Well here it is, New Year's eve 2004. A year just don't seem like a year with George W. Bush in office. More like a decade. In any case, I thought this would be a good time to share some New Year's Resolutions with my readers.
1) I promise to do whatever it takes to insure that the current Resident in Thief will not get an opportunity to steal the job for another four years.
2) I promise that if he does steal another four years to consider anarchy as my new political philosophy.
3) In the event that number 2 comes to pass I promise to yell at Democrats for making me choose anarchy.
4) I promise to continue not smoking for the rest of the year. I have not smoked in the past two months and I am pretty damn proud of that.
5) I promise not to allow my family to bring home anymore goddamn pets! We already have 8 rabbits, three cats and a stray dog that knew a soft touch when it smelled one. Lord knows I love animals, but they are starting to take over...my bed, my room....well you get the idea.
6) I promise to do more charity work. Before I got married I used to do a great deal of work with the Star of Hope Mission here in Houston. I also enjoyed helping out the CityWide Club, an organization responsible for the Houston Thanksgiving Day Feast for the homeless. In all the cool things in Houston, this has to be one of the coolest. Everyone in the city is invited, rich and poor alike. It is a chance to get to know the less fortunate and to see that they are people just like us, who's luck has not been as good.
7) I promise to invite more of my Republican friends to help out. It is far past time for them to put their money where their mouths are. I am pretty damn sick and tired of hearing about how giving should be voluntary, yet never seeing one of these guys lift a finger to help.
8) I promise to try to link to more blog articles from other bloggers. One of my many failings is to read something on a blog, thinking "Wow that was pretty good" then failing to link to it. I hope to put aside one day a week to link to interesting blog entries I have found.
9) I promise to ignore those that ask me to take it easy on Republicans that chose to debate me, then offer no debate. I plan to pay special attention to the gutless of all gutless wonders "The New Knighthood" and Hal Moroz. Since he was kind enough to leave me a member, even if I can't reply there, well that is why I have a blog. I still get their mail and they are still acting like idiots. I plan to share share share...at least, until they prove just how gutless they are by kicking me out.
10) I promise to be even more skeptical this year.
Well this is it for "A Skeptical Blog" till next year. Already the family is heading our way and it is going to be busy busy around here. I might get something up between Christmas and New Year, but you never know.
So here is wishing you and your's a very Merry Christmas. Have fun, but be safe.
I have been meaning to mention that my series of articles on "The New Knighthood" was commented on by Austin Cline, your host to About.com's Agnosticism/Atheism section. Entitled "The Knights Who Say: Run Away!" it is an excellent summery of my adventures with the Knighthood. I should also mention that I have found Austin's page to be a vaulable resource in the neverending struggle to keep history, if not pure, then at least correct. Check out the Church and State section while you're there.
Hey we can enjoy the holidays as well as any true believer
Every year about this time I get asked the same stupid question, and to tell the truth, I am pretty sick of it. So I hope to answer it one final time here, then just direct people to this site when I am asked.
The question usually comes from a fundamentalist Christian (it's never those that are more relaxed in their belief) and is usually hurled at me in a faintly accusing tone, like, the person is convinced that I can't possibly answer. That question is:
How can you, a non believer in Christ, enjoy Christmas?
Oy vey!
I don't know why one has to believe that Jesus was some sort of God in order to enjoy what started out as a pagan holiday. Fundies are quite happy to point out how stupid I am to enjoy hymns too.
The fact is, I love Christmas. Always have and always will. I love the sappy Christmas movies ("It's a Wonderful Life", "Miracle on 34 Street", and my fav "A Christmas Story") I love Christmas carols, the religious ("Silent Night" "Hark the Herald Angel Sing") as well as the secular ("Jingle Bells, "Merry Christmas To You"). Hey I dig the whole idea of Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards Men, I just wish we celebrated such sentiments a bit more than once a year. I love Santa, and reindeer, and elves. I adore giving out gifts to just about everyone I know (and a few I don't). I enjoy Christmas dinner, time with my family, and quiet reflections on how fortunate I am.
Three hundred sixty-four days out of the year humankind commits all manner of heinous acts. On the 365th day we give toys to the kids. I'm not saying that the latter compensates for the former. I'm not saying Adolph Hitler wouldn't have given presents to his children, if he'd had children. But come on, it's got to count for something. The giving of gifts in such a way that no credit will devolve upon ourselves is sufficiently at odds with our routine behavior as to be accounted a mystery, and we may as well give that mystery a name. Santa Claus it is.
Right wing fundamentalist Christians seem to think that if you don't believe that Christ was "THE LORD" it must mean you are hostile to Jesus, that you must hate him. This is not all that surprising, the world of the fundy is one that has only two colors, black and white (those not for us are against us). I keep telling them that it is not Jesus I dislike, just a large number of his followers. Very few of them seem to be able to walk the walk when it comes to being true followers of Christ.
A great example of this is a note I got from yet another republican list I am on. The other day some "Christian" was complaining about the homeless. You know, the only reason that these people are homeless is they are just too gosh darn lazy to work! Sure they knew that a lot of homeless were kids, according to the United States Conference of Mayors families with children constitutes 41 percent of the homeless nationwide. So I asked a very simple question, what do you do for these kids? Her answer saddened me:
I suggest that the parents work and make use of the temporary welfare system we have in this country. IF they aren't willing to, then we place these children in foster homes until they can, or until they can be adopted. Part of the problem with the foster care system, is that people are willing to adopt, but too many chances are given to bums that only want to be part time parents. Parents are given too many chances and hold up adoption and in the mean time, the children are made to suffer. You cannot tell me that there is a valid reason for a child to remain on the street. Period, unless they fall through the cracks. There is child daycare assistance and if there isn't where you live, then move. There is government housing. There is TANF, there is food stamps. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR A CHILD TO GO WITHOUT FOOD IN THIS COUNTRY. No matter how many times you want to play that angle. I am not saying we should stop any type of welfare, but we should stop teaching people that you don't have to DO anything.
I came very close to answering this screed but then I thought "Why bother"? There was simply too much ignorance in what she was saying to even begin to correct. First is the horror of considering a country where only the rich are able to keep their kids. Or the idea that the homeless are that way because they refuse to work when in fact 38% of the homeless are employed full- or part-time. Or the idea that adoption should be the goal of foster care rather than reintegration of the family. Or that such adoptions would be easy when in fact they are not.For example in New Jersey only three of 10 children awaiting adoption in 1999 were 12 or older, or that no child who entered foster care at age 12 or older was adopted in 1999 and seven of 10 older children will never be adopted, but instead will be emancipated into adulthood.
They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
"Scrooge and Marley's, I believe," said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. "Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?"
"Mr Marley has been dead these seven years," Scrooge replied. "He died seven years ago, this very night."
"We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner," said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word "liberality", Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, " I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."
"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
So please. One does not have to be Christian to enjoy the holidays. Hell considering the above, I think I keep the Christmas spirit very well indeed. In spite of my disbelief in the divinity of Jesus.
I can't believe I am still fighting the flu, and losing big time. I have an alert that amused me below but I don't know how much more posting I will do.
Once again I have been invited to take part in a debate over the Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State). Look for postings on Monday, if the debate actually happens. Should be pretty funny.
I don't know how much posting I will be doing next week. Although we are not leaving town, we do have a lot of family members heading our way. Should be able to get something up Monday or Tuesday, but no promises.
So go have a good weekend. Hopefully you are not nearly as behind in your shopping as I am in ours!
Well it looks as if Moveon.Org has scared the right wing once again!
This CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message from RightMarch.com for Dominion:
ISSUE: Everyone knows that the most liberally-biased time of the day comes during the evening news. Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and the king-daddy of biased news himself, Dan Rather, spew forth their half-truths and liberal-leaning innuendos day after day, joined by their brethren at cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC.
When the Fox News Channel was launched, the average American breathed a sigh of relief -- finally, FAIR AND BALANCED news was being beamed to our living rooms 24/7. It's just one channel, but it quickly became the ratings leader on cable.
Well, apparently, having one channel where "we report, you decide," was one channel too many for the radical left wannabe-censors at MoveOn.org -- they've now set up an online "Fox Watch" website to "monitor Fox News daily and hold it accountable for specific instances of manipulations or distortions of truth and partisan bias."
Give us a break. The reason Fox News has become so popular is BECAUSE they aren't as biased as the other network news. EVERYONE knows that... well, everyone except the loony iberals(sic) at MoveOn.org.
So, once again, WE are here to counter the actions of these misguided, misinformed leftists, by linking you up to some friends of ours that ARE exposing bias in the media: specifically, the extreme bias of Dan Rather at CBS News.
RatherBiased.com documents the partisan beliefs of one of the most politicized journalists of our time. From abortion to George W. Bush, this site is an exhaustive compilation of statements he has made over the years. Most are from Dan Rather's on-air comments. While Rather's statements away from the news desk usually do not unduly influence public opinion, they do show the partisan, ideological bent that frequently taints his reporting.
ACTION ITEM: The best way to fight back against the LIES of the radical left is to arm ourselves with the TRUTH. Sign up below to receive regular updates from our friends at RatherBiased.com, exposing the liberal bias of Dan Rather, CBS News and others:
NOTE: We could REALLY use your help to get the word out to patriotic Americans across the country, asking them to help us FIGHT BACK against the LIES of the liberal media and groups like MoveOn.org. MoveOn is getting MILLIONS of dollars from deep-pocketed socialists like George Soros; RightMarch.com is only funded by thousands of hard-working patriots like you. PLEASE go to Campaign Contribution.com to make a contribution now towards this effort.
Also, PLEASE forward this e-mail to everyone you know who wants to fight back against the lies of the liberal media, and against radical groups like MoveOn.org who are spreading those lies.
Thank you!
Don't bother to look for a Foxwatch website, there ain't no such thing. What the Alert seems to be talking about is a group that Moveon.org put together to monitor Fox. You can read the press release here.
I am still feeling craptacular so once again this won't be much of a post. Just some stuff I found around the net that was interesting. Hopefully I will be up to a longer post tomorrow.
First up. Nothing like knowing the state you live in is civilized [/sarcasm]:
HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- The final meals of executed prisoners are off the menu on the Texas prison system's Internet site.
Texas, which far and away leads all U.S. states in executions since a national death penalty ban was lifted in 1976, has long listed details of the meals on the prison system's Web site, www.tdcj.state.tx.us.
But Michelle Lyons, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said they were removed last week during a redesign of the site.
"We had some complaints from people in both the U.S. and abroad that it might be in poor taste to distribute that information on the Web site," she said.
The information about last meals will still be made available to reporters covering executions.
Well it is certainly good to know that in the grand scheme of things Texas is worried that placing the last mean menu of a condemn man on their webpage might not be in the best of taste. Now if we could just translate that sense of uncomfort to the death penalty itself...
(CNN) -- An attorney for the family of former U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina confirmed Monday that in 1925, when he was 22, Thurmond fathered a child with a black teenage housekeeper.
Thurmond, the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, died in June at age 100. His daughter's story was published Sunday by The Washington Post.
Essie Mae Washington-Williams, a 78-year-old retired school teacher in Los Angeles, California, revealed her relationship to the former segregationist after decades of silence.
Thurmond ran for president in 1948 on the ticket of the States Rights Party, the "Dixiecrats," a breakaway faction of Southern Democrats who believed strongly in racial segregation and were opposed to the Democratic Party's civil rights program.
He received 1 million votes and carried four Deep South states; Democrat Harry Truman won the election.
Thurmond joined the Republican Party in the 1960s and ultimately turned away from his segregationist past.
Upon hearing this a friend of mine wondered if this is why Strom gave up "his segregationist past." Food for thought.
The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are unlawfully using a national crime database to get local police departments to enforce civil immigration laws, lawyers who have assembled a federal class-action lawsuit against the practice said yesterday.
The lawsuit, which they plan to file today in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, is the first to challenge the addition of civil information about thousands of noncitizens to the National Criminal Information Center database, which the F.B.I. uses to notify law enforcement agencies about people wanted for crimes.
Immigration violations, like staying in the country after a visa has expired, can lead to deportation but are not criminal matters and have traditionally been the responsibility of federal agents.
Well that's it for this morning. It's back to bed for me.
I won't be posting too much today. My body is busy fighting the flu and, just between you and I, I think it is losing.
I noticed our sock puppeteer is back. I can only assume he is not really reading the blog and is unaware that we know he is one person, or he is just to stupid to realize that we know he is one person. In any case the list is as follows.
Poster: Mark IP address: 69.11.207.149
Poster: Joe IP address: 69.11.207.149
Poster: Joe IP address: 69.11.207.149
Poster: Tim IP address: 69.11.207.99
Poster: J Edgar IP address: 69.11.207.99
Poster: Cliff IP address: 69.11.207.215
Now I don't really mind the sock puppet, it reflects more upon our commentator than it does me. But I am a bit bothered by his attempt to copy someone else's identity (J Edgar, who has a different IP and email address than the J Edgar above).
My commenting rules are real simple. Unless your post is 90 percent obscenity then I don't erase and I don't ban. So keep up the good work guy. All you are doing is provoking laughter.
One last thing before I go. Atrios has declared this Write Like Nedra Pickler Day! I would have loved to take part, but I am just to sick to have much of a sense of humor. Anyone else reading that has a blog feel free to join in the fun!
Where "The New Knighthood" proves to be empty of Knights!
By now the question has to have crossed your mind, "Why? Why waste four days writing about something that, in the long run, is pretty trivial". Did I do it to embarrass "The New Knighthood"? Or Judge Moroz? Was it some sort of demented revenge for muting me? Was I trying to be disruptive?
No to all of the above. I really did want to debate the issue of Church and State separation, and I am still very disappointed that I did not get one. Yet I also have to admit that I was not at all surprised. I was already appraised at the quality of the argument I was going to get from Judge Moroz's first post. Let's face it, it is not a very sophisticated intellect that can string a bunch of quotes together from the Founding Fathers proving that they were Christian and then claiming that this translates into the United States must be a Christian Nation. Context is very important, even the most Christian of the Founding Fathers were aware of the bloody sectarian wars that had raged throughout Europe for centuries.
A good example is Benjamin Franklin's suggestion that they open each meeting of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 with a prayer. His suggestion pretty much went no where.
Leo Pfeifer, in "Church, State and Freedom" described what happened:
"It is perhaps symbolic of the difference in the relationship of state and religion between the Continental Congress and the new government established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that whereas the Continental Congress instituted the practice of daily prayers immediately on first convening, the Convention met for four months without any recitation of prayers. After the Convention had been in session for a month, the octogenarian Franklin, who in earlier years had been pretty much of a Deist, moved 'that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.' The motion was received politely though not without embarrassment. According to the records of the Convention, 'After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourning, the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion!" (Leo Pfeifer "Church, State and Freedom" Boston: Beacon 1967 pp. 121-122).
Franklin did not bring up the idea again.
