your little dissembling games, jackbauer, but keep up your good work as you attempt to confuse your minions here on NB that there is no separation of church and state.
The first ammendment to the Constitution states: "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 007IQ, "Congress shall
November 16, 2009 - 21:53 ET by Scuba DudeYes 007IQ, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Guess what that means? It means the government will NOT establish a national religion NOR will they stop people from practicing their religion. Some light reading for you.
Fellow NewsBusters, have we come across one of the dumbest posters here?
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Yep, I tried half heartedly
November 16, 2009 - 22:05 ET by general companyUp here ,but he is really to thick to spent much time on. He could read the Federalist papers and get the perspective of the Founders. But it is more important to him that his view is accepted, not the intention of the Founders. Making him Dim
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
No one stopping anyone from practicing religion, scuba
November 16, 2009 - 22:37 ET by 007memoNo matter how much you want to pretend, and manufacture controversy, no one is stopping anyone from practicing religion, scuba.
Go Pray at a public school
November 16, 2009 - 22:40 ET by general companyAnd tell me that
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general compny: You may pray
November 16, 2009 - 23:01 ET by JerIf you or any student undertakes to engage in private prayer, or student-initiated prayer, at a public school, and you are prevented from doing so by school authorities, your constitutional rights--barring extenuating circumstances--will have been violated and the ACLU would likely file suit on your behalf.
Jer
Only if you are a teacher,
November 16, 2009 - 23:09 ET by Scuba DudeOnly if you are a teacher, adminstrator or other school employee, and then under strict guidlines are you kinda prohibited from praying in school.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Yea, ok Jer
November 17, 2009 - 17:23 ET by general companyGuess it's only ok by law, not is real life. Maybe it depends on what religion you are? Even my Daughters softball team had to forfeit game because they knelt and prayed after a game, that they won.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general company
November 17, 2009 - 20:09 ET by JerIf real life episodes conform to the law, then they are permissable. That isn't to say school administrators on the one hand, or students on the other--or state legislators in any event--always have a clear understanding of the constitutional parameters regarding school prayer. Those misunderstandings generate mistakes and lawsuits and sometimes further clarification by the Supreme Court.
Your daughter's experience resulting in a game forfeiture seems odd at first blush. Were there state or district regulations applicable?
Jer
Nope dont think so
November 17, 2009 - 22:55 ET by general companyYour daughter's experience resulting in a game forfeiture seems odd at
first blush. Were there state or district regulations applicable?
Just a spineless Principal who wouldnt stand up for his kids. The other team even participated in the prayer. Months later I learned that the other team needed the win to qualify for district playoffs, so some wiseguy figured they could bluff them out of a game, they were right.
The aclu has sued our school board 8 times in the last 11 years, they have had every case thrown out. Except the last one witch is in appeal, because the judge awarded the school board punitive damages. They have sued them for student led prayer before football games, for prayer before board meetings, student organized bible studies. So when you say prayer is legal, I truly wonder just what you mean by that. Is it legal enough to keep from being sued? Is it legal enough to keep opponents of it at bay? Or is it just legal, but the right not defended, by the law?
The last time the aclu sued our school board, they could not produce publicly or anonymously a single complainant that lived or had children in our school system. They had plenty of outraged citizens though, yep they stood up in those meetings and screamed and raised hell like a bunch of kids. But not a one lived any where around. They thought they could bully their beliefs on the rest of us, like they do every where else.
We are all pretty danged sick of their crap, defend the aclu down here at your own peril. Funny thing is Jer, I am not religious. But I worked very hard to defend those that are, for once there freedoms are gone, they will work on yours, with intimidation and ridicule.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
POW ---
November 16, 2009 - 23:08 ET by matthewdeanAs in knockout, gc.
You put 'em down for the count with that comeback.
Nice.
MD
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Better check your specs, md...
