I apologize. You might not want to read any of this post if you simply cannot bear the raging stupidity that characterizes Fox News. Fair warning: the clip below features both Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin.
I suspect that a lot of you, if you got this far, turned that clip off scant moments into it. The inanity and ignorance is too strong. But here are just a few tidbits. In his opening statement, that fathead O’Reilly says:
The constitution clearly states that the government cannot impose religion on citizens, but setting aside a day to encourage expression of voluntary spirituality is in no way an imposition.
No, here’s what the first amendment actually says.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The US government does not get to establish or favor a particular religion; it is officially excluded from the religion game. The National Day of Prayer is not simply a day of “voluntary spirituality”, but is an open endorsement of sectarian religious belief by the government, in violation of the Constitution. The NDP was made law by religious advocates like Billy Graham and was passed by legislators who specifically invoked the Christian god; it is currently managed by a gang of right-wing religious zealots who send out suggested proclamation texts to the president and state governors that uses Bible quotes…and those texts are frequently used verbatim.
But wait! Can Sarah Palin possibly be even dumber than O’Reilly? You betcha.
…our constitution of course acknowledging that our unalienable rights come from god not man…
Oy.
Here is the first sentence of that thoroughly god-free document, the Constitution of the United States of America.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yes — the emphasis is in the original.
The babbling goes on from there, with O’Reilly even claiming that the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments, which is also news to me: I’ve missed the parts that set aside holy days, demand worship of a single god, or outlaws coveting; it doesn’t even make murder and theft illegal! The Constitution is all about laying out the mechanisms of a civil government, the division of powers, specifying what powers each branch has, etc.; the bill of rights lays out specific rights and privileges for citizens. Read it yourself. There’s nothing Biblical in there, absolutely nothing derived from the old or new testaments, and likewise, there is nothing in the Bible that even approximates it in intent or substance.
Jesus, these people are morons.
If you want to cleanse your brain a little bit, here’s another clip from Fox & Friends this past weekend, where the Fox idjit is just as dumb, but in this case, his guest is Dan Barker…who takes him apart.
The Constitution immediately violates the Ten Commandments with the first amendment alone.
I don’t think Sarah Palin is fat.
And even if she were, I don’t think it’d be fair to hold that against her as a flaw.
Disclaimer: I’m very much a fattist, but I realise the error of my ways, so this is my attempt to compensate.
He comes up with a strawman immediately, by claiming that the government isn’t allowed to impose religion, but can encourage it. What the 1st Amendment says is that the (Federal at first) government can’t “establish” religion, which cuts into “encouragement” of religion–although interpretations of that could differ.
Still, I’d give them more than PZ will. The 10 commandments is allowed by courts to be portrayed along with other sources of our legal system, because while it’s almost certainly one of the lesser sources, it’s still one part of the history of our legal system.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
I can’t watch either Palin or O’Reilly the video from Fox & Friends was wonderful though. I’m not familiar with Dan Barker but he was wonderfully clear, concise and polite, whilst carving that twit a new one.
Correction: Bill O’Reilly is a big fat liar. I have no doubt in my mind he knows what he’s saying is not true and says it anyway. Palin on the other hand….
It makes perfect sense – they don’t read the Bible, so why should they read the Constitution?
Bill O’Reilly already knows what the Constitution says in his heart; why should he have to actually set eyes on the document?
Ugh.
Ten seconds of Palin-the-bobbling-plastic-head was all I could take, but here’s a well-written essay countering the tea bagger’s revisionists rhetoric that needs to be “Dugg.”
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Palin_And_The_Religious_Right_A_Trojan_Horse_In_The_GOP
Bullshit.
Actually, they may or may not be morons in terms of the claims they make or their beliefs, but they certainly are very clever at telling blatant lies and getting paid for it. I hear that in America, that’s spelled “g.o.d.i.s.o.n.m.y.s.i.d.e.“
Of course these people aren’t too smart
There is even some research showing why. :-)
Palin is a first class air-headed bimbo!
It is very obvious.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4VHS7P…
Conservatism and cognitive ability.
Abstract
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The
evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign
students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual
level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT,
Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis,
conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education
(e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and
performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA
(Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also
correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other
measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism
scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures
than estimated IQ scores.
I can’t, in good conscious, begin a Monday morning with a video starring either Palin or O’Reilly. What was it Nietzsche said about staring into the abyss? ~shudder~
Sili:
Well, there’s two options. One is to say her idiocy itself is fat. The other (rather more controversial obviously) is to call her a bimbo, since she trades so strongly on her sexuality. However, I don’t think the latter really gets to the heart of the matter, since it’s really only a front for a willfully ignorant but skillful political hack.
#9
I’m not sure I follow.
Erm… Did anyone notice her invocation of Margaret Thatcher? Anyone who thinks Maggie’s opinion on what makes good government is at all sensible (especially these days when she appears off her rocker) is crazy.
As long as there are math tests, there’ll be prayer in school. I don’t know who said it first but I think it says it best.
Treaty of Tripoli (1779), Article 11:
Thus ending all troubles between the US and Muslim nations…..
Wellllll, thank you very much. Some of us have flashbacks, you know.
Targeting the less intelligent among us is lucrative. O’Reilly, Palin, the GOP, the church, and way too many U.S. businesses rely on this fact.
I am going to have to agree with #5. I do not think o’riley is at all stupid. I do however, think that he is incredibly crooked, dihonest and evil.
Wow. Dumbth In Stereo! Can it get any better than this? Yes it can! Billo’s wearing blue and Sarah’s wearing red. {puts on 3D glasses} YYYYOOOOWWWWWzaaah! Now it’s perfect!
Here’s a good, thorough blog post on the issue:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/is-america-a-christian-nation/
Oops, #17 should read ‘Treaty of Tripoli(1797)’ (the year it was signed by Founding Father and American-hater John Adams).
The technical definition of Bullshit comes towards the end of the post.
The Bullshitter is different from the Liar in that the latter knows the truth and deliberately denies it. The Bullshitter doesn’t care one way or another.
michael.b:
More than that. At heart he’s a bully, inflated self-image and all.
#3, Glen Davidson
I’m not picking on you particularly, but maybe you can help me understand something.
Isn’t the operative part of 1A that you quote “respecting,” not “establishment”? I don’t disagree that 1A prevents the federal govt. from establishing a state religion, but I sometimes see people on the other side of the issue describing 1A as “Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion.”
