Talk and talk-back

« Embittered womenOink »

Talk and talk-back

Bookworm on Sep 09 2008 at 2:25 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized

If you happen to find yourself reading this, be sure to read this too.

Be Sociable, Share!

Email This Post To A Friend

52 Responses to “Talk and talk-back”

on 09 Sep 2008 at 2:29 pm 1Ymarsakar

This is why the matter of small states vs large states was so important to resolve, book. Up in Canada, Alberta is getting exploited by Toronto, for Toronto has more pop and political influence, but Alberta has the energy.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 2:30 pm 2Ymarsakar

Civil wars were often fought precisely because of such imbalances or perceived imbalances.

The Left is nothing if not good at stirring up revolutions in a society.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 3:10 pm 3Allen

Some of these folks are jaw droppingly dumb. To the Time author: it’s not a tax, it’s called paying someone for something they own. They don’t appear to know a single thing about anything they write about.

They’re getting funnier by the day.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 3:23 pm 4Gringo

Sarah Barracuda must have rankled Ivy League cum MSM journalist Kinsley deeply.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 4:07 pm 5Ellie2

The Lib media has really become unhinged. Sally Quinn was stunned, horrified that she got some pointed feedback from “Christian — Christian!” women after this jaw-dropping asssesment of Gov Palin’s fitness for VP:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/08/sarah_polin.html

She was on the Don Imus show (of all places) whining about the nasty emails this morning.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:11 pm 6suek

>>She was on the Don Imus show (of all places) whining about the nasty emails this morning.>>

That’s funny!!

>>Sally Quinn was stunned, horrified that she got some pointed feedback from “Christian — Christian!”>>

Maybe the heretofore silent majority has found it’s voice!

Perhaps this election will be the first step back to that theocracy of our forefathers!
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:26 pm 7dg

Bookworm, how does the “talk back” inform the “talk”? The blog that criticizes the Time editorial offers no factual rebuttal at all.

The blogger starts by saying that Kinsley seeks to show that Palin is an elitist, but Kinsley’s editorial is not about that at all. Rather, it is about her false claim about being a fiscal conservative or a budget hawk (“…maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America [hailing from a small town], as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.”). And on this score, the blogger offers no real criticism at all.

He takes issue with the tax levels in Alaska because he misunderstands what is being cited. Alaska has a very high tax burden that is being borne by out-of-staters who pay taxes on oils produced in the state. Kinsley is undoubtedly aware, as most people are–even those that watch Simpson’s movies–that the residents of Alaska pay negative taxes, since he cites it in the piece. But the key point Kinsley is making is that it is not hard as an elected official to balance budgets when you receive tax revenues from out-of-staters who do not vote for you, and you collect more grant money from Washington, D.C. than nearly any state in the union.

He also takes issue with the 2005 tax data since Palin was elected in 2006, but the tax rates did not change much, so the argument still holds. And given that Palin supported hiking taxes levied on oil companies, technically the higher rate in 2006 strengthen’s Kinsley’s thesis.

He concludes by admitting that Alaska ranks in the top three in terms of receipt of funds from the lower 48 (despite its oil wealth), which, again, strengthen’s Kinsley’s point, and then saying the point of Kinsley’s “masterpiece of illusion” is already made.

Indeed, it is. And remains unrebutted by this masterpiece of delusion authored by an evidently clueless blogger.

Why must we posit credentialed journalists against anonymous bloggers as if they are in the same league? Journalists have to fact check news pieces and can be sued for libelous editorials. Bloggers can write sh*t and nothing happens. Surely, there is a fact-checked piece or an editorial from a responsible right-leaning news organization to refute Kinsley…or maybe not!!
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:26 pm 8Ellie2

The USA was never a theocracy, and the founders made it as certain as they could that it never would be.

But I had a curious phone call today. My neighbor, born in France and raised in Mexico and married to an American has never voted in the USA, although she is a citizen. We were chatting about this and that and as I am about to hang up she says “wait, wait — what do you think about Sarah Palin?”

I said I was in favor of etc and then she exitedly told me that she is voting for Sarah. She has never before voted in an American election.