November 16, 2009 - 23:41 ET by JerBetter check your specs, md....
that's the general stretched out on the canvas. ;-)
Jer
Hardly,
November 17, 2009 - 18:28 ET by general companyPretend you dont here the stories about where and when folks can pray or display their faith Jer. Dont matter much to me.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I never stated that someone
November 16, 2009 - 22:45 ET by Scuba DudeI never stated that someone is preventing anyone from practicing religion. I interpreted the 1st Amendment for you. You stated that there is a separation of church and state and used the 1st Amendment for proof. We are showing you that the 1st Amendment states no such thing.
But then again 007, we all know you to be a liar. Do you still want to say that the Constitution makes no mention of religion?
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Your own link proves you wrong, Scuba.
November 19, 2009 - 14:56 ET by 007memoYour own link proves you wrong, Scuba, I think... depending on what the heck you were trying to prove in the first place.
Your statement: "Guess what that means? It means the government will NOT establish a national religion NOR will they stop people from practicing their religion". Well, the face of your statement is correct, but I think you are trying to make a completely different point, one that is unsupported by the Constitution or the Courts.
As example, here's part of a comment I made on another part of this page:
And someone (that someone turns out to be you, Scuba) linked to FindLaw.com to support their case that there is no seperation between Church and State, but it confirmed the opposite as far as I can tell. So from there I quote:
"In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15
And further, while many Americans prefer to believe otherwise (people like you Scuba) and continue to subscribe to the idea that: "The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9 "
The reality is that: "This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court (yes, your interpretation has been abandoned by the court, Scuba) , beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.''
Thanks for the link though, Scuba, it was both informative and helpful.
It's not me who raised this question, Scuba, but now it may be very appropriate for all to answer: "Fellow NewsBusters, have we come across one of the dumbest posters here?"
→ Stop bumping your post 007
November 19, 2009 - 14:59 ET by Cool ArrowIf you think you're going to have a problem finding it again, bookmark the d@mn thing.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I don't know what that means, cool.
November 19, 2009 - 15:09 ET by 007memoI don't know what "bumping your post" means, cool.
→ I forgot, 007memo
November 19, 2009 - 15:12 ET by Cool ArrowThere are whole libraries full of commonly known stuff you don't know.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
You have a piece of irrelevant knowledge, coolarrow, proving...
November 19, 2009 - 15:27 ET by 007memoYou have a piece of irrelevant knowledge, coolarrow, proving... your irrelevance.
What you did with that knowledge provided deep insight into the darkest corner of your mind.
Nice feather in your cap, or headdress, cool.
→ Irrelevant?
November 19, 2009 - 15:31 ET by Cool ArrowIf it's so irrelevant, why have you now made two posts mentioning it?
It's no wonder you're so easily led by the nose.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
scoreboard
November 19, 2009 - 15:34 ET by Free StinkerCool: 3
Troll: 0
خال
You are merely the 2nd
November 19, 2009 - 15:24 ET by Free StinkerDouble Zero, You are merely the 2nd dumbest poster here, after Bizarro Shawn.
خال
If by "underlying animus" you are referring to 7sticks' posts,
November 16, 2009 - 17:41 ET by SickofLibsyou are correct. Otherwise, you fail in reading comprehension.
7 Sticks is obvious, many others just a little more subtle, sic
November 16, 2009 - 21:47 ET by 007memo7 Sticks is obvious, many others are simply a little more subtle, sicko.
And that you haven't noticed the anti catholic bias among some commenters on this site points to your own "fail in reading comprehension".
What I have a problem with
November 16, 2009 - 23:45 ET by RR GOPWhat I have a problem with is the bureaucratic/dogmatic side of the Roman Catholic Church's power structure. But, there again I'm Protestant.
But, I can understand the Church's position in resisting many folks who say that they have to "get with the times" and therefore a possible danger to at least that part of the Christian faith in giving into the temptations of Satan or at least Man's baser wants. It is not wise for them or for Protestant churches to meander this way and that because of the whims of some people and the erosion of morals and Society in general at any given point in time.
In general, I respect my fellow Christians who are Catholic and the Church in Rome.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.