I can't wait for the Democrats to make a law that requires you to pass a litmus test in order to vote.

I don't know how you can say that, Annika. We all know the left is entirely peaceful, compassionate, pluralistic and committed to the democratic principle. Unless, y'know, like, the idiots win.

Annika,

I do not suscribe to the evangelical theory of the loss. It was a componant but one of many. I do however suscribe the belief that your fearless leader is a religious freak who is intent on breaching the establishment clause and actively promoting a christian agenda.

Read on...........

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial
decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for
sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women
Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing
Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for
productive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes
himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to
unmarried women. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled
"Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from
premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and
praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction
Revolution: A Christian Appraisal"...........

They don't need a reason to hate. Losing is reason enough.

You'd think by now they'd be getting used to it.

Watch for lots more long term Democratic Congressmen and Senators decide not to run again; maybe even a few more ready to switch to get back a gavel.

My prediction was that if Bush beat Kerry, the Democratic Party would become the permanent minority for the long duration. I feel stronger about it today than I did when I predicted it. Their latest ploy just doesn't track. If they really believe that drivel, it is worse for them than I thought.

The assault of the leftists on a public expression of religion is what did them in -- if this whole "moral values" motivation is to be believed (which I'm not convinced it is).

Their problem is that they increasingly sound more like Judeo-Christian-banning communists than freedom-of-religion-loving Americans.

They're afraid of Faith itself simply because it is personal, and supposes an authority bigger than the State.

That might seem to be a bit over-reaching at first, but think about it: The biggest obstical to Government is a faith that God is superior to it.

I'm an athiest, btw. But, if given the choice, I'd rather be ruled by devout Christians than by devout Communists. My history books taught me at least that much.

Let's see: We're too stupid to engage in meaningful debate, and what we believe is totally without merit anyway, and they're smarter than we are, so they need to pretend to believe what we believe so we'll vote for them. Yes, that'll work...

I've got to be a racist xenophobe. (Please don't tell my wife I hate her because she's not like me or from here.)

I'm only in it for me. (I made less and gave more than Al Gore. Blood Donor too but they give me cookies so that doesn't count.)

I know, I'm stupid. (Maybe I didn't deserve to graduate with high honors. Those IQ tests - mean nothing.)

I'm a vet. (Except I didn't go to Vietnam. I did however serve honorabley on active duty, in the Marines, during the war. My DI never gave me my get out of Vietnam free card - he must have forgotten.)

I'm lazy. (After all, I should be on call all the time for my job and I don't deserve the money I make. I only work 50-60 hour weeks all the time, why shouldn't the Dems take my money and use it to buy votes?)

Yeah, I guess the Dems deserve my vote, since I am obviously incapable of handling my own life. Better turn it over to Hillary next time.

Mark:

You Da Man.

Keep being stupid. You are stuck with the rest of us 59 million who just don't know what's good for us.

Shelly,

I think Mark is on our side.

Shelly,

If you 59 million don't think the other 55.5 million know what's good for them, how much of a stretch is it to look at it the other way?

I love Turning spoor's logic that goes from those who think religious ferver and belief might be getting to much play in the current administration to those people being communists. What an idiot. But he is on your side, right Shelly?

BTW, Shelly, how would you feel about seeing the doctor I mentioned for a problem with your reproductive organs?

Mike,

It seems to be common wisdom on the left that the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit individual members of government from making decisions informed by their religious beliefs. Leftists want the Establishment Clause to mean that morality based in religious belief cannot play any role whatsoever in legislators' decisions regarding what leglislation to propose or support, or in the decisions of members of the executive branch. This appears to be your interpretation of the Establishment Clause, a conclusion that I base on your seeming inability to distinguish between a "Christian agenda" and "Christianity."

This view is quite simply wrong. As is always the case in the law, there line between permissible and impermissible conduct isn't especially clear in some cases, and there's much room for argument over specifics in many areas. But there is no First Amendment right to be entirely free from religion, as you seem to wish.

