It makes sense that if the founding father’s could not see fit to include unambiguous language in the Constitution that would allow enforced Christian beliefs upon ALL of Americans citizens then a group of extremist nutballs should take it upon themselves to amend it. So offended was (D) Senator Zell Miller, GA by the half-time appearance of Janet Jackson’s breast during the Super Bowl (a far Left conspiracy apparently), that he wants us all to know that:
I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Sen. Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the pledge of allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And today I join Sen. Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways.
In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly, with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not take my word that these proposals are bad for anyone who does not yearn for the days of tri-corner hats, buckles on shoes, and witch trials, read them. They almost seem reasonable if you hate gays and get off on imposing your religious views on an entire nation. If you want the American Taliban calling the shots regarding your dress, your sex life, the abolishing of separation between church and state, then I would suggest that you do nothing. It looks like it is time for me to once again contact my representatives to oppose these measures, I just hope I have not found out about this too late.
See also Scott’s input on this.
But I am curious - do you think everyone who disagrees with you is beneath you and/or less intelligent than you?
One, less intelligent does not = beneath. There are plenty of people out there that are not as ‘clever’ as I am, who are far better people. By extension, there are people out there who are far more intelligent than I am, who torture puppies for fun.
Two, when you misrepresent what people are saying, there are two possibilities—you have difficulty reading, or you are doing it deliberately. Either way, it doesn’t signal that you’re the sharpest knife in the drawer.
But here’s an idea! If someone calls you on being a complete asshole, you can accuse them of intellectual elitism, and label them a “Berkley” type that protests because they don’t have anything better to do. In the absence of thought, an ad hominem is always pretty effective.
My parents are almost 60, and they turn out to antiwar protests because they -believe- that their voices should be heard. (That whole Democracy thing). They’re hardly kids looking for attention, and the only thing they really get out of the protests is the fleeting sensation that maybe they aren’t -completely- alone. A feeling that they certainly won’t get by watching the news.
As for suing under the Fair Housing act, it didn’t seem worth the effort. The first time it happened, it took the wife and I about ten minutes, as we were driving away, to figure out what had just happened. The second case, we probably -could- have sued, and won, as the “what church do you go to” question was right there on the application. But the people who were renting the house were old, and they were renting it because it was their daughter’s and -she had just died!- I realize I should have burnt the bastards to a crisp on the fiery altar of principle, but I figured I’d just let it slide, instead.
BTW nowiser - you
Misrepresent? Do tell…
So did you really go to Berkley?
And would you please explain why, in fact I’m an asshole because the only asshole I see here is you my friend. You assume, because you’ve misread my comments and have the balls to imply that because I think you’re making a bigger deal out of all this than you should, that I’m somehow a racist.
You’re just like Newdow, aren’t you? That’s why you like him so much isn’t it? You think that because you’re so damn smart, everybody should do as you say or else they’ll be [burnt on the fiery alter of principle]. You’re a nitpicky prick that apparently has way too much time on his hands. What nothing to protest today? No WTO summit around so you’re not out in your ski-mask bashing the windows out of the neighborhood Starbucks?
What a dick :finger:
So I did a Google search on your handle, nowiser, is this really [link removed] you?
(Jimbo) in fact I
Oooohhhhh, aaaahhhhhhh
You’re so clever. How about a cookie?
Maybe a Gold Star next to your name?
Only if it doesn’t have “In God We Trust” stamped on it.
I really think jackass is a more appropriate label.
Jimbo said
Wow, it
Pissy? I’m laughing over here - this is fun!
Jimbo,
No, I didn’t go to Berkeley. No, that website is not “me,” nor am I affiliated with it in any way. Although I do like pron.
More importantly, though, I did not “misread” your comments, nor did I ever imply that you were a racist. It was a fucking analogy, you dork. Your reading comprehension skills really DO need some work.
Jimbo—> “nowiser accused me of being anti-semitic” Somebody call the waaahmbulance!
Again, whatever dude.
Nor do I “like” Newdow. I think he’s right, but that doesn’t make him likeable by a long shot. I mean, come on, the guy once claimed that his lover got him drunk on a camping trip, and “raped” him. Please. But nuts are the ones (on the right AND the left) who often bring about change. And, so far, there’ve been a lot more of ‘em on the right than there are on the left.
