Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, November 16, 2008

As the dust settles on Washington following Barack Obama's election, one group more than any other is expecting to be out in the cold -- the Religious Right.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

zatoichi

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla will lead them out of the wilderness.

What on earth are our underpaid teachers, laboring in the vineyards of education, supposed to tell students about the following sentence, committed by the serial syntax-killer from Wasilla High and gleaned by my colleague Maureen Dowd for preservation for those who ask, "How was it she talked?"

My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska's investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars.

And, she concluded, "never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don't know about this issue."

cavett.blogs.nytimes.com

"And, she concluded, "never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don't know about this issue."

And yet this preposterous moron "impressed" some of the "thinkers" of the DR right.

The Christian community was used by the White House and the GOP. Read this transcript from CNN and then watch the Bill Moyers piece "Capitol Crimes' linked just below. Ralph Reed, Abramoff, and Tom Delay played the Religious Right for fools. The video has all the documents to prove it. Click WATCH "CAPITOL CRIMES" once on the page.

Capitol Crimes - (The Fleecing of America and the Duping of the Religious Right)

From CNN interview with David Kuo, former deputy director of the WH Office of Faith and Community Based Initiatives:

There's a controversial new book. It accuses the Bush administration of manipulating its conservative base for political purposes.

David Kuo served as deputy director of the office of faith-based and community initiatives in the Bush White House, got a new book called "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction."

David Kuo's with us this morning. It's nice to see you in person.

DAVID KUO, AUTHOR, "TEMPTING FAITH": Good morning.

S. O'BRIEN: Because I know we've talked over the years. You write a lot about disillusionment, with going in, thinking that your religious beliefs will be furthered, and not really discovering that. What was the thing that turned you against the White House, do you think?

KUO: I think the most exciting thing that the president promised was this $8 billion a year and help for the poor. I mean, it's one of the most extraordinary promises a president has made in a long time. And what I write about in the book, frankly, is this temptation or the problem Christians run into with politics. Because Christians and politics simply get used by other people.

This is not a surprise, however. Every White House, every politician is going to use different voting blocks for their own purposes. In this particular case, Christians need to be aware and to go into things with their eyes wide open.

S. O'BRIEN: You write about a meeting, and here's what you say, "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person, then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ridiculous, out of control, goofy." Were you at meetings when that happened? Who were the people doing that?

KUO: Absolutely. You know what's interesting is there's been this controversy that's erupted over this. I don't think there are very many people in politics who deal with Christian conservatives who haven't had the same experience. I got an e-mail from a friend last night who worked on the 2000 campaign, who said, you know, what you describe is exactly my experience. I was a social conservative, and heck, I got forced out of the White House for exactly that reason.

CNN.com Transcripts
(3/4 of the way down the page - there's more..)

Much as I'd like to see the Republican party take an Ex-Lax and shit out these lunatics, others say that is not in the cards, hence, come 2012, Sarah and her pet pack on loonies will be back, and we can laugh all over again.

Well THANK GOD for that!!!!!

The fact that people still believe in the monster under the bed is fucking embarassing.

My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska's investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars.

Gotta admit.

She is a master at saying absolutely nothing. She'd be a Grand Master if there was even a hint that what she said SOUNDED as if it made a little bit of sense.

...and they SHOULD be left out. Religion has NO place in government.

Boo frickin' hoo.

Sister Sarah believes Darfur is the capital of Africa.

"I'd like to see the Republican party take an Ex-Lax and shit out these lunatics,"

The Republican Party IS those lunatics. Without them the GOP could hold its next national convention m a grade school; classroom. Without them it would be like the 4-foot-11 95-pound Texan: A big guy who had the shit beat out of him. herm

Seems like they(christian right) are just reaping what they sow. When you proclaim yourselves to be morally superior and champion a form of religious exclusivity...did they really expect to be welcomed with open arms from the 'godless heathens' they've been railing against all this years?

The repub party will do away with their base when the lunatic left gets rid of theirs.

And another thing--guess the repub base would beg to differ with the reaffirmation of marriage in 39 states now, including the blue state of CA.

The repub party will do away with their base when the lunatic left gets rid of theirs.