Perhaps I’m not up on my 1780s English grammar. I would think that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, &c. each would be examples of “an establishment of religion,” and that “Congress may make no law respecting” them. (Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.)
Again, I’m not saying anything you said was wrong; I’m just using your comment as a jumping-off point. :-)
Here’s a good, thorough blog post on the issue:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/is-america-a-christian-nation/
Since I agree with you, I don’t know what I can add.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Ah.
I could only make it to 1:10 before having to turn it off. Thanks for summarizing so my neighbors didn’t have to worry about my well being as I screamed at the top of my lungs at the astounding stupidity coming from my computer speakers.
The strategy is clear: repeat a lie often enough and it will believed.
Talking heads don’t get airtime because they are smart. Talking heads get airtime because they get ratings. They say things that get other people talking and as far as the networks are concerned they don’t really care if the talk is positive or negative because either gets them more ad money.
@16
… what a weird non sequitor. Said what best? That particular phrase? It would be hard to say it worse, unless you had a speech impediment or something.
Well once again gentle Dan Barker mops the floor with the Foxyless Fundies. (GO DAN) The fact Palin continues to be so popular says volumes about the intellectual level a substantial portion of our population. iTS SCARY
Problem is, she’s not referring to that portion of the Constitution. Obviously, she is talking about this part:
But referencing the portion of the Constitution she’s actually referring to would fail to make her look bad, right? Too bad being dishonest actually makes you look bad.
If she truly doesn’t know what she’s talking about, attack the parts that evidence she truly doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Furthermore, the Constitution isn’t “god-free,” but says our government should be.
#4 greg.bourke0
Dan is a national treasure. His first career was as a teenage evangelical preacher. True believer all the way; took long, uncomfortable missionary treks to deliver The Word. But as he got older, and gave it all a great deal of thought, he stopped believing and became, as it were, an evangelist for reason. And this gives Dan a huge advantage over the rest of us atheists. He really knows the bible from cover to cover, so he can deal with anything the god posse can shoot at him. And the years of preaching got him really comfortable on stage. Get a copy of his memoir: Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists
This is true. The problem is that people treat them as if they are in any way reliable sources of information. Part of the solution is pointing out that they are not.
Especially when it’s from the Declaration of Independence.
I am not American, but even I knew that.
It is pretty sad when I know more about the US constitution and US history than someone who wanted to become VP.
Declaration of Independence =/= Constitution
*My bad. I mean the Declaration of Independence.
@ 11
Link doesn’t work, says the URL was incorrect.
Gov. Sarah Palin is bold, brilliant, beautiful. As usual, she is right on the issues, right for America. And, O’Reilly doesn’t appear to be fat.
But you appear to be an idiot.
Not to worry. Many conservatives insist that the DoI is meant to be part of the constitution. Why? Beats me. I’d be willing to bet that it’s all about that “creator” bit.
@chrisoverzero #26
In eighteenth century vocabulary this is very clear. “Establishment” means instituting an official state religion. So what this says is “Congress shall not make any law that has anything to do with establishing an official state religion.”
It does not mean “Congress shall not make a law that shows respect for a specific religious entity,” which I’ve seen people misunderstanding it to mean.
Palin didn’t.
Glen Davidson wrote:
The 10 commandments is allowed by courts to be portrayed along with other sources of our legal system, because while it’s almost certainly one of the lesser sources, it’s still one part of the history of our legal system.
The claim was that the Constitution was based on the 10 Commandments, a ridiculous idea. But even though the Commandments are sometimes allowed to be displayed, I have never seen it claimed that it formed any basis of our legal system. For one thing, the 10 Commandments are not always allowed to be portrayed. For instance, in McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky, 2005, portrayal was disallowed in public schools. On the same day in Van Orden v. Perry portrayal was allowed in the Texas State Capitol. But nowhere in the opinion was it claimed that it formed any basis of our system.
Justifications in Van Orden included such things as, “the Commandments convey a secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law.” And, “the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage.”
There are all sorts of inventive reasons the Court can come up with to allow these religious icons in public places. Being any part of the basis of our legal system isn’t one of them.
#35:
Your problem is, you don’t know the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is a completely godless document establishing the legal framework for a secular republic. The Declaration is a press release announcing our plan to separate from the British Empire. There is nothing in it that has anything to do with the structure or operation of the government. And the “endowed by their Creator” and “laws of Nature and Nature’s God” references are chunks of boilerplate deism; the kind of Enlightenment intellectualism that sat so well with Jefferson.
Bold? Sure
Beautiful? Subjected to the individual’s standard of beauty. Also, completely irrelevant to being a good leader.
Brilliant? The person who doesn’t have an understanding of her Constitution, modern History, Science, or Theology is far from being brilliant.
Right for America? You must mean for a theocracy.
I’m sure she learned about the Declaration of Independence as a governing document from all those magazines and newspapers she reads. Whatever they may be.
Half term Gov. Sarah Palin…
Made a slight correction for you.
It’s funny to see fundies try to use whatever excuse they can to make the constitution a Christian document:
An interesting thought experiment: What about, instead of (or perhaps in addition to) a day of prayer, having the government set aside a day of no prayer? After all, one can use the analogous ‘this does not, not promote religion’ argument in supporting the day of “no prayer”…
I suspect those same folks who so vehemently say the day of prayer is not government interfering with religion would quickly change their tune (in the opposite direction in this case of course)…
Sarah Palin’s voice alone is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Which I’m sure has to do with the amount of crap she’s spewed; if I’d heard her say non-ridiculous things in that voice it probably wouldn’t offend my ears. But such conditions do not apply and she’s gotten to such a point that even her pretty face is no longer appealing. I think I’ll skip the video.
I couldn’t watch. everytime one of those 2 morons speaks, i die a little inside.
People like them are the reason why others flocked to the new world. they make you want to start your own country.
how does one do this anyway? it seemed so easy a couple hundred years ago, but now the paperwork is overwhelming…..Is there an equivalent of the 1040-EZ?
Standard objection: while Palin and O’Reilly probably are idiots in any number of ways, I’m not sure the current BS they’re spreading is direct evidence of the same…
It’s evidence they’re lying assholes, more, seems to me.
(/I mean: ‘Idiot’ might give them ignorance as an excuse. And I strongly doubt they legitimately can take that plea as an option.)
I consider Americans who don’t know what the constitution says to be unpatriotic. People who lie about what the constitution says are anti-American.
