"Forces of change now target Obama"

Obama Hindenburg.jpg

There must be some Democrats secretly happy that Republican MA Senator-elect Scott Brown won yesterday. Brown's victory goes a long way toward getting the Obama healthcare monkey off their back, even allowing them to shift blame to the GOP as being the "party of no."

brown victory.jpgThroughout the past year Republican politicians seem to have reacquainted themselves with their own platform. Will they continue going back to basics, their roots? /Are they growing stronger backbones? They need to do a better job getting their ideas out for healthcare reform.

We've discussed before that while MSM likes to focus on ideological differences in the Republication Party, the fact is these are much more pronounced in the Democrat Party. From Politico, this morning...

Republican Scott Brown's eye-opening victory in MA Tuesday has unmistakably framed the problem for President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party:

The same forces of disgust with establishment politicians and hunger for change in Washington that vaulted Obama to power 14 months ago can be harnessed with equal success by people who want to stop his agenda in its tracks.

MA map.jpg

The argument that will now consume Democrats is over the remedy - a disagreement that once again opens up the party's ideological gulf and vastly complicates Obama's task in trying to push his signature health care agenda to final passage.

Is the MA humiliation a sign that Obama and congressional Democrats should embrace the inevitability of mortal conflict with Republicans and respond with a sharper, and more combative policy and political message? Even before Democrat Martha Coakley's defeat became official, some liberal voices on Capitol Hill and others close to the White House were urging exactly that.

Many moderates were urging the opposite, arguing that when Democrats lose a Senate seat that for nearly 50 years belonged to the late Edward Kennedy they should know they are badly estranged from the center of public opinion.

What neither side disputes is that the MA results are directly relevant to Obama.

That itself is a sign of Democrats coming to grips with a problem that began emerging last summer, when polls showed independent voters taking flight from Democrats. Even so, after Republicans in November won off-year gubernatorial elections in NJ and VA - 2 -states that Obama won a year earlier - WH officials responded with happy talk, saying these were strictly the result of local conditions and weak candidates.

There is some of that going on in Massachusetts, as WH aides have made it clear they think Coakley was a clumsy candidate who could not connect with voters and that the operatives around her were sluggish in responding to signs of trouble.

But there is little denying that Coakley's embarrassment is also Obama's embarrassment.

He campaigned personally for her - just as he did for losing candidates in NJ and VA - and for the 3rd time in a row his personal appeals fell flat.

Nor can Democratic sympathizers explain the results with arcane political arguments, such as that Republicans do better in low turnout off-year and special elections. To the contary, the drama over a Democrat struggling to retain Kennedy's seat brought the most voters to the polls in a non-presidential election in MA since 1990, the Associated Press reported.

What's more, both the appeal of Brown's rhetoric and the changed arithmetic caused by his election - Democrats lost their 60th Senate vote and their filibuster-proof majority - call into question the WH's "big bang" strategy of passing broad economic, health, and environmental reforms in its 1st year. The latter 2 of these may stall in the wake of MA....

[Top photo via Politico; MA graphic via TwitPic; bottom photo via friend Tom W.]


Comments:

I would like to personally invite the president to come to Orlando and campaign for Alan Grayson.

You really must, Mr. President.

Posted by: carder at January 20, 2010 6:50 AM


I really enjoyed watching Matthews, Odorman, and Madcow last nite. Its such fun to watch your opponents fume, squirm, make excuses, and throw each other under the bus. Odorman was really fuming. A truly enjoyable spectacle.


Madcow, in an effort to discredit Brown, even showed a nude centerfold of Brown from years ago. What a feast for the eyes! Thank you Rachel! You ladies on this blog don't know what you missed!

OK so I'm old, but heck I ain't dead yet.

Posted by: Mary at January 20, 2010 8:13 AM


I bet Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Ben Nelson already have committments from B.O. to come to their respective states and assist them in their campaigns.

So much 'hope and change' and so little demand.