Yeah, but you are telling that TO the lunatic left. Nobody ever thinks they are part of the extreme kook fringe.

"And another thing--guess the repub base would beg to differ with the reaffirmation of marriage in 39 states now, including the blue state of CA."

From 62 to 38 against gay marriage to 52 to 48 against. The writing is on the wall, Murphy. You're going to lose this one eventually, loser.

The repub party will do away with their base when the lunatic left gets rid of theirs.

#13 | POSTED BY MURPHY AT 2008-11-16 08:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You're no longer a Democrat. It's a start.

No need to feel left out. Obama has decided that issues that affect US ALL will be more of a priority than the divisive tactics of Rove/Bush.

Either get on board, or not. Makes NO DIFFERENCE to me.

I am always amazed by the hateful rhetoric of anti-christian bigots. With intense hate they accuse Christians of being exclusive and mean spirited. Christianity and christians in general are not exclusive. Our doors are open to anyone regardless of race, sex, culture, and religion. What is taught is a faith based on a relationship with Jesus christ. It is true that we teach a morality based on the teachings of Christ. We do not impose those beliefs, but we are not ashamed to share them and even to proclaim them a more excellent way of living. Why is it that Christians should not be permitted to share their views openly but any other faith can. Also, I hate to inform all of you Constitutional scholars, but the Constiution does not prohibit religious discourse in the public arena. It only prevents congress from passing a law establishing and or limiting the free excercise of religion. I just find it ironic that Liberals, the supposed bastian of tolerance, becomes absolutely unhinged when it comes to Chrsitans simply living their lives and sharing their faith.

Self-retorting posts are entertaining.

We do not impose those beliefs,

#19 | Posted by chappynash

I think there's about 2000 years of history to contradict this claim.

I've seen no evidence that the politicized christian-right, possess much in the way of tolerance. I have seen some evidence of tolerance in the more moderate to liberal christians. But of course these folks aren't considered 'true' christians by Jesus' so-called favored ones...American, white, republicans.

other than anticdotal evidence whihc exists for almost any arguemnt. Please enlighten me on the intolerence of the monolithic "religious right".

As an american, white, republican, you comment on solidifies my earlier remark thta the true intolernce and hate comes from the left. talk about bigotry.

I don't disagree with the fact many atheists are just as judgemental and intolerant as many of those on the christian right. I've said so in past posts.

But I don't consider issues like gay-rights, abortion, school prayer, etc, as 'anecdotal evidence'...you and I both know, these are all part of the republican platform, and certainly rise above 'anecdotal' evidence.

You notice I didn't even include the garbage being spewed by some of the more well-known leaders of the evangelical community...you know the stuff about Obama being the antichrist or how he really is a muslim terrorist? I'm going to assume for now, that these idiots are even further to the right than you chappy and don't represent the typical republican-christian. But sometimes I have to wonder...

By the way chappy...I'm not a liberal. I'd actually be inclined to vote republican, if they were to ever run a true conservative...you know the kind who doesn't believe that the government should be meddling in peoples personal lives.

Sometimes that broad-brush you folks like to use to label people with, just isn't quite broad enough. Nice try though...

Right to life is not intolerence, it is something many Christians believe in fighting for. I assume by "gay rights" you are referring to the issues of legal definition of marriage. In that instance, it is not only "religious right" that has a problem with redefining marriage but others on the left as well, including Obama. The issues of school prayer is negligible. there are very few Christian groups or even people advocating mandatory christian school prayer. most advocate a quiet time that can include prayer. Even then, large evangelical groups like baptists are often opposed to any mandatory prayer, as who is going to write the prayer etc. As far as well known "leaders". A big mouth and a Tv show do not a true leader make. If that were the case then I could assume the Keith Olberman is a leader in the liberal hate speech left.

MRSOUL...I guess I took you for a liberal because of your "American, white, republican comment and the clear meaning behind that that there was something wrong with being of that group.