This is nothing more than revisionist history with no good reason to change the opinions of the majority of the historians in this country. The problem is that fundamentalist Christians have picked a time period that we know a great deal about, mostly because of how common the written word had become. Back then they wrote a lot, which is not surprising as they had a lot to say. Still it does make it harder to attribute feelings and motives to them that, in reality they simply did not have.
I said at the beginning that my admiration for the founders of this country is matched by no one. The men who created this country were genius of the highest order, able to step out of their time in order to see so clearly the best course for the new Nation. They created one of the greatest documents ever written by man, the United States Constitution. For the first time in history a government spelled out it's obligation to it's people rather than tell it's people what their obligations were to it. Right wing Christians are always talking about what a great country this is, so why are they trying to change it?
I am often told that it's we liberals that must improve the political debate in this country, but I ask, how? I have been arguing with right wing religious yahoos for a lot of years. What I experienced with "The New Knighthood" is typical of those debates. When it becomes clear that you actually know what you are talking about, it is time to change the subject, bring up strawmen, throw accusations of "bombarded this site" of being a poor guest, of being mean, nasty, and anything else you can think of. But for God's sake, whatever you do, don't touch the subject at hand.
Judge Moroz said that I would probably complain that what he did to me was censorship. It is as much nonsense as trying to claim that the Lemon test somehow encourages the mixing of religion and government. Real censorship is what the government does to you, Judge Moroz is not the government. It is his group, he can invite, uninvite, and silence whomever the hell he pleases, including me. I have absolutely no problem with that.
No what I accuse the group of is intellectual dishonesty and cowardly behavior. Remember I would have never posted to the group had it not been Judge Moroz claim that he enjoyed a good debate. See I trusted that he was telling the truth, but by now it should be obvious to everyone that the good Judge would not know a good debate if it ran up and bit him on the ass. He was wrong using the quotes he did and he proved that he knew this by referring to the URL to WallBuilder's own Dave Barton's apology for creating a lot of those quotes. To put icing on that cake, he sends along three Supreme Court cases that he must have known did not say what he claimed they said. If I could understand those cases, without a law degree, then what is his excuse?
So here we are. Perhaps Judge Moroz should consider a new name for his little group, the name "Knight" seems just a tad inappropriate. Knights were supposed to be honest, chivalrous and honorable, traits that are simply not apparent in this group. If this is the "New Knighthood then pray, pray for a return to the days of yore!
Would you like to tell Ralph Nader what you think of the idea of his running for President once again? Well feel free to share. Just go to this page and be as honest as you can! Not that I think he is going to listen...
Does the Supreme Court really think this is a Christian Nation?
Once I was silenced, Judge Moroz (who had carefully stayed out of the Jefferson discussion and who could blame him, Jefferson really was a poor choice) felt brave enough to post on the subject once again. After all, he knew there was no way I could dispute what he wrote, no matter how wrong it was. And quite frankly Judge Moroz quoting the U.S. Supreme Court was only slightly more accurate than his quotes from the Founding Fathers. Whereas you can actually find the court cases he references, certainly the interpretation left quite a lot to be desired! (you can look up each case by taking the title and the string of numbers after, and plugging them into your favorite search engine).
U.S. v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605 (1931) and Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470, 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511
We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470, 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.
First he quotes from the ruling of U.S. v. Macintosh and includes a mention of the Holy Trinity Church v. United States. He uses it to show that "We are a Christian People". However this is extremely misleading. In order to understand just how misleading you first have to understand what these cases were about.
The case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States involved a federal law which prohibited companies from prepaying the transportation costs of a non-citizen coming to the United States to work for those companies.
This was challenged by Holy Trinity Church, who had hired E. Walpole Warren, an Englishman, to come and be a rector for their congregation. In the decision, Justice David Brewer found that the legislation was overly broad because it applied to much more than it should have. He did not, however, base his decision on the idea that, legally and politically, the United State is a "Christian Nation."
Quite the contrary - the things he lists as indicating that this is a "Christian Nation" he specifically labels as "unofficial declarations." Brewer's point was merely that the people in this country are Christian - thus, it seemed unlikely that the legislators actually meant to prohibit churches from inviting famous and prominent religious leaders (even Jewish rabbis) from coming here and serving their congregations.
In his book "The United States: A Christian Nation" Justice Brewer had this to say:
"We classify nations in various ways as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by Religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations."
"This republic is classified among the Christians nations of the world. It was formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that court [meaning himself - ed.], after mentioning various circumstances, added "these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
"But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." "The United States A Christian Nation" by David J. Brewer, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, The John C. Winston Company (1905) pp 11-12.
Judge Moroz frames this within U.S. v Macintosh, which can only be called strange. In this case a Canadian citizen wanted to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, but he refused to pledge to take up arms in defense of his country. He was a baptist minister and he said that he would only fight for his country if he thought the war was morally justified. On his citizenship application he wrote, "I am willing to do what I judge to be in the best interests of my country, but only in so far as I can believe that this is not going to be against the best interests of humanity in the long run. I do not undertake to support 'my country, right or wrong' in any dispute which may arise, and I am not willing to promise beforehand, and without knowing the cause for which my country may go to war, either that I will or that I will not 'take up arms in defense of this country,' however 'necessary' the war may seem to be to the Government of the day." While he was willing to give allegiance to the United States, he was not willing to put that ahead of his allegiance to God.
The minister lost. The Supreme Court decided that "It is not within the province of the courts to make bargains with those who seek naturalization. They must accept the grant and take the oath in accordance with the terms fixed by the law, or forego the privilege of citizenship. There is no middle choice." What is funny is that Vine & Fig Tree, a website that also tries to prove that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian Nation" has this to say about Macintosh:
This is a truly horrifying case.
Whereas in Holy Trinity v. U.S., the Court held that because this was a Christian nation, all laws were qualified by a higher law, and no law could be interpreted in such a way as to exclude a Christian minister from entering the United States, the Macintosh Court, fully cognizant of the rule in Holy Trinity, completely reverses the rule, refuses to place the nation "under God," and instead declares that the State-as-god is owed "unqualified allegiance."
The State is made lord of the conscience.
Judge Moroz would have been better off if he had simply quoted Holy Trinity instead of quoting it within Macintosh. The important point here is that neither case legally declared that this was a "Christian Nation".
Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971):
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Now why Judge Moroz chose to quote Lemon is really beyond me. The case (and in fact the passage Judge Moroz quoted) is what is now known as the famous Lemon test, learned by law school students all over this great (if secular) nation.
This case invalidated Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes that respectively supplemented and reimbursed salaries paid to teachers of secular subjects in two States' nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. With only Justice White dissenting, the Court concluded that teachers in private religious schools, even if hired only to teach secular subjects, present a "potential for impermissible fostering of religion." 403 U.S. at 619 (emphasis added). The Court also held that the First Amendment's Religion Clauses require a State to be "certain . . . that subsidized teachers do not inculcate religion." Id. The Rhode Island law was struck down in Lemon because the Court "simply recognize[d] that a dedicated religious person, teaching in a school affiliated with his or her faith and operated to inculcate its tenets, will inevitably experience great difficulty in remaining religiously neutral." 403 U.S. at 618. The Court added, with respect to both state programs, that preventing subsidized teachers from "inculcating religion" will involve governmental authorities in "comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance" that would violate the "no entanglement" principle announced in earlier Religion Clause cases. 403 U.S. at 619-624.
The best that Judge Moroz can get out of this case is the second part of the Lemon test that a statute's primary effect must not hinder religion. Of course it also mentions that it can't advance religion either.
Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668 (1984):
There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life...The Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state. It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions and forbids hostility towards any.