Well B.O. can still go to Europe if craves the fauning adulation of crowed of obsequious servile psychophants.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 20, 2010 8:17 AM


Mary,

Do you think it was enough to re-orient Raishell Maddcoww?

I know it only further enflamed Blowharderman.

Seriously though, I really mean it, seriously,
Did Scott Brown really pose full monty for a magazine?

Or was it just one of those drunk college photos?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 20, 2010 8:24 AM


Yes seriously Ken,

He did indeed pose "full monty" in a centerfold, I believe it was Playgirl. The more strategic area was censored (I just let my imagination run wild) but enough remained for my viewing pleasure. Be still my beating heart. Excuse me,I digress.

Given her orientation,I seriously doubt poor Rachel had any clue the hearts she set aflutter and no I do not think she was reoriented. Her loss.
Blowharderman was probably jealous as heck. He wishes he looked that good!

Oh you lucky ladies in Massachusetts.

Speaking of reelection, maybe The One can come to my state and campaign for our senator. I wonder if Brown has a brother....?

Posted by: Mary at January 20, 2010 8:39 AM


Hey Ken,

Did you hear about the Obama musical the slobbering Europeans put on, I believe it was in Germany.

Well, there's an Ed Gein musical as well. He was the serial killer that inspired the original Hitchcock thriller "Psycho".

Obviously there are very low standards when it comes to making musicals these days.

Posted by: Mary at January 20, 2010 8:44 AM


Let me warn all Republican politicians. We are going to hold your feet to the fire.

We want a strong defense, we want you to slash government spending, we want you to cut taxes, no more bail outs....let them fail;, we want you to work at repealing Roe v. Wade, we want a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, we want health insurance reform not heath care reform by opening up competition in the health insurance industry and finding ways to provide access for everyone who wants it, we want you to drill baby drill, we want prayer back in schools, we want evolution and creationism taught as equally valid theories, we want a return of the private sector to the people, we want the purpose of unions to be to protect workers not give them special concessions, we want all states to be treated equally, we want to know what you are doing and what you are spending at all times, we want you to have the same health care insurance as we have, we want term limits, we want a balanced budget, we want you to get Osama bin Laden and bring him here so he can be executed, we want there to be no fiddling with terrorists and we want them brought to swift justice, we want you to protect us against the Islamic invasion, we want our Christian nation back and finally, we want Democrats to become the party of life.

Are you listening? Is this clear? Let me know what you don't understand about this.

If not, we will rise and vote you out in a heart beat.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 20, 2010 8:45 AM


It was Cosmopolitian.

Honestly, whoever brought that up made a major miscalculation. That's not the kind of thing I'd point out about my political opponents if people hadn't discovered it on their own. I'm wondering how many people voted for Scott Brown just 'cause he looks good in that picture? Probably a few hundred, at least.

Posted by: Keli Hu at January 20, 2010 8:51 AM


Just a note: he posed nude for the Cosmo "sexiest man" issue when he was a 22 year-old law student in 1982. He used the funds from modeling to pay for law school. This was not a recent decision by any means.

Posted by: Michael at January 20, 2010 8:59 AM


Keli and Michael,

Cosmo, thank you for the correction.

I knew it was as a young man but I wasn't certain of the year. I thought it was earlier.
I say if you got it, flaunt it. If you don't keep it covered up. Ain't no one that wants to look at it.

Posted by: Mary at January 20, 2010 9:05 AM


Mary,

I thought the responsible thing to do would be to practice due diligence do some digging on my own.

I did not actually view the full monty photos but I did read the accompanying article in the magazine. (That sounds familiar.)

(I prefer the female form. Keith you wouldn't understand, but ms-nbc missy maddcoww will.)

The article said that Brown's younger sister submitted a photo of the shirtless Scott to the magazine unbeknownst to Brown.

(I am skeptical. Based on the comments in the article attributed to Brown I could more easily believe HE was the one who submitted the photos.
B.O. 'would' understand this.)