It’s funny how people like Palin don’t seem to realize the DoI has NO LEGAL STANDING WHATSOEVER.
Oh, wait. It’s not that they don’t realize. They just don’t care as long as it gives them the soundbite they need to rouse the rabble.
I’ve listened to it twice. O’Reilly and Palin’s comments are just part of the right-wing echo chamber.
tomh @ 48 – The courts have gone back and forth on the 10 commandments.
They’ve okayed displays when the 10 commandments are displayed as history.
When the purpose is solely to promote religion then the courts have found it to be against the constitution.
I used to get this “Constitution based on 10 commandments” crap a lot, until I told the morons to bring their bibles, I’d bring a copy of the Constitution, and then we’d see just how much of the 10c (hell, the babble) was in the Constitution. I’m such a good sport that I’d give them a freebie to research before getting back to me: Show me in the babble where it mentions the three branches of government, a bicameral legislature, how old congress critters and Presidents must be, and so forth.
Funny, they never bring up the 10c and gov’t around me after that…
It’s scary how little they know about the Constitution. It’s worse than their ignorance about evolution–they supposedly like the Constitution, but they know less about it than they do about alleles.
They will believe whatever they want. I mean, I have seen jefferson quote bumperstickers next to ones about how we are a christian nation on pick ups before. No one gives a shit, and they probably shouldn’t either- the founding fathers believed a lot of horrible things. Even if the founding fathers were into the christian nation business it wouldn’t mean that it is acceptable to want a christian nation. I doubt they could argue convincingly that america being a christian nation is a good thing. Seems like the point gets missed whenever it is brought up on tv, not that television is really about serious debate or anything.
I have a feeling that Fox News has some serious contempt for their audience. I am reminded of when I found a youtube of Larry the Cable Guy doing regular stand up w/o an accent or stupidity from a few back.
Don Barker did a marvelous job. It’s interesting that Faux news imposed a cross in the background while Dan was on camera.
re 48:
In addition to that, the Constitution is not based on the 10 commandments simply because it is not a set of laws governing the citizens. It is the rules defining how the government is to be formed, how laws are to be established and enforced. Even if all of the 10 commandments were adopted into federal law, it would still not be justification to declare the Constitution being “based on” the 10 commandments. That would be a complete misunderstanding of the role of the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Bible remotely resembling the Constitution nor anything that could be said to even be an inspiration for the Constitution. That the government formed by the Constitution has adopted some laws similar to some of the 10 commandments in no way makes the Constitution derived from the Bible.
Yes, the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom, is based on the Ten Commandments. The Founding Fathers got the idea of religious liberty from a list in which 4 of the 10 rules are used to forbid religious liberty. It all makes perfect sense.
I guess if you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to buy atrocious books.
In someways it is a no win situation. Sometimes, when you address them you give them validity, simply because you gave them the time of day. Other times, if you ignore them they think they have managed to silence you in their “brilliance.”
When I hear Palin say;
I cannot shake the impression that she honestly believes that the Constitution was hand crafted by the Sky Fairy and delivered to the Founding Fathers by an ‘Angel of the Lawd!’ complete with statements that America ‘is too’ a Christian nation and that it is OK to oppress those dirty unbelievers. The only snag being that rascal Franklin with a chisel and a penchant for graffiti…
This scenario seems wholly congruant with Palin’s apparent (lack) of understanding of US consituional law.
Next week, Sarah explains why America really should start an apocalyptic thermonuclear war with Russia if those damn Russkies look at Georgia funny. Also, the End Times, and why they are a good thing…
The fact that this woman came within spitting distance of the Vice Presidency utterly terrifies me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That’s ridiculously stupid and also very sad. =/
I don’t think PZ meant fat as in weight but as in how big of a liar he is or as in:
plentiful; abundant: a fat supply of food.
plentifully supplied: a fat larder; a fat feast.
dull; stupid: fat clumsiness of manner.
I honestly don’t think PZ has to rely on making fun of someone’s weight, he is far more creative than that. At least that’s how I read it but I could be wrong.
You know, the elephant-filled blood balloon video was less disturbing than this.
HJ
That’s not in the constitution. You would be one of those unpatriotic people I mentioned a few posts above.
I am firmly of the opinion that allowing them to spew their bullshit unopposed is a mistake. There is a third option however: point and laugh. Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous, and there are some positions that people should be embarrassed to hold.
There was “separation of church and state” in the Bible. Well sort of.
That is the royal dynasty of the Kingdom of Israel was not the same family as the priestly dynasty.
Notice there are many scandalous stories about Israelite royalty in the Bible (scandalous by the standards of the time), but none about the priests.
Apologies if this link has already been posted. This is the best reply I’ve seen to the hysteria over the National Day of Prayer, and the presenter takes the time to cover much of the myth of the “Christian Nation” concept:
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcHPtmoXrJo
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UjCOmVXUBE&feature=related
Qwerty @#60:
The courts have gone back and forth on the 10 commandments.
But nowhere has the Supreme Court said that the Commandments formed any part of the basis of the US legal system, which was the claim that was made in comment #3, and what I was responding to.
Who looks bad again?
alex @ 35:
That is exactly what PZ did by pointing out that what she was referring to is not in the Constitution. Next time you might want to actually do some fact checking before calling someone a liar.
My guess is alex didn’t either.
Naw. Facts are for normal people. Without their lies, fundie xian cultists like Alex, Palin, and O’leilly have nothing.
Heh. I did a post about Palin’s Constitutional delusions on Saturday.
This is one of the points I made about the preamble
@alex
PZ’s criticism was specifically about her not knowing what’s in the Constitution while claiming she does. If, as you say, you meant to refer to the Declaration, then I suppose you would have been arguing that she was just referring to the wrong document. That does nothing to deflect the criticism, though, and only serves as a red herring. Perhaps she was referring to the Declaration. But since we all know that the Declaration is not part of the Constitution and was in fact written over a decade earlier, that means she is still wrong about what’s in the Constitution.
I think it’s more likely, though, that you were just as confused as her and thought that the bit about the Creator was part of the Preamble to the Constitution. And that you simply claimed you meant the Declaration to avoid looking as ignorant as Palin.
Thus you are either dishonest (if you really did mean the Declaration and knowingly used that to deflect criticism of Palin’s lack of knowledge about the Constitution) or confused and/or ignorant (for getting the two mixed up). I should also point out that if it was the case that you were confused and did not mean to say the Declaration but then, in a post hoc attempt to not look as stupid as Palin, claimed you really did know that it was the Declaration that contained that language, that makes you dishonest as well.