Wow.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:30 pm 9suek

Here’s some info on the Libs trying to shut the right up. So much for their much vaunted freedom of speech.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/09/liberals-try-to-sue-conservative-talk.html

>>The USA was never a theocracy, and the founders made it as certain as they could that it never would be. >>

Well Ellie, it must have been. These good people on this site have been telling us that the “changes” that the religious right wants to enforce are an effort to establish a theocracy, but much of what the religious right wants is a return to the laws and customs of 50 years ago, so obviously it must have been a theocracy.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:31 pm 10suek

Oh yeah….and I _like_ how it was 50 years ago, so I’m in favor of a return to a theocracy. I’ll vote that way every time!!
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:39 pm 11dg

Suek, you are contradicting yourself from one day to the next. Yesterday, you said that conservatives were right to stop free speech in the form of expensive art because tax payers shouldn’t subsidize it, and that they could silence or at least fine Howard Stern with prohibitively hefty fines because he was using public airwaves paid for by the public. But when the liberals do the VERY SAME THING it becomes the free speech issue you said yesterday it wasn’t.

Now, don’t get me wrong. In pointing out your hypocrisy, I do not want anyone to mistaken me to be in agreement with the liberals on this issue. I think that there are other ways to disabuse people of the wrong-headed views, opinions and even facts that highly biased talk radio perpetuates–like, clearing up these things on conservative sites like this one–than trying to shut down profitable radio stations where consenting adults give and receive highly biased and often factually incorrect information. While it is bad for American democracy to have such stations, it is worse for democracy to shut them down. Kind of like the dangers of censorship being worse than the dangers of offensive speech… Hopefully, you can now see my point with the shoe on the other foot!!
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:41 pm 12Tiresias

Come on – you read Michael Kinsley with a straight face?
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:43 pm 13dg

I don’t read him at all. Bookworm was kind enough to share the editorial with all of us. I found it rather compelling, didn’t you?
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:48 pm 14Ellie2

Hey, people! On the gentle suggestion of our proprietress, we are ignoring dg.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:52 pm 15Zhombre

Tiresias: I’ve propounded the theory for a while that if you read Time or Newsweek cover to cover, you will know less when you finish than when you started. Both purvey a subtle misinformation, a general numbing and dumbing down of the brain cells. An essay by Kinsley has the effect of shrouding your cerebral cortex with ice cubes.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:03 pm 16dg

Ellie2, you mean you are also afraid to actually have an honest debate? Enjoy your bubble…

Zhombre, while I might agree with you on the weaknesses of Time and Newsweek, please tell me that you read more than anonymous, questionably sourced blogs…
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:21 pm 17Zhombre

I’ll give you a clue, dg. Last book I picked up to read has a key phrase that reads, in part, as follows: lasciate ogne speranza, voi che intrate.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:23 pm 18BrianE

dg said:

Journalists have to fact check news pieces and can be sued for libelous editorials.

There you go again dg.
Journalists look for muiltiple sources for confirmation. Journalists mangle facts all the time, sometimes on purpose. Sued for libelous editorials? Ridiculous. I think that’s the exact phrase my Journalism Law professor used.

Suek, you are contradicting yourself from one day to the next. Yesterday, you said that conservatives were right to stop free speech in the form of expensive art because tax payers shouldn’t subsidize it, and that they could silence or at least fine Howard Stern with prohibitively hefty fines because he was using public airwaves paid for by the public.

It must be getting late where you are dg, because your logic has failed you badly. Not wanting to subsidize art can in no way be construed as censoring free speech. The artist only need buy the paint him or herself. Howard Stern systematically violated long established rules of conduct for public airwaves. I assume he’s still receiving his $500 million dollar salary on Sirius, where he is free to spew whatever filth his juvenile mind can imagine.

Following the FCC fine ($500k to Clear Channel, not Stern), Howard Stern’s radio program was promptly dumped by six Clear Channel stations. Complaints had originally come pouring into the FCC after a Stern show on oral sex. The offense: Stern’s talk of sex had been punctuated by sounds of flatulence. Yet, he inflamed parts of his audience when he interviewed Rick Solomon, most known for being caught on film having sex with Paris Hilton. The offending discourse this time: Solomon’s sexual encounters with famous black women.