The magazine contacted Brown and made an offer to Brown to pose nude for their magazine. Brown accepted. In the article Brown is quoted as saying he would use the money to pay for his tuition.

(People would offer me money to put my clothes back on.)

Humans are stupid and youth is wasted on the young.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 20, 2010 9:07 AM


Heck, if I found out that BO posed nude for Cosmo and then wanted to destroy his own heath care reform bill, well, I'd vote for him anyway.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 20, 2010 9:22 AM


Hi Ken,

Yes I am aware men are interested only in the accompanying articles and intellectual stimulation certain magazines offer.

It didn't look to me like that youth was at all wasted Ken! And honestly, I didn't check out the accompanying article though I'm sure it was very stimulating intellectually.

Posted by: Mary at January 20, 2010 9:29 AM


Hi Phil,

From a woman's perspective Obama doesn't hold a candle to Brown. I'd rather Obama keep his shirt on.

Posted by: Mary at January 20, 2010 9:34 AM


Good point Mary.

For the record, my wife is my playmate of the month, day and year.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 20, 2010 9:41 AM


Phil @8:45. First, who is "we?" Second, many of your requests/demands are reasonable. You lose me on prayer in public schools, having your "Christian Nation back," and teaching evolution and creation as "equal theories." But I suspect you knew that. And finally, you need to let go this "protection of marriage" thing. Read Ted Olsen's beautiful argument in favor of gay marriage rights. There's a true conservative.

Posted by: Hal at January 20, 2010 10:07 AM


I saw the pic of Brown posing nude and his, uh, equipment was covered. However, I just wonder if a woman had posed nude for Playboy to pay for law school, would people be so forgiving? Methinks there is a double standard here and I'm sorry, but it irritates me.

Posted by: Phillymiss at January 20, 2010 10:41 AM


Hal:

Evolution is a theory and not scientific fact. Creationism is a theory and not scientific fact, however, the science and logic overwhelmingly favors an intelligent designer, a single moment of creation and a young earth. Let kids and their parents decide instead of having the lie of evolution rammed down our throats. Go ahead laugh. I'm not the one who will be sorry.

Obama denied that we were a "Christian Nation". The Muslim is a liar. Our Founders were Christian by majority and their rather significant and voluminous writings on the subject are there for the examination. You know this but choose to ignore it.

Marriage was instituted by God not a bunch of activist lawyers or judges and their "opinions". Mess with it and suffer the consequences. There are gays in my extended family, however, this does onot cause me to change my principles. Why should I betray them to the evil one? No, I stand firm on the truth hoping that they will someday wake up.

Ted Olsen's wife was murdered in the 9/11 attacks. I'm not sure where his head is, but I have an idea.

To me a true conservative bases his life on Judeo-Christian ethics. I'm all for helping the poor, I just want that to be done through the church and not the government. I want our laws to be based on the Bible not some whacho Liberal's opinion whose brain cells were altered by sucking dope in college.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 20, 2010 11:04 AM


Phil, most of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners as well. I hardly call that Christian.

I am a Christian, but if our laws are based on the Bible, then that means we would stone adulterers and children who are disrespectful to their parents.

Posted by: Phillymiss at January 20, 2010 12:11 PM


Here's a reasoned and respectful rebuttal to Ted Olson.

Posted by: Fed Up at January 20, 2010 12:18 PM


Phillymiss wrote:

Phil, most of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners as well. I hardly call that Christian.

I think Phil's point was that the structure of the government was designed to work only with a Judeo-Christian ethic--and not simply with a nebulous "secular mentality." John Adams wrote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Since Christianity was the only framework with which the founding fathers were familiar (and even Deism was a watered-down Christianity), that's the context in which they meant it.

I am a Christian, but if our laws are based on the Bible, then that means we would stone adulterers and children who are disrespectful to their parents.