So take your pick: dishonest, or dishonest and ignorant.
Why is it such a big problem for some people to actually read the stuff they proclaim to know?
Why is it such a huge deal for some people to actually know what they say they believe?
Why is it such a feat for some people to actually compete in ignorance?
Why is Sarah Palin such an idiot?
Why is Bill O’Reilly such a dimwit?
Why can’t they just think before or after they open their mouths?
Why?
waaaaaahahahaha
you yankees are just so funny!
i’m off to pray to a tree.
Fucktards will be fucktards. What is scary is that there are other people who believe these fucktards.
I fear the tsunami of stupidity that emanates from those fools.
Because they have a much stronger desire to believe they are right then to be right.
As an uninformed outsider I’m wondering this (and do tell me if this can’t work): if the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, what keeps you from taking this to the Supreme Court and have it declared void?
Well, it wasn’t the kings who wrote the damn thing, now, was it?
And if the priests didn’t get up to no good, why did they need to put in those commandments against diddling the altarboys?
Let me summarize the reasoning of those thinking the Constitution was based on The Ten Commandments. This may seem trivially stupid, but I seriously think this is what’s going on in their heads:
But the Constitution had a bill of rights consisting of exactly ten amendments.
Come on people, isn’t it obvious? TEN.
They’re both a list of TEN things. That can’t possibly be a coincidence. Obviously that means one was based on the other, Since there’s no other reason for humans to consider the number ten to be significant.
Why, I can count on the fingers of my hands the reason why the number ten can’t possibly be a coincidence… oh… wait…
That does too say, “than”. There must be something wrong with your screen….
@alex #35
Why do you hate America?
BrianX #25: No argument here
It’s in the works. A US District Court in Wisconsin has found it unconstitutional. It’s being appealed to the Supreme Court.
PZ? PZ? PZ? PZ? PZ? Hey PZ?
The article needed to be called: Christians are big fat idiots. However, I understand preaching truth of that nature could be dangerous?
These people are at war with. Whether it be Ken Miller, Bill O, Sara Palin or your friends at the NAS. Regardless of how well they spin their faith, regardless of their current or past actions or what they tell you . . . Their true and total commitment must be to their god. Their gods will, needs and law must always trump those of humans. Someone who echoes the truth that their god is absolute bullshit is clearly the enemy of their god – their enemy. They are not our friends, lovers, parents or associates. It is not reasonable to assume for a moment while they are infected with this virus they could be. The bible clearly says people who do not accept their god, those who lack belief in their god must be destroyed(killed). Although the people who invented the bible only presented YVHV as a supporter of Israel this is not the Christian belief. Although it is absolutely stupid(wrong) it is too complex an issue to discuss why they are wrong here. However, all one must do is read the bible. If you insist on reading it with Christian colored glasses the message is obvious. Only those who love, honor, cherish, fear and obey JC will be saved. All(ALL) others at best will be discarded or eternally tortured at worst.
Toleration of such pathetic bullshit is assassination.
===================================
The above was just a rant. Here is the important part: What I am curious about. What I would be really interested in seeing. . . Is a blog or dialogue from someone much smarter than myself*COUGH PZ COUGH*, which should not be difficult(finding someone smarter than me). The only reason the supreme court upheld the motto, the only reason 10 commandments sit in public squares, the only reason pieces of broken down wood form crosses on public lands in every instance as far as I am aware. . . . The only reason is because the highest courts have stripped them of all of their religious value and meaning. They have ruled these pieces of wood or icons have another meaning or are simply historical symbols? Isnt this simply reducing them to graven images? Isnt this a direct violation of the 10 commandments? I will put my money where my mouth is and gladly donate $25 to for this type of research and insight.
I am sure Dan Barker is well aware of this and knows it better than we all do. However, possibly if 5, 10, 100 people bring this up and discuss this issue in detail some input might be useful in fighting our president and his support for this delusional day. Anyone with a blog that reaches 250,000 + I happily will happily send some cash your way for the above reason.
I try to follow replies but often forget. So, feel free to write:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tony
Lying fucktard. I never once stated that it was part of the “basis of the US legal system” (exactly how that would compare with “one of the sources” would depend upon definitions) nor that the courts had said as much. I wrote:
Which is backed up by van Orden v. Perry:
Then quit implying that I said any such thing, moron.
Well, shithead, quit pretending that I claimed that it formed a “basis” of our legal system, and respond to what I wrote. Fucking liar.
…what keeps you from taking this to the Supreme Court and have it declared void?
just the slow mechanism of bureaucracy. It is on its way to the SCOTUS, but it has to go through the lower courts first and be accepted on appeal to the next higher.
Oh my word, I started to watch it, but couldn’t bring myself to finish. Although in the end I always have a giggle when I see Sarah Palin on anything. A sort of nervous giggle, but a giggle
The Barker vid is great. Though it’s clearly the idjit’s job to attack Barker and uphold the NDOP, at the end he’s so thoroughly refuted I’d wonder if he really believes that POV. And that’s even with Barker going with the comparitively weak, “it makes people feel like outsiders”. It’s not just that establishments of religion make one feel outcast, it’s that others will use those establishments to justify outcasting as though it were official gov’t policy.
tsg:
Thanks. I’ve heard of the District Court’s decision, but was not aware what this would mean on a national scale.
Somewhat OT, the real 10 Commandments:
From the “Atheist Reads the Bible” series by 43Alley. Very amusing.
I would love to be appointed a judge just to put up a statue of Marduk in my Courtroom, because, of course, the Code of Hammurabi forms the basis for our Constitution. Everybody knows that!
I’d start every session by sacrificing some birds.
In the Declaration of Independence the divine reference is later made explicit as “Nature and Nature’s God”.
So the fundamental appeal is to nature (so even atheists can play). A Christian document would say “Our Lord Jesus Christ”. The authors and signers of the Declataion may have been (mostly) Christians, but they deliberately made an inclusive document.
Furthermore “self-evident” is not just a high-falutin way of saying something is obvious.
It’s a philosophical position that something is evident in and of itself. As distinct from “God said so”.
chicagomolly @36
I am also a big fan of Dan Barker and the FFRF’s work. I listen to the podcast from London. Do do you think Dan could 1) stop playing his god-awful music and 2) stop telling profoundly bad jokes? The man has many talents but music and humour aren’t on the list.