Wait a minute, I just realized that I’m talking to you like you’re an adult. What a waste of time.
Yu are teh nazty booger! Fuk yuu!
Ok, now the discourse is back where you’re comfortable with it. I do what I can to help
Don’t kid yourself Ragman, he is sitting back stroking himself excited by all the rancor he has caused.
Hey Jimbo,
is this “you”
[link removed]
Funny how that works, isn’t it!
I’m just glad my profile isn’t listed at that site. I never dreamed gay profiles listed at another site might be linked from here.
What a sad way to argue, Jimbo!
I never dreamed gay profiles listed at another site might be linked from here.
[in my best Seinfeld voice]
“not that there’s anything wrong with that!”
And for Jimbo
I like how you think I must obviously be “[an intellectual dwarf with a chip on my shoulder]” since 1.) I disagree with you . . .
Blatant misrepresentation. I think you’re an intellectual dwarf because your reading comprehension is seriously flawed. I disagree with people on this board all the time, but very few are as blatantly ‘stunted’ as you, my fine freaky friend.
therefore the victims of a horrible injustice
hyperbole to create a strawman— that’s misrepresentation
you’re a member of a secretly oppressed minority
Uh, noone ever claimed that it was a secret. Strawman.
You assume. . . that I’m somehow a racist.
WTH? I never claimed you were a racist. Another Strawman. Hmmm. At least you’re consistent. Strawman and Ad Hominem seem to be your favorites.
Try a Red Herring, or Non Sequitur. Variety is the spice of life.
Which reminds me, where was that link to the gay porn site? Jimbo just isn’t enough asshole for me, I need MORE, MORE MORE!
And we find once again another perfect example of a trolling asshole in the form of Jimbo. Much like David, he has no sense of irony.
Trolls these days aren’t what they used to be. You could replace a lot of them with a bot and nobody would notice.
There are plenty of people who thought those
Brock, that was a joke not an argument. Jesus, take a joke.
BTW - speaking of the Civil Rights movement sinc eyou just love talking about how yours are violated by the vast, and while not quite secret, horribly under-publicized anti-atheist establishment - I’m curious how MLK would view the Newdow debate…
Are all of you people nuts?
Every nation that has veered away from it’s foundation falls! It crumbles from the inside out. Only those that have adhered to their strong foundations have ever withstood the test of time.
This isn’t about religion, or morals, or ethics, but rather, it’s about preventing any judge from “reinterpreting” the law, including the Constitution, to fit his or her own worldview, rather than doing the right thing and administering justice based upon the original intentions of the law.
Who looses?
You do. I do. We all do.
How?
Massive insurance premiums, mostly for covering the massive legal fees required to defend against fraudulent and frivilous lawsuits.
Doctor fees that are double what they should be to cover their massive insurance premiums.
This is beyond ridiculous, folks - it’s just plain stupid, and whiners who think their “civil liberties” are somehow being violated by this amendment are more stupid than most.
Take the OJ case. He may very well have done it! I don’t know, as I wasn’t there. That’s not the point, however. The point is the Constitution specifically prohibits being tried twice for the same crime, yet that’s exactly what happened. After OJ was acquitted in the first trial, the judge who allowed the family to sue him (and they won something like $13 or $35 Mil), in essence, put him on trial a second time.
How would you like to be in a traffic accident that’s not your fault, be charged by the police, be acquitted in the courts, only to be sued, successfully, by the other party?
You think that’s justice?
Our Constitution, and our entire law which derives its authority from it, exists for many good reasons, folks, one of which is to prevent our GOVERNMENT from injuring bringing harm to we, the people. Yet when a judge reinterprets the law, that’s exactly what happens.
And WE end up as the loosers.
Far too often judges in recent years have become lawmakers by grossly violated the original intent of many laws. That’s not justice.
If I were a lawmaker (like those in Congress who’re pressing forward with this bill), I’d be pissed as hell at a judge “reinterpreting” the laws I made and would enact legislation to prevent them from doing so!
Unfortunately, it couldn’t just be a simple congressional law, as judges can rule it “unconstitutional.”
