Jump to content
The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration, or Constitution. The Establishment Clause was crafted to prevent the government from ever establishing or sanctioning an official state religion.
The “wall of separation” wasn't built until nearly two centuries after the Constitution was ratified; by the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson v. the Board of Education decision. It was a 5-4 ruling, in whose majority opinion that “wall of separation” language appears for the first time in American jurisprudence. The majority opinion was authored by former Ku Klux Klan lawyer Hugo Black, whom many believe was motivated in no small measure by his virulent antipathy for the Catholic Church (had it been up to Justice Black, American law would have prohibited a Catholic like JFK from getting anywhere near the Oval Office).
Everson has swung the pendulum to asinine extremes. As a card-carrying heathen, I believe the illegality of a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn to be ridiculous. Back in my old stomping grounds, there was a Seattle mayor who issued an executive order prohibiting anyone on the city payroll from uttering the words “merry Christmas.” Idiot much, Mr. Mayor? A number of other municipal executives have followed that lead in recent years. In 2009, a college (in Minnesota, IIRC) excused a blind student from class because his guide dog offended the Muslim students in attendance.
Staggering pinnacles of arrogance, sanctimony, and stupidity. And it's all brought to you by Everson in 1947 – not by James Madison in 1787.
Integrity isn't everything. Important, certainly. Unfortunately, not everyone has it. That's why those in authority have been granted the discretion to make judgment calls.
The NFL has recently come down hard on the New Orleans Saints. Not because of the infractions committed, but because the Saints lied about it.
The CDP makes an excellent argument. As a matter of law, Tarango should be green lighted. On the other hand, it's an opportunity for the Council to use its discretion to send a message: lie to us, and you can go pound sand. Future applicants might take note.
I don't want to see anyone playing tonsil hockey in public - straight, gay, or otherwise.
The rest of your rant is a juvenile contradiction. Extolling the virtues of free speech, then shrieking 'shut up shut up!' in the same breath, when someone you don't agree with presumes to exercise that right. It seems your embrace free speech is limited exclusively to you and those who agree with you. All others should "shut up", and not be allowed to speak. Newsflash: that's the opposite of free speech. If your passion were ever translated into policy, there would be little distinction between you and Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al.
Civil unions, yes. Marriage, no. Curiously, both Elton John and Rush Limbaugh are in agreement on that point.
Speaking of “seperation [sic]” of church and state, Rebelgirl, how do you feel about the state requiring religious institutions to abandon their own beliefs and principles by forcing them to subsidize – at taxpayer expense - the sexual activities of its members? How does that not violate “seperation [sic]” you claim to admire? Do you believe that you and I and the Jesuits at Georgetown should be obligated to pay for Sandra Fluke’s sex life? If so, then you probably wouldn’t have a problem with requiring Jews to work on the Sabbath, or Muslims to subsidize production of pork, or the imposition of mandatory military service for conscientious objectors like the Quakers.
You whine that Christians should “try following the words of your bible [sic]”. My understanding is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, so be careful what you ask for. The reality is that your desire for believers honor their convictions is nothing more than duplicitous bs. You want Christians to behave Biblically only when their convictions are in lockstep with yours. Once they disagree with your sanctimonious condescension, you’d just as soon have them flush the Bible down the crapper.
Hmm. There was briefly a post from ranger blasting me for my "blinders." Now it's gone. Curious.
What is it you believe me to be blind to?
I fail to see any moral distinction between hunting and raising animals in confinement (beef, pork, poultry, seafood) for slaughter.
If only we wicked humans could find refuge in the tender embrace of Mother Earth and learn from her gentle tutelage:
A new pinnacle of hard-hitting journalism by the CDP. Breathtaking stuff.
I'm not in the least bit defensive. I am profoundly offended. As a direct response to the bear being killed, you wrote: "Like I said before, leave the last of the beautiful wild life alone, and start euthanizing all the stupid and disconnected people from the natural world." A clear indictment of those who have no problem with euthanizing the bear.
Days after being called on it, you decide it's time to backpedal and claim you were censuring sex offenders & drug dealers. Riiiighttt.
Not only are you a sniveling coward, you're a liar as well.
What you don’t get is that normal, well-adjusted people understand that human beings are not the infestation you believe us to be. Having children is part of the natural order, and human families are as much a part – a more important part - of the ecosystem as the bear you whine about. That you’re too depraved to comprehend how profoundly offensive your screed against “having children” is - along with your proposals to “hunt” and “euthanize” the people you don’t like and disagree with - underscores your breathtaking malignance and stupidity.
I will admit to an error, however. In a previous post, I characterized you as ‘boderline evil.’ That was incorrect. There’s nothing borderline about it. Hitler, Stalin, Che, Mao, Milosevic, and the rest fabricated political/racial/megalomaniacal justifications for their bloodlust. You’ve deployed an equally spurious allegiance to Gaia to advance yours. The end results (assuming you weren’t a coward) are identical: murder in the name of ideology.
My invitation for you to put your money where your mouth is remains: you’ve asserted that me and my ilk need to be “hunted.” Unlike you, I don’t cower & cringe behind a veil of anonymity. That’s my real name attached to this post; I’m in the book and easy to find. You talk the talk, so walk the walk. Come “hunt” me. There’s only one reason you won’t: you lack the courage of your sanctimonious convictions; you are at the very core a sniveling coward.
And for the record: as a card carrying heathen, I’ve never called out to Jesus.
Last login: Thursday, July 21, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.