@tsg #91
Wait, what? They’re skipping the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal? Are you certain about that?
alex.asolis.net @#35:
The second quotation you ascribe to the Constitution is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Just sayin’.
Ed Brayton has an interesting blog post about how 8 out of 10 Commandments are unconstitutional. The other two are the ones about not stealing and not murdering.
The blog post was written in 2003.
From Rehnquist’s opinion in van Orden v. Perry, etc.
I hate emphasizing this, because I have always considered the 10 commandments rather minor compared to, say, the Greek contribution. But when a dimwit misrepresents what I say, and speaks generally and liberally from his ignorance, the facts must speak.
Btw, I don’t see how past religious acknowledgements have quite the force that Rehnquist suggests, but rather might be seen as deviations from more appropriate acts and statements.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
I wonder how modern loons like Sarah Palin would characterize the Founders today, were their Deism (more akin to Einstein’s God than Jerry Falwell’s), well known. Has anybody at Fox News even heard of the Jefferson Bible?
My mistake. I haven’t been keeping up with the details because, honestly, I’m rather cynical about the outcome.
What is even more indicitive of their profound ignorance of the documents they so love to [mis]quote is that when trying to show the “christianity” in the DOI, they almost never cite the more explicit reference way down at the bottom of the document:
But I suppose if they can’t even make it through the Preamble they can’t be expected to read the conclusion.
[and just to be clear, Jefferson did not originally include the phrase “reliance on the protection of divine Providence” but was forced to include it by Congress.]
@tsg #107
Ah, no worries.
IF the decision came out April 16 of this year, I think they have 90 days to file an appeal to a Circuit Court. The Circuit Court then takes a couple months, and invites the opposing side to file a response to the Appeal, and then the Appellate Court decides whether or not to take up the Appeal.
If the Appeal is denied, the Appellee may be able to file before the SCOTUS under certain conditions, but it’s unlikely that the Supremes would hear a case that the Appellate court thought was unworthy.
More likely, if the 7th Circuit takes it up, it’ll be another 6 months or so until Oral Arguments. It can take the better part of a year before the decision is published after that.
No matter who wins, the loser can file for reconsideration, or an en banc rehearing before the entire 7th Circuit (the first appeal is heard by a three judge panel).
If the reconsideration an en banc rehearing is denied (which is the more likely outcome), THEN the loser (whoever it may be) may then file for certiori before the Supreme Court.
I predict that neither side is going to back down while appeals are still possible, so it may very likely go the Supremem Court. That would take about 2-3 years after the District Court decision on average.
This is my response to xians who bring up The Declaration of Independence as “proof” that this is a xian nation:
The Declaration of Independence was written as a piece of inflammatory rhetoric with the sole purpose of telling off King George III. It has no bearing on the founding of the United States government.
Judge Crabb and all you fat liberals are jerks. Sorry progressos or libs or whatever you call yourselves , you’re not going to get rid of God in this country. 75% of Americans beleive in God, its our motto, its on our coins. Did you pray last Thursday, NO, that was your right, did I pray last Thursday, Yes, that was my right. What a great country.
Wow…that’s staggeringly powerful stupid. I think they’re giving Pat Robertson a run for his money with that level of tripe!
I was in a group of people that were christian by a large majority, about 30 people. I spoke up and I explained that I am an athiest and couldn’t relate – no more – except that it is wrong to assume that everyone is religious/christian and please do make matter of fact statements about their outlook being the only understanding of reality.
So, someone gets extremely agitated and then angry and says that he is tired of being attacked by everyone and that he now feels like a pariah.
One of thirty, I was the ‘pariah’, lol, but this persons reaction to my comment verged on violence in its sudden intensity.
People believe that reality is from god and therefore everything in it is an expression of the right honourable almighty. This includes the constitution.
@111
That whooshing sound is the point sailing clear over your head.
What about skinny liberals?
Thanks for missing the point.
Only since 1956 has it been our motto. Arguably in response to the big mean nasty Red Scare.
Uh oh I see what’s coming
Of course it is, continue to pray. Pray your little brains out. The longer you spend time praying, the less time you’ll be able to be out doing the damage you religious types are apt to be doing.
And the right to pray has exactly zero to do with the government establishing a National Day of Prayer being unconstitutional.
Dumb ass
The Dan Barker interview is great! He nicely sums up the root of this so-called “cultural war” manufactured by the fundagelical Christian right. They misconstrue governmental neutrality as hostility. I think the Christian right are secrertly some of the biggest doubters in the world of religion. The only way they can keep their personal faith alive and suppress their doubt is to create a society that constantly shores up their faith with events and rituals like the NDP. They also actively hound any honest doubter or atheist that sees through the charade and tries to pull back this “patriotic” veneer of “God and country” to reveal thier ugly hypocrisy.
@sodakhic #111
So, would we atheists be less jerky if, instead of getting the NDP taken away, the next day we had the President of the United States call for a “National Day of Atheism”? It would be a day where people were encouraged NOT to pray, find rational explanations for various events, and give no money to religious organizations.
Entirely optional, of course, but PZ Myers and Pharynguloids would be the National Atheism Day taskforce, and recommend ways to ridicule religion to various State governors and legislators. Most would adopt our recommendations without a second thought.
It would, of course, be optional. No one would force you to not pray, you could pray ’til your knees fell off. But the State and Federal Governments would encourage you to not do so with BIG proclamations and billboards and PSAs encouraging a belief in nothing metaphysical.
Would that be ok?
How can one get rid of something that doesn’t exist? And you provided absolutely no evidence for a deity. For people believing in a deity, yes. But that is irrelevant to existence of the deity.
Mental masturbation. You would have gotten more satisfaction with real masturbation…
And you’re a dipshit. So what?
“Sane” will suffice.
That may be true, at least in the short run. We also won’t be able to get rid astrology very soon, either. Pity. In fact, I think I read somewhere that belief in astrology is on the increase, while Christianity is on the decline.
Argumentum ad populum. And every one of them is delusional.
Both of which are unconstitutional and have been challenged. And will continue to be challenged until they are correctd.
Good for you. Do you only pray when the President tells you to? How about you just go ahead and pray when you feel like it, and I’ll continue not praying, and the government can just stay the hell out of it? I think that’s a better solution. What’s next? National Day of Goat Sacrifice?
Much of the time, yes.
Anyone else following the very similar thread over at Bad Astronomy?
