Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Wow! Give up a few dollars to Mikey Weinstein’s organization.
This crap has to be stopped. Now!
Note to wingnuts: Weinstein is hardly a “lefty”.
I saw an item in today’s news about the coverup of a mass murder in 1950 of tens of thousands of South Koreans by that country’s rightwing government. Why is it that everywhere rightists get in power, they slaughter innocent people? Liberals must arm! America has these bloodthirsty motherfuckers too, and if they come for me I’ll kill them on my doorstep* rather than let them drag me off to a trench in front of a firing squad.
* Just kidding! Ann Coulter gets big laughs with jokes like this.
This is just a small microcosm of what a group of far right wing religious adherents want to do – get their small cult-like religious philosophy entrenched throughout our government – from the Regence University grads populating the Justice department to the military officers who promote their own specific religious interpretation.
This is in direct conflict with every true value in our constitution. I have no problem with religion in private – it is the improper use of religion in the public that leads to abuse.
What does this do to the Muslim volunteers we need to help fight in the Middle East? No wonder they can’t get any volunteers who can speak Arabic – they would be subjected to being proyletized and converted by their superior officers.
I have no problem with religion in private – it is the improper use of religion in the public that leads to abuse.
I am against guvmint indoctrination of school children. Once you ban public schools than we can talk about this “religion in public” non-issue. Until then suck my doggy nuts.
Until then suck my doggy nuts.
Would never think of it mutt. Your shit breath cuts a wide path.
Besides didn’t you already chew them off?
What a bunch of liberal drivel. Hey how many commie,pinko,leftist democrats are serving in the military…. wait that’s easy.. zero.
What a bunch of liberal drivel.
That’s news to me. A lawyer who worked in Ronnie Raygun’s White House, a liberal. Interesting..
Besides being a lawyer, he’s a Jew and his son was getting sick and tired of being accused of killing Jesus Christ by your whacko rapturist pals at the Air Force Academy in rapture-land CO Springs.
That’s news to me. A lawyer who worked in Ronnie Raygun’s White House, a liberal. Interesting..
So you are saying that out of the thousands of lawyers that worked under RR there were no closet liberals. hheheheehe Sure whatever.
out of the thousands of lawyers that worked under RR there were no closet liberals
Oh forgot. He was in the Air Force too. A graduate of the Air Force Academy.
I thought you said there were no liberals in the military.
Silly cur.
“Why is it that everywhere rightists get in power, they slaughter innocent people?”
Because, perhaps, Syngmann Rhee’s country was being taken by Kim Il Sung’s leftists?
Leftwing ballpark bodycounts of the 20th Century: Lenin & Stalin, c. 30 million; Mao, c. 70 million. Still waiting for HA liberals and Hollywood liberals to give your leftist monsters the attention they deserve.
Referring to Pinochet: Note the word “left.” As in ‘gave up power to a democratic process.’
What part of that did Rabbit choose to not understand? Pinochet (and Rhee) were not small-d democrats. Pinochet, unlike Castro and Chavez, gave up authoritarian power and allowed small-d democracy to take over.
Have heard that the body-count of innocents or “innocents” during the Pinochet era was c. 3000. A tragedy, as Stalin might have said, while flippantly flipping away the 30,000,000 fatalities of his own regime as a ‘statistic.’
Get a grip, libtards. Get some context. Your boy Castro, by the third month of his despotism, had re-educated with bullets more than 500 innocent enemies.
Where’s your outrage?
U.S. Government Turns Its Back On Iraqi Friends
I’m watching a segment on CBS News about how our government has abandoned tens of thousands of Iraqis who worked for American forces in Iraq, leaving them to the tender mercies of the insurgents.
Out of 100,000 Iraqs who risked their lives to help the U.S., the Bush administration has allowed only 86 to live in the U.S.; meanwhile, Sweden has taken 40,000 of them. SHAME on the callous Bush administration!
You can read the entire disgusting story on the CBS News website.
From CBS News (quoted under fair use):
“The refugee crisis in Iraq is among the biggest humanitarian emergencies in the world. Millions of Iraqis have fled the war, many marked for death because they worked for the United States. They were translators, office workers, many other things, but now the enemy has branded them as collaborators.
“When that happened in Vietnam, the U.S. brought more than 100,000 refugees to the states. But today, the U.S. government, which was so desperate for Iraqi workers, is not so eager to help them now.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: The Bush administration is unique — it has no precedent in our country’s history. The Bushies have no respect for anyone or anything. They are devoid of honor or decency. They are a gangster government. And, as Iraqis are learning, if you trust them you could end up dead.
Speaking of “dead,” an awful lot of young Republican gofers are gonna have dead spaces on their resumes after Bush leaves office. They won’t dare tell prospective employers they worked for the Bush administration — that would kill their careers faster than being convicted child molesters! I predict corporate recruiters will get a slew of resumes, beginning next year, from twenty- and thirty-somethings who claim to have spent several years between 2001 and 2008 taking time off for “personal discovery” or “conducting research” or “pursuing entrepreneurial activities” and the like.
@4 “Until then suck my doggy nuts.”
I’ll pass this on to my piranha friends. heehehe
@10 “Because, perhaps, Syngmann Rhee’s country was being taken by Kim Il Sung’s leftists?”
