The Stout Republican

Wow, looks like the entire secular left is making their stand after this election. For them to come out for this in Orange County of all places says a lot, in my opinion.

Good for them. Suddenly I love the OC!

Funny that he made the point about being a socialist…the pedge was written by a socialist baptist minister, but I digress. Why not fight McCarthyism, with McCarthyism…people already have the right to sit out of the pledge, not say the pledge, or leave the room

Go secular left…your religion deserves the institutionalized recognition that Christians should not be allowed…so what if this country was founded on Christian values, by Christains, and the word “our creator” is used in our Constitution…

To quote South Park’s view on atheists, “If mere logic doesn’t work, you must also be extremely smug and pretentious to others who disagree with you.”

If your way of life is that threatened by a word…then you have problems…when I hear atheists stop using the phrase, “Oh my God”, and “Jesus H. Christ” (which has obviously permeated into their subconcious by the Christain right to keep God in our vocabulary) then maybe I’d take this seriously.

My favorite quote from the article:

Bell said the ban largely came about because the trustees didn’t want to publicly vow loyalty to the American government before their meetings.

Odd, as they sit in meetings subsidized by the American government…and want American government to offer tuition breaks, and grants, and social programs…one hand out for the goods of course…while the other draws back to slap the same people across the face.

I like how he said [it] “was directly designed to destroy my ideology.” These OC rich kids need to think outside themselves. BTW, I am offended that he is offended.

All I gotta say Stout, is you’re quoting South Park.

We’re afraid of eachother, GT. And, well, all voices have not been heard lately. Secularists might’ve been shouting their chords out for a while, but t’is the equivalent of them going upon deaf ears that no one’s responded to their liking.

And that’s one big reason the majority left and majority right will NEVER see eye to eye. Secularism being the source for many of the left’s views, and the opposite for the right’s.

Unless, of course, the Republicans return to the values of Goldwater rather than Ted Haggard.

Oh, and Stout? Honestly, I’m truly curious here: What are these Christian Values that so many on the right claim the country was founded on? And how do those said values conflict with what you believe are secularist values?

Stout. Did you just say “Woot”?

In real life, yes…on the articles, no…that was going there.

Feel free ti run a Wikipedia on w00t…fantastic nerd history there.

The basic value is we’re beholden to a power greater than ours, that there’s a better good to strive for than humanism, that there is an authority outside our own.

For secularism to exist in the society, I don’t see why religiousity as to be stricken from the public forum. I just don’t see the reason for it.

Of course I quoted South Park…it’s the best show for social and political commentary ever.

While I understand that this country was founded on “Christian” values, it was also founded on the value of seperation of church and state. I think that it is a violation of that value to have the word God in a statement that is a declaration of our loyalty to our government and our country. As christians, you can add God in there all you want, but it shouldnt be a part of the “official” language. That is unless you want to add Allah, Buddha, Satan, L. Ron Hubbard ect ect in there to cover all your basis……

P.S.: “Christian” is in quotes because I hate that these are called “christian” values, like the only people that have these values are Christians…..

Proud Liberal, where you been all my life?

Howdy, guys. Just couldn’t let Proud Liberal’s stance on “separation of church and state” go unchecked. Fact of the matter is, the first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (I’m going from memory here, and it’s been a couple of years since I received the highest grade in my ‘Religion and the Constitution’ class in law school. Forgive me if I’ve slightly misquoted.) When the first amendment was drafted, the Bill of Rights was intended to apply only to the federal government, not the states… that bizarre twist of jurisprudence happened much later. In fact, Maryland, for example, had adopted Catholicism as its official religion (first of the colony, then of the state). So by applying a bit of reason to these facts, it becomes apparent that the drafters of the Bill of Rights were actually attempting to remove federal congressional interference at all. “No law respecting” means just that: hands off. You cannot create a federal religion (such as might be found in the Church of England), nor can you tell the states what to do. (A congressional mandate killing off a state’s preferred religion would presumably be a law “respecting” it, since “respecting” means “concerning.”) And the concept of “separation of church and state” is derived from one line, of one personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson. So no, actually separation of church and state was not a value held dear to the hearts of the founders. It is largely a revisionist creation, convenient primarily to people who do not wish to be reminded, as Stout so eloquently put it, that we are beholden to a power higher than ourselves.

I sincerely respect the analysis brought to us by you, Smart Lass. My response is: But Still!