I rather like goat. Pity it’s so hard to find around here.
I should have heeded PZ’s warning. I got about two and half minutes into this and now I fear permanent brain damage. My hands are shaking and my vision is blurry. I’m gonna have to go wash my brain with strong soap. ~WJS
We don’t have a problem with the gods. They have been remarkably absent for millennia, about as active as the lepruchuans. We do have a problem with self identified believers such as you trying to force their wingnut beliefs on us and trying to destroy our society.
And don’t be so sure your cult isn’t heading the way of the Norse or Greek gods. Xianity has been on the skids in the USA for decades. That 75% used to be 90%. According to ARIS, the three fastest growing religions in the USA are Wicca, Nones, and Islam.
So you pretended to talk to the invisible, undetectable sky fairies. Big deal, it is a free country, whatever. Why are we supposed to give one damn what you do in your fantasy life?
Ah. So you disagree with Palin and O’Reilly that we should look to the Founding Fathers for inspiration. Good – ancestor worship is pretty silly.
Good. Next time I hear one of you whiny fucking cowards crying that you’re being persecuted by the godless I’ll be sure to patiently teach them what real persecution is.
“So take your pick: dishonest, or dishonest and ignorant.”
Neither, actually. I was in class when I wrote that, and I was half awake (I realized my mistake after I hit “submit”). As far as I know it’s not all that uncommon for people to make dumb mistakes that they need to go back later and edit. I admit it was a dumb mistake, but I’m not dishonest or ignorant.
What was your mistake?
Not realizing that she was mistaking a passage from the Declaration as one from the Constitution or pretending that you did understand it?
It always amuses me that they say this like they all believe in the same god….
@126
Fair enough. I’m willing to take “dumb mistake while half awake” as a reasonable alternative. Especially when it’s accompanied by the honesty of admitting it was a dumb mistake.
I call Poe on sodakhic. If it was honestly that stupid, it couldn’t manipulate a keyboard.
#121 IslandBrewer:
What a shame! You don’t have any Ethiopian restaurants in your town? They have this really nice spicy goatmeat stew which they serve with a ginormous crepe — no silverware. You rip off a chunk of crepe and use it to grab bits out of your bowl; then when you’re finished you use the remaining pieces to mop up the gravy. O yeah!
We have one right near us.
In regard to the propaganda, did not Göbbels say that for propaganda to be effective, it has to be aimed at the least intelligent segment of the population?
So it does not matter how clever or stupid the speakers are, as long as they say things that makes sense to the [insert appropriate word for the target audience. “True Americans”?].
Add cognitive dissonance, and even the clever ones will follow.
And yet you need the government to tell you to pray?
Although praying in public is a violation of biblical law.
Matthew 6:6
Dang it. I forgot to link to this news story:
Iran hangs woman, four other ‘enemies of God’
Someone beat me to the “Palin isn’t fat” joke
As I have said here before, even if this was the law of the land (which it isn’t), I would not accept any godbot claim that this was in fact a religious sentiment.
…at least not until they could demonstrate to me that my Creator(s) were someone other than my parents – the people who endowed upon my the rights I have as a human being by giving birth to me! (Well, one of them gave birth, the other one just sorta help kick the whole biz off…)
a bit late, but have had trouble signing in the last couple of days…
@ Glen early on, referring to the “10 commandments”:
it’s still one part of the history of our legal system.
so was lynching. Should we not object to representations of gallows outside courthouses too?
I guess trashing the Declaration of Independence as a mere “piece of inflammatory rhetoric” and a “press release” is inevitable if you’re a left-wing atheist. You can’t get around the words in it, so you have to trash the whole document.
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
From Wikipedia, which cites historical references:
This sentence has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language”[2] and “the most potent and consequential words in American history”.[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
You left-wingers disgust me.
You absolutely disgust me.
If I have to make a choice between you and the Declaration of Independence, I’ll go with the Declaration.
You, on the other hand, America can live without.
I’ve been making the point on all the blogs that since left-wingers see themselves as a breed apart, that’s how they should be treated.
If I have to make a choice between you and the Declaration of Independence, I’ll go with the Declaration.
would you then, being the moron you are, choose the Declaration of Independence (which has no basis for forming our law whatsoever), over the Constitution then, simply because it mentions “a creator” in it?
yeah, the disgust is entirely mutual. You’re the reason Fox and Friends exists.
Grow a brain, eh?
Okay, can we all stop posting quotes from the Bible in response to Christian trolling here?
I consider it in poor taste to argue against someone by quoting a book you know they haven’t read.
Says the projecting bigot who quoted We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…
Fixed it for you. No charge.
We recognize the place for the DoI, and it isn’t in any constitutional argument. Why? It isn’t the constitution. The fact that you can’t see it says a lot about your lack of cogency, and why your opinion on the matter is worthless.
Being a piece of inflammatory rhetoric is not always a bad thing. It was precisely what was needed for the task it performed.
And yet it seems most Americans (including former Vice-Presidential candidates) cannot identify the document that sentence appears in.
Feelings mutual.
Attempting to marginalize a group, eh?
“Effect measure” has a post about how to avoid polarization when making decisions. Since this has potentially huge implications (for instance, as an antidote to Sarah Palin nonsense) I am including the link here.
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/05/washing_our_hands_of_a_difficu.php
Response to sinz54 @ #140:
The Declaration of Independence (DI)is tremendous document, but it is not law. The targeted readership was the British Empire. I and many other Americans value the “principles” of the DI, but I would not hold it as “statement of principles through which the US Constitution should be interpreted.” The Constitution stands on its own – it is the law agreed upon by the states to establish our government. The Constitution can viewed by the old cliche as “a living document” since it still is law today, can be ammended and interpreted by our courts. The DI is not – it had a very specific purpose at a specific time. Right-wingers trot out the DI jsut because of the reference to the “Creator”. The “Creator” of the DI is very ill-defined (on purpose). Who is the “Creator”?
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – sinz54
Let’s remember that the people responsible for these words were stinking hypocrites – not one of them campaigned for non-white men (let alone women) to be treated equally, many of them were slaveowners and rapists like Jefferson.
Letter I received today via the morman email tree:
This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise.
Indeed.
Big surprise.
*snicker*
Dumb Fuck sinz 54,
The Declaration of Independence is not the foundation of our laws.
And reread your favorite DOI line – it is an attack on Christian theology.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
How many presidents have run a company and/or met a payroll? “W” ran several companies, didn’t they all fail? And who also never served in the military (in any real way).