Wrong, dumbshit, it was South Korea’s rightwing dictatorship that killed those people. Learn how to read a fucking newspaper, jackass.
@11 And I suppose next you’re going to claim that Pinochet was “democratically elected.” Well nope, he wasn’t, he was a revolutionary who seized power with guns, bombs, and tanks — and murdered Chile’s democratically elected leader and thousands of his supporters. A fucking military dictator, a little Hitler, a little Stalin, complete with secret police, torture chambers, and firing squads. And you’re a cheerleader and apologist for this guy. You need to be locked up in an insane asylum for the public’s safety.
10 & 11: As long as you keep lumping us in with Mao & Stalin, we’ll keep lumping you in with Hitler, Mussolini, and the Tyrant George II.
Honestly, this is why I’ve never liked the analogy of the left/right straight line. I prefer to use a circle, with the top being a free, open, transparent democracy, and the bottom being a state of totalitarian oppression. Because once you remove the frill of ideology, how different was Hitler’s Germany compared to Stalinist Russia, especially if you weren’t on the top level? Jewish populations didn’t have it all that good in either, but societies that built their appeal on demonization and its attempts to remove/eliminate its opponents are always inherently evil, and therefore reside at the bottom of the circle.
#4’s high on crack.
.
The guvmint isn’t indoctrinating school children and even if it was it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
What are you going to do when you realize that 80% of the country disagrees with you about “religion in public” being a non-issue? Are you going to do what Robert Mathews did?
The guvmint isn’t indoctrinating school children
Then why are the public schools guvmint run???? There is no such thing as “unbiased”. You can stick you head in the sand if want, but it doesn’t change the fact that guvmint run public schools indoctrinate children.
@20
Actually, you might be on to something: I did have to say the Pledge of Allegiance 180 times a year for 12 years, my public high school refused to teach evolution in it’s biology classes and we have Christian based abstinence only sex ed. programs in schools. Yeah you’re right, we’ve got to get you Christianist fuckers out of our school system!
Schools are government run because access for all to education is important. Privately operated schools, particularly as a dog would prefer, will set restrictions and limit access. Yes, public schools are not perfect, and some are more imperfect than others. Public schools (and public libraries too) provide access to all.
Schools are government run because access for all to education is important. Privately operated schools, particularly as a dog would prefer, will set restrictions and limit access.
No they wouldn’t. If you were competing for vouchers you wouldn’t be able to restrict access.
Actually, you might be on to something: I did have to say the Pledge of Allegiance 180 times a year for 12 years, my public high school refused to teach evolution in it’s biology classes and we have Christian based abstinence only sex ed. programs in schools.
It sounds like you went to a good school. I am sorry you weren’t taught how to put a rubber on a cucumber though. hehehehe
OMG!!! The dog actually came up with a good one.
Zowza! That is one scary freaking clip. Like, the U.S. can’t make enough enemies already? Government sanctioned brainwashing among the ‘Heathens’ and embedded in our military? When are we EVER going to get this klown out of the Whitehouse and start cleaning up this house?
re 20: Why do private schools want government money? Why do you want to give our tax money to private entities? How can you have a smaller government if private business cannot function without public money?
That’s fascism, nitwit. You won’t get a dime out of it..
Total load of crap! Bad history and law, complete misunderstanding of evangelical Christians, and absolute pervasive bigotry toward them.
Evangelicals have both the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment in their favor.
Liberals need to live with it.
That there are a lot of people of faith in the military gives the lie to the liberal argument that they “support the troops.” If you want to support them, then understand who they are and don’t try to take away their liberties as you demand they fight to protect yours.
This has nothing to do with alleged pressure on non-Christian military personnel and everything to do with attempts to completely secularize society by driving all evidence of faith activity from it. That’s the Taliban element, not anything done by Christians.
Another example of “tolerance” from the left.
The Piper
Wrong Piper, it has everything to do with non-Christians and Christians who are not fundamentalist evangelicals being pressured. When superior officers lay on the troops it is pressure and it is wrong. Non evangelical chaplains are being harassed. At the Air Force Academy the pressure has bordered on an Inquisition and has been well documented publicly numerous times.
@29…RCR…
Red herring, totally!
Simply another uber-left effort to take isolated instances, attempt to broad-brush them into vast generalities, then use them to persecute evangelical Christians.
Interesting that Christians continue to be a group that can be condemned, ridiculed, and attacked with impunity by the “tolerance” crowd.
Try attacking any other group with the same vehemance, total lack of understanding, and mean-spirited attitude and see what it gets you.
The Piper
What I don’t get about “Christians” is that they forget that Jesus was a Jew. To my knowledge, Christ never said, “Stop being Jews: go be Christians now.”
Why aren’t “Christians” just following Judaism but incorporating Christ’s teachings? Isn’t that what Jesus wanted all along?
BTW, Neo-Pagans in the military are being assaulted, too, by the “Christian” religious nutcases. For all you “Christians” out there: keep your religion to yourself!!
Piper,
What’s going on is harassment plain and simple. Everyone has the right to free speech, no one has the right to harass.
“A fucking military dictator … ” with a difference.
