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.
Posted on 03/31/2004 at 10:15 AM 
Posted on 06/22/2004 at 07:40 PM 
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.
Well, initially you just suggested the -possibility- of dickitude. Now you’re asserting it as fact. But coming from an -intellectual dwarf- with a big-ass chip on his shoulder, it’s hardly an assessment that I’ll be taking to heart now, is it?
So bite my shiny metal ass!