Therefore, they’re making an amendment to the constitution so that judges can’t do that.
In our society, lawyers are a necessary evil. Unfortunately, there are far too many of them, and hungry for work, they’ll take on any case, regardless of merit. By the time they become judges, they somehow take pity on other lawyers and hear all kinds of cases and lawsuits which should have been thrown out.
I’m sure most judges aren’t this bad, but the good ones don’t have any power to police the self-righteous idiots who grossly distort the law with their idiotic rulings, probably due to “professional courtesy,” and thus the entire system of justice in America today has decayed to the point where it sounds like the heavy gasping of a sucking chest wound.
It’s about time the lawyers in Congress fight back by policing the lawyers sitting on the bench with this Constitutional amendment.
Personally, I’d like to see judges being held accountable for errant decisions, but that would just kill the appeals process, as higher courts would never screw the buddies over by reversing a decision!
There is a reason for the seperation of the government’s legislative, executive, and judicial branches. If this balance of power and mutual checks and balances is monkeyed with, arguably the US would have veered away off its foundation and must fall, mustn’t it? Ignoring for the moment how far the US already is from its foundation…
(captcha: mother)
If I were a lawmaker
Thankfully, you’re not.
What a thread.
On the one hand you are all for protecting the Constitution from “activist judges” and on the other hand are fine with Congress monkeying around with it like it was some sort of half-assed MadLib. You would like us to believe that you hold the Constitution sacrosanct but decry the judicial branch (one of the three branches set forth in the very document you seek to ‘protect’). When you say:
This isn’t about religion, or morals, or ethics, but rather, it’s about preventing any judge from “reinterpreting
They’re only “activist judges” when they don’t interpret the law the way YOU want them to. Sheesh.
And speaking of literal interpretations of the Constitution, anyone read about Clarence Thomas’s latest? His opinion that the First Amendment only prohibits the FEDERAL establishment of a religion, not establishment by the states?
Here’s a fascinating article on some of the areas where he wants to go back to the 18th century to interpret the constitution. (Warning: invasive registration required.) A few excerpts:
For example, Thomas has argued that the word “commerce” in the Constitution should be understood as it was in the 18th century: the movement of goods across state lines. Under this view, the states could not erect tariffs or other barriers to the free flow of goods.
In the 20th century, however, the Supreme Court adopted a much broader view of commerce, relying on that definition to uphold federal laws that set minimum wages, prohibited discrimination in the workplace, protected the environment or regulated the manufacture of products, including autos and drugs.
In a separate 1995 opinion, Thomas said that this broad view conflicted with the Constitution and should be reconsidered. If his colleagues ever agree, many of today’s workplace laws would be struck down.
Soon after joining the court in 1991, Thomas wrote that the word “punishment” in the Constitution restricted only “judges, not jailers.” The high court had adopted a broader view of the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” in the 1970s and protected prisoners from being subjected to needlessly cruel treatment.
When Thomas denounced this view as flatly mistaken, Justice Harry A. Blackmun pointed out that his opinion would permit the torture of inmates by prison guards.
[...]
“He is a hard-nosed originalist who looks back to 1791,” when the Bill of Rights was ratified, [UT law professor Douglas] Laycock said. “He acts as though the Civil War didn’t happen, or it didn’t matter.”
Now THAT’S more than enough reason to be afraid.
I always thought we needed “activist judges” to protect the nation from “activist lawmakers”.
(captcha: out)
The whole argument about “activist judges” is just plain stupid and shows an astonishing ignorance of just what a Judge is supposed to do. Particularly in regards to The Supreme Court of the United States as it is part of their job to determine if new laws are in conflict with the Constitution.
Q. It is frequently asserted that the Supreme Court nullifies an act of Congress. Is this correct?
A. No. The Court has repeatedly declared that it claims no such power. All it does—all it can do—is to examine a law when a suit is brought before it. If the law in question is in accordance with the Constitution, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the law stands. If the law goes beyond powers granted by the Constitution, then it is no law, and the Supreme Court merely states that fact (Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 1; Art. VI, cl. 2).