The difference: Unlike your fucking leftist military dictators (Stalin, Mao, Castro, National Socialist Hitler), Pinochet stepped aside and let democracy take over.
How much more repitition do you need before you get smart enough to get the point?
For once we agree, BJ. Arendt showed that totalitarianism is ecumenical: it obscures and erases ‘boundaries’ of ideology.
@31: Politically Incorrect is right on this one – the military is NOT a place where the commanders should “enforce” their religion on the troops. We are the US of America and we proclaim religious freedom – we should not have coerced religion in the military – period. The state shall not establish a religion – and I don’t want a particular group to decide what the right religion is – to the exclsusion of all others. this isn’t about christianity – it is about a particular minority “brand” of christianity being promulgated – and that is a VERY slippery slope.
@32…M…
Evangelicals evangelize…Get it?
The First Amendment protects the Free Exercise OF
religion, not anyone from religion.
What constitutes “harrassment” in most of these cases is someone who finds faith offensive demanding that his/her sensitivities trump all others such that expressions and discussions of faith be banned. That is not what the Framers intended.
Remember, those who wrote both the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution all came from states that had publicly supported institutions of worship, which were considered just fine in that day.
If liberals don’t like the prevelance of evangelicals in the military, then perhaps more liberals should joint the military and make it a career – enlistment offices for all branchs are open today and accepting applicants.
BTW…my oldest? The ever popular staff sergeant, soon to be promoted to sergeant first class (all the boxes are checked and tickets punched – it’s simply a matter of time) just re-upped for three more. E-7 in seven years (he reported for basic 3/01) – what they call a 7 in 7 – is a significant achievement, and I am very proud of him.
The Piper
Piper, Evangelicals are not being harassed in the military. They get the gov’t provided chapels, as always, and the chaplains, no one is telling them to stop praying together. No, it is the ones who want to escape from the Evangelicals that are being harassed.
Piper, congratulations to your son on his promotion. Despite what you may think, as an Army veteran I admire and respect our troops. It is just some of the things going on that get me riled.
@36…RCR…
Evangelicals aren’t the only chaplains in the military.
Because I was interested, I did some research a few years ago on the number of chaplains who had been awareded the Medal of Honor. I found it fascinating that so many of its recipients were Roman Catholic Priests who routinely went into battle with troops to whom they ministered. A significant number of them, BTW, were naval chaplains assigned to Marine regiments.
There are chaplains representing most all faiths, including Islam, in the military. That there may be more evangelical chaplains might simply be indicative of the higher number of evangelicals across the board these days who volunteer for military service.
Again, I’ll postulate my belief that there are many in this country who are openly contemptuous of people of faith, the expression of faith generally, and even the bare mention of God by anyone in public life.
To them, the goal isn’t freedom of religion, it’s eradication of religion, an intolerant and bigoted POV if ever there was one.
The Piper
I fail to see how the Rushdoonie-type Reconstructionists and Dominionists are any better folk than the Taliban. Is it somehow more civilized to stone an unruly child to death at the gates of the city than to behead an infidel?
I’m a Christian, although I’m sure that I wouldn’t be considered such by the Left Behind crowd. On the other hand, there are those on the left who hear “Christian” and refuse to let go of their stereotypical construct of glassy-eyed borg-evangelicals. Both left and right use too broad a brush when discussing faith in America.
@38 Sadly, you fear the one but not the other. Are you incapable of acknowledging the threat posed by Christian Reconstructionists?
It’s always a good idea to start off an argument with comparisons to Hitler. Just jump straight to it.
@40…S…
I’m generally unafraid of the bogeyman…
What I am afraid of is restricting liberty and freedom, including the liberty of conscience, and the freedom to practice one’s faith.
Faith without works is dead – a believer who does not put his beliefs into action isn’t much of a believer.
Within that construct, however, is first obedience to God, then love for humanity, which includes respect for humanity.
The so-called “threat” posed by Chrisian Reconstructionists is more in the minds of those who would just as soon see them driven from the public scene, much as efforts were made to drive Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. from the public scene during his day.
Evangelicals are content to compete in the marketplace of ideas along with everyone else – it’s just that when efforts are made to tip the playing field unevenly in directions unfavorable to them that they remind everyone that the First Amendment is still applicable despite the best efforts of the politically correct among us.
The Piper
Nice false equivalence there. Please show me the Christians in this country who can’t sit at lunch counters, ride in the front of busses, vote. Please show me the ones who are getting beaten, lynched, fire hosed during marches, and having dogs unleashed on them.
I can tell the difference between civil rights activists, and people who think the United States should be run like Geneva under John Calvin in the 1500s. It’s a pity you aren’t intellectually honest enough to admit there is one.
“The so-called “threat” posed…”
Indeed, you seem incapable of going there. The threat is real enough. Frankly, you don’t seem so much interested in freedom of religion, at least not in the freedom of those who are not of your particular faith. Perhaps you’re more interested in imposing your religion, your version of Christianity, on others? Is this your Christian Nation?
Faith without works? What’s that about? Sounds judgemental, like maybe you’re inferring, that by your interpretation of “works”, that your Christian faith might somehow trump mine or another’s faith. Is that what that comment was about?