“It is largely a revisionist creation, convenient primarily to people who do not wish to be reminded, as Stout so eloquently put it, that we are beholden to a power higher than ourselves” First of all, that is a big assumption. 1) I do believe in a power higher than myself. It may not be the “Christian God” but I do believe. So to say that we oppose this so we dont have to be reminded is ridiculous. 2) I dont believe that people oppose such language because they are afraid to be reminded of a power higher than themselves, they oppose such language because it cuts out a significant portion of the American people. Just like we say “Happy Holidays” and not Merry Christmas in order to include other religions. Not all Americans believe in God, and since Christianity is NOT our national religion, we should not have language in our national pocilies and statements that acts like it is. W. and too many of his supporters seem to think that a government official is supposed to swear upon the Constitution to uphold the Bible rather than the other way around. (The whole swearing on a bible thing is a WHOLE different debate as well….)

I will concede that you may know more about the original founding fathers intentions with seperation of church and state, but I dont believe that they would approve of how much of a strong hold Christianity has on our government right now.

And of course no one TRULY believes that Bush, et al believes officials should swear upon the Constitution to uphold the Bible, but their actions give that appearance. And in today’s superficial America and world, an America where a Television’s JFK beats Nixon vs. a radio’s Nixon beating JFK in their debates, appearance is everything.

First of all, a strong hold? Last time I checked, sticking a fork in a baby’s head was still legal. So is executing the brain dead. Oh, and saying a prayer at a football game is an executable offense… likewise bringing a Bible to a public school or displaying a nativity scene on public property. The day our government orders me to wear a burqua or go to jail if I refuse to celebrate mass, I will concede that we have become a religious dictatorship. As it is, I simply choose not to listen to prayers offered to gods in whom I do not believe. That being, in my opinion, the essence of a mature recognition of free speech. And as to appearances being everything… actually I disagree. (Surprised?) Content, substance, reality, facts… that, my liberal friend, is everything.

Very well said, SL.

Lass, I whole heartily agree that content, substance, reality and facts are everything. Unfortunately, the masses have shown through action that they disagree.

Well last time I checked no one was sticking a fork in a baby’s head, because that WOULD be illegal. What will happen if abortion (which is not sticking a fork in anything including a fetus) becomes illegal is that Women will resort to actions that will hurt themselves, and I can guarantee you that the suicide rate will skyrocket. But that is for another debate another time…

If Bush had his way would also have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which last time I checked is still not legal in almost every state, and you cant tell me it isn’t for “religious” reasons. And what about embryonic stem cell research? Cant do that either. How about “intelligent design” being taught in public schools? We wouldn’t want our children to have to learn just science in the classroom, what the rest of the industrialized world considers basic scientific knowledge.

In addition, the only reason that abortions are still legal in this country is because the Supreme Court made that decision long before our current politicians are were in office. If it was up for debate today I shudder to think what would happen.

And just so we are clear this isn’t just against republicans, this is against the way that government as a whole seems to be thinking these past few years.

The fork in the head is a reference to “Late Term” or “Partial Brith”, and while not always a fork, sometimes it is a vacuum tube that scrambles the brain and sucks…which is legal. See also the case where a woman shot herself in the stomach to kill her baby, which was due any day, and all charges were dropped because it’s not a crime.

The legal decision for abortion is based on a flawed decision from Griswold vs. CT, known for the “penumbra” inferrence. But that’s all an aside, because based on Stare Decisis, until Griswold is readdressed, most other issues will stand. It it’s truly a legal issue that abortion activist want to argue, they will probably lose, which is why instead we see and hear commercial about how hard life is for pregnant single women (pull on heart strings).

For me the decision is made when someone has sex (I think there should be exceptions in the case of rape/incest), abortion is not birth control…we’ll end up someday with India, where people are already aborting babies based on sex. How far away are we from designer babies who are aborted because their eyes aren’t blue, or they have Cerebral Palsey. For me, adoption is the alternative…and while I’m a man, and I’ll never truly understand the difficulty of such a decision, what some people call “not alive” or a “bundle of cells”, others lean over an incubator, holding hands, while they thank every doctor around them for their premature babies breathes.

How the hell did we end up on this anyways? We bounce around everywhere…I need to start regulating to keep on topic…too many hot button issues that people gravitate to.

Excuse the delayed response… I had to serve lunch to the baby, clean said lunch off of floor, and then bathe same lunch out of hair. Bless her little heart. Fortunately mommy wasn’t a liberal who denied the existence of the fork in the skull (followed by the vacuuming out of the brains) known as partial birth abortion, which, as I understand is currently legal because one of our brillaint circuits ruled against Congress, thus staying the application of the law until the Supremes rule in June. But I digress.