Well this is a tiny bit better but still no cigar. All this case states is that the addition of a Navitiy scene to a Christmas display by the city of Pawtucket, R.I which also included a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, and a banner that reads "SEASONS GREETINGS did not violate the Establishment Clause since the focus was not on the Navitiy itself. Note that the court did say that "the focus of the inquiry must be on the creche in the context of the Christmas season. Focus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause.
Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lynch began by expanding on the religious heritage theme exemplified by Marsh; other evidence that we "are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" was supplied by reference to the national motto "In God We Trust," the affirmation "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance, and the recognition of both Thanksgiving and Christmas as national holidays. Against that background, the Court then determined that the city's inclusion of the creche in its Christmas display had a legitimate secular purpose in recognizing "the historical origins of this traditional event long [celebrated] as a National Holiday" and that its primary effect was not to advance religion. The benefit to religion was called "indirect, remote, and incidental," and in any event no greater than the benefit resulting from other actions that had been found to be permissible, e.g. the provision of transportation and textbooks to parochial school students, various assistance to church-supported colleges, Sunday closing laws, and legislative prayers. The Court also reversed the lower court's finding of entanglement based only on "political divisiveness."
In addition, four years later in 1989 the Supreme Court in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, found the inclusion of a creche in a holiday display to constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion of the Court on the creche issue. To the majority, the setting of the creche was distinguishable from that in Lynch. The creche stood alone on the center staircase of the county courthouse, bore a sign identifying it as the donation of a Roman Catholic group, and also had an angel holding a banner proclaiming "Gloria in Exclesis Deo." Nothing in the display "detracts from the creche's religious message" and the overall effect was to endorse that religious message.
One last point, three cases, even if they had said what Judge Moroz implied, would not equal a hill of beans in regards to the consistent finding of the Supreme Court that government and religion don't mix, from the removal of mandatory, teacher-led prayer to the recent rulings against the Santa Fe School District right down the road from where I live. By trying to imply that the Supreme Court think this a "Christian Nation" Judge Moroz is ignoring a ton of case law saying that, in fact this is not a CHristian Nation.
Our Campaign Manager, Ken Mehlman, recently wrote you about the vicious personal attacks Democrat Presidential candidates are making on President Bush.
Now comes news from a Wall Street Journal investigative report that wealthy liberals "have plotted ways around the campaign finance law" to funnel millions in illegal soft money donations "to finance get-out-the-vote efforts and ads slamming Mr. Bush and Republicans."
One billionaire liberal, George Soros, has already pledged $25 million to get these efforts off the ground. Soros even said that President Bush reminds him of the Nazis.
Soros got another billionaire leftist, Peter Lewis, an ardent advocate of hard drugs, to promise $12 million as a down payment. Their goal is to raise over $400 million to defeat the President and they're halfway there.
To beat these billionaire liberals, we need your help today!
Please, will you send the Bush re-election campaign $25, $50, $75, $100 or whatever you can afford to give today? You can give by using the campaign's secure online donation form at:
Whatever way you can, please contribute today.
There's one more thing you can do to help the President overcome the smears and invective of the Democrats. We want to reach our goal of 450,000 grassroots contributors to the President's campaign by December 31st. Will you forward this email to five friends with your personal request to join you in supporting the President?
Howard Dean compared President Bush to the Taliban and calls him "the enemy" and "despicable."
Dick Gephardt calls the President "a miserable failure" and the worst President he's ever worked with.
John Kerry compared President Bush to Saddam Hussein, called for regime change and accused him of fraud.
Joe Lieberman said President Bush is a "segregationist," compared him to "a felon" and called the Administration "nearly as dangerous" as Iraqi terrorists.
We have 11 months until the election and Democrats are just getting warmed up! They are making this one of the nastiest, vicious and negative campaigns in history.
Democrats are reduced to personal slams on our President and outright lies about his record because they lack a positive agenda and hate -- hate -- what he has done for America.
He has restored dignity and honor to the White House.
President Bush has led America with moral clarity and purpose and strength in the War against Terrorism.
The President provided the leadership necessary to cut taxes and restore economic growth.
President Bush's reforms are making America a more compassionate society where no child is left behind.
But that positive record ... the President's strong values ... his character and integrity and vision ... that all may not matter.
We can turn back this venomous assault from rage-filled Democrats and overcome the hateful efforts of multi-millionaire liberals to pervert the election process ...
But we need your support to do that. Please, will you give $25, $50, $75, or what ever you can afford by using our secure online page or by mailing in our online form with your personal check. Whatever method you choose, please respond today.
The angry, bitter Democrats smearing our President ... the billionaire liberals who will bend the rules to win ... the Democrat soft money groups ... all hope you say "no" or let this important request pass without your taking action.
But you understand how important it is to America that we keep this President, his leadership, his values, his character, on the job, working for us for another term. Please make your contribution of what ever you can afford today and email five friends and ask them to join this important effort. It is vital to our country, our President. I know he will be grateful.
Sincerely,
Marc Racicot
Chairman
Bush-Cheney '04
PS: The Wall Street Journal reported that George Soros views "America as the gravest threat to world freedom." Help us overcome this liberal billionaire that is clearly out of touch with real America. Please make your contribution to the President's campaign today and ask five friends to join you in this important effort. With your help, I know we will reach our goal.
One wonders why Marc is not equally concerned about Richard Mellon Scaife!
One last item. I want to thank those that have been posting in the comment section as of late (well not our sock puppet friend) especially those that had kind words to say. Feel free to take your shoes off, kick up your feet and make yourselves at home. With the primary season upon us things are about to get really exciting around these parts! So here is a great big
"The New Knighthood" bravely insures that I cannot reply
Now at this point, I had no idea I had been muted. On Saturday I had only gotten two replies both from Pat, one an exercise in avoidance, the other a study in irrelevancy. After my first post to Tradequest on Sunday I was no longer able to answer in the group, even though I am still (even now) a member of the group.
Since I was no longer allowed to answer in the group, they came out of the woodwork. Lot's of replies, yet most of them still avoiding the subject:
Yes, the Debate is over! America was founded by men who were Christians...and a favorite chant of the American colonists was "Only King Jesus"...meaning they rejected any other king than Jesus Christ...and, the Republicans are in charge of the Congress and the Presidency...and, Bush won the election in Florida and is President of the United States of America...and...
Of greatest importance, even after 2000 years, wise men still seek Christ in their lives :)
So, GET OVER IT!!!
Patrick :)
Personally, I have never met a liberal in all of my 39 yrs of life on this planet who wasn't brain dead.
Also, you stated:
One last thing. Don't you think it is just a tad bit childish to call Gen. Westley Clark Weaseley Clark?
If the shoe fits..... Actually I prefer to call the man Welsley Cluck.
Ted
Intelligent eh? As we can see, Pat has managed to descend into incoherence, not that he was a shining beacon of smarts in the first place. He once again makes a claim that he does not even attempt to back up. I have never heard that American colonist enjoyed chanting "Only King Jesus" and frankly I don't believe it. I would have challenged Pat to give me a cite to this, but shucks, rather than that vigorous debate that Judge Moroz was so fond it, they found it easier to simply shut me up.
Of course Ted's reply hardly deserved a reply. All he managed to do is prove that Republicans support for the military goes only as far as the military's support of Republicans. As long as they are young, and willing to die for Republican causes, support them troops. Once they have proven themselves on the battlefield, screw them all you want. Make no mistake, no matter how you feel about the man's politics, General Clark has served this country well. He certainly deserves respect. Clearly Ted does not really understand what supporting our troops mean. We must also keep in mind that this is a "Christian" group. I certainly recall Jesus mentioning how much he enjoys the mocking of people during that "Sermon on the Mount" thingy. Wasn't there also something along the lines of loving thy enemies? Perhaps I expect too much no doubt the path of Christ is hard. Not many can walk the walk.