@43…EC…
The point is that those who disparage Christians today for their active involvement in public affairs from a perspective of faith should do a better job of studying history, which is replete with examples of people of faith, such as Dr. King, being moved by their faith to foment changes in public policy.
Today’s efforts to shunt Christians to the sidelines and thence to the nether regions is motivated less by some seperation of church and state purity and more by a simple dislike of the what it is Christians propound.
BTW…seperation of church and state was never the intent of the Founders – what they didn’t want was the preeminence of one denomination over another akin to the support the Church of England received from Parliament and the crown, which would also encompass the Geneva of Calvin.
It always fascinates me how some find it easy and convenient to flog the church and its members for the idiocy of its/their beliefs until such time as someone wants to hide behind the legal vestments of its/their Constitutional standing. Then they are oh so quick to glom onto what they previously castigated in order to further their own agenda.
People of faith are just as entitled as anyone to bring their POV and what frames and motivates it into the public square.
The Piper
@44…S…
“Faith without works is dead…” James 2:20.
If someone claims to believe but lives a life devoid of any evidence of belief, then the claim is suspect. You are known by your fruits.
In other words, don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk.
I have zero interest in what you call a “Christian nation,” and neither do any of the Evangelicals I know. I have a keen and zealous interest, on the other hand, in fully participating in public life without having my faith, or anyone else’s faith, disparaged, which is what I see happening here.
Evangelicals are called to be very public about what it is they believe, including advocating their faith to others. What’s wrong with that?
A vigorous and robust contending for the faith (See Jude 1:3) is as much legitimate as the contending that is done here at HA, and it’s a lot more respectful!
The Piper
The ACLU demands that an absence of faith be advocated, and it receives great deference
@45 What’s so wrong with an American disliking those who would replace our constitution with their interpretation of biblical law? If preventing Christian Reconstructionists from ruling America somehow infringes on their so-call freedom of religion, then so be it.
@46 Who defines “the walk”? You?
Do you express outrage when the Muslim faith is disparaged? Links, please. Show us your outrage.
Who’s religion do we follow? The Catholics? The Mormans? The Scientologists? The Muslims? The Giant Invisible Spaghetti Monster?
Would you have a problem with this statement?
Or
If you are for religious freedom, does it apply to All religions?
@46 Your posts all seem so judgemental. Does your Christian faith require you to pass judgement on everything and everybody?
@46
Again, Who’s religion do we want? Would you be as supportive if I said….
Piper, you may not have a problem with that, but so many hard core religious people I have met don’t want tolerance for anyone but their sect.
@51 I suspect that what Piper really believes in is his kind of Christian having power and control over everybody else.
@47 & 48…S…
I don’t know anyone like that – it would seem you are imputing those beliefs to those you claim to be Christian Reconstructionists, which, in context, appears to be all Evangelicals.
I’m here to tell you that if that’s your proposition, you are all wet, and you are totally clueless about evangelicals.
Right now in this country, we’re bending over backward to accomodate Muslims. We turn a blind eye to the unwillingness of many to accept American values of free speech, which includes cartoons that depict Mohammed. Where’s your outrage when Muslims call for the death of the Danish cartoonist who drew them?
Where, BTW, is your outrage at the overt attempts of some European Muslims to convert secular democracies into Islamic republics governed by Sharia?
Who defines the “walk?” Only God knows the hearts of men and women, but if someone professes belief in Christianity but doesn’t live a life that demonstrates those beliefs, you have to wonder.
Tenets of faith aren’t something you make up as you go along – subjective belief systems don’t cut it. If your faith sets down markers of behavior and you don’t adhere to them, what, then, do you actually believe?
Want a link? Try this one to the P-I LTE page: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ltrs6.html
Read the third letter down, then tell me what you think.
The Piper
To be fair, Piper may not. Piper may be fair and open minded to all. But so many of the hard core religious people I have meet do. The farther away from their variant of God one gets, the less they want to tolerate them.
@52…S…
Suspect all you like – you obviously haven’t been listening as you have been doing an awful lot of judging.
The Piper
@53, I don’t get your link. The woman who is paranoid about the supreme court?
@54…BJ…
My experience has been that those who brag the most about their tolerance do so because they know in their hearts they have none.
The least tolerant people I’ve met are those who seek to drive people of faith out of the public square and discussion all in the name of…tolerance.
The Piper
@56…BJ…
A letter-writer to the P-I complained that there were too many Catholics on SCOTUS, and that no more should be appointed since they were suspect.
I wrote a letter in response, the subject of the link, calling her for her religious bigotry and Constitutional illiteracy. As you can see from my letter, I’m not a Catholic, but I had no issue defending them from such insidious persecution.
I was asked for a link, and I provided one.
The Piper
How do handle the rules in the bible that say (and I paraphrase) women shouldn’t raise their voice in church, or you should eat pork or shouldn’t wear clothing with two different fiber types or some such.
It seems we have already adapted our religion to the current age, picking and choosing what we follow.
For example, 200 years ago, many Christians had no problem owning slaves. Were they not Christians?
@58, But is she one lone raving voice in the wilderness, or one voice in a huge clambering horde? I see her as a disturbed individual, not a movement.