Taken from The National Archive’s Q&A on the Constitution
I’m getting pretty tired of all the bullshit about activist judges that’s tossed around when the Conservatives don’t get their way. They also like to point out that these Judges aren’t elected as though this has any bearing on the issue. There’s a damned good reason why Judges aren’t elected and that’s to enable their impartiality by negating the Judge’s concerns about his job which might influence his decisions.
That said, it’s still possible to impeach a judge and if these Senators are that upset about the job a particular judge is doing they have the ability to attempt an impeachment. The whole idea of putting into place laws to limit the authority of the Judiciary is a stupidly dangerous meddling with the checks and balances that has served this country very well for so long. If Congress were to get into the habit of limiting the power of the Judiciary to rule on various issues whenever they’re not happy with the decisions the courts are making it could be disastrous for our legal system. Not to mention it could come back to bite them in the ass should the tables turn and the Democrats gain control of both houses and the Presidency.
Art III, Sect 2 also states
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
So, the constitution that everyone says is so great and wants to protect, explicitly allows for Congress to exercise some control over the Judicial branch. “Checks and balances” works both ways, I think. Otherwise, the judicial branch could go nuts. Remember Dred Scot ?
Anyway, it has been used many times in the past. The most recent example I remember is Sen Tom Daschle (D. SD) using it in an amendment about a SD forest area. See section 706j of PL 107-206 which was altered by the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (PL 107-206). Daschle inserted language protecting the Black Hills Forest (SD) from NEPA and other environmental laws. But he also inserted this gem:
“Due to the extraordinary circumstances present here, actions authorized by this section shall proceed immediately. . . And actions authorized by this section shall not be subject to judicial review by any court of the United States.”
I remember Montana being pissed because Daschle didn’t include them in this ‘maneuver’.
Concerning the judicial activism label, I think I remember the Florida Supreme Court and the US SC being labeled as such in Dec 2000. Funny how that works, eh?
Dear atheists,
I do not hate, nor dislike atheists, but I hate atheism. I do not, nor does Jesus, hate the person, but the sin. One day, you will bow down to Christ, and worship him.
Philippians 2:10,11 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
I know that you do not believe today, but after your physical death, you will believe. However, it will be too late. I am sorry that all atheists are trapped in their unbelief, and are unable to enter into Heaven. I will not try and convert you, nor any other reader, for that will be a waste of my time. If there was an ounce of conviction in your soul, then I would have that chance, but I don’t believe there is any. Many speak of Heaven and Hell, but to no degree. Hell is hot, and there you will perish. How hot is Hell? You will find out soon enough!
If you do not believe in the God of America, then there are places that you could go. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Atheists are neither citizens, nor political. As the Jews drove out the idolaters, and Satan worshipers from Canaan land, so shall God’s people, I pray, drive out the imbeciles, or fools, of America.
2 Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
AS for separation of Church and state- it is no myth. But all have forsaken its meaning. America was founded by God’s people. As the pilgrims had left England, and the European colonies, they sought a country, to flee the persecution of the state Church: the Church of England. In so doing, they travel to a new colony, now known as, “America,” named after Amerigo Vespucci.When the travelers had come to this country, they formed a new creed, which was a separation of Church and state. That creed was not to keep the Church out of the state, but the state out of the Church. They did not want another Church of England persecution here in America. So I say, get your facts straight. Every non-believer has left history for their stupidity, and logic. Our country, America, was founded upon God’s Word, not atheistic logic. All atheists have one thing in common, their logic. If a Christian says something, no matter what it might be, they are mocked. If an atheist says something, no matter what it might be, they are praised. You find reward here in this lifetime, but one day, you will reap that which you have sown.
Again, atheists are not, nor should be considered, citizens, but outcasts. If you can’t accept God at His Word, that you are not a citizen. All hail to King Jesus! He is still on the throne!
Dear Evangelist,
I read the first four sentences, and then skipped straight to the point.
Why the fuck would any atheist give a damn what you thought or believed, particularly if your thoughts and beliefs are rooted in archaic tribal law?
Precisely.
Dude, there IS no Santa Claus. Get over it already.