Chappy....
Teach ID in schools....forcing Christian ideals on the public
Make abortion illegal....forcing Christian ideals on the public
Abstinence only....forcing Christian ideals on the public
Ten Commandments in public buildings....forcing Christian ideals on the public
Anti-Gay marriage initiatives....forcing Christian ideals on the public
Anti-Gay adoption....forcing Christian ideals on the public
Heck, even
No alcohol sales on Sunday....forcing Christian ideals on the public

I have no problem in Christians giving their views and disapproval on any of these subjects. They're welcome to all the TV shows and publications blathering away that they want. But when they fight to put these ideals into law, then it goes way beyond....

Why is it that Christians should not be permitted to share their views openly but any other faith can. Also, I hate to inform all of you Constitutional scholars, but the Constiution does not prohibit religious discourse in the public arena.
Posted by chappynash

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Good enough for me.

"anticdotal evidence" - Chappynash I really like that word.

We should be grateful to the evanjihadists for their forcing of Palin on McCain. They sealed Obama's victory.

No, but I do think there are some on the Christian-right, who feel that they are somehow more favored by their Lord than the rest of us...including more moderate christians.

But I'm getting the feeling you might not be one of them Chappy...and I apologize if I got personal. I can be very intolerant of perceived intolerance...but I'm working on it. :)

"Right to life is not intolerence (sic) ... is something many Christians believe in."

If they believe in rummaging other folks' wombs, they need to believe in something else.

"... legal definition of marriage... others on the left as well, including Obama."

No one has a right to define marriage for anyone else.

"... few Christian groups or even people advocat(e) mandatory school prayer."

Christians OR people, eh? How can you STOP anyone from praying???

"...Keith Olberman is a leader in the liberal hate speech left."

Th liberal hate speech left exists only in your imagination. herm

The point of my overly bolded post above (sorry 'bout that) was to the Republican evangelical Republicans here:

The the GOP seeks one thing and one thing only - power.

They do not have your best interests in mind. It's a ruse. Open your church doors and provide day care, feed the hungrym help the poor, minister to the 'low in spirit' (homeless/out of work) as Jesus said to do.

Get out of politics and into the business of doing good works to make this a better, more loving and peaceful world.

Come on. Get out there. Show us what ya got. There are a lot of people who could use a hand up, a compassionate smile, and a meal more than they could use lectures in morals. Lead and others may follow - but only when they know you love them because you showed it first.

"The [party] is only the vehicle in which the conservatives travel.

If the conservatives are so sure that America is a conservative coountry, let them start a new political party.

There are a lot of families in desperate situations. Where is the religious right in speaking out for or even helping those families? Families are traveling to Nebraska hospitals and dropping off their children because they can no longer care for (or control) them. Why isn't the religious right helping those families and others in similar desperate situations?

The religious right is morally bankrupt. Their leaders are just as greedy and ego driven as are the leaders in other segments of our society.

No, but I do think there are some on the Christian-right, who feel that they are somehow more favored by their Lord than the rest of us...including more moderate christians.

No question.

there are a lot of people who think they are superior to others because of some "enlightenment" they believe they posess.

I get the feeling that many here believe that religous superiority complexes are inferior to other types of superiority complexes.

I see many agnostic/atheistic folks here who espouse their superiority complex on the topic of religon and that seems to be acceptable along with the bashing of religon and religious people.

LOL

Where is the religious right in speaking out for or even helping those families? Families are traveling to Nebraska hospitals and dropping off their children because they can no longer care for (or control) them. Why isn't the religious right helping those families and others in similar desperate situations?

link please.

link please

Here it is.

www.cnn.com

The business Repubs dropped the Christians in a hear beat. As long as they spoke about the "moral imperative of low taxes" they were great. Once Huckabee started talking about the requirement to actually help people in need, they swung their support to Romney.

Being left out is exactly where they should be left. Our country would be much much better off and we would have only half of the problems we have today.

'Bout damn time!! Out, out, I say!!

Our country would be much much better off and we would have only half of the problems we have today.

Half? I will assume you are exaggerating a bit.