Are you going to defend Obama, because some people think he’s a Muslim even when he’s clearly said he is not, over and over and over. Do you defend him from such insidious persecution? Are you correcting those in your congregation who have doubts?
@59…BJ…
You confuse the Creator with the creation. People, for reasons good and bad, cloud the purpose and intent of Biblical principles for their own ends.
You’re getting bogged down in arcane minutiae – distracted by numerous sideshows preventing you from getting to the main event.
I will submit to you that just as people looked through the glass darkly in times past, so too do they do so today on many things. Both history and God will sort all that out. In the meantime, I am content to have and practice my faith just as others may have and practice theirs. But I am not content to have mine belittled or demeaned or to stand by while efforts are undertaken to un-Constitutionally neuter it into oblivion.
The Piper
@57
I have to disagree. For example, There cannot be religious displays in the Airport because it offends the Jewish. There cannot be religious displays of the Muslims because it offends the Christians. We cannot put any religious displays at all, because it offends the atheist. We cannot include everyone, because someone somewhere gets offended and threatens to sue, so nobody can display anything. The tolerant don’t care. the intolerant are ruining it for everyone else.
@60…BJ…
I find her POV more prevalent in the PNW than you can possibly imagine.
Those who continue to flog the “Obama is a Muslim” thing are fools. I’m content to let his words speak for themselves.
BTW…I have yet to encounter anyone who runs around saying that stuff…save for those I read about in the newspapers who are Democrats trying to decide between him and Hillary Clinton.
The Piper
@57…BJ…
You have it backward…All the banning is done in the name of tolerance lest anyone be offended. We cannot have any overt displays because it’s not inclusive enough – it might be offensive to someone somewhere, so lets dumb stuff down to the lowest common denominator…all in the name of “tolerance.”
The Piper
@61 So by your logic, they were clouded then, but nobody is clouded now?
By your logic, you are picking and choosing to follow god’s rules the way they make sense you now, otherwise you would be follow the rules of god from 200 years ago when they tolerated slavery, or 2000 years ago when they tolerated nothing. Why not follow the rules of God from 100 in the future, when they have no problem with gay marriage but intolerant of the cloned? (grin)
Reminds me of the old joke. If the King James bible was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.
The point is that those who disparage Christians today for their active involvement in public affairs from a perspective of faith should do a better job of studying history, which is replete with examples of people of faith, such as Dr. King, being moved by their faith to foment changes in public policy.
Dr. King was thrown in jail when he “foment(ed) changes in public policy”. How many Christians have been thrown in jail for prayer rallies in the United States recently? Is John Hagee in jail? Again, quit with the false equivalence. Bitching and moaning about those mean atheists at the ACLU is not going to turn you into Dr. King or Martin Niemoller, no matter how blue in the face you get.
BTW…seperation of church and state was never the intent of the Founders – what they didn’t want was the preeminence of one denomination over another akin to the support the Church of England received from Parliament and the crown, which would also encompass the Geneva of Calvin.
Bullshit. Read the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom- it PREDATES the US Constitution. There’s a VERY strong tradition of wanting government to be disentangled from religion. I think it’s fair to count Jefferson and Madison as “founding fathers”, don’t you?
Now, granted, it’s not the ONLY tradition in American life. State sectarian support for religion, separate from federal, existed up through the mid-1800’s, and was only snuffed out through the incorporation of the Bill of Rights on the state level via the 14th Amendment, but that’s to be expected when a large region of the US is settled by Calvinists (New England). I think Maryland’s constitution STILL has a requirement for a belief in God to be an officeholder.
It may be in the name of “Tolerance”, but it’s really in the cause of avoid lawsuits, brought on by the intolerant.
@53 “Where, BTW, is your outrage…”
My goodness! Am I to be judged by a purported Christian because of a perceived failure on my part to be sufficiently outraged about something? Where’s your outrage? Where’s your outrage against Christians who would impose biblical law in secular America? Are you so ignorant so as to not know of Reconstructionists and Dominionists? Does ‘Left Behind’ ring a bell with you? Perhaps yours is an ignorance of convenience. I can see how you’d do that being as how how you’re so big into constantly judging others – keeps the light off yourself. Funny, isn’t it, how the most judgemental amongst us always seem to shout loudest about their unjudgemental faith? Strikes me as being more the stuff of Psych 101, not Matthew or Luke.
You don’t like Sharia law? How odd. Please explain to me – how is biblical law different or better than Sharia law?
@61 Wouldn’t it uphold American ideals more if you were more concerned about those who demean or belittle faiths not your own?
Piper,
The First Amendment protects the Free Exercise OF
religion, not anyone from religion.
First of all, I think we’re talking about an establishment issue, not an exercise issue. When a military officer, as a government employee, evangelizes his faith to someone who reports to him and the military fails to take action to prevent such evangelistic behavior, then we have a de facto establishment of religion.
Second, there are, in fact, restrictions on the free exercise of religion. The Find Law outline provides ample discussion of the issues. I would pay particular attention to the distinction that the Court makes between belief and conduct.