I don't question your right to oppose government policies, executive or legislative, on the grounds that they reflect religious beliefs with which you don't agree. As a libertarian I'm generally skeptical of "morals" legislation (just as an example), even where my religious beliefs condemn the activities that the legislation would regulate or prohibit. But I at least realize that if I wish to see a more libertarian society it will -- and should -- require persuading people to my view on its merits, not forcing compliance down their throats by means of unelected judges issuing distorted, outcome-driven interpretations of the Constitution. You should try to accept that paradigm, because your reliance on the Establishment Clause is a largely misplaced appeal to authority. I'd note that it's also intensely anti-democratic, but I suspect that you're not necessarily a great fan of democracy.

Amen.

Praise the Lord!

Matt,

Your argument is specious. The establishment clause has NOTHING to do with individual members of the government making their decisions based on their individual beliefs but rather on the outcome of those decisions. As in a state legislature requiring students to engage in a school led prayer before class. I don't care how any individual legislator thinks except to the extent that the OUTCOME of that thinking violates the constitution. That is how the courts have ruled time and time again. I can not expect to live in a society that is free from religious thought and symbols, we all have the freedom to practice our religion. Why you find it so hard to understand the distinction between private and public is hard to fathom. No cross on a school facade, no tablet of the ten commandments in a courthouse or library, no mezzuahs on the door jamb to school rooms, pictures of shiva on the wall behind the teacher or Jesus on the cross, mary and the baby, etc. DO these restrictions bother you?

Who is forcing what down anybodies throat? What are judges doing other than keeping the government out of the religion business?

What about this appointment to this committe on reproductive medicine? Nobody has a problem with it? Is it anti-religion of me to suggest that faith healing is not in the best interest of the patient? Or that a patient deserves to be treated with all that is available?

Matt, what about the court case today in Cobb county Georgia, where the ACLU is suing the school district to remove stickers from biology text books that warn against evolution as "Just a theory, not a fact" and should be "approached with an open mmind, blah, blah, blah....."

Do you think this is the government (school board) acting because they believe this view on evolution or because a relegious lobby is applying pressure? So, Matt, is this a breach of the establishment clause?

Oh, and please explain why my opposition is "intensely undemocratic" and why you suppose I am no "great fan of democracy" Oh, wait, I think I know. You believe that democracy means majority rules! Therfore the christian majority in this country should, because they would like it to be so, get a picture of Jesus on the cross in all courtrooms, or have people put a hand on the bible when sworn in to testify (you of course know that is only done on TV), or a patron tossed out of a ballpark if they sit in the seventh inning during the singing of god bless america.

Just for the sake of accuracy, i must point out that they still do use the Bible for administering the oath in some states.

aNNIKA,

And If you decline what do they do? How about the phrase "so help me god."?

Are you sure they still do this? I have only been sworn in NY.

BTW, did I tell you that I have family in Copenhagen?

i know that a friend of mine did a deposition in North Carolina a few years ago and was surprised to see the court reporter pull out a Bible at the beginning of the depo. he didn't think anyone did that anymore either. So i know that at least NC still uses a Bible, unless theyve gotten rid of that in the last few years. i learned in my civ pro class that anyone can refuse to swear (as some people are religiously forbidden to swear any oath, on the bible or not. i think jehovahs witnesses fall into this category, but im not sure) if someone refuses to say "swear" they can say "affirm" instead and that works. So i'd imagine that in NC, if someone refuses to swear on the bible, they probably don't have to. i should ask my professor if he knows what they do.

So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers...

...George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries. The "antiwar" faction even recognizes this achievement, if only indirectly, by complaining about the way in which it has infuriated the Islamic religious extremists around the world. But does it accept the apparent corollary—that we should have been pursuing a policy to which the fanatics had no objection?

Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL.