P.S. I do not hate evangelists. Like mosquitos, they are the product of evolution and environment and, while annoying, are not per. se. evil.
capcha ‘made,’ as in the devil didn’t make me do it, but I haven’t ruled out a deterministic universe.
Oooo! An Evangelist has stopped by to play! It’s been awhile since we’ve seen one of this sort round these parts. Let’s see if he has anything new and original to offer:
I do not hate, nor dislike atheists, but I hate atheism. I do not, nor does Jesus, hate the person, but the sin. One day, you will bow down to Christ, and worship him.
Philippians 2:10,11 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I swear these guys have a Book of Cliches they pass around and read from every time they want to argue with non-believers.
Rhethorical question: You’ve heard of Apologetics?
If you do not believe in the God of America, then there are places that you could go.
Hope I understand this correctly… He created the entire universe, but he’s the God of America? How did we get that franchise? If there were a universal creator, that would be a bit presumptuous.
All hail to King Jesus! He is still on the throne!
I use Metamucil for that.
I like the ad for Red Lobster that showed up on Rer’rend Jimmy’s page. Along with the disclaimer about ads right below it.
Mozilla must be unclean, it won’t display his page properly. God’s choosen must be IE then. If I were religious, I’d take that as a sign of the anti-christ. I see Jesus as being more of an open source kinda guy.
I do not want to be as the Pharisees, but I want to thank God for allowing me never to hold in my hands, nor study from, any perverted book, unless I am using it to defend the King James Bible. Is it just me, or does anyone else see a defense for reading perverted books? Maybe he’s going to the bathroom with a Penthouse and distracting Satan from taking some other soul. Oh, no, the new Playboy’s out… time to do battle with Old Scratch in the john!
Blah blah blah God, blah blah blah Jesus, blah blah Hell Satan, blah blah America, Bible blah blah blah.
If only they knew that’s what rational folks hear when they go off on their psychotic, delusional babbling rants. Nothing makes me firmer in my conviction not to live my life according to fairy tale and superstition than yet another nutjob spouting Bible verses and opining that Atheists and other non-Christians don’t deserve to be citizens of the US.
(“cases” as in head-cases that believe in guys in the sky)
The truth is that people like the Evangelist (included to allow the deference he’s begging for) James R. Henry just need adoration. They don’t care so much that they may be speaking immutable truths, but that they are speaking and being listened too. They crave being seen as leaders and sages and it’s ironic that the sins they speak against are often the very sins they commit so deftly and nonchalantly. Too, they love smiting by proxy. Christianity is the Wrestlemania event of the cosmos and they are the crazed, euphoric, hopped-up promoters of a pummeling.
Who is really evil here, and who is not? A sober evangelist is a dangerous evangelist!
I’m curious, Evangelist: you say that do not wish to convert atheists (or any other reader) but then proceed to make your oratory. Your posting seemed to be prepared (one can almost see you standing upon your pulpit), though you skipped rather abruptly to your point that atheists should not be citizens.
Since you seem to have abandoned saving the atheists (a rather defeatist attitude, especially for an evangelist), what is it that you want? What should a native-born American who happens to be atheist expect? Would you promote their deportation? Their incarceration? Concentration camps?
My goodness, what are we do about the Atheist Problem?
I mean this in all seriousness: if you can’t live with the outcasts, then what are the alternatives?
Not to worry, RDNewman… it couldn’t happen here. Genocide, concentration camps, mass deportations, such things only happen in other, less Godly countries. Oh, wait…
Ps. 137_8-9: “O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!”
(Looking at Andrew “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” Jackson’s face on the $20 bill. And that wasn’t the only example by far.)
Captcha: “hand” (of God?)
“I hate”
- Evangelist James R. Henry
“Fear is the path to the Dark Side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering…”
- Yoda
Repent now Jimmy for I fear you are on the path of darkness!
I think the problem with randall is that we’re not speaking his language. So here goes, I will attempt to speak his language now.
War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
VOTE BUSH IN 2004!
I hope you guys do know that the family argument has been used to justify keeping suffrage from women. Don’t you love liberalized conservatives? In a 100 years when man is taking round trip vacations to Mars, no one is going to care about gay marriage and conservatives will be the butt of the jokes again.
Wrestle Mania has some strong b$%#hs.