Judge Moroz decided that now would be a good time to chime in, after all it's not like I could actually challenge him:
Hear! Hear!
In addition, consider the following Confirmed Quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court (with citations provided):
U.S. v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605 (1931):
We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470, 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.
Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971):
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668 (1984):
There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life...The Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state. It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions and forbids hostility towards any.
Finally, the "Uncomfirmed Quotes" issue is addressed by none other than David Barton here:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20 (ed. note: This is the same link I have consistantly given out showing that Barton was forced to apologize for the use of quotes that could not be sourced to the Founding Fathers. I don't know what Judge Moroz was trying to prove with this)
The record that is Nation was indeed founded by believers is out there. But for many, they will hold tight to isolated quotes, which, on there face, would appear to support another view. Jefferson, for example, can be found on both sides of the fence, but devoutly pro-Christian in his latter years.
God bless America!
At first I was willing to grant Judge Moroz some leeway. After all he is a lawyer and not a historian, he did not originate the quotes he used and the problems with them are not problems he created. But after reading this piece of legal tripe my sympathy is much less. I thought Christians were supposed to be honest, and this is simply not being honest.
First no one anywhere at any time has disputed that this Nation "was indeed founded by believers". Hell I admitted that in my first post to the group. What is being disputed is that the formation of the federal government was meant to be Christian. Not to mention the irony of accusing me of using "isolated quotes, which, on there face, would appear to support another view" when it was Judge Moroz misuse of quotes that brought me into his group in the first place. Even better is his totally bogus claim that Jefferson can be found on both sides of the fence and that he was devoutly pro-Christian in his old age. Once again there is not one piece of evidence that the Judge is willing to share. Just his assurance that this is so. In fact, it was in those "latter years" that Jefferson was busy writing "The Jefferson Bible".
But where he flight of fancy really takes off his the three court cases he uses above. I have already mentioned that what the Supreme Court might have said has no bearing on what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yet even if we grant him the use of the Supreme Court the cases he lists, he also totally misrepresents. I want to cover this in detail so it will have to wait for tomorrow (or this article will be three times the length it is now).
By Monday Judge Moroz felt the need to explain my sudden absence:
Recently, we have had a couple of visitors ("Joe Liberty" and "Dominion"), who signed up as members, then used this forum to promote their liberal agendas to an audience that they could not otherwise create on their own.
Sadly enough, they abused their privileges here by repeatedly posting their liberal agendas ... anti-Republican, anti-Conservative, and anti-Christian ... not to mention their attacks on the President and the war on terrorism ... and personally attacking people here.
They had their minute of fame, but that was not enough ... they still bombarded this site with angry postings, which are now monitored and deleted, if they are inappropriate. I am sure they will call it censorship or some other nonsense, but the fact is, they entered here as guests, knowing this is, as the heading of this group expressly states, "A Place for Republican and Conservative Americans to Meet and Discuss the Issues of Our Time...and What Can be Done to Help Change the Course of American History for the Better!"
I hope those folks continue to read the postings here, and learn to be proper guests. That is my word on the subject.
You can see everything I posted to the group. A total of three posts. Five if you count the posts I wrote before realizing that I had been muted. I must be one fuck of an amazing man because in those three posts I managed to repeatedly post "my liberal agenda, anti-Republican, anti-Conservative, and anti-Christian ... not to mention their attacks on the President and the war on terrorism" to boot! All in three postings where I wanted to discuss the Separation of Church and State. I also highly resent the idea that I have bombarded the list I wrote two replies before realizing I was muted and then one more to let them know I thought muting me was a chicken's way to win a debate. I have not written a thing to the group since Sunday early afternoon. This email went out on Monday.
You might have noticed a group of people imploring me to leave poor Judge Moroz and "The New Knights" alone. Wahhhh, I am being so unfair, so rude, so mean. I was disruptive, it was only for Republicans, and I should just leave them the hell alone.
Unfortunately the group seems to consist of one person who feels the need to fill my comment section with sock puppets.
sock puppet n. [Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over your hand and talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In Usenet parlance, a pseudo through which the puppeteer posts follow-ups to their own original message to give the appearance that a number of people support the views held in the original message.
See YACCS registers the IP address of all those that post to the comments. The first couple of comments I pretty much ignored figuring it was people from the group asking me to cease. But then I started looking at their IP address....and it was eye-opening!
Poster: Technocrat 69.11.207.188 Email: twilson@jones.edu Poster: staylor@udc.edu 69.11.207.73 Email: staylor@udc.edu Poster: staylor@udc.edu 69.11.207.73 Email: staylor@udc.edu Poster: staylor@udc.edu 69.11.207.220 Email: staylor@udc.edu Poster: tim IP address: 69.11.207.220 Email: none Poster: bob IP address: 69.11.207.220 Email: none Poster: Jim IP address: 69.11.207.220 Email: none Poster: Mark IP address: 69.11.207.220 Email: none
Back when I posted to Usenet we used to have nothing but contempt for people that used sock puppets. It is a sign that you are afraid that your arguments (even if they are simply "leave them alone") won't garner a lot of support.
Now don't get me wrong, I was not trying to be a smart ass, I really did want to debate the subject of Church and State separation with this group. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a historian. I have a good, layman's knowledge of history. I am someone that has read on the subject, at least enough to know that this was never intended to be a "Christian Nation". I was eager to find out just what "The New Knighthood" would throw at me.
Talk about disappointing. Oh I did get answers, but as you will see, no one wanted to discuss the subject at hand, instead they wanted to throw asparagus at me!
My first reply came from Pat, the guy that had been reproducing my writing (with great huge amounts of information missing) in the group. He had this to say:
Suffice it to say, Dom, no reply is necessary...you made your points clearly. You are not a Republican, not a Conservative, and not a Christian. As you state, you are a liberal.
But...it puzzles me why you stay here. You challenge every assertion that America is somehow blessed by God ... or that our Founding Fathers may have indeed been Christians. It has dawned on me that you, like so many others, are searching ... for the truth ... for the meaning to life. And it wouldn't surprise me to see you here in due course espousing the words of a believer ... maybe even the words of a Conservative-Republican :) God works in mysterious ways!
As for America being a Christian Nation, it is what it is. Your words or mine won't change that. Satan is working hard to destroy this country and what it stands for. That is what I believe. In the South, the "Bible belt," if you will, the ACLU is working hard to remove God from the public ... and if they win in the South, we are all in trouble ... the northeast and the west, speaking of California, in particular, are already liberal strongholds. America needs revival!
Praying for you, my friend ... and other lost souls,
Patrick
Wow, I thought, how totally non-responsive.
Now I have been engaging in online debate for a number of years. This response is so damn typical of people that don't know what in the hell they are talking about that it is depressing. First the "Your not one of us so you are unworthy" gambit. Next comes the "Your Godless, but not so Godless that you are not really searching for God", then to finish it off a bald assertion that "I'm right and your wrong so nah!" How totally unimpressive. Now he posted this on Saturday, which was a typically busy day for me Pat was the only person to reply to me in that time. Here is my reply, posted on Sunday (you will note I refer to another post by Pat, one in which he claims this is a "Christian Nation" because Connecticut mentioned Jesus Christ in it's charter):
Ok is this it? Is this the best y'all can do? Then I guess I was right to claim the debate over.