As an aside, Clear Channel was fined $500k, not particularly prohibitive when gauged against Stern’s $500 milllion contract with Sirius.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:23 pm 19Ozzie

These good people on this site have been telling us that the “changes” that the religious right wants to enforce are an effort to establish a theocracy, but much of what the religious right wants is a return to the laws and customs of 50 years ago, so obviously it must have been a theocracy

People are ignorant about what the Founders intended, i.e that they wanted ” a wall between church and state.”

But anyway, back to what Phillips called the “soft theocracy” that we could expect. .

As one reviewer put it:

“What he’s talking about is not a Christian version of Iran, but a country ruled by an evangelical party whose electoral machinery is integrated into a network of fundamentalist churches.”

That’s where we today. A GOP presidential candidate HAS to be approved and endorsed by the Religious Right.

And yes, that’s a sign of regression.

Presidents used to talk to Americans as if we were intelligent.

That’s over with, too.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:32 pm 20Ellie2

Z Darling,

Dg cannot abandon hope because he does not know what hope is! XXOO

e.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:36 pm 21Ozzie

Oh yeah….and I _like_ how it was 50 years ago, so I’m in favor of a return to a theocracy. I’ll vote that way every time!!- suek

What were things like 50 years ago? And how was America a theocracy back then?

Once again, in case you missed it, here are excerpts from John C Danforth, a former Republican Senator from Missouri and an Episcopal minister:

“BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. . .

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. . . . . .

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&oref=slogin

He sees the merging of church and state as being “recent.”

I do, too.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:40 pm 22Zhombre

Ozzie, I really dont know what you are saying. Fifty years ago we hardly had a theocracy in this country. Eisenhower was President and liberals complained the voters chose Ike, who speech was hardly a model of intellectual discourse, over the “egghead” Adlai Stevenson (who when told the intelligent people would all vote for him, replied, but I need a majority of votes). Liberals and urban sophisticate have always complained American voters were a mob of yahoos, Babbitts and religious imbeciles from the Southern pellagra belt. These complaints are nothing new. And they are no fresher for age. Kevin Phillips says little that is new and having read one of his books, I will testify he says nothing new in the most tendentious and granite-prose manner. What gets me about people on the liberal-left is that they sing the same old song over and over again and somehow think it’s being sung for the first time.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:51 pm 23Ozzie

Fifty years ago we hardly had a theocracy in this country- Zhombre

That’s my point, Zhombre. The melding of religion and politics seems pretty recent to me.

I was responding to seuk’s comment when she said: “Oh yeah….and I _like_ how it was 50 years ago, so I’m in favor of a return to a theocracy. I’ll vote that way every time!!-”

“Eisenhower was President and liberals complained the voters chose Ike, who speech was hardly a model of intellectual discourse. . ” Zhombre

I realize that people said it back then, Zhombre. . but compared to what we’ve endured in recent years, Eisenhower’s speeches were works of art. He spoke to Americans as if they were grown-ups.

“Kevin Phillips says little that is new and having read one of his books, I will testify he says nothing new in the most tendentious and granite-prose manner.”- Z

The Religious Right only gained national exposure relatively recently, but yes, Phillips is reying on his expertise from the Nixon years and the development of the “Southern Strategy.”

But its not just liberals. Lee Atwater and George H.W. Bush referred to Rapture-Ready Christians as “Extra Chromosone Conservatives.”

It is, however, a recent development that the organized Religious Right is determining who the GOP nominates.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:54 pm 24Danny Lemieux

Excellent breakdown of events and timelines regarding the “Bridge to Nowhere” on WSJ’s “Best of the Web” today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

Facts, facts, troubling facts.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:54 pm 25Ellie2

Hey! How does this theocracy idea pertain to the Palin Derangement Syndrome?
on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:56 pm 26Danny Lemieux

Sorry about that, folks. Long day and just back from business trip – I meant “Palin’s book-banning library fiasco”, not “Bridge to Nowhere”.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 8:02 pm 27Ozzie

Hey! How does this theocracy idea pertain to the Palin Derangement Syndrome?- Ellie

Is Palin Derangemtn the same as Obama Derangement Syndrome? I get confused.