Well... that's only if you base such laws on isolated, abstracted pieces of the Bible, and ignoring other parts such as this:

"The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt; for they broke my covenant and I had to show myself their master, says the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 31:31ff)

"When he speaks of a "new" covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing." (Hebrews 8:13)

A truly Christian nation would be an extraordinarily good thing... and not nearly the "autocratic theocracy" that secularists fear.

Posted by: Paladin at January 20, 2010 12:59 PM


Paladin:

Excellent, simply excellent.

Phillymiss, please understand that when I blog I try to keep what I say understandable, that is, for the benefit of the lowest possible denominator so that even someone with a liberal leaning mindset could understand. However, I do understand what a bell curve represents.

You claim the name of Christ, however, your vile treatment of God's word in front of the world is evidence that you are not a "workman that need not be ashamed" as demonstrated by what you say about it. It's a sin to use the name of God in vain and "to not divide aright the word of truth".

And this too Phillymiss, we are all slaves to one thing or another. Slaves to our jobs, slaves to lust, slaves to ignorance, slaves to Liberalism and the like. Jesus said this however, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". In fact, to not know the one true God in the incarnate Savior (logos) is to be especially lost and clueless. To know Christ, you must know his word, for he is the word.

Call me a slave to Jesus Christ and that with joy and utter surrender for we cannot serve two masters. Not to mention the fact that God Himself sets those of us who are masters, i.e., faithful managers of the time, talent and treasure he has given us, to very, very high standards.

May we all strive to hear these words at the last day....."well done thy good and faithful servant".

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 20, 2010 2:13 PM


I hear the winds of change shifting ... death to health care "reform

Posted by: Abortion Support at January 20, 2010 2:55 PM


Posted by: Paladin at January 20, 2010 12:59 PM

"A truly Christian nation would be an extraordinarily good thing... and not nearly the "autocratic theocracy" that secularists fear."

----------------------------------------------------

Paladin,

A 'nearly' christian nation would be preferable to rudderless and compassless relaltavistic humanist ship of state with no 'star to steer her by'.

The 'key' is a people who are 'self controlled' by an internal compass, a conscience, informed by a standard of right and wrong derived from a just GOD.

The rightness and the wrongness of a thing could be determined by whether or not the justice that you would want for yourself would be the same justice you would extend to your neighbor or to your own family.

That is why slavery where it was practiced never ceased to exist absent the presence of christians and christianity.

It was not jews, budhists, muslims, hindus, wiccans, satanists etc who were the influence/pressure/force that ended slavery in the Americas or the British empire.

In fact the injustice of slavery only existed so long as the body of Christ remained silent and passive.

When believers in Jesus ceased to shut their eyes, ears, mouths and minds then they became the 'salt and light' that God intended.

That is why abortion/childkilling will never be a settled issue in this nation while there is still one righteous person who has breath.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 20, 2010 4:21 PM


Ken:

"Here I am Lord, send me....."

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 20, 2010 4:57 PM


B.O. suggested the same forces that elected Brown "swept me into office" in 2008.

People are frustrated, said B.O. "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

--------------------------------------------------

B.O.,

While some americans were displeased with Bush, I do not recall any Tea Parties during his administration.

I do not recall over a million people rallying in Washington D.C. to protest against BUSH's policies.

Those millon people who recently gathered in D.C. came to protest against you and your fellow progressive/liberal cohorts in congress.

You remember B.O.

You flew over the teeming throngs on your way to Camp David.

You are aware that your fellow democRATs control both houses of Congress, aren't you?

Seems to me a whole bunch of those independent voters who got you elected are no longer buying your 'hope and change'.

I don't get the sense that their anger is directed at BUSH.

They are mad at you and your progressive bro's in congress.