It should not be surprising that the laws of the United States are far less restrictive on the religiously-motivated conduct of Christians than they are restrictive of the religiously-motivated conduct of non-Christians, nor should it be any surprise that some non-Christians feel a bit of resentment about this. Indeed, a reasonable argument can be made that this difference is a de facto establishment of Christianity as a state religion.
The issues are nuanced, and your objections either reflect a profound ignorance of the nuances, or a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous.
@65…BJ…
What I am saying is that we are all such sinners that we should leave judgment to God. But that still entails upon each of us the obligation to do our utmost to live lives that glorify Him, which means being faithful to the clear mandates of scripture, not the foolish “wisdom” of men.
The Piper
@66…EC…
The point of the comparison to Dr. King wasn’t to claim some moral equivalence to his courage, sacrifice, or ultimate martyrdom. Rather, it was to remind some who always seem to conveniently forget that people of faith have historically entered the debate over policy in this country, sometimes on a side of the issue with which you agree, and sometimes not.
I will stand partially corrected in re the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which came AFTER the DofI and before the Constitution; not bad for a bunch of white, slave-owning, landed gentry aristocrats.
But the statute still explicitly acknowledged the existence of God, which implicitly argues that a belief in God is superior to no belief in God. And, speaking of things implicit, also illustrates the dichotomy that existed, as you aptly pointed out, between the right or ability of a state to do something in this area that was prohibited by the Constitution for the federal government to do.
But don’t blame the Calvinists for it all. Massachusetts had a lot of Unitarians and Maryland was founded by Catholics. And the Baptists of Rhode Island would have been bitterly offended at being lumped with Calvinists.
At the national level, Virginia’s statute aside, the goal was the avoidance of a national church – a Church of the United States – even as individual states could do their own thing.
The Piper
@68…S…
Thank you for providing a near-perfect illustration of the intolerance of the tolerant.
Does this come only after practice with you, or are you simply a natural at it?
BTW…I have never advocated enacting the Bible into law, although much of our law today can trace its lineage to its teachings.
Why would anyone want to drop it to the level of something as dreary as the Uniform Commercial Code?
The Piper
@71 What scripture? Must it be biblical? How about the Koran? The Book of Mormon? The Gospel of Thomas? Who interprets scripture? Who determines which verse is a clear mandate and which is not? Do the answers to any of these questions come from the foolish wisdom of men?
And WHICH are the clear mandates of scripture?
Thou shall not eat pork or love thy neighbor? Who are you to decide that some mandates are important and some are trivial. Seems that if you follow some but not all, then you are picking and choosing which of God’s laws you want to apply to yourself.
Seems to me that it’s an all or none requirement in your world view.
Piper,
BTW…I have never advocated enacting the Bible into law, although much of our law today can trace its lineage to its teachings.
Does that include laws that would restrict the legal definition of “marriage” to exist only between two heterosexual persons of the opposite sex?
@73 Wrong. I am intolerant of the intolerant – people like you. I consider that to be very Christian of me.
You judge people so harshly here at HA. If you disagree with somebody you demean them. Tell me, what’s so tolerant and Christian about that kind of behavior? What verse do you get that from? Perhaps you just pay lip service to the teachings of Christ while your heart belongs to right-wing hate. Maybe you’re just a guvmint hating right-wing extremist yearning to blow up a courthouse in the name of Christ.
Republican bible thumpers are all big on Biblical law until they read that part about laying with beasts being a sin. That one gives those goatfuckers pause. Hmm, I think that’s where Piper’s interpretations of “clear mandates” might come into play.
@70…DJ…
You raise an interesting point: when does Free Exercise become Establishment?
First, the issue of someone in “government” (civilian or military) exercising his or her religious beliefs isn’t affected by their status as a supervisor; as long as participation in any activity engaged in or even sponsored by the supervisor is strictly voluntary, then there can be no claim of Establishment.
To hold otherwise is to effectively prohibit anyone above the rank of peon from having beliefs of a spiritual nature.
Still, you can’t get around the fact that if a substantially larger percentage of the population identifies itself with a religion other than yours that you might encounter it with greater frequency. Again, while you still have your Constitutional right to Free Exercise, so do they; neither of you have any right to be free from each other. The mathmatics of the thing are simply a fact of life.
Somewhere along the line we’re all minorities in something. Try living left-handed in a right-handed world. Nothing is ever perfectly fair.
I do agree that Free Exercise isn’t an absolute. You don’t have the absolute right to handle poisonous snakes or use illegal drugs as part of your religious obser vance. Nor can the parent of a child below the age of consent deny that child medical care.
But I still contend that the loudest complainents on this issue demand an absolute freedom from religion by denying others both the Free Exercise of their own religion and their Free Speech rights to discuss their religious beliefs.
If the scale is tilted in favor of Christians, why is it near impossible to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree when it’s placed in a public setting?
The Piper
@70…DJ…
You raise an interesting point: when does Free Exercise become Establishment?
First, the issue of someone in “government” (civilian or military) exercising his or her religious beliefs isn’t affected by their status as a supervisor; as long as participation in any activity engaged in or even sponsored by the supervisor is strictly voluntary, then there can be no claim of Establishment.
To hold otherwise is to effectively prohibit anyone above the rank of peon from having beliefs of a spiritual nature.
