This is so true! By Glenn Foden on CNSNnews.com...
I need some information from you if you can. You have been interviewed by Foxnews many times in the past especially on Sean Hannity's show. I would be greatful if you could provide me some contact information in the way of phone numbers to Foxnews and Sean Hannity's show. foxnews.com has limited contact information. Thanks! I would really appeciate it.Posted by: James at April 19, 2009 6:53 PM
It'd be funnier if the artist could spell.Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2009 7:20 PM
I think gay marriage should be legalized at the federal level, and all states should be forced to allow it. :)
Sentance? lmfao!!Posted by: reality at April 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Yes, the someone should have caught the mistake before this went to print.
However, it is typical of liberals to attack spelling instead of substance.
The substance is spot on.Posted by: Lauren at April 19, 2009 7:56 PM
Private property rights are "states rights" when the state is taking property to give to someone who promises to pay more taxes too.
But when someone fills in a puddle in the back yard it is a federal issue worth 10 years in prison.
Liberals are sort of consistent. They support whatever view results in increased government power over individuals. It is a federal issue when the states won't comply with liberal dogma.
When enough states legalize "non traditional marriage" then liberal federal judges will mandate it in all states to the politicians in Washington won't have to.
The QOTD is just - I can't even find the words. I blame Georgetown though, more than Obama. What did they expect? They should have NEVER complied.Posted by: Kristen at April 20, 2009 11:27 AM
The link to the Barbara Simpson's (World Net Daily) quote of the day is incorrect.
* * * * *
Also, according to the liberal definition of "separation of church and state" no government employee should be allowed to speak at ANY religious institution or event, including the President.
Posted by: Janet at April 20, 2009 11:52 AM
The way the Obama administration is trying to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives reminds me a bit of the brown shirts of pre-war Germany.Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at April 20, 2009 12:03 PM
Does it really remind you of that Doyle?Posted by: Hal at April 20, 2009 1:10 PM
Janet -- very good point!Posted by: Eileen #2 at April 20, 2009 1:30 PM
Thanks Eileen #2 - although I can't really take credit for it because I heard the statement on a radio show.Posted by: Janet at April 20, 2009 1:39 PM
although I can't really take credit for it because I heard the statement on a radio show.
Posted by: Janet at April 20, 2009 1:39 PM
Of course you did.
I'm a liberal, and that's not my definition by the way.Posted by: Hal at April 20, 2009 1:41 PM
Aren't WE cynical today....
"Of course" I took credit, or "of course" I heard it on a radio show?
I'm a liberal, and that's not my definition by the way.
What IS your definition of separation of church and state? (No fair quoting anything the media, radio or TV has ever said about it - which doesn't leave you with much source of interpretation...)Posted by: Janet at April 20, 2009 1:47 PM
Of course you heard it on a radio talk show.
My definition of separation of church and state is the same as the first amendment; The government should not act in ways that favors a particular religion or that favors religion generally, nor should government prohibit the free exercise of religion. I would probably favor more religious freedom than some courts have, such as allowing the use of peyote by Native Americans. I don't see how the government can Constitutionally prohibit Mormons from polygamy. I don't see anything objectionable President Obama or Bush speaking at a church, religious university, or anywhere else related to religion.Posted by: Hal at April 20, 2009 1:53 PM
"I don't see anything objectionable President Obama or Bush speaking at a church, religious university, or anywhere else related to religion."
Some people might misconstrue Obama's presence at ND or Georgetown as favoring a particular religion (Catholicism) on the day of the visit. That line of thinking makes about as much sense as saying that having the Bible in public school shows favor to Christians.
Having a Bible in public school to study it and study Christianity is fine. Reading the Bible in public school as a religious exercise is not fine. (except for private reading on down-time) I think there is broad consensus on both these points.Posted by: Hal at April 20, 2009 7:16 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting the 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."
With respect to religion the two operative words are expressly and exclusively, the United States
The first ammendment, with regard to religion, does not apply to state legislatures, county councils, city councils, school districts, etc.
It take some real creative massaging to extend it to any other legislative body other than the Untited States Congress. But unfortunately we have had some very innovative thinkers on the United States Supreme Court and the lower federal Courts and they can and have, incrementally, turned the United States Constitution on it's head.
The word 'establishment', absent historical context, is not readily understood.
The men who insisted on the guarantee of a 'bill of rights' as a condition for ratifying the United States Constitution had experienced the abuse and injustice of a specific religion funded and protected by a 'central government'.
They were determined that the proposed federal government would not 'establish' a particular christian denomination or religion.
Coincidental with the ratifaction of the Constitution a majority of the 13 colonies/states had 'established' churches. A practice which persisted until after the civil war.