Right now, you could not get re-elected to your old state senate seat in Chicago, much less Senator from Massachusetts.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 20, 2010 5:14 PM


Here's a reasoned and respectful rebuttal to Ted Olson.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 20, 2010 12:18 PM

Fed Up, I grant yo it was relatively respectful, but I'm not at all sure about "reasoned." The author's only point seems to be not that gay marriage is right, or that it is not required by the Constitution, but that it might (horrors!) lead to polygamy.

Posted by: Hal at January 20, 2010 7:37 PM



"While some americans were displeased with Bush,..."

Some? Ha. Even those on the right were displeased. The rest of us were disgusted.

Posted by: Hal at January 20, 2010 7:49 PM


I love it!! All of the libs throwing their temper tantrums!! Palin moving to FOX! Her book a best seller!! The people have spoken!

Posted by: heather at January 20, 2010 9:07 PM


Hi Hal. I posted that link in response to your "There's a true conservative" comment. I didn't anticipate that you'd agree with the author's positions, but I think he succeeds in demonstrating that Olson's argument is not a conservative one even if he carries a reputation as a conservative.

Posted by: Fed Up at January 20, 2010 11:18 PM


To paraphrase B.O.:

That just shows how desperate you are. You are resorting to a dictionary to determine the meanings of words of the words I choose to use.

When are going to learn to believe [in] me and not your lying eyes.

HAL,

I share your conclusion that the 'refutation' was pretty much the domino theory that says changing the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex will lead to polygamy and polyamorphy.

Once you move the line to satisfy one groups predilections how will you ever not justify moving the line for the next group for the same reason(s) the previous group used.

This is not rocket science.

There are some ancient boundary markers that should not be moved.

There are negative consequences attached to changing long established standards to indulge the latest fad.

Homosexuals can enter into a contract or grant power of attorney to whomever they wish. They can write living wills and living trusts. There are ways to ensure their 'life partner' will not be denied the authority to make decisions for them or be denied access to them when they are incapacitated nor denied whatever their 'life partner' desires them to have of his/her estate.

The citizens of California, one of the leftest of left coast states, expressed their will at the ballot box according to the standards established by their state constititution and now a minority is petitioning the federal courts to over rule their constitutionally expressed will.

For the federal courts to justify granting such a petition the jurists will have to find somewhere in the United States Constitution a 'new' right that has not yet been discovered in more than 200 years.

I am not saying they won't resort to discerning it in the shadow that the moon casts during a solar eclipse when the light is just so.

[Kind of a like an Indiana Jones movie.]

There is precedent for that kind of use of raw judicial power.

[They could even resort to consulting chicken entrails or a Quija board or foreign law.]

When you have no 'standard' anything is possible, even probable.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 21, 2010 9:26 AM


I know that this discussion was over awhile ago, but I think that it should be mentioned that many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. They founded the Revolution and nation on Deist principles because Deism discusses government, too. Just because the laws are basic laws such as, "Don't murder" doesn't make the nation Judeo-Christian. Laws such as these have existed in every culture (though some practiced sacrifice).

The system of government was inspired by many governments, none of which were Judeo-Christian, and John Locke's ideas, which were Deist ideas.

Posted by: Vannah at January 21, 2010 10:39 AM


Vannah,

Yes, many of the founding fathers were Deists... but Deism didn't simply drop out of the sky; as I mentioned above, Deism is a watered-down version of Christianity. The founding fathers came from England (i.e. home of Anglicanism), not from India or Saudi Arabia or China; and England (with perhaps a smattering of druidic paganism left in odd pockets, here and there) inherited her beliefs (which devolved into the heresy of Deism) from Christianity. Even the atheists of Europe were those who rejected Christianity; they didn't reject Brahma, Allah, Yu-huang, or the like; they abandoned Christ (perhaps without knowing quite what they were doing).

As such, the "religious fumes" that the founding fathers still had in their intellectual/spiritual "gas tanks" were Christian fumes. Thus, it's reasonable to presume (in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary--such as a secret letter of Thomas Jefferson praising Allah, or of Benjamin Franklin practicing Hatha Yoga) that the founding fathers meant the Constitution to be understood in a Judeo-Christian moral/religious context.