The Christian Right have been a part of America since the Pilgrims. Patrick Henry and John Jay were both proud members of the Christian Right. We are America and will rule on judgement day

'"The Republican Party as it exists today could not exist without the Christian evangelical vote and the conservative Catholic vote," said Allen Hertzke, visiting senior fellow at the influential Pew Forum on Religion and Politics. '

The truth is that the religious right isn't going to vote for any other party anyway. And once you pledge your loyalty to party, that party has no reason to cater to you. They are better off catering to swing voters. That is why blind loyalty to a political party is against the voters' interests. If your party takes you for granted, its your fault. And your first mistake was joining a party.

The truth is that the religious right isn't going to vote for any other party anyway.

Well, they are never going to "endorse" a democrat. At least the guys in charge now won't.

However, it is encouraging that despite the rhetoric, 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. It shows that they aren't allowing themselves to be spoonfed information and single issue voters.

You are mostly pretentious hypocrites who couldn't win an election this month after having supported the destructive policies of the rich and powerful that have damaged this country for decades.

"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt 7:15-23)

That last post was to timbci

" We are America and will rule on judgement day"

There you have it, "they" are America and the rest of us aren't. Exactly what I expected them to think though I thought they would be smart enough not to say it to the rest of us.

"However, it is encouraging that despite the rhetoric, 54% of Catholics voted for Obama."

This is what some people don't get about American Catholics: They are not part of the religious right. Not even close. For the most part religious right does not consider Catholics "Christian". And American Catholics don't consider the religious right sane. Most Catholics in this country live in urban/suburban areas and take the clergy - from deacons right up to the pope - with a grain of salt. In the US, "Catholic" is almost as much an ethnic/cultural designation as it is a religious one. People hold onto many of the traditions without necessarily believing the rationale behind it.

The funny thing is that many people on the left, particularly on this site, ignorantly lump Catholics in with the religious right when in fact the religious right doesn't like Catholics. I knew about anti-Catholic bias by other Christians and KKK types before visiting this site but the ignorance on the left was a discovery I made here.

The problem is that there are too many Catholics that don't believe in Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church should seriously consider excommunicating communicants that don't agree with the Church.

Too many Catholics have no idea thaty are Catholic for any reason except they grew up that way. I tell Cafeteria Catholics all the time that they should leave the church and join one of those fuddy duddy Protestant churches

The policies of the rich and powerful are what this country was built on. John Hancock was my favorite founder. He didn't hesitate to tar and feather the British and he would be a big supporter of GITMO.
Alexander Hamilton saw fit to be a media baron and control the banking in America.

-The policies of the rich and powerful are what this country was built on

You can just forget about government of, by, and for the people if you like, but most Americans won't.

Funny part is, you are no where near being one of the few percent in the country that are rich and powerful, but you have been enslaved by their propaganda to regurgitate their talking points.

Corky. That is too funny.
Those are just words.
The gov't was never for the people. If that was true, this country would be based on socialism not capitalism. The founders didn't even consider peasants worthy to vote. That is why Washington didn't believe the "people" were to be trusted to elect a President

I don't listen to propaganda. I stopped reading the NY Times years ago.

"The Catholic Church should seriously consider excommunicating communicants that don't agree with the Church."

But they won't. Money dropped into the collection basket by a faker spends just the same as money coming from the devout.

"Too many Catholics have no idea thaty are Catholic for any reason except they grew up that way. I tell Cafeteria Catholics all the time that they should leave the church and join one of those fuddy duddy Protestant churches"

That's why I say that in the US, Catholicism is almost a cultural rather than religious label to many people. The Church's traditions are a link to their heritage even if they don't believe. Changing to another denomination would be like changing families. When I used to rag on the Church and people asked me how come I didn't convert, I'd say "I barely like my own religion, why would I bother with someone else's?"

These days, whether or not I'm "Catholic" depends on who I'm talking to.... If its a real practicing Catholic asking, I'll tell them I'm non-practicing. If its some busy body Southerner or some other kind of kook who looks down on us, I just say I'm Catholic and then pray they give me a reason to go off......

-Those are just words.

Fine, go join Jeff in Denmark.

The rest of us will keep attempting to make the promise of the Constitution as amended today win out over the moneyed interests instead of admitting defeat and constantly whining.

We'll drop you a line when it is safe to come home. Or not.

It's not just the evangelical christians and catholics, it's the jews too.

let's not forget that.