Palin was chosen to be VP BECAUSE she appeals to the Relgious Right.

Like George W. Bush, she was vetted by the Council for National Policy

McCain wanted Lieberman.

But that would not fly.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 8:10 pm 28Allen

Ozzie, you make a good point. I never really had a problem with the one of the general tenets of the Faith Based Initiative approach. Churches know the problems within their local area, and might have some really good ideas about how to approach the problems.

The problem lies in the practical. First, if churches accept money from the government they now become answerable to the government. Second, the government accepts the church into the legislative process. Both sides of that coin are problematic.
on 09 Sep 2008 at 8:23 pm 29dg

Z-man, actually, the quote is: “lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate,” but I don’t think Dante will help you make sense of this election. Macchiavelli, on the other hand, would probably make a wonderful guide.

Ellie2, anch’io lo so che cosa vuol’ dire la speranza, but it isn’t inspired by your politics, that is certain!

Danny, nice post from the Journal. I also read that the list of banned books is fraudulent. It seems likely that Palin looked into the procedure to ban books but no one seems to know whether she in fact did ban any. Probably means that she didn’t…
on 09 Sep 2008 at 9:52 pm 30BrianE

Ozzie said:

People are ignorant about what the Founders intended, i.e that they wanted ” a wall between church and state.”

So, you’re now an expert on what the Founders intended?

Remember, the constitution was being debated by individual states, attempting to come together to form some new collective government, and suspicions about motives arose. The central question, how much authority the central government would have was parmount– taxes and standing armies being contentious issues.
As each state had developed, most had adopted or formed from a like minded faith as immigrants settled. State denominations were the rule, requiring allegience to be eligible for government jobs.
Persecution of people of different faiths occurred and I’m aware of at least one hanging of a person considered a rabble rouser for being of a different faith. In their search of freedom to worship without the constraints of the Anglican church, they became also intolerant of differences. There were certainly voices speaking against this, and over time charity produced some tolerance.
It is this framework that a Bill of Rights was being considered, since it had become evident that a Constitution was not going to be ratified without one.

In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson is laying out the case for the Bill of Rights to a once skeptical Madison.If general agreement couldn’t be found for all being considered,

“But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any.”

Edmund Pendleton, President of the Virginia Ratifying Convention observed

“What has brought us from a state of nature to society, but to secure happiness? And can society be formed without government? Personify government; apply to it as a friend to assist you, and it will grant your request. This is the only government founded in real compact. There is no quarrel between government and liberty; the former is the shield and protector of the latter. The war is between government and licentiousness, faction, turbulence, and other violations of the rules of society to preserve liberty.”

Interesting.
Virgina ratified the Constitution around June 25, 1788 with the stipulation that amendments be considered to the first Congress. Among them was #20.

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”

It is clear what the Virginia delegation wanted.

In 1789 Madison, who previously had opposed the Amendments was the representative that presented them to the House of Representatives. Partly to fulfill a promise, partly to enhance his own political position, and partly because he was convinced by Jefferson’s arguments for a written declaration of rights, Madison decided to sponsor the amendments.
He proposed Article 1, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretest, infringed…”

If you are skeptical of the number of denominations here is a letter by Tench Coxe, Notes Concerning the United States of America:
1790

The situation of religious rights in the American states, though also well known, is too important, too precious a circumstance to be omitted. Almost every sect and form of Christianity is known here–as also the Hebrew church. None are tolerated. All are admitted, aided by mutual charity and concord, and supported and cherished by the laws. In this land of promise for the good men of all denominations, are actually to be found, the independent or congregational church from England, the protestant episcopal church (separated by our revolution from the church of England) the quaker church, the English, Scotch, Irish and Dutch presbyterian or calvinist churches, the Roman catholic church, the German Lutheran church, the German reformed church, the baptist and anabaptist churches, the hugonot or French protestant church, the Moravian church, the Swedish episcopal church, the seceders from the Scotch church, the menonist church, with other christian sects, and the Hebrew church. Mere toleration is a doctrine exploded by our general condition; instead of which have been substituted an unqualified admission, and assertion, “that their own modes of worship and of faith equally belong to all the worshippers of God, of whatever church, sect, or denomination.”