--Christopher Hitchens

Case closed, bitches.

He Scof,

Hitch is an idiot. His whole argument is full of shit. Bush is not subjectively a christian, he is objectively a christian, with a christian agenda and while the outcome of the ruination of iraq may be to return the country to a secular one, (remember Saddam's gov. was secular) it was hardly the goal. And to characterize all the Iraqi's that are opposing the invasion of US forces as theocratic saboteurs is wishfull thinking. There is a grass roots resistance to the invasion that is also fueled by, hello, nationalism.

To show the effectiveness of the assult on Iraq by measuring how angry the other Moslem countries are, is also childish. They may be angry for multiple reasons not the least of which being the killing of tens of thousands of innocents moslems and their objection to the further spread of Empire America. Far more than Fanatic Islamic leaders are infuriated.

The Takiban have not been demolished and the smashing of the al Quaida network is more Bush propaganda. Did you see how COndi could not answer the question as to how many had been smashed to define 75% claim they make. She said there could have been tens of al Quiada when we started or she said in the same beath 100's! Sounds fishy to me. Have the caught 7 oout of ten? 75 out of 100? They are liars who will say anything because the press so rarely follows up and pins them down. WHen they are pinned down they squeal about lack of fairness and bias.

The case is closed only if you refuse to take your head out of your ass.

Hitch has bought his own and Bush's bulshit by the bushel.

GO TEAM AMERICA!!!

http://tawp.ytmnd.com/

Anyway, I remember the columns Christopher Hitchins wrote the week Reagan died. He practically pissed on his grave, so Hitchins can lick my ass and choke on the hairballs. However, I will give the bastard credit for bashing Moore and these other fringe Leftist freaks. It's sad when Bush has to kill Islamist vermin overseas while trying to shake off the reactionary ankle biters over here..........

I love being called an idiot in the morning!
Smells like victory!

BTW, you can't have a freedom of... AND a freedom from.... They are exclusive ideas and tend to upset your stomach if you try to mix them.

"Look to the cookie!"

Let us remember that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause has its philosophical roots in John Locke's "letter concerning toleration" In that he argued that the Government should never have control over religious organizations' dogma nor should religions have control over government policies. In a society ruled by INDIVIDUAL representatives, it is implausible that any religion would control government. It is the believes of the elected individuals, and thus their electors that control government.
Also remember that when the constitution was passed, the 1st Amendment did NOT APPLY to STATE ACTION. It only applied to national legislation. So the founders had no problems with individual states, through elected individuals, enacting a state religion. Why is this important? because the founders believed that that the people defined the society they live in, and if they choose the have a state religion, thy will be done! Liberals have less faith in the people then they do in their own idealized theories, no matter how wrong they may be, or how far in the minority their beliefs may be held.

Mike,

There now! You've stopped muttering generalities about "breaching the establishment clause and actively promoting a christian agenda" and actually given a few examples from which we can try to deduce what the heck you're complaining about! Was that really so hard?

To the extent that you distance yourself from the many leftists who do in fact believe that the Establishment Clause guarantees them freedom from religion, I applaud you for it, and retract my criticism -- of you. I also hope you'll share your (correct, for once) view with the many of your fellow travelers who seemingly are unable to grasp it. I believe firmly in enforcing the Establishment Clause, properly understood (and I tentatively think the Supremes' current jurisprudence comes pretty close to a proper understanding). What I object to are apparent efforts by anti-religious bigots in the ACLU and elsewhere to refashion it into a sword with which to suppress and marginalize religious beliefs. For the record, yes, I consider that intensely anti-democratic.