"The Catholic Church should seriously consider excommunicating communicants that don't agree with the Church."

They stopped doing that, in numbers, quite a while ago. Because the CC leaders finally figured out that the CC does change its views with the passage of time. Disagreement, differing viewpoints, are what drive growth. Stop that and you ossify.

The Christian Right have been a part of America since the Pilgrims. Patrick Henry and John Jay were both proud members of the Christian Right. We are America and will rule on judgement day

#44 | Posted by timbci at 2008-11-17 09:56 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's a wonder you don't fall down more.

"Alexander Hamilton saw fit to be a media baron and control the banking in America."

Yet Hamilton never won a presidential election. People like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson did. And they believed in a gov't of the people and for the people.

We are America and will rule on judgement day
#44 | Posted by timbci at 2008-11-17 09:56 AM

You just had your Judgment Day: 11-04-08.

Really what people are those. Oh yea that is right. If you were a white landowner you were the people. Everyone else was a peasant that didn't matter.

Coincidentally, Jefferson sent the marines halfway around to die while Europe negotiated.He was a chickenhawk

Judgement day will come when the prophet Bush retuns to lead the Christian Right to Glory

"If you were a white landowner you were the people."

Is there something in the Constitution which specifies that only landowners could vote? I seem to remember this being the crux of the argument between the Virginians and the New Englanders. And the New Englanders won.

What does Jefferson sending ships to the Barbary coast have to do with "gov't of/for the people"?
BTW, he didn't send them to die. He sent them to show we weren't paying tribute anymore.

"Judgement day will come when the prophet Bush retuns to lead the Christian Right to Glory"

Very good to hear my children can live for a very long time. And their grandchildren also.

"Judgement day will come when the prophet Bush retuns to lead the Christian Right to Glory"

#63 | Posted by timbci

Timbci is obviously a faker. I just have trouble believing that it can be this retarded.

"...And another thing--guess the repub base would beg to differ with the reaffirmation of marriage in 39 states now, including the blue state of CA....Posted by MURPHY"

It wasn't a 'reaffirmation' ass hat. It was a homophobic vote against millions of gays an lesbians.

And if you haven't been reading, let me clue you in.

The supreme court of california has already said any attempt to revoke gay marriage through the initiative process will be found unconstitutional.

Why? well, you Morons have to eliminate the Equal Access part of the constitution before you can start to remove rights from a constitution.

Now what collection of Morons is going to come back in 2 years with a Proposition to remove Equal Access from a constitution?

You?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

BTW. My Big Fat Legal Marriage in california...is STILL LEGAL.

The only place the Prophet Bush and his croanies will lead the GOP is to Larry raig's favorite Glory Hole.

Sorry son but the California already reviewed the initiative before it was put on the ballot and found it constitutional. Legal??? LOL

" California reviewed the initiative before it was on the ballot and found it constitutional."

If so, why have four respected institutions filed challenges to it in court? It seems to me that the initiative is patently contrary to guarantees of due process of law. herm

'I don't listen to propaganda. I stopped reading the NY Times years ago." Timmy may read and hear no evil, but he speaks enough of it to make up for that closed-mind deficit. herm

PS - But reading more of Timmy does convince me that he's putting us on, herm

FTFH: one group more than any other is expecting to be out in the cold -- the Religious Right.

Their divisive politics make them the most deserving group to spend time in the political wilderness contemplating their many sins.

How long did Moses spent again? Fourty years?

Sounds about right.

'I don't listen to propaganda. I stopped reading the NY Times years ago."

America's Document of Record aside from a few egregious sins of ommission is generally a good read.

...As long as you avoid This piece of shit.

/S'rsly, a fucked clock has a better track record than that guy.

Be Well.

/S'rsly, a fucked clock has a better track record than that guy.

Be Well.

#73 | Posted by dethspud

easy tater, you're getting all starchy!!!

Why say "religious right" when what is meant is conservative and/or prolife Christians?

Zatiochi doesn't hate conservative Islam or Judaism...

Don't hide your disdain, make it clear and pointed for all to see.

Us conservative Christians will keep feeding the poor, helping pregnant and poor women with financial and material assistance, and doing what Christians have historically done...educating the downtrodden and caring for the sick (Christians started hospitals).