It’s pretty clear what the Founders intended all right.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 5:47 am 31Ozzie

So, you’re now an expert on what the Founders intended?- Brian

They wanted, in Jefferson’s own words, a wall of separation between the Church and State.

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2006/05/16/thomas-jeffersons-wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state.htm

Why?

James Madison’s explanation:

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

I realize that people (i.e those on the far right who were once fringe but are now deciding who out leaders should be) interpret the Constitution as if the U.S is meant to legally be a “”Christian nation” – and God help us all, Christian and non-Christian alike– if they succeeed.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 9:19 am 32suek

>>What were things like 50 years ago? And how was America a theocracy back then?>>

Well, for starters, abortion was illegal. (though we’re getting close on the dates here)
Contraceptives were not particularly available. (you had to have either a prescription or ask for them since they were kept behind the counter)

There was no sex education in the public schools.

The Bible could be (and _was_) read in public schools.

Many states (counties, cities, various geographical political entities) had “blue laws” which meant that stores couldn’t be open for business on Sundays.

Christmas was celebrated as the Christian religious holiday, Christmas (in fact, it’s still a designated National Holiday)

Easter was celebrated as the Christian religious holiday, Easter.

Marriage was between a man and a woman, and homosexuality wasn’t mentioned in polite society. Sex outside of marriage was unacceptable – even among the poor. It happened, hence the “the first one comes anytime – after that, they take nine months” and when it did, if she became pregnant, the man was expected by his family and society to step up and take responsibility for the family he had helped create. If he didn’t he was considered a louse and a cad. Unmarried pregnant women were sent off during the late stages of pregnancies and usually gave their babies up for adoption – because it was a _shame_ to be an unwed mother.

I’m sure there are other things, but that’ll do for starters.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 9:38 am 33Ozzie

Contraceptives were not particularly available. (you had to have either a prescription or ask for them since they were kept behind the counter)- suek

I understand the opposiiton to abortion, but do you believe that contraception should still be hard to come by?

And, for the life of me, I can’t undertand why anyone cares about anyone else’s sex life, unless it involves animals or children or public lewdness.

To me, it’s such an authoritarian mindset, which is why Fundies scare me so.

If you think abortion is murder, you are under a moral obligation to end it.

But, for the more libertarian-minded, premartial sex and birth control are totally fine-and-dandy.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 9:51 am 34suek

Ozzie…we’re discussing whether the religious right is ready to make the country a theocracy or _return_ to a theocracy.

You’ve said we were _not_ a theocracy in the past.

Please explain the difference in _those_ concepts, not whether you agree with particular facets of what they might want or not.

If we were not a theocracy in the past, why would we be in a theocracy in the future?
on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:28 am 35Ozzie

You’ve said we were _not_ a theocracy in the past- suek

Societal norms were different then, that’s true. And yes, abortion was illegal, but that doesnt mean that the U.S. was a theocracy.

The separation between Church and State was intact..

As I said, JFK had to address his Catholism and ease voter’s fears that his faith would not get in the way.

If Sarah Plain vowed that her faith would not get in the way of her politcs, the outcry would be enormous.

The fact that a GOP presidential candidate can’t get elected with the blessing of the Religious Right speaks volumes.

I say it goes beyond Roe V Wade, as evidenced by legislation that has been introduced.

I also contend that the Relgious Right does not believe that the founders intended for there to be a wall of separation between Church and State -and are actively seeking to topple that wall.

And that the GOP is the now the political arm of the Relgious Right.

It’s a “soft theocracy” but there are elements of the Relgious Right, who have far more power than they ever should, who would love to impose their authoritarian views on the rest of us.

Years ago, when the GOP won the White House, it was based on core principles of smaller government, not the authoritian stance you see today.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:35 am 36suek

How would this have flown 50 years ago…

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20080910-9999-1m10banners.html

You’re fishing..
on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:36 am 37Ozzie

If we were not a theocracy in the past, why would we be in a theocracy in the future? — suek

The Religious Right didnt exist in the past. And the GOP was not the political arm of Conservative Christians. And, most importantly, we had a wall between Church and State, which is being slowly and systematically being destroyed.