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of your youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
I suppose this means he is equally scared of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of CA?
You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
What the hell is scary about this?
What the hell is scary about this?
he might have to pay *gasp* slightly more for his oil consumption sometime in the future!
I can picture him on the fainting couch, even as I write this…
Pritchett retired from Proctor & Gamble in 1989.
Pritchett retired from Proctor & Gamble in 1989.
yes, but it makes himself feel more important to claim himself still an executive there.
I’m sure he’s expecting you, as a reader, to be suitably impressed, and ignore the obvious lie.
what’s wrong with you, comrade?
:P
Gee, might that be because of the one way in which Obama is different from all other presidents?
Obama’s not a Freemason?
I forget, was that before or after the godbots had discovered satanic symbols in their logo?
(I missed the exact dating of that due to having to chase after my escaping eyeballs – they kept popping out from excessive rolling at the Great Satanic Role-Playing Scare occuring at roughly the same time.)
Also, to the poster at #140 (In the almost certainly vain hope that they are actually bothering to read what’s being posted here…):
Could you clarify where all of the “…trashing the Declaration of Independence…” happened in my post? ‘Cause I’m missing it.
I mean, you did read my interpretation of the opening phrase, and why, as an atheist, I had no problem with it…
…didn’t you?
He isn’t? Damn, how’s he going to pull off all those conspiracies then? Guess I won’t be seeing a socialist world government anytime soon. Sigh…
Already a lie in the heading of his letter. He retired from Proctor and Gamble in 1989, obviously because he was showing signs of unsubstantiated fears, that later developed into a major physiological condition that the letter resulted from. He also seemed to be having a problem with the comprehension of numbers at the time as well.
Pssst, someone tell him that 500,000 out of 300,000,000 is not a very big portion of the population, only 0.16% in fact.
Unlike you christofascist morons who trash the constitution because the only mention of religion is separation of church and state and no test of religious affiliation to run for office. As the last fundie president, moron Bush said, “the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.”
What does it mean to be a “christian nation”, not that we are or ever were anyway?
Does this mean you can hunt down and kill witches, shellfish eaters, and people working on Sunday?
Have pogroms where you massacre heretics, apostates, and nonXians?
Discriminate against nonbelievers?
Have religious wars among the sects after you get done massacring the Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, other religions and the atheists. Like the xians used to do until we took away their armies and heavy weapons.
What would a christian nation look like as opposed to our past and present country? Something like Somalia or Afghanistan most likely, another theocratic hell on earth run by psychopaths.
Pssst, someone tell him that 500,000 out of 300,000,000 is not a very big portion of the population, only 0.16% in fact.
He should also be made aware that a “hit” is not an automatic vote of approval, it just means someone pulled up that page to read (doesn’t even mean they actually read it).
Ooh, a threat. Not a very good one but the troll doesn’t seem to be all that smart or sane.
So how do you evil, christofascist kooks treat “breeds apart”.
Will we have to ride in the back of bus, use separate restrooms, live in slums, have a hard time getting educations and jobs, and be discriminated against and occasionally lynched by mobs of inbred morons. Or will we just be herded into concentration camps and gassed.
What a wimp, real fundie xian death cultists don’t make vague threats, they just threaten to kill everyone. Try again, you are a disgrace even as a religious kook.
BTW, might want to check how the christofascists did in the last election. Last I heard, Obama was president, Bush was a disgraced loser, and the Democrats had control of congress. If you weren’t dumb, you might realize that frothing at the mouth homical maniacs like you aren’t all that common or liked in the USA.
Lou Pritchett, you scare me because through those words of yours, I have gained vast insight into the teabagger mindset. It is truly an ugly thing to behold.
Who in the hell is Pritchett? Never heard of him.
According to the fundie xians, Proctor and Gamble is a company run by satanists. So what are the mormons doing quoting a P&G satanist? Hmmm, well really, I guess mormonism, satanism, there are a lot of similarities.
The streamers below Sarah Failin’ are so apt, aren’t they? Sarah = failure all around. I hope she goes for GOP presidential candidate.
Wow. Maybe it wasn’t a fat finger that caused the massive sell order of P&G stock that caused the massive dip in the market last week.
This personified:
Why are conservative christians illiterate?
So you say.
You’d miss us when your favorite sports teams are murdered for playing on sunday.
You’d miss us when you’re put through a grinder for being episcopelian instead of lutheran.
And boy HOWDY would you miss us after kicking out all the useful scientists who create the drugs and vaccines that keep you alive. Or folks like my agnostic father, who create the military equipment you morons think are the only things that keep the country safe.
Strike my last post.
Legal killing is execution, not murder. And believe me, it’d be done with the full force of the law.
Try finding oil with a bible, fucker.
I agree that his singing is terrible, but that’s not the same thing as having no musical talent. He’s good at playing piano or composing things for other people to sing. It’s just his vocals that are bad.
So many places you can go with that comment.
The obvious one is the bad spelling, the challenge with grammar, etc.
But a more indirect line is that they don’t appear to like reading or writing in general, or thinking about things in particular.
That’s why the average atheist knows much more about Christianity, or Islam, than the average Christian, or Muslim. Because we actually read the books, and paid attention to what was written, and then we said, “Hold on, this doesn’t make any sense.”
You know, I actually kind of do. Well, I have a problem with the Abrahamic God, the main character of the Western holy books. He’s despicable, worse than The Judge from Blood Meridian or Iago from Othello. He’s a genocidal bastard who demands nothing but endless adoration, love, sacrifice, and attention and thinks nothing of wiping you from the face of the Earth should you so much as cross him or his favored minions. Mind you, he created us and loves us, but has no problem with then demanding absolute obedience and killing us for not giving it to him. We were created seemingly for his own amusement and so someone would venerate him.
According to one version of his story, and this is supposedly the nice part, he then sends a version of himself to Earth, to the middle of one of the worst parts of the planet where no one reads but everyone sweats their asses off, to offer a choice to his people. This is a one-life-time only offer: accept him in the form of his son, who is still actually him, and you will receive redemption. If you reject him, depending on the interpretation, you’ll be permanently seperated from God or be annihilated out of existence, or even worse condemned to an eternity worse than death, being tortured and burned for all infinity.
This is a horrifyingly evil character. Richard Dawkins is being nice when he rattles off that
lengthy list of characteristics he uses often in speeches and in The God Delusion. This character is so terrible that were he to be a real person, or force I guess, we would have a legitmate case for crimes against humanity against him. It’s a good thing that no one has ever convincingly demonstrated that this horrible monster exists.