Posted by: Paladin at January 21, 2010 11:35 AM


Whoa there pilgrims. You speak of things of which you are woefully ignorant.

If you would bother to read the biographies of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence you find few of them were 'deists'. The overwhelming majority were professing christians, many of whom were graduates of seminaries.

Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence did not want to include the references to god in the document but the assembled men refused to sign their names to it til he did.

If you identify for me the men who were signatories who were professing 'deists' I will identify the ones who were professing christians.

James Madison said that the governing priniples he used to write the constitution were all gleaned from the 'book'.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 21, 2010 3:33 PM


So, if the Founding Fathers were Christians, that makes this country a Christian one? Let's say they were Christians- their beliefs do not represent everyone else. This country separates Church and State, meaning that the Church doesn't get involved in the State and the State doesn't get involved in the Church. Our heritage is not Judeo-Christian- it's all over the place. It draws heritage from all over the world- every philosophy, every religion, every background.

The Founding Fathers were also wealthy Anglo men. Does that mean that we should pay special tribute to wealthy Anglo men? Give them special privileges? Are they our heritage?

No religion has the right to claim to be the country's heritage just because lots of people in the country happen to follow that religion.

Christianity spread and converted religions that were already established in the people of the lands that it reached. In Scandinavia, the Lutherans replaced Nordic mythology. In South America, the Spaniards replaced the Native American beliefs with Catholicism. Christianity did not discover this land- it only replaced what was already here. So you cannot rightfully claim that this land is Christian. It's not. With the exception of the Native Americans (unless you go back far enough), everything about this country was brought over, first with imperialism (as was Christianity's case), and continues today with immigration.

Posted by: Vannah at January 21, 2010 4:28 PM


"This country separates Church and State, meaning that the Church doesn't get involved in the State and the State doesn't get involved in the Church. "

You are starting with the wrong premise, Vannah. Look up the true meaning of "Separation of Church and State".

Posted by: Janet at January 21, 2010 5:29 PM


Hi Vannah, 4:28PM

Religious people and institutions have long been involved in influecing social change and laws.

Thank the Quakers for being the first to organize against slavery in this country and remaining a very active force in the Abolitionist movement and underground railroad.

Thank Dr.King and the black churches for their action on behalf of civil rights and ending Jim Crow. Dr.King preached on civil rights and organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott from his church pulpit. The civil rights movement was very religiously oriented and black clergy, as well as Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant clergy, took an active role.

You need to remind Bill Clinton and Mario Cuomo that they should not campaign from the pulpits of black churches.

Religious institutions have long voiced their protest or support of certain laws and gov't policies and have actively sought to influence legislation and social attitudes.

Posted by: Mary at January 21, 2010 6:21 PM


There is no wall of separation as you proclaim Vannah.

It's a myth created by the Liberal left who in fact want to push their version of humanism on the majority and they should be crushed.

Try reading the Consitution.

In fact, I wish some group would push the issue to the Supreme Court so that myth can be finally destroyed.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 21, 2010 6:33 PM


Hi Phil,

If my memory serves me correct, seperation of church and state was never an issue until the battle to legalize abortion began. Then it was a ploy to shut the Catholic Church up and generate animosity towards the Church..

Liberals were highly selective in their "concern" about church/state seperation. The religious institutions could speak out all they wanted, so long as liberals agreed with the cause. BTW, there was a group called the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. Odd, but liberals had no problem with them crossing the alleged church/state line.

Posted by: Mary at January 21, 2010 7:41 PM


In fact, I wish some group would push the issue to the Supreme Court so that myth can be finally destroyed.
Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 21, 2010 6:33 PM

I think the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent on the heart of this concept. Government cannot act in a way to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Making children pray in school helps establish religion. Prohibiting things because one religion or another does like it, establishes religion. Allow a religious club the same access to school facilities as non-religious clubs does not establish religion.