Still, you can’t get around the fact that if a substantially larger percentage of the population identifies itself with a religion other than yours that you might encounter it with greater frequency. Again, while you still have your Constitutional right to Free Exercise, so do they; neither of you have any right to be free from each other. The mathmatics of the thing are simply a fact of life.
Somewhere along the line we’re all minorities in something. Try living left-handed in a right-handed world. Nothing is ever perfectly fair.
I do agree that Free Exercise isn’t an absolute. You don’t have the absolute right to handle poisonous snakes or use illegal drugs as part of your religious obser vance. Nor can the parent of a child below the age of consent deny that child medical care.
But I still contend that the loudest complainents on this issue demand an absolute freedom from religion by denying others both the Free Exercise of their own religion and their Free Speech rights to discuss their religious beliefs.
If the scale is tilted in favor of Christians, why is it near impossible to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree when it’s placed in a public setting?
The Piper
Piper,
First, the issue of someone in “government” (civilian or military) exercising his or her religious beliefs isn’t affected by their status as a supervisor; as long as participation in any activity engaged in or even sponsored by the supervisor is strictly voluntary, then there can be no claim of Establishment.
To hold otherwise is to effectively prohibit anyone above the rank of peon from having beliefs of a spiritual nature.
Sorry, but I can’t agree. First, in any kind of supervisor/employee relationship, the question of what’s “voluntary” is murky at best. Even an invitation to, say, a prayer meeting coming from a supervisor could well be interpreted by the employee as something that could affect they way the employee’s performance gets evaluated. I believe there’s plenty of legal precedent that would indicate that this is clearly out of line. It’s certainly way out of line with respect to my employer’s diversity guidelines with which I have to comply as a manager.
Second, your second paragraph is complete hyperbole. We’re talking about conduct within the context of a supervisor/employee relationship, which means the supervisor is not barred from that same conduct vis-a-vis individuals who are not party to that relationship. Evangelist supervisors are free to evangelize anyone who is not in their employment organization.
If the scale is tilted in favor of Christians, why is it near impossible to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree when it’s placed in a public setting?
(Icon of DJ shaking head in bemused disbelief.) Is not the mere fact that people tend to want to put Christmas trees in public settings sufficient evidence that the scales are tilted in favor of Christians?
I recall you mentioning that you have a good friend who is a Baha’i. Why don’t you ask that friend to relay some personal experiences regarding, say, getting Baha’i holy days listed on the school district’s calendar along with other religious holy days? I’d be very interested in hearing the response.
CNR @ 34,
Well, this is a rare day indeed: we actually agree on this one. I suppose it can happen, from time to time.
Cheers!
But the statute still explicitly acknowledged the existence of God, which implicitly argues that a belief in God is superior to no belief in God. And, speaking of things implicit, also illustrates the dichotomy that existed, as you aptly pointed out, between the right or ability of a state to do something in this area that was prohibited by the Constitution for the federal government to do.
I would contest that characterization of the Virginia Statute. I think you would be closer to the mark by asserting that it meant to tell the government to butt the hell out of what its citizens believe with respect to religion, given what we know about Jefferson and Madison.
Here’s the operative language from the statute:
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
We might also recall Jefferson’s words on the topic:
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
@81…DJ…
I do have a very, very close friend who is a Bha’i, and she loves and celebrates Christmas with gusto! But she also recognizes that culturally this country’s roots are in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so it’s neither surprising nor unexpected to see a prevelance of public celebration on and for Christian-centered holidays.
According to numbers from the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life – http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations – better than 75% of the country identifies itself with a faith that has Christ as its central figure. I’m hard pressed to understand objections, then, to public practices and displays so long as no one is, in Jefferson’s words as appropriately quoted @83 by EC, “That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…”
Christmas, as a holiday, is as much cultural now in this country as it is sacred. People of every persuasion put up Christmas trees and exchange gifts, but nobody is forced to attend a Christmas Eve candlelight service or read the nativity story (Luke 2) before opening gifts.
Again, the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses in no way guarantee freedom from religious expression in the market place, the public square or anyplace else.
It’s almost as if you’re trying to make the expression, “Merry Christmas” by a superior to a subordinate an un-Constitutional act.
Each case of alleged harassment has to be handled on its merits. There are processes to deal with these situations – let them work without eviscerating the legitimate rights of Christians who happen to be in government.
Don’t presume anyone guilty with innocence impossible to prove.
Since day one, Americans have been people of faith, and that faith has carried into all facets of their lives. I think that’s a good thing, not a bad one.
The Piper
Piper,
Again, the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses in no way guarantee freedom from religious expression in the market place, the public square or anyplace else.
Why do I feel like we’re going around in circles on this? No one is demanding any form of freedom “from” religion, so I really have no idea why you keep bringing it up. The open question is, what are the boundaries for the “establishment” of religion? And, I’m saying that the issue is far more nuanced than you seem willing to admit.
Perhaps it’s time to start probing the boundaries a bit: If an Evangelical Christian evangelizes a subordinate employee, is that OK? If the Evangelical Christian happens to be a government employee, does that change the equation even just a tiny bit? If the practice of Evangelical Christians evangelizing their subordinates is prevalent within a particular governmental agency, and no steps are taken to limit this evangelizing behavior, are we not getting even kinda close to a violation of the establishment clause? Are there specific forms of evangelization that change your answers to any of these questions?