Which of these guys is Lou Pritchett?
Is it the one on the left?
You’re obviously too stupid to understand that however important the DoI is (and it is historically important) it is not law no matter how many times you cream your jeans over your misunderstanding of a few select passages in it.
oooh, that letter looks fun
we now have this newfangled thing called google…
yeah, I can understand that someone with a rich daddy might not ever have heard of these ebil socialist things called scholarships
it may have escaped you, but Hawaii is part of the U.S.A now, and has been for a while now
at least he didn’t run a whole bunch of companies into the ground
you mean unlike Palin, who’s married to a separatist?
that message doesn’t need to be delivered abroad; it resides there permanently already.
OH NOES!!!!
Don Quixote agrees; windmills are frightening.
BWAHAHAHAAAHAAA!!!!!
because sucking up to them is so much better, right?
intelligent people? like who?
no that’s your god. take your pills, you’re getting confused again.
these don’t need demonizing; they’re doing that just fine by themselves.
paranoia is treatable.
The Atheist Camel had a post on this subject.
The Ten Commandments as basis for US law : Are Xtians REALLY this stupid?
http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/2010/05/ten-commandments-as-basis-for-us-law.html
<chortle>
If “Honor your mother and father” became law,can I have my kids arrested for not giving me a mother’s day card? lol.
This Lou Pritchett guy doesn’t scare me but he makes me very nervous. I would be afraid that he is driving a car or trying to cross the street without his minder. That whole rant looks like dementia put to paper, possibly age related.
@Brownian OM, #172:
*clap*
so… you people who think that the united states was founded on christian principles, or that the founding fathers intended to use the declaration of independence as a declaration of a christian nation… how do you explain the treaty of tripoli? this treaty, signed by president john adams in 1797 and ratified UNANIMOUSLY clearly states:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…
i know this was mentioned above, but so far none of you have even attempted to explain this. you all also ignore the fact that the declaration of independence was written long before the constitution. the DoI was in no way meant to establish any laws or even a pretext for any laws. when it came time for our founding fathers to actually decide what this country was about and how it was to be governed, they made it an explicit point to leave god and religion out of it.
so what do you have to say about this?
-artemis
THIS is scary?
Conservatives are pansies.
Honestly, I’ve just kind of started bashing on the dumb people. If you’re being given information in tiny little digestible so-fucking-simple-a-ten-year-old-could-comprehend-it format and you can’t comprehend it AND you have the attention span of a goldfish with ADHD, I’m going to make fun of you.
I watched the Dan Barker clip. I noticed that instead of “Freedom From Religion,” the Fox&Friends crew had “Freedom For Religion” under Barker’s name.
If you want to live in a society based on the Torah (and ancient Judaic law), your best bet would obviously be to move to the middle east.
So, I watched the Dan Barker clip on youtube, and youtube eventually led me to a video entitled “Dan Barker vs. Bill Donahue”
It was a clip from Fox, and Barker and Donahue were discussing a sign that the FFRF had put up next to a nativity scene outside of some capitol building somewhere (I forget the specifics already, if you hadn’t figured that out yet). You know the one I’m talking about – went something like “At the time of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no heave, no hell…”
Anyway, Donohue (a pompous, bloated bastard. I’d never seen him before. He reminds me of those obscenely rich cartoon business tycoons) called it hate speech, and said it shouldn’t be allowed with the nativity scene for that reason.
Then Barker said something along the lines of “What about the hate speech represented by that nativity scene, that says we will all burn in hell if we don’t bow down and worship that damn baby?” At which point, both Donahue and the Fox guy spit out there pacifiers, pissed their diapers, and cried about being offended.
The whole thing concluded with Donohue saying that Dan Barker was the devil. The words were (paraphrased): “Your sign says there are no devils. After talking to you today, I think you better go amend your damn sign”
Long story short, I think I have a new hero ♥
#186 Katharine:
I’m sorry, Katharine. Your post already exceeds their attention spans.
raven @123:
At least the leprechauns are pretty active once a year, around March 17, in St. Patrick’s Day parades….
No that’s just the Guinness talkin’
A thought I just had: what would the reaction have been if Obama’s (or any other President’s) NDOP proclamation had said “by government decree, you have permission to pray today”?
Yeah, and Caite’s geography lesson has 42 million. Hits are no indication of brilliance.
Back to the important things,
@#131, 132, & 133 chicagomolly, Doug Little and The Pint
We have some Ethiopian restaurants in the next town over, and I do love Ethiopian and Eritrean food.
However, I’m looking for just the meat. For cooking on my own. Butchers here carry lamb, and that’s a fair substitute, but it’s not the same. I’ll have to ask around in the neighborhoods where the primary language is one in which I’m not so fluent. I figure that the Mexicans and the Salvadorians must have some inkling of where to get good fresh goat.
Where I’ve eaten goat, it’s really not the same as lamb. It has a darker, gamier taste when it’s not covered up by spices and masalas. I really like a good braised goat shank. In Cuba, I had this one meal of grilled goat that was phenomenal.
While I do with some of what Bill and Sarah are saying, i do have to say that we can’t assume that all the founding fathers were god believers nor that the constitution was based on the bible. After all, up until the late 1800 We the People only referred to white menn. Blacks didn’t have no rights when the constitution and women were still considered property with no rights; so how can they say that the constitution is a bible based document? The constitution was written by rich white men for rich white men. on a side note, Palin is a hot MILF. I would totally marry her if she just kept quiet. A clueless woman is a happy woman. pretty and seen but not heard.
There’s no assuming about it. We know that not all the founding fathers were god (in the Christian sense) believers and we KNOW that the constitution was not based on the bible.
Period.
Oh please explain how this is the case? The very bible itself says slavery is peachy keen. And who were the slaves in the time of the writing of the Constitution?
see?
You’re an idiot.
Hopefully every woman you come into contact with realizes this immediately and runs for her sanity and probably life.
Fucking asshole.
It’s sad when I, a foreign citizen with no special qualifiers towards politics beat a vice-president candidate in knowledge about the constitution. I have to agree with the commentator that pointed out that the constitution is religion free largely because the bible is not.
Anybody else who saw how they basically just had mental intercourse? Get a room! “Yes! You’re soooo right!”
But Faux is really good for sampling ideas you should be sceptical about.