There will always be lost and hurting people that our selfish society leaves behind.

Let me be clear about something else as well--Christians have trusted the Ronald Reagans (and his imitators) to carry the God-commanded responsibilities of the church, and guess what, they failed.

People tried to make Jesus king by force 2,000 years ago, and He wouldn't have it then either.

Nietzche and Volaire thought Christians would be extinct by now; I guess they "misunderestimated" as our current President would say.

we will rule on judgement day

And, God willing, not on one day before.

BTW, it's spelled "judgment" in America.

Soz I would like to bring up a constitutional-type question. But first, a disclaimer:
This is a half-baked question, which just occurred to me, so I have yet to explore it fully in my head. Please bear with me.

The constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Now I have to ask, to what extent does this apply? We (and by 'we' I mean the US people and congress) pass laws based on what we believe to be right. Right for the country, right for the world, and morally just. However, if a law is passed which props up a certain moral ideal (for example: making murder illegal) which happens to coincide with religious philosophy ("thou shalt not kill") is congress making a law which favors one religion over another? What if I have a religion which requires unwilling sacrifice? Is congress not that restricting my religious freedoms? That is merely an example.
I guess what I'm saying overall is "if (a group of , not all) people derive morals from their religion, are they not allowed to put those moral's into their government?" Or is congress merely not allowed to make any openly favorable/unfavorable laws towards a particular religion. Because if it's the former we have some philosophical work to do.
Also, what if congress passed a series of laws which promoted ALL religions? Would that be in the spirit of the constitution?

The problem, postscript, is that postmodernists believe the horseshit proposition
"You can't legislate morality" when ALL legislation has SOME/SOMEBODY'S morality.

Enforcing red lights IS valuing human life and property...
Public hospitals IS a moral decision we make as a nation, whether religiously or humanistically motivated.

Our federal government should neither promote one religion nor prevent the free exercise of any religions. But that's a legislation of morality too, now isn't it?

S/b "are"

Rules of grammar are also a legislation of morality.

I think what most rational thinking people believe is you can't legislate ALL morality. Particularly if the only basis for considering certain 'acts' as immoral, is derived from a certain group's religious beliefs. That might have something to do with the fact only 2 of your 10 commandments have been legislated.

However, if a law is passed which props up a certain moral ideal (for example: making murder illegal) which happens to coincide with religious philosophy ("thou shalt not kill") is congress making a law which favors one religion over another?

Just because a law passed by a government buttresses a religious canon doesn't mean that the government is favoring that religion. Laws passed by governments are meant to enhance the order and control of the governed. They are meant to prevent civil unrest. Religious canon seems to do the same but within a context specific to the religion. The overlap is coincidental.

But is it really coincidental? To continue with murder as our example: murder is more often considered immoral. But, again, what if there was a religion which found murder to be a moral act? Could they claim that the government was oppressing their right to freely practice religion?

We do make certain legal concessions to allow for the freer practice of religion, but most of our modern morality is based in historically religious territory. Another example would be, say, Nationalized Health Care. Most liberals support this because they believe it to be a moral bill. So would Jesus. He went around saying (more or less) "everyone should just help people" (again, that is paraphrased). So while right now this may seem like a mere coincidence, the idea is rooted in judeo-christian philiosphy, and probably other religious codes as well (I'm just not intimately familiar with them).

The Orwellian state:

Start with God...He must go!

But, again, what if there was a religion which found murder to be a moral act? Could they claim that the government was oppressing their right to freely practice religion?

There are religions that sanction murder. Doesn't Islam condone the stoning of adulteress women to death? Under no circumstances would that be tolerated here in the US. However, in those contries were Islam is practiced, stoning is an acceptable means of punishment.

In this earthly state, the laws of government trump the laws of religion; primarily because government has the to means to enforce its law. In our heavely state, the laws of religions will trump the laws of government.

Most liberals support this (Nationalized Health Care) because they believe it to be a moral bill

I am not sure if that statement is true. I think most people, liberal or conservative, support affordable health care. Its just that the present set up delivers anything but affordable health care. Huge amounts of health care dollars go to administration and profits and not enough gets to the provision of goods and services. Nationalized health care is an attempt to address this perceived imbalance.