One of the biggest problems Republicans have is this desire to re-write reality when it fails to agree with their world view. I am glad to see that on this list, at least, the only person doing so is Pat. Unless someone with a bit more brain power than Pat wants to challenge me then this will be the last post I make here. I had no intention of posting here in the first place but since I was so nicely invited...
In any case, onward and upward.
Suffice it to say, Dom, no reply is necessary...you made your points clearly. You are not a Republican, not a Conservative, and not a Christian. As you state, you are a liberal.
And so? This makes my arguments less worthy of an answer? Or perhaps you simply can't answer (which of course is what I suspect).
Pat your making my point for me. Republicans are simply not very well versed in the history of this country, especially when it comes to the founding and the opinion of those exceptional men that did the founding.
But...it puzzles me why you stay here. You challenge every assertion that America is somehow blessed by God ... or that our Founding Fathers may have indeed been Christians. It has dawned on me that you, like so many others, are searching ... for the truth ... for the meaning to life. And it wouldn't surprise me to see you here in due course espousing the words of a believer ... maybe even the words of a Conservative-Republican :) God works in mysterious ways!
First, I don't "stay" here. I came here because I was invited. I had (and have) no intention of sticking around, the invite was an obvious mistake. But before I had a chance to split I saw Judge Moroz post about this being a Christian Nation. Since I write a blog, and one of the subjects of major interest to me is the Separation of Church and State and since I knew what he had written was wrong, I felt compelled to share. I had no intention of sharing in the group though, since I feel that it is disruptive. I believe that conservatives and Republicans deserve to have their own space to talk without interference from me. But then you found the article and felt the need to post it to the group. Since you did it in such a basically dishonest way, then challenged me to answer in the group, and with Judge Moroz's kind words I figured what the heck, it's been a while since I have been in a vigorous intellectual debate. Shame it does not look like I will find one here.
Second, I said nothing about any assertion that America is somehow blessed by God. I don't believe that is so, but I certainly don't blame those that believe in a personal God believing so. Please be kind enough to show me just where I disputed such a claim. If you can't then please refrain from putting words in my mouth. If you can't answer my points, don't answer at all.
Third, there is no "may" to it. Indeed some of the Founders were undoubtedly Christian. Many of them were not. However sharing quotes from those that did profess a Christian belief, and distorting those that did not, hardly proves that this was intended to be a "Christian Nation". In order to ascertain that we must look at how the Founders behaved in an official way. And in an official way you lose. There is no mention of Jesus Christ in any official document by the Founding Fathers. God is mentioned, but of course Deist believe in God, just not the personal God of the Christian. And as far as your post on "Our Nations Godly Heritage (Connecticut's Godly Origins)" heck I will do ya one better. If you look at it from a state by state view there were mentions of Jesus in all sorts of documents. For example the colonial charters of Virginia, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, Connecticut, Carolina, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Georgia did acknowledge the Christian religion. The settlers at Rhode Island subscribed to this compact:
"We, whose names are underwritten, do hereby solemnly, in the presence of Jehovah, incorporate ourselves into a body politic; and as he shall help, will submit our persons, lives, and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, and to all those perfect and absolute laws of his, given us in his holy Word of truth, to be judged and guided thereby."
Twelve of the thirteen original state constitutions contained explicit acknowledgments of God and Christianity.
See the point works in my favor more than in yours Pat. Isn't it funny that no mention of Jesus made it into any federal documents of the time? Especially if, as you say, "The Fundamental Orders later became a source of inspiration for the framers of the Constitution." Clearly that inspiration only went so far. In fact the one official document that mentions Christianity at the time, clearly denies that we are a Christian nation (See Treaty of Tripoli ). John Adams was president when it was signed and I think you will agree that he was certainly one of the Founding Fathers!
Last, but certainly not least, you manage to display that arrogance that leaves me so cold about your religion. Why is it that Christians can never simply accept that a person may not believe the way they do? Sorry Pat, I am not some closet Christian just waiting for the right chance to embrace Mother Church. A "Searcher of Truth" I might be, but I can assure you that Christianity would not be where I turn for "truth". Nor any religion, religion has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with faith. More important than that I am agnostic in it's true meaning. It does not mean that I disbelieve in God, but that I find all human attempts to define God (most especially Christianity) rather silly. God, whatever else it might be, is so far out of our experience that granting it emotions -My God is a Jealous God indeed- or motivations or any other human trait is simply an attempt to understand what is not understandable. In fact, I dare say that if God were a being like Christians describe him, well he is not a very admirable God, certainly not a being worthy of my worship (Jesus, on the other hand, was fairly cool, of course his followers have distorted his message so badly that I think it is safe to say that those that follow Jesus are his own worse enemy). Ya know, God supposedly gave us free will. Free will implies the free choice to either accept God's message or reject it. I wholeheartedly and without a tinge of regret reject all of it. I see much more hate and dishonesty associated with your religion than I do truth and love.
As for America being a Christian Nation, it is what it is. Your words or mine won't change that. Satan is working hard to destroy this country and what it stands for. That is what I believe. In the South, the "Bible belt," if you will, the ACLU is working hard to remove God from the public ... and if they win in the South, we are all in trouble ... the northeast and the west, speaking of California, in particular, are already liberal strongholds. America needs revival!
Ah nothing like a bit of assertion without evidence. See what I mean by dishonest Pat? Your are going to attempt to tell me (and after everything I have posted) that this is a Christian Nation based on what? Pat's say so? Sorry if that utterly fails to impress me. If we go by what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country, then clearly they wanted a secular government with no ties to any religion including Christianity. To claim otherwise without a shred of evidence is intellectually dishonest in the extreme and I admit to being sorely disappointed. I certainly expected the level of debate in this group to be exceptional. Perhaps I expected too much.
As far as the silly superstitious claptrap at the end of your missive, please give me a break. Here is some news for you Pat, I live in the South, Texas in fact. I can assure you that no one, much less the ACLU (The New Bogeyman) is trying to remove God from the public (whatever that means, I admit to some confusion here), what they are trying to do is keep the U.S. government secular just like the Founders wanted. A worthy goal to anyone that respects the Founders...and is not merely paying lip service.
Praying for you, my friend ... and other lost souls,
Once again, how completely arrogant of you. I neither want nor appreciate your prayers Pat. You would be better off saving them for those that do.
Ok so Pat was not going to present much of a challenge. Perhaps the next reply would be better. This one came from Tradquest2003. Too bad, if possible it was even more lame and pathetic than Pat's:
No one wants to challenge you, so hopefully that was your last post.
Patrick said it best: you made your points clearly. You are not a Republican, not a Conservative, and not a Christian. As you state, you are a liberal.
This guy reminds me of the Dems in Florida yesterday, who still can't get over BUSH WON! All the Democrat candidates for President at yesterday's Florida convention, including Weaseley Clark, said the Supreme Court picked President Bush. WRONG! Even the liberal newspapers conducted their own recount after the election, and guess what? BUSH WON EVERY SINGLE RECOUNT!!!
The Dems say they want us out of Iraq now, and out of the other side of their mouths say they want to stay in Iraq until after the election. In effect, the Dems want a higher American casualty figure to benefit them in the '04 elections. Those Dems are disgusting!
The Dems want us out of Iraq because the terrorists are ambushing and sniping at our troops there. I wonder if a new platform issue for the Dems is if we should get out of the state of OHIO, especially since there is a sniper terrorizing folks on the highway there.
Note once again the total avoidance of any point that I brought up.