On a related note, I apologize for having stereotyped you -- but, to be fair, you left me little choice, since your complaint consisted of vague generalities that gave little insight into what was really going on in your head. Furthermore, the type of hostility to religion that you display is strongly correlated, in my experience at least, with a preference for the freedom-from-religion interpretation of the Establishment Clause. I'd add that your outraged tone rings hollow, considering your own willingness to make quick assessments based on little information. (E.g., "nor do I believe I will change you into a person of good character and compassion. . . ")

Now, your specifics. First, as you've proven here many times, one of your greatest weaknesses is your willingness to believe just about anything, as long as it's hostile to someone you perceive as conservative, religious or -- horror of horrors -- both. There's plenty of reason to doubt the basis of your complaints about Dr. Hager. Let me know when you've got something substantial and reasonably verifiable to complain about.

Second, the Cobb County case. The disclaimer in question reads:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Oooh! Pretty radical! I'm not going to debate the evidence of macroevolution with you, because I've read a fair bit of it (and criticisms of it), and much of it very quickly outstrips my scientific education -- which isn't bad, by the way -- and, very probably, yours as well. But leaving that aside, macroevolution is a theory, properly speaking, because it has never been tested by the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, predict, experiment, repeat as necessary) and indeed cannot be. There certainly are arguments and evidence for it -- and against it. But that fact alone means that refusing to teach it as dogma is hardly a matter of religious indoctrination; it is good science. An Establishment Clause violation? Hardly! In fact, the push to have these innocuous -- and factually accurate -- disclaimers removed from the textbooks is far less respectful of the Establishment Clause than was the decision to place them. The former is mostly about suppressing religious views by promoting materialist dogma.

"They don't need a reason to hate. Losing is reason enough. You'd think by now they'd be getting used to it.
My prediction was that if Bush beat Kerry, the Democratic Party would become the permanent minority for the long duration. I feel stronger about it today than I did when I predicted it. Their latest ploy just doesn't track. If they really believe that drivel, it is worse for them than I thought."

Posted by: shelly on Nov. 8, 2004

Well here it is November 2005 and your a freakin' idiot Shelly. Seems the Ameriacn support for your all mighty "leader" G. W. Bush is almost completely disappeared.
Last time I looked (This week 10.05 Gallop Poll) the administrations approval rating among Americans was
39% approval 61% disapproval rating.

Gee, with numbers like these, and the fact that a lot of Republicans are distancing themselves from the Bush administration already (after only one year since re-election), I can't wait till November '06 when no doubt the tide will turn once again like it did for the Republicans in '92! Seems like the Republican party always screws up a good thing long before their time.

I voted for Bush/Cheny in November '04, and now realize what a huge mistake it was .... what a total bunch of incompetent idiots these two really have been all along ... and how I was duped ... like mant Americans are coming to realize! It's like we are all starting to rise up out of our sleepy stupor, and realize what a national nightmare this administration has created in America over the past few years!

"They don't need a reason to hate. Losing is reason enough. You'd think by now they'd be getting used to it.
My prediction was that if Bush beat Kerry, the Democratic Party would become the permanent minority for the long duration. I feel stronger about it today than I did when I predicted it. Their latest ploy just doesn't track. If they really believe that drivel, it is worse for them than I thought."

Posted by: shelly on Nov. 8, 2004

Well here it is November 2005 and it appears you're a real prophet Shelly. Seems the Ameriacn support for the all mighty "leader" G. W. Bush. has almost completely disappeared. Last time I looked (This week 10.05 Gallop Poll) the administrations approval rating among Americans was 39% approval 61% disapproval rating.

Gee, with numbers like these, and the fact that a lot of Republicans are distancing themselves from the Bush administration already (after only one year since re-election), I can't wait till November '06 when no doubt the tide will turn once again like it did for the Republicans in '92! Seems like the Republican party always screws up a good thing long before their time.

I voted for Bush/Cheney in November '04, and now realize what a huge mistake it was .... what a total bunch of incompetent idiots these two really have been all along ... and how I was duped ... like most Americans are just coming to realize! It's like we are all starting to rise up out of our sleepy stupor, and realize what a national nightmare this administration has created in America over the past few years!