Is there any part of current first amendment jurisprudence you find objectionable? I know you'd like "God in schools," but if there is the kind of God you believe in, I'm sure He's in schools and everywhere else. He'd probably be embarrassed if we talked about it, though.

Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 8:34 AM


Hal wrote:

Government cannot act in a way to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

True, if rightly understood.

Making children pray in school helps establish religion.

Do you think that the reference to "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" does, too? It establishes the existence of a Creator Deity, in flat contradiction of atheists and agnistics, yes?

Prohibiting things because one religion or another does like it, establishes religion.

You're assuming that the dislike of religion [x] for item [y] is the ONLY reason to exclude it; but that's usually not the case. Pornography, for example, is destructive to the moral fabric of any nation; it needn't be excluded "simply" because Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., disapprove. They don't think it's wrong because they disapprove; they disapprove because it's wrong. You have the case completely backwards.

Is there any part of current first amendment jurisprudence you find objectionable?

A complete scouring of the public arena of any possible reference to the Divine is not only objectionable, but insane... and it flies in the face of the mindset of the founding fathers (to say nothing of the people of the United States). It establishes "functional atheism" as the "state philosophy", when the government has no right to do so.

I know you'd like "God in schools," but if there is the kind of God you believe in, I'm sure He's in schools and everywhere else.

Unless you're making a pun (e.g. "in schools" never referred to God's mere *presence*, but to inclusion of God as a *recognized reality*), this is completely nonsensical.

He'd probably be embarrassed if we talked about it, though.

Um... ditto the "nonsensical" comment, here.

Posted by: Paladin at January 22, 2010 1:26 PM


Hal,

If God is removed from society, man's law becomes "god". I don't want the law to replace my god. Why should I be forced to?

* * *

"Prohibiting things because one religion or another does like it, establishes religion."

This makes no sense to me.....

Posted by: Janet at January 22, 2010 1:43 PM


"complete scouring of the public arena of any possible reference to the Divine is not only objectionable, but insane..."

and has not happened. Not even a little bit.

Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 3:34 PM


"If God is removed from society, man's law becomes "god". I don't want the law to replace my god. Why should I be forced to?"

Who's forcing that. Your relationship to your god is between you and your god. Enjoy.

Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 3:36 PM


and has not happened. Not even a little bit.

(??) Surely you jest. Perhaps you've not heard the manifold stories of Christmas carols (and do remember that Christmas is a federally recognized [national] holiday) being scoured of all references to Jesus, on the basis of one atheist malcontent? Or the fight to remove the Mt. Soledad cross (and the removal of the tiny cross from the seal of the City of Los Angeles--whose removal was done at taxpayer expense)? Or the fight to remove all images of the 10 Commandments (with or without supplemental historical law images) throughout the United States?

If your comment wasn't hyperbole, then I can only wonder where you've been living, that news of these things hasn't yet reached your ears.

So: now that you *are* aware of them, how do you feel about them, Hal?

Posted by: Paladin at January 22, 2010 4:23 PM


you're confusing public arena with official government speech. We all agree that there should be no religious references in government speech. Plenty of religion in the public arena, however.

Posted by: Hal at January 22, 2010 5:49 PM


Hal,

There are plenty of attempts to remove religion from the public arena, of course there is "plenty" but that doesn't negate those attempts by those who would love to "scour".


"We all agree that there should be no religious references in government speech."

You mean "we" as in the anti-religion groups I presume.

Are public schools' actions involving religion considered "government speech" in your opinion? I don't think they should be.

Look at decades of the life's work of atheist Rob Sherman if you want to see attempts to remove religion from the public arena.

www.robsherman.com/news/home.htm

Posted by: Janet at January 22, 2010 6:45 PM


Paladin,
Hal is in a small, liberal corner of the country. I'm not sure he knows any conservatives personally. Right, Hal? :)

Posted by: Janet at January 22, 2010 6:53 PM