Why bother to point this out unless to use it as an excuse not to debate me? Pretty funny since this list seems to think your average liberal is brain dead. I guess we are less easy targets than y'all think eh?
Amazing! This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Do you know what a strawman argument is?
Very disappointing indeed. I disagree that this is a Christian Nation and somehow that translates into support for terrorist. Yet another member of this list that is less than intellectually rigorous.
Oh and not that this has a thing to do with the price of tea in China, but Bush did not win every recount in Florida. There is that basic desire of Republicans to re-write history. If the entire state of Florida had been recounted (which is what any lover of Democracy would have demanded) Gore would have won. Yet let's say that your right. Let's say that Bush won every recount! So what? That hardly changes the fact that the Supreme Court chose our President. REAL patriots are upset over that, see we care about democracy.
One last thing. Don't you think it is just a tad bit childish to call Gen. Westley Clark Weaseley Clark? Is this the respect for our men and women in the military that I can expect from you? You may disagree with the man's politics but he served this country proudly and well. I would have thought that he deserved at least a modicum of respect for just that fact. Hell I thought that the people posting to this list were adults. Yet another thing I guess I was wrong about.
I guess I should thank those that bothered to answer me. It has certainly been an enlightening experience.
This was the last post I was allowed to answer in the group.
Tomorrow: I am muted but they are still talking about me
Well lucky me. Not only did I get those photos I asked for yesterday I also got the webpages that went with them. However I have a dilemma. I am not sure just how legal posting these pages will be. So here is the deal.
First off, I removed all the pictures that, in my opinion, were not offensive. Page one has five pictures, page two has two pictures, page three has one, page four has none and page five has one. Those pictures I kept are in the html page. Some pictures were offensive in themselves. Some were made offensive by the caption.
Second they will be up only as long as I don't get a request to take them down. As soon as I have that request tho, they will come down. I don't think I am damaging Brian, after all he insists that he has a first amendment right to post them, and he will be damned if he apologizes for what he did. The only reason they came down is because of the request from the college.
So get em while their hot. I don't know how long they will be here.
Tensions continue to mount on the Penn State Campus today as leaders of the Black Caucus join with other organizations to denounce racist Halloween costumes worn - and later depicted on the website of the College Republicans.
The of the College Republicans made a public apology today. Chairman Brian Battaglia read from a statement, during which he apologized for the photographs, then went on to point fingers back at the Black Caucus - who he claims have harassed and assaulted members of the College Republicans. The statement was not well received by a coalition of student organizations who held a follow-up press conference.
All this outrage is stemmed from a Halloween party in which party-goers, attending a College Republicans function, dressed in in-appropriate costumes. One dressed up a KKK member. Another put on a black face and held up a bike chain, insinuating the costume was a representation of Takeem Morgan, a student was prosecuted earlier in the year for bike theft. And yet another costume was that of a priest holding a drink in each hand. The caption placed under the picture on the web-site read "I guess they drink before they go get the boys.
Recently Penn State had announced, with great pride, that minority enrollment had increased. Although racial controversies are not new to the school, students are hoping the administration will take a strong stand.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- A 2 1/2-hour meeting called yesterday at Penn State University to quell hostilities among several student groups apparently left everyone dissatisfied.
"There was nothing resolved at the meeting," said Tiffanie Lewis, president of the university's Black Caucus. "There was a lot of unnecessary dialogue."
[...]
I understand why people could be upset, but I think that's all they're entitled to be," said Brian Battaglia, chairman of the College Republicans. "Because someone is offended doesn't mean they're entitled to an apology."
Despite his feelings, Battaglia and his group issued that apology yesterday, mostly in an effort to bring the issue to conclusion.
"While we stand staunchly behind our freedom to express ourselves in a lawful manner, after contemplation, we understand that the content of the Web site was offensive to members of our community," the club said in a news release. "This situation has provoked a strong response and we realize that a greater level of sensitivity could have averted this situation.
"We regret that such restraint was not exercised."
In an interview yesterday, Battaglia said there were no ill intentions with the caption of the photograph showing the student in black makeup.
"Nothing malicious was intended by it," Battaglia said. "He explained what he was doing, and it was basically satire."
Oh I get it, it was one of those Republican apologies where they don't really apologize! Ya know, like Trent Lott when he said America would have been much better off without that whole "Civil Rights" thingie!
Penn State College Republicans chair Brian Battaglia issued an apology yesterday for offense taken at photographs posted last week on his Web site.
"While we stand staunchly behind our freedom to express ourselves in a lawful manner, after contemplation, we understand that the content of the Web site was offensive to members of our community," Battaglia said during a press conference yesterday in the HUB-Robeson Center
[...]
Battaglia said the organization's officers met with Vice President of Student Affairs Vicky Triponey Friday to discuss forming an open forum between the College Republicans, Black Caucus, Allies, USG and the Interfraternity Council.
Black Caucus held its own press conference at noon, at which members of the offended organizations responded to the situation.
In front of about 300 people, Black Caucus Vice President Anesha Ali said she would accept the College Republicans' apology through actions, not words.
"Apologies may come, and while resignations may come, institutional change on behalf of the university is the only acceptable outcome to this situation," she said.
Ah it becomes even more clear. You might remember that Brian's first response was that there would be no apology at all. Then he had a talk with University officials (more likely he was spanked) who convinced him of the error of his ways. He did not want to apologize. I think that much is clear.
The result of all this is nothing less than a split in the University Republican group:
Several students began forming a new Republican student group after they became disconcerted with the College Republicans in light of recent events.
Controversial pictures posted on the Web site of College Republican chair Brian Battaglia have led Bryan McKinney (senior-health policy administration) and Nomi Deutch (junior-political science) to form the Penn State Young Republicans.
Both are former members of the College Republicans and are working to establish an alternate group for Republican students who disagree with the current organization.
The group already has about 40 or 50 students supporting it, McKinney said.
Deutch said the support comes from students who were not comfortable with College Republicans.
"Under the current leadership of College Republicans, the other Republicans on campus are being isolated," she said.
The Yahoo group "The New Knighthood" bravely ran away.
Is there nothing more sad than seeing a whole email list run away from one tiny person? Or funny?
It all started with my article "Once again the Separation of Church and State Myth". As we know a member of the group, Patrick, had read my article and ran back to the Yahoo group "The New Knighthood" to report I had done an article about Judge Moroz inaccurate quotes of the Founding Fathers. After I read that I posted my screed on being pseudonymous. Well it seems that Pat read that too and decided to share again with the group. Under the title "The Liberals are Coming the Liberals are Coming" (you can read the whole thing by clicking here but you might have to join the group to do so):
I just want to set the record straight. I guess I don't really know what the meaning of "is" is :)
I went back to that Blog site I previously wrote about, and discovered I was wrong. The author of the article was "not attacking" Hal --- he was just pointing out how ignorant republicans are when it comes to American history --- and he isn't nameless (he goes by the pen name "Dominion"). I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better now.
By the way, Dominion, since you religiously :) read posts here (and comment on them on your web site), what political party are you associated with? I don't want to be wrong here, but I distinctly detected an anti-republican, anti-libertarian, anti-Christian bias in your columns. Am I wrong? (of course I am :)
Cheers! (I'll read your response in your column tomorrow ;)
Oooo a challenge. In truth I probably would not have bothered to post a response in the group because I feel it is disruptive. I have been in enough email groups where right wing yahoos decided to ruin them to lack the desire for such behavior myself. But then this reply came from Judge Moroz:
Well, Patrick, this would be a pretty boring world if everyone held the same beliefs. I am not sure about the motivations of your "friend," but I respect his right to express his opinions ... as much as I respect your right to say what you believe.