I’ve already posted some of the legislation designed to tear down the separation between church and State, but but when Tom Delay was in office, he set up a “Values Action Team” to funnel Christian Nation legislation to Congress.

Tht’s just another example of which ther are many.

One of my favorite quotes , from the Jan,. 30, 2000 issue of New York Times magazine:

“Whatever else it achieves, the presidential campaign of 2000 will be remembered as the time in American politics when the wall separating church and state began to collapse.”

I’ve been folllowing this collapse ever since.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:43 am 38Ozzie

You’re fishing..suek

I’m not sure why you think I’m fishing, unless you believe that the founders intended for America to a Christian Nation, in which case, nothing I can say wil make you see where I’m coming from.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:51 am 39suek

I think the founders anticipated America as a country founded on Judeo Christian principles. I think the efforts of the Libs have been to eliminate those principles as they have affected government.
Their intention is to replace them with Statist principles – that which benefits the State is primary. All decisions would be made with the benefit of the State as the first consideration. After all, you have to have _some_ sort of principle in mind when you make a law.

What do you think of the government supplied foot baths for muslims in the University in Michigan?
on 10 Sep 2008 at 11:06 am 40Ozzie

think the founders anticipated America as a country founded on Judeo Christian principles. -suek

And I think they explictedly warned against Church/State partnership.

“What do you think of the government supplied foot baths for muslims in the University in Michigan?”

I havent read about it.

But seriously? Foot baths? and you say I’m fishing?

Let me put it this way:

I’d be outraged of Muslims were meeting with White House officials to make sure foreign policy confirmed with the Koran, or funneling legilsation to Congress to turn the U.S into an official Muslim nation, or dictating who our presidential candidates could be.. .

These are my big issues with the Religious Right, which are doing all of the above (expect with Christianity and the Bible, of course)

This is going to affect what kind of country my children live in.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 11:14 am 41suek

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2007/7/2/michigans-foot-bath-controversy.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/07/america/muslims.php
on 10 Sep 2008 at 12:29 pm 42BrianE

Ozzie,
Is this the separation you were thinking of?

George Washington, Proclamation: A National Thanksgiving

3 Oct. 17891

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and

Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 12:40 pm 43BrianE

Was this the separation you were referring to?

A PROCLAMATION. Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
James Madison, vol. 1, p. 498

[From Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, part 2, 2224.]

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses, have signified a request that a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States with religious solemnity as a day of public humiliation and prayer; and

Whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed to offer at one and the same time their common vows and adorations to Almighty God on the solemn occasion produced by the war in which He has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign power to involve these United States:

I do therefore recommend the third Thursday in August next as a convenient day to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the Universe and the Benefactor of Mankind the public homage due to His holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking His merciful forgiveness and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment, and especially of offering fervent supplications that in the present season of calamity and war He would take the American people under His peculiar care and protection; that He would guide their public councils, animate their patriotism, and bestow His blessing on their arms; that He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion to do to others as they would require that others should do to them; and, finally, that, turning the hearts of our enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us, He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace.

Given at Washington, the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812. [SEAL.]

JAMES MADISON.

By the President:

JAMES MONROE,
Secretary of State.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 1:01 pm 44Ozzie

Was this the separation you were referring to?- Brian

The Separation I’m referring to is what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison referred to, which, I’m guessing you believe they never meant?

The President calling for a day of prayer in 1812 is substantially different than religious activists seeking to change the structure of the U.S government and legally change it to a Christian Nation.

Also from President Madison::

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
- James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

“The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both;
- James Madison; Letter to Edward Everett, March 18, 1823

“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;
- President James Madison, 1822
on 10 Sep 2008 at 1:20 pm 45BrianE

Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788:

The honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded–there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest…

Madison was very cognizant of the corrosive effect of a state religion through taxation and persecution.

I don’t want a state religion, but I do object to the Left’s attempt to silence religious people, forcing them behind that imaginary wall, all the while raising its height until the government no longer must hear them.