The "religious right" are on the left. Social conservatives advocates big government in order to curtail individual liberties, that's the left.

"Social conservatives advocates big government in order to curtail individual liberties, that's the left."

Is Vernon now selling compasses?

"Is Vernon now selling compasses?"

Well, I have to explain things in a way that mental midgets will understand.

"There are religions that sanction murder. Doesn't Islam condone the stoning of adulteress women to death? Under no circumstances would that be tolerated here in the US. However, in those contries were Islam is practiced, stoning is an acceptable means of punishment.

In this earthly state, the laws of government trump the laws of religion; primarily because government has the to means to enforce its law. In our heavely state, the laws of religions will trump the laws of government."
But this is the crux of my question. If congress is not allowed to pass bills which promote or prohibit religion does the illegal nature of stoning adultress women to death constitute a violation of our First Amendment rights?

"I think most people, liberal or conservative, support affordable health care. Its just that the present set up delivers anything but affordable health care. Huge amounts of health care dollars go to administration and profits and not enough gets to the provision of goods and services. Nationalized health care is an attempt to address this perceived imbalance.
"

Right, but why are we trying to correct this imbalance? There are only two reasons that I see. 1) To attain affordable health care for yourself 2) To make sure everyone has affordable health care. These are used in roughly equal frequency. So I would say that yes, about half of all people who support national health care do so from a sense of morality.

"The "religious right" are on the left. Social conservatives advocates big government in order to curtail individual liberties, that's the left."
- LibertineJoseph

Nicely said, I to have come to this conclusion.

But this is the crux of my question. If congress is not allowed to pass bills which promote or prohibit religion does the illegal nature of stoning adultress women to death constitute a violation of our First Amendment rights?

However, the constitution guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The person being stoned to death is being denied those rights resulting in a constitutional conflict. As in any conflict, some solution must be sought and higher priority was given to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

White supremacists should be delighted at the election results. Black babies are already aborted at over twice the rate of whites. If Obama has his way, all statewide restrictions on abortion will be removed, and the government will fund abortions. The results? Go figure.

However, the constitution guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

#90 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

Link?

The idea that murder and theft should not be allowed go far back before the advent of modern monotheism. Many cultures that have never heard of Moses or Jesus condemn those practices.

Link?

www.law.cornell.edu

Your point is made. The words, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness appeared in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution guarantees us Life, Liberty and Property.

The Constitution guarantees us Life, Liberty and Property.

#93 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

Although the Constitution does promise, in the Preamble, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty", I see no where in the original document does it mention a right to life or property.

Amendment 14 does say "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" but I don't see that as a right as the Government still has "due process of law" on its side. Which it has used to deprive many over the years.

online.wsj.com

The areligious center is marching on.

I see no where in the original document does it mention a right to life or property

From the link of my previous post:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Did you even read my post?

My post...
Although the Constitution does promise, in the Preamble, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty",I see no where in the original document does it mention a right to life or property

Then I go on to quote the 14th amendment which contains the same phrase as you quoted from the 5th...

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

once again I point out the disclaimer "without due process of law", which means it is not a right or a guarantee. It only means the Government needs to come up with a bullshit excuse to deprive you of any of those things.

"There are religions that sanction murder. Doesn't Islam condone the stoning of adulteress women to death? Under no circumstances would that be tolerated here in the US."

We continue to execute people. HOW we execute them, and WHY, is irrelevant, so don't try to tell me that we are somehow morally superior to Bush's buddies, the Saudis. herm

The first 10 amendments, which includes #5, are referred to as the Bill of Rights.

It only means the Government needs to come up with a bullshit excuse to deprive you of any of those things.

That statement can apply to most of the "rights". It isn't exclusive to life, liberty or property.

"Bullshit" is such a relative term. That is one of the reasons that he SCOTUS exists i.e. to determine what is/is not "Bullshit".

"Religious Right Feeling Left Out".

WARNING TO ASSHOLE LIBS!

If you have ever been in combat, it is always quiet before the attack!