It’s almost as if you’re trying to make the expression, “Merry Christmas” by a superior to a subordinate an un-Constitutional act.
Hardly. I have, from the outset, said that the issue is nuanced, and complained about your persistent attempts to avoid the nuances.
I’m also amused at your sense of feeling persecuted by even the suggestion that some elements of Christian behavior crosses the line. You have no idea how living in this predominantly Christian society affects the ability of some religious minorities to practice their religion on a daily basis. You have a close friend who is a Baha’i, and you can’t even be bothered to spell the name of her religion properly.
In our society, members of religious minorities have no choice but to eat, sleep and drink Christianity on a daily basis and in a variety of ways (many of which I suspect you are not even aware), and you’re surprised that a few of them would rather like it if our government, one that is supposed to be barred from establishing religion, didn’t jump on the pile.
People objecting to Christmas trees at Sea-Tac, somehow, means that the scales are not tipped in favor of Christianity? That we even consider putting up Christmas trees at Sea-Tac (a property owned and operated by a government agency) ought to be ample evidence that the scales are heavily tipped in favor of Christianity.
@85…DJ…
My bad on the misspelling…My coffee had yet to kick in.
My issue with the Freedom of/freedom from dichotomy is that’s how it seems to work itself out – Freedom of is impermissable, so freedom from must be the standard. You yourself seem to be uncomfortable with Christmas trees at Sea-Tac since it is a taxpayer owned and operated.
I’m not willing to concede the “nuances” (as yet unspecified) you allege. It’s a pretty clear cut issue to me, and, as is the case with most clear cut issues, attempts to “nuance” it are thinly disguised attempts to cloud the issue and muddy its waters.
Just as I wouldn’t expect nor would I be offended by an absence of Christmas trees in predominantly Jewish Israel or predominantly Muslim Indonesia (though they are becoming quite common throughout the non-Christian world), I am bemused by those who would be offended by their presence in predominantly Christian America.
Again, no one is forced to attend any Christian service or pay homage to any Christian symbol whether placed in the public square or a private facility.
Yet, the ability of the majority of the people to celebrate a holiday has to be curtailed because someone out there is offended by it or doesn’t like it? Somehow that’s not what the Framers had in mind.
If you want to talk nuance, then try the nuance of a de minimus standard – the offense is so slight, the official involvment so insignificant as to make the complaint on the order of a mountain out of a molehill.
I don’t know of another country on the planet that does more to bend over backward to accomodate religious minorities. That’s done both out of respect for and to them and simply because it’s the American way.
As to the issue of evangelizing – two points: (1) if an employee regards it as harassment and as I said earlier, there are processes and procedures to handle such complaints – let them take their course.
(2) What about the evangelical employee who is harassed or ridiculed by his supervisor because of his faith? Told he or she cannot have a Bible on the desk or put a scripture verse on the cubicle wall? Who is “invited” to go places by the supervisor that the supervisor knows full well the employee finds offensive?
It cuts both ways.
BTW…I do appreciate the civil nature of this thread – living proof that people can agree to disagree without being disagreeable in the process.
The Piper
Piper,
My issue with the Freedom of/freedom from dichotomy is that’s how it seems to work itself out – Freedom of is impermissible, so freedom from must be the standard.
Except that there seems to be no objective evidence that “freedom of” is, in any way, impermissible. It’s your impression and that impression is based on a very biased and limited understanding of other points of view.
You yourself seem to be uncomfortable with Christmas trees at Sea-Tac since it is a taxpayer owned and operated.
When did I express personal discomfort? I used it as a specific example of a case where members of a religious minority have pointed out that Christmas trees at Sea-Tac appear to violate the establishment clause.
I’m not willing to concede the “nuances” (as yet unspecified) you allege.
As yet unspecified? I just asked an entire series of questions that discussed specific nuances, and asked what you thought of those nuances. You answered only the first question, and ignored the rest.
Moreover, you’ve already agreed that there is a legitimate distinction to be made between behavior and belief. Have you forgotten that? Or, are you saying that evangelizing is not a behavior?
As for Indonesia or Israel, as I recall, neither of those governments have constitutions that prohibits the establishment of religion. For some reason, you keep wanting to talk about personal expectations. The issue is the boundaries that demarcate the kinds of activities our Constitution prohibits within the meaning of the establishment clause.
I’m beginning to think that you believe religious minorities ought not have any say in what those boundaries are. Is that the case? Do Christians require Christmas trees at Sea-Tac in order to feel like they’re celebrating Christmas?
As to the issue of evangelizing – two points: (1) if an employee regards it as harassment and as I said earlier, there are processes and procedures to handle such complaints – let them take their course.
For all 8000 complaints? We’re not talking about isolated incidents here. We’re talking about a pervasive and pernicious pattern of practice.
(2) What about the evangelical employee who is harassed or ridiculed by his supervisor because of his faith?
If there are 8000 incidents of this going on in our nation’s military, then I think we have a pervasive and pernicious pattern of practice prohibiting the free exercise of religion.