Debate is a great thing! And I, personally, love a good debate. While your "friend" may not admit it, he probably enjoys his (or her) exchanges with you ... and who knows, we all may learn something in the process. It is my hope that he (or she) is learning something that may affect/modify his (or her) views by reading the posts here. I consider a day poorly spent if at its end I have not learned something new.
Well that was a horse of a different color. It seems as if Judge Moroz admires a good debate and so do I. He respects other people's right to express their opinion, and so do I. He thinks debate is a great thing and so do I. Why if not for the totally bonehead opinions they hold about the formation of this country it might be a group I would enjoy! It was really a shame that Judge Monoz was not being truthful here but more on that later. Encouraged by his reply I decided to post right in the group:
Not at all, I will be more than happy to answer here, since it is apparent that I have an account to this group.
I really wish that if you are going to represent my writing 'member, that you would do it correctly and completely. First off, the name is James McLaughlin. As I wrote in my column I am not "nameless" as you accused me, but in fact quite well known as Dominion because of my years of writing on Usenet.I was outed years ago when I posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, yet another religion that did not like me too much. As far as my anti-republican, anti-libertarian, and anti-Christian bias, well anti is probably too strong a world. Let's just say I'm not republican, not libertarian and not Christian. Even worse, I do consider myself liberal. All of your worse nightmares rolled into one. Yet in spite of that horror I still maintained that I did not attack Judge Moroz.
See you only bothered to post the first part of my article. Yes, I said that Judge Moroz is wrong, and yes I said your typical Republican does not know American History very well. I will go farther and say that those that claim this is a "Christian Nation" certainly do not know American history well at all. I still say that this is not an attack because what I said is true. The truth is not an attack, it is merely the truth.
And the truth of the matter, as you should know if you bothered to read past the first few paragraphs, is that Judge Moroz was most certainly wrong in every quote he posted. I am not going to post the rest of the article as tempting as that is because I have already read Judge Moroz's response and consider him a gentleman, which is rare in the circles that I debate...and he is quite right, I do enjoy vigorous debate. One of the reasons I am replying to the list is because I am encouraged by his reply that he will not take things personally in spite of the fact that you certainly seemed to. Note that I did not call Judge Moroz stupid, dumb, ignorant, an idiot or any other derogatory terms. I did not call him that because I don't believe he is any of those things. Simply because someone may not know history well does not translate into stupidity.
But let's take a look at just one example. In his post "America: A Christian Nation? The Debate Continues..." Judge Moroz uses Thomas Jefferson as an example of a Founding Father that professed to being a Christian. He makes this claim by reproducing a quote from Jefferson:
I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.
I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw.
I have no idea where that last sentence comes from (I have little doubt etc...etc...etc) but it does not come from this letter which is to Charles Thomson and written in January 9, 1816.
So the quote as given by Judge Moroz is incorrect. Even worse is any attempt to make Thomas Jefferson into a Christian. He was not Christian, he was a Deist. One only has to read "The Jefferson Bible" to realize that Thomas Jefferson was no Christian. I asked this in my original column, and I will ask it here. Would any Christian on this list recommend "The Jefferson Bible" as a good bible for a fellow Christian? Let us remember that Jefferson wrote his bible to eliminate all of the superstition and leave only the doctrine. You can read it here http://www.narcosislabs.org/TheJeffersonBible.html but if you don't want to read the whole thing just page down to the bottom and find where it ends. It ends when they roll the stone in front of the sepulchre. No resurrection and if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead you can hardly be a Christian right? See when Jefferson said he was a "real Christian" what he meant was he was real because he followed only the moral code, and paid no attention to the mysticism.
Therefore when Judge Moroz used Thomas Jefferson's quote in an attempt to show that the Founding Fathers were Christian he was wrong wrong wrong. I don't think it unreasonable to draw the conclusion that Judge Moroz does not know American history very well if he thinks that Thomas Jefferson is a Christian. If he did not, then why use Jefferson as an example?
Now do I blame Judge Moroz for this mistake? Nope, this quote has been going around a lot longer than Judge Moroz has been posting to this group. Does it make him dumb to use it? Again nope, people do this sort of thing all the time. The only blame I lay is that he did not bother to check the quote to see if it is correct. One should always try to check the primary source when using a quote. I am sure that after this Judge Moroz will be much more careful.
Yet in my own opinion the absolute worse mistake of all is the idea that the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be a clear separation between church and state. The very fact that the U. S. Government cannot declare an official religion is the glue that holds the freedom of worship together. It insures that Baptist, Catholics, Jews, Muslim, Hindu and even people like me will all enjoy the freedom to worship in whatever manner that pleases us, including the right not to worship at all.
It is incredibly short sighted to attempt to do away with such a vital part of our Constitution.
Well there is a lot of material, surly it would generate some debate. So I sat back and waited. And waited. And waited some more. It soon became clear that no on on the list had the guts to debate me on this subject. To tell the truth I was quite surprised, whereas there was no way they could dispute the facts of Jefferson's lack of Christian Belief, I thought for sure someone would pick up the Separation of Church and State and debate that with me. No such luck. So I followed it up with this post titled "America: A Christian Nation? The Debate is Over?":
Well well well. I have to admit that when I wrote my reply to Pat, I thought of all sorts of replies I could get on my post...but the one reply I never expected to get was no reply at all.
Is there no one on this list that would care to debate the Separation of Church and State with me? I thought for sure I would at least get a reply from Pat...
I have no intention of disrupting this group, and I promise I won't be here long, but since Pat brought me up and since I am here I thought y'all should have a chance to give me your best shot.
Come on, I should be an easy target. According to Pat all I write is crap...
Did this provoke anything even close to a vigorus debate? Of course not we are talking about fundimentalist Christian Republicans. They may pay lip service to the idea of a good debate but when confronted with someone that obviously knows his stuff, they fold faster than a house made of playing cards.
While I am at it, Congrats to new Houston Mayor Bill White. He totally crushed Orlando Sanchez in a run off election held over the weekend. White garnered 63% of the vote to Orlando's 37%.
For those of you not in Houston, we don't identify city officials by party. But it was easy enough to pick out the Republican Sanchez by his pledge to cut Houston taxes, a move that would have spelled disaster for the city considering the business giveaways that former mayor Lee Brown presided over. It pleases me to no end that my fellow citizens recognized Orlando's screed to be a disaster in the making and deciding that perhaps he was not the best man for the job.
The controversy surrounding the photographs posted last week on the Web site of the Penn State College Republicans' chair has caused the resignation of at least one member and many statements and apologies from others. Leaders of the group met with university administrators to discuss the gravity of the situation.
Brian Battaglia, the group's chairman, said he met with Vice President of Student Affairs Vicky Triponey this weekend to discuss possible resolutions to the situation and group members' safety on campus.
"There is definitely a double standard," he said. "Our members and the officers and myself really do feel threatened almost more than [Black Caucus does]. I think they're using this to their political advantage and the threats are actually against conservatives at this point."
Penn State President Graham Spanier in a written statement Friday called the photographs "patently offensive to anyone with a modicum of decency." While the Web site is protected by the First Amendment, he said, they are unacceptable by appropriate standards.
[...]
The College Republicans held an emergency meeting Friday night to discuss the situation and voted to support Battaglia, the party's host and owner of the Web site on which the photos were posted.
"As a club, College Republicans hopes that Chairman Battaglia will ignore the calls for his resignation by clubs hostile to the CRs. The members of the College Republicans praise the integrity and vision of Battaglia's leadership and thank him for his