Those government proclamations are proof that the Founder’s didn’t expect that either.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 1:30 pm 46BrianE

President Madison, Feb. 21, 1811
To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled “an Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia,” I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.” The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

This is exactly what I would have expected from Madison, Jefferson or any other President.
But the fact that Congress was sending bills like this to Madison suggests that the wall you’re advocating wasn’t the wall they were contemplating.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 1:41 pm 47BrianE

Madison speaking June 8, 1789 session of Congress:

The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:

* * * *

Pg. 451

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 2:18 pm 48Ozzie

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.- James Madison

Well, yes .

No national religion shall be established. Regardless how many zealots would like to establish Chrisitanity as the official religion and turn the Republic into a Christian Nation.

And in the meantime, nobody should be persecuted for practicing a religion.

Isnt this what people refer to as Freedom of relgion, along with freedom from religion?

Do you feel as if your civil rights are being infringed? And that youre not free to worship as you please?
on 10 Sep 2008 at 2:20 pm 49Ozzie

I don’t want a state religion, but I do object to the Left’s attempt to silence religious people- Brian

Are people attempting to silence you, Brian?

Do you feel as if they are preventing you from attending Church and worshipping as you please?
on 10 Sep 2008 at 7:38 pm 50BrianE

Ozzie said:

No national religion shall be established. Regardless how many zealots would like to establish Chrisitanity as the official religion and turn the Republic into a Christian Nation.

I’ll give it one more try. What the founding fathers did not want was the Methodist or Presbyterian or Lutheran version of Christianity as a national religion. It was not a choice between Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.
on 10 Sep 2008 at 8:13 pm 51Ozzie

I’ll give it one more try. What the founding fathers did not want was the Methodist or Presbyterian or Lutheran version of Christianity as a national religion. It was not a choice between Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.- Brian

They didn’t want ANY religion, including Chrisitianity to be the “national religion.”

They wanted a Separation of Church and State, regardless what the dominant religion might be. The First Admendment protects minorities from the majority, and, given the bigtory against minority religions, I’d say it’s a damn fine thing to have (and should be protected forever and ever).

Today’s Wall Street Journal featued an article, and pointed to a ploy people resort to when trying to make the erroneous case that the U.S is a Christian Nation, namely, plucking “Founding Fathers quotes way out of context to misleadingly imply they were devout Christians. In many other cases, this same technique has been used to promote the argument that America was created to be a Christian nation, and separation of church and state is a myth. . . ”

Hmmmm…..Would someone actually do such a thing?

Here’s the quote in context:

Insensitivity to Religious Minorities: There’s been much attention to Gov. Palin having sat in the audience during a sermon from the head of Jews for Jesus, an organization most Jews find offensive. Honestly, a lot of the reason folks became so exercised with this is as kharmic retribution for the right holding Sen. Obama accountable for the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. I doubt this Jews for Jesus sermon would have gotten any attention without the Wright precedent. Until we know whether Gov. Palin herself actually agreed with this, then this sermon should be no more held against Gov. Palin than Mr. Wright was against Sen. Obama — and actually less so since it was a one-shot guest sermon.

What should be of concern to religious minorities is that Palin signed a resolution establishing a Christian Heritage Week. It didn’t actually declare the U.S. to be an officially Christian nation but it plucked Founding Fathers quotes way out of context to misleadingly imply they were devout Christians. In many other cases, this same technique has been used to promote the argument that America was created to be a Christian nation, and separation of church and state is a myth. Now, I’m willing to drop this from the list if can be shown that also has a Jewish Heritage and Muslim Heritage and Secular Heritage Week (I’m not holding my breath). That would mean she wasn’t giving preference to one religion over another.”
on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:21 pm 52BrianE

Ozzie said:

Today’s Wall Street Journal featued an article, and pointed to a ploy people resort to when trying to make the erroneous case that the U.S is a Christian Nation, namely, plucking “Founding Fathers quotes way out of context to misleadingly imply they were devout Christians. In many other cases, this same technique has been used to promote the argument that America was created to be a Christian nation, and separation of church and state is a myth. . . ”

Religious Affiliation # of delegates % of delegates
Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%
TOTAL 55 100%

In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. One was a Deist.

I haven’t taken any quote out of context, merely pointed out that the issue confronting the framers of the constitution, to not favor one denomination over another.
We all know that “the separation of church and state” isn’t in the Bill of Rights.