Bush’s position of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was foolish. Marriage has historically been the province of the states. The feds need to stay out of it. As to stem cell research, knock yourself out. Just don’t kill any babies to do it. You know… the whole one person being more valuable than another dilemma. And intelligent design in the classroom? Read the book “The Case Against Accident and Self-Organization.” Excellent discussion of the scientific odds of the spontaneous generation of life from primordial soup. (As in, less likely than firing a .22 rifle from earth, without aiming, and hitting the moon.) Science, indeed.

Finally, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a national embarassment. It was one of the poorest pieces of jurisprudence ever concocted out of thin air. It’s predecessor in rationale – Griswold v. Connecticut – likewise an absurdity.

Incidentally, I would agree with you that the republican party has taken a somewhat anti-intellectual stance on multiple issues, which is completely unnecessary and, frankly, insulting. I think that’s part of why they lost this week.

We’re doing it remember…punch and 24 on New Years. I’ve never watched the show, and PR keeps pushing me to violate my plans GT…but I hold fast…damn liberal perched on my shoulder, telling me to do bad things…

I’ll be the blunt liberal every right wing Christian has been waiting for.

I-don’t-care-if-a-fetus-dies. I couldn’t possibly care less. I don’t care how brutal the death can possibly be because I simply don’t care. I care about the human that wants or doesn’t want the abortion, just like I care about the human that’s going to war, risking their lives or anyone for that matter risking their lives. They’re here on Earth, living, loving, laughing, and that stupid fetus is not.

If Christians were consistent with their beliefs, they’d be just FINE with abortions because it’s a free ticket for the fetus into Heaven. Sadly, they are not and so they want everyone to suffer for it.

Since I don’t believe in it, I have no problem saying that fetus’ can go to hell for all I care.

And of course, like so many, the source of our passionate disagreements here are those who have faith in an invisible man in the sky and those who don’t. Those who believe in a devil with a pitchfork and fiery lakes battling the angels in heaven with their wings and halos and harps and clouds, vs. those who have no reason to believe in fairy tales.

You’ll never get over your Santa Claus and I’ll never get over the fact that you believe in him.

Too bad, GoingThere. No one’s trying to impress you or persuade you of anything except of my very own perspective. I went where I wanted to go and don’t pretend to tip toe around other people’s feelings when their actions give me no reason to.

Eat shit, geyser.

Going to Reel you in here Practical. Making a point is one thing, but the point shouldn’t be to offend for the mere shock value of it…I think you can get your point across a little more tactful. Humor I like, shock humor even…but pushing buttons just to push them…I know you enjoy baiting people, to justify unleashing, but keep it within reason. There’s always DailyKos if you just want substance free mudsling.

I wish I could say that I wasn’t completely sincere there. But that’s all I was trying to be. Perhaps you should take the word “Practical” from my name, but I swear to whatever God is out there that I meant every single word.

I have a few questions for those who feel that their ideology is threated by those two words, “Under God.”

How can you hate a God that you don’t believe exists?

How can you be offended by something that you do not believe exists?

Is your ideology so fragile that it can be utterly destroyed by the personal beliefs of others or the utterence of the words “Under God?
” Did your ideology just collapse because I typed that onto this blog space?

Personally I could care less about your personal beliefs. I choose to believe in God. If you do not then that is your right. But, do not attempt to dictate to me or anyone else that we have to change our customs or beliefs simply because atheists feel offended. Last time I checked this was a free country and not governed by the ACLU (Association of Communist Leftwing Utopians) or the Supreme Court. That court does not have the constitutional power to legislate or change the contents of the constitution. I will continue to pray in public if I wish. The local school system will continue to teach the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety. And, we will continue to pray at our local high school sporting events. If you don’t like the ideology of others, you can just suck it up and get over it. We will exercise or rights whether you like it or not. You have the right to feel offended but not the right to tell us how to live. Nuff Said

Frank, no one is trying to take away your religous freedoms. You can pray wherever you want, whenever you want. I dont think anyone was saying that they were against that.

“Personally I could care less about your personal beliefs” and Frank, I could care less about yours.

Amen, Frank.

“How can you hate a God that you don’t believe exists?

How can you be offended by something that you do not believe exists”

I shall answer these questions for you.

I believe in God. just maybe not the same God you believe in. Im also not offended my “under God” I just think it is unfair and unethical to have the words “Under God” in a statement that is said by every child in the US, and that includes muslims, budhists, athiests, agnostics, devil worshipers ect. ect. i am offended not by the words, but by the exclusion. We should leave religion out of it.

You have the right to practice Christianity, to pray, to go to church, to teach your children ID, to never have an abortion, ect ect, just dont push those beliefs on to everyone else.

Does the mere mention of God mean someone is trying to push their beliefs on you? Are you that threatened by words? Are you that uncomfortable with someone else’s speech that the only way to deal with it is to cut it off. Children are not required to say the pledge, just as they are not required to eat meat in the cafeteria when it’s served…but it’s there is they want it. I’m waiting for the lawsuit in which Vegetarians say they’re children shouldn’t be exposed to meat, because it’s in the same category of ridiculous to me. Imagine the poor Vegan child, with all the other children around him eating Hamburgers…how dare they make him feel so uncomfortable and try to push their lifestyle on him.

Under your proposed plan, by removing “Under God”, it seems like the only people included are atheists, and they have the only state accepted religion is atheism. I think it’s odd that children can be taught Darwinism (which still has no real explanation for the first atom, or how every part of an eye that would otherwise be useless evolved at the exact same time to make a working organ) and exposed to nothing else…but that aside, Darwinism and evolution in general, especially the theory (yes theory) of speciation, which has never actually occured or been observed in nature, require faith. The point is, even evolution requires faith, but that sort of faith is okay to teach our children…but, according to activists, to teach someone about a religion, is to force them to convert to that religion. I’d support the removal of “Under God” if the “theory” of God could be taught at school…but atheists, and agnostics, are so threatened by the mere mention of God, that any discourse in the area is an attempted conversion.

So yes, I think athiests are threatened, there is no other explanation for not wanting to even hear or be exposed to an idea. They are afraid of the conversation, and unlike Christians, who daily have to defend their beliefs, they are terrified of being asked to be put in the same situation, someone elses freedom of speech is less important that their constitution freedom to be comfortable at school? Can’t you see that around you everywhere…people who believe in a God are made to be the villians, the liars, the idiots, and the unethical as it stands now…as the act of mentioning God is trying to be run underground.

“Children are not required to say the pledge, just as they are not required to eat meat in the cafeteria when it’s served…but it’s there is they want it. I’m waiting for the lawsuit in which Vegetarians say they’re children shouldn’t be exposed to meat, because it’s in the same category of ridiculous to me.”
If this example was to make sense, it would have to be that the only thing served in the cafeteria is meat (since the pledge is only said one way) and that the child had a choice of eating meat or eating nothing at all (since the child can choose not to say the pledge) Is that fair? I think not. My point, again, is not that I am threatened by the word God, it is that the word God excludes a significant portion of our population.

“‘Under God’, it seems like the only people included are atheists, and they have the only state accepted religion is atheism.”

Actually, if under God was removed, it would not include ANY religion. Which is my point. For it to be towards atheism, it would be “Not under any god” or something of the like.

“To teach someone about a religion, is to force them to convert to that religion. I’d support the removal of “Under God” if the “theory” of God could be taught at school…but atheists, and agnostics, are so threatened by the mere mention of God, that any discourse in the area is an attempted conversion.”

In fact that is not the case. I am all for teaching children about religion, but ALL Religions should be taught, not just Christianity. I believe this teaches understanding and tolerance. There is a difference between teaching and preaching. Teaching is one of the most powerful tools to create understanding. There is also a difference between teaching ID and Evolution. Evolution is widely accepted as fact by scientists, while ID is not. While evolution doesn’t explain EVERYTHING, it is the only scientific explanation that has pieces of proof. If classes want to teach ID as part of a class on Religion and Christianity, that would be fine, but until it has scientific proof on its side, it should be left out of science class.

“Christians, who daily have to defend their beliefs, they are terrified of being asked to be put in the same situation, someone elses freedom of speech is less important that their constitution freedom to be comfortable at school? Can’t you see that around you everywhere…people who believe in a God are made to be the villians, the liars, the idiots, and the unethical as it stands now”

Would Christians be UNCOMFORTABLE if God wasnt in the Pledge of Allegence? Because that seems ridiculous to me. Why would that make you uncomfortable? If I am supposed to be OK with God in the pledge, how can you be uncomfortable with it gone?

I also don’t see how people who believe in God are made to be the villians and the liars. The only people that are made into villains and liars are villains and liars. Christians (which is what I am assuming you mean by people who believe in God, not people like me) are not persecuted. In fact, due to this evangelical president, they have more power now than they ever have in the past.

Are Practical Radical and ProudLiberal the same person?

Ha ha, no Abby. Though it’s obvious we sure think alike.

scary

We’re creepin’ and crawlin’ outta the nooks and crannies with our Demmy win! We be everywhere now. I’m talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues by Bob Dylan, if you want the whole recount.

creepy

Amazing.

These people actually think that having to say the word God is wrong. Do they ignore the fact that most of the original thirteen colonies had their own state sponsored religions at the time of the founding of our nation, or do they not know it? Do they fail to understand the difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion? Do they understand the difference between Congress passing a law and the President passing an executive order or a local politician passing a law?

-Bartleby