But gradually, over time, citizens detemined that it was WRONG to use the power of the law to confiscate a man's money to force him to support an institution he did not believe was worthy of his support. Accordingly these 'established churches' were 'dis-established'.
The view of peopel who opposed this action was known as 'antidisestablishmentarianism'.
The predictable consequence of 'dis-establishment' was the decline of said church/religion.
When given a 'choice', people voted with their pocketbooks and they cast their 'ballot' with their church or denomination of 'choice', or they found some other place of their choosing to invest THEIR money.
The formerly 'established' church facilities soon fell into disrepair.
[The same thing would happen to Planned Parenthood if taxpayers had a 'choice' where their tax dollars went.]
Personally, I believe both history and experience demonstrate that 'established' churches/religions are a bad idea.
Almost as bad an idea as slavery and taxpayer funded child killing.
But I digress.
The point is this:
If the framers of the constitution, and the citizens of the states who ratified it, were so monolithic and absolute in the 'principle of separation of church and state', how do you explain the existence of 'established churches' in the very same states that ratified the constitution and subsequently ten ammendments, the first of which prohibited 'CONGRESS' from 'establishing' a federal religion/church?
Today we have nattering naybobs who become apoplectic if the intersection of two perpendicular planes in the background of political advertisement form a 'plus sign' [+], because this sly subliminal 'plus sign' [+] could be construed by some to be a 'christian' symbol.
Or, Mother Earth forbid that the two words 'Choose Life' should appear on a license plate because those same two words appear together in the 'bible' and therefore they have to be considered 'religious speech' and even if you built a wall to separate the two, the subversive nature of the 'religious message' might still be communicated to some one, some how, some where, unawares and the damage done would be severe and irreversible.
A talibanesque theocracy would be inevitable.
The President of the United States 'requests' of a religious institution that it conceal it's religious symbols while he uses their facilities for a photo op.
pbho, what were you thinking?
Georgetown, what were you thinking?
That is just plain tacky!
If you 'invite' yourself, or I invite you, to my home for dinner, you may inform me of any food alergies you have, but you do not get to arbitrarily determine the menu.
That would be, at the least, presumptious.
You do not get to 'request' that we do not pray to our GOD or ask that we conceal our books, music, art, symbols simply because you may be offended, or someone, somewhere may be offended if one of those religious articles happens to appear in the background of a photograph or a video clip.
We choose to whom we will extend hospitality. We do it on our terms and our conditions.
A man's/woman's home is his/her castle and he/she does not share the throne with guests, invited or un-invited.
pbho has no understanding of history,not an iota of dignity, no sense of decorum, no concept of protocol, no hint of noblesse oblige. He is so arrogant that he believes he can go anywhere he wants, and do and say anything he pleases, with no regard to the people and the nation he is supposed to represent.
pbho is the quintessential 'ugly american'.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at April 20, 2009 8:48 PM
"Reading the Bible in public school as a religious exercise is not fine."
oh, of course not, the danger of it!! public schools are so much better now that prayer has been removed.Posted by: Jasper at April 20, 2009 8:50 PM
oh, of course not, the danger of it!! public schools are so much better now that prayer has been removed.
Posted by: Jasper at April 20, 2009 8:50 PM
Maybe you're right Jasper. Maybe if more of our public school students had school-sponsored payer we'd would have had less Government sponsored torture over the last 8 years.Posted by: Hal at April 20, 2009 11:06 PM
"He is so arrogant that he believes he can go anywhere he wants, and do and say anything he pleases, with no regard to the people and the nation he is supposed to represent."
Well, at least he hasn't invaded any countries yet or locked up innocent people without rights. That would have been very arrogant.Posted by: Hal at April 20, 2009 11:08 PM
Maybe if more of our public school students had school-sponsored payer we'd would have had less Government sponsored torture over the last 8 years.
Depends on your definition of government-sponsored torture though, doesn't it? Use of US funds to dismember and kill unborn foreign babies might well be considered torture. Especially if you're the innocent one being ripped into pieces while you're still alive.Posted by: Fed Up at April 20, 2009 11:16 PM
yeah, I don't consider that torture.Posted by: Hal at April 20, 2009 11:48 PM
Hal, there is still a chance, now, today, to repent of your evil. Tomorrow, there may not be.
If you were the one being ripped to pieces, or having a needle full of poison plunged into your heart, or having scissors shoved into the back of your skull, I bet you would think it was wrong.
And it would be.Posted by: YCW at April 21, 2009 6:44 AM
ken -- you never cease to amaze me! 8:48 pm is so astutely expressed!!! You really do need to write a book.
Hal, keep believing the distorted talking points of the Left and someday you will have a rude awakening -- but don't worry we will be there for you!