"WARNING TO ASSHOLE LIBS!"

Ooooh the angry right wing lunatics are threatening. Sucks to los elections doesn't it Ozzie. Just remember, virtually every liberal in America is laughing at you right now.

"WARNING TO ASSHOLE LIBS!"

What a witness for your lord you are! Another example of the peace that passes understanding that so many of the christian-right claim to possess. Do you convert many souls with this approach?

What a witness for your lord you are! Another example of the peace that passes understanding that so many of the christian-right claim to possess. Do you convert many souls with this approach?

"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Mark 14:21

Wow! What a witness this guy was! I wonder how many souls he converted with such words?

I never did get the Son of God/Son of Man bit.

Was he schizophrenic?

But the he didn't say it, did he?

Well, words like that won't win my soul over. I'll take a god of love over an angry and 'jealous god' any day. And if heaven means an eternity with people like ozzie and theonebs, well...to Hell with me!

"I wonder what words would win you over MrSoul?"

Seeing how I'm not the one calling people names and questioning people's spirituality...I feel very comfortable with the state of my soul. My soul is not filled with anger and bile toward everyone who disagrees with me...my soul is not judgemental and condemning...my soul is not filled with self-righteousness and intolerance.

I even respect you theonebs...I just don't want to spend eternity with you.

DANNI, MRSOUL62, REINSURELAW.

You have been warned that eventually you will have to pay for the degrading of president Bush.

I say, lets give president elect Obama 48 hours of honeymoon. That's about 42 hours more than you libs gave Bush.

PATBACK TIME PEOPLE!

"nothing funnier than a retard with aids.

#107 | Posted by reinsurelaw "

I didn't know you had AIDS....and you're not that funny.

PATBACK TIME? Is Brady ready to play?

So you want to degrade Obama...whose stopping you. Unlike most of you 'Bushies', I don't think it's unAmerican to criticize a sitting president. Have fun!

I'm a libertarian leaning independent by the way...but I understand..ANYONE who dares disagree with you folk, automatically get painted with the big brush.

PATBACK TIME PEOPLE!

#109 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Hee hee.

DANNI, MRSOUL62, REINSURELAW.

You have been warned that eventually you will have to pay for the degrading of president Bush.

I say, lets give president elect Obama 48 hours of honeymoon. That's about 42 hours more than you libs gave Bush.

PATBACK TIME PEOPLE!
#109 | Posted by ozzieoswald

You know what the scary thing is here? (atrocious spelling aside) The fact that he seems to think that if Pres. Obama fails it will be "payback". Some kind of righteous judgment passed upon all us who supported him. He completely disregards the fact that a failure of the POTUS at this time would probably constitute the end of our nation. And he looks forward to this, so that he can draw even with the democrats. He is so blinded by his own rage at the failings of his party, that he would have the destruction of a nation rather than see himself and the beliefs he holds to be proven "incorrect". When The Bible says that pride is a sin, it really means it.

I also find it deeply disturbing that he seems to think we need payback for criticizing a president. Isn't this what our country is based on? The power of the people to express their opinions on authority? Should we have held back our judgments on the POTuS and his effectiveness out of fear? Fear for some sort of retribution? That is not a democracy, that is a dictatorship. Republicans should probably understand that.

Now I know someone is going to drag up the liberal media bias, and I have an answer: you are absolutely correct. Now get over it. The media exists to sell itself, and it does so by appealing to popular opinion. Liberal beliefs are popular, thus the media reacts accordingly. The republicans don't seem to understand that people don't actually like them. They seem to think that everyone really does like them, but are being suppressed by the left. But what they forget to account for is that they don't fulfill their promises, and this makes people not like them, and when they get unpopular, the media shifts against them. So get over it.

Note- I refer to ozzieoswald as a "he" throughout, but he may be a she. "He" just has less letters.

PATBACK TIME PEOPLE!

#109 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Did ya hear that Obama supporters?

Ozzie officially gives you permission to pat yerselves on the back.

Just fer a sec though.

There's a load of work to be done.

Thanx fer that thoughtful suggestion, Ozwald.

Mighty nice of yas.

Really.

Be Well.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable