THE BIRDS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST: The Democratic Party's Suicide

[Raider Bill]

This is a pretty good article summing up many of my thoughts. Court appointments are important to my decision on who to vote for. The democrats have been unable to legislate much of their liberal agenda so they rely on judges to invent new law that would never past muster with mainstream america .


I don't agree with everything that W has done, but am going to hold my nose and vote for him.





THE BIRDS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST: The Democratic Party's Suicide - By Justin Darr

January 21, 2004



"Hey, Phil! After our Bible Study, let's go and play some records backwards and see if we can hear any satanic messages!"

"We did that last week, Nick. Instead, let's go out, fire single women from their jobs because the MIGHT get pregnant, take food from starving children, turn off the heat to some inner city school, and to round things out, box up those big piles of money and send them to all our white friends."

"Sounds great!"

Thus have Conservatives been depicted in America for over 35 years. Whether in the media or the entertainment industry, the stereotypes portraying Conservatives, or any American who respects traditional values, have been subjected to ridicule and misrepresentation. While all other groups have become sacrosanct and immune to any criticism for fear of their being OFFENDED, Liberals have attacked Conservatives with IMPUNITY and little regard for the truth. But now the tide has turned.

Why? Americans have become tired of the manipulative propaganda of the Democratic Party. The arrogance, the "political correctness", the outright manipulation of language (i.e. lies), and the endless pandering to any special interest group have taken their toll. Now, the Democrats are looking at the 2004 Election and BEYOND and realizing that they are and will remain the MINORITY PARTY for possibly the next 10 to 15 years. How could the mighty party of FDR and JFK fall so far?

The true beginning of the end was the election of Ronald Reagan. His election will be recorded as one of the most important watershed events in American political history. But that is for the history books. For the average American, everything began to change in the first year of Bill Clinton's Presidency.

Bill Clinton rode into office on the popularity of a new, untried idea: nationalized health care. A great concept without any doubt, unfortunately, we do not live in La La Land (the only place it might actually work.) Clinton maintained that a tax increase might be necessary to fund this historic program, but since these taxes would be offset by the fact that people would no longer have to purchase their own coverage through work or deal with costly co pays most (except, off course, those FAT CATS making over $40,000 a year) would pay far less. Once Clinton was in office, out of all the financial, medical, and insurance specialists in the country, his wife Hillary was (coincidentally to be sure) judged to be the most qualified to head up this program. During the process of working out the feasibility of a nationalized health care system (perhaps something Clinton should have done BEFORE he promised to do it during his campaign?), Administration officials spoke to Congress on how the new program would be funded. THE WARNING BELLS SHOULD HAVE STARTED RINGING RIGHT THEN!!! Anytime a TAX INCREASE was mentioned, the Clinton official would say, "Americans may be asked to increase their CONTRIBUTION." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN! What if I choose not to CONTRIBUTE? Would I still go to jail for "Contribution Evasion?"

It might seem like a very small point, but these types of statements were the beginning of a pattern in the Clinton Administration that led directly to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Saying one thing and meaning another became the norm in the 1990's. "Political Correctness" made ALL AMERICANS afraid to speak their minds, and to deny the truth of the direction of the country even to themselves. All opinions had to be run through a filter of non-offensiveness in order to avoid the brand of racist, sexist, or any other -IST that might make us look insensitive to the FEELINGS of others.

After ten years of feeling warm and fuzzy about ourselves, Americans are being rudely awakened by a terrible shock. THE LIBERALS ARE SERIOUS! They do not see Political Correctness as a process where we add "-American" to the end of every word, but as a framework where not just our society is recast into their Socialist ideal but our very way of thinking. (The theory goes that the "common folk" can be TRAINED to behave more like good Socialists if you are able to control and monitor their outward behavior, i.e. "1984" by George Orwell.) Now, America is seeing these policies enacted into law through an activist judicial system. Well, not actual law. Laws require that an ELECTED legislature actually vote and upon passage proceed to the ELECTED executive for final approval or veto. If the legislation offends the VAST majority of a politician's constituency, then he is KICKED OUT OF OFFICE. However, with the Federal Courts the electorate has no recourse for relief. Since we have to do what these Courts say or either are arrested or sued, it really does not matter. These folks are in for life, and there is nothing we can do about it.

In this way, the Liberal establishment can advance their reckless agenda while never facing the wrath of the voting public (or so they thought.) For example, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" was unconstitutional (because some jerk wanted to annoy his ex-wife); the Senate condemned the ruling in a 99-0 vote (if my math is correct, that means even Barbara Boxer thought this ruling was ridiculous.) Unfortunately, the Senate, which is responsible for EVERY Federal Judge's approval, did nothing else. Republicans have responded to many of the rulings by trying to enact new legislation (such as flag burning) and even Constitutional Amendments (i.e. "The Pledge" and the Gay Marriage rulings.) But the Democrats have done nothing but OBSTRUCT these efforts (and why should they not? THEY ARE GETTING THEIR WAY WITH THE MURDER OF OUR SOCIETY WITH EVEN HAVING TO WASH THE BLOOD FROM THEIR HANDS!) The only way to turn this Liberal activist tide is for the Federal Benches to be filled with Judges who RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, not its warping to fit their ideological needs.

Now the birds have come home to roost. Americans are fed up with the Courts trying to force the Boys Scouts of America out of existence while embracing N.A.M.B.L.A. (the North American Man/Boy Love Association), we are enraged that our children cannot say "under God" or read a Bible at school; but in California, the Courts ruled that students could be FORCED to take classes where they live three weeks as Muslims (this includes praying to Allah, taking Islamic names, and learning the Five Pillars of Islam in class. I wonder if it includes wife beating and terrorist training as well.) Private citizens are being thrown into jail for defending their homes against dangerous criminals with guns, but drug dealers are allowed to walk away because their RIGHTS were violated when they where running from the police. The average citizen is demanding change, and what do they see? Senate Democrats are filibustering judicial nominees in order to maintain the Liberal status quo on the bench.

I think Barbara Streisand said it best during the 2000 Election, "It's all about SUPREME COURT JUSTICES". She was right. These Court rulings could never be made law if they had to go through the conventional law making process. The Liberals MUST have the Activist Courts because Americans would NOT STAND FOR THIS LEGISLATION BEING PASSED BY THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

This is why the Republicans upset the Democrats in the 2002 mid-term elections, taking full control of both Houses of Congress (traditionally, the opposition party to the President does very well in these "off year" elections.) The 2004 Election offers and even grimmer picture. The only way George W. Bush will not be re-elected President is if he chokes on a few more pretzels, long term Democratic incumbents are retiring from the Senate and Republicans stand to easily expand their majority, and a 30 - 40 seat Republican majority in the House appears to be entrenched for at least the next 8 years. America is experiencing a demographic change that has not been seen since the Great Depression of the 1930's when Americans changed their party affiliation based on economic needs. In the 21st Century, we are dealing with another "Great Depression", this one psychological, but the results will be the same. The Republicans are the new American Majority.

The problem for the Democrats is that the voting public now identifies them as the cause of this Judicial Activism AND the ideological supporters of these rulings. With the Democratic Party's plummeting support in the nation, they would probably like to have the Courts slow their assault on our values for a while (at lease until they can get re-elected). Perhaps take a retreat to some commune in Manitoba, or to a Global Warming Conference in Africa. ANYTHING but continue making these rulings that will relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status for the next generation.

The Democrats have found that they are powerless to stop the judicial activists they have placed on the bench. Embarrassment after embarrassment will continue to flow from the Federal Bench at an increasing rate regardless if it is an election year or not. (Additionally, by filibustered almost ALL of Bush's judicial nominees, the Democrats have created a litigation crisis where there are just too few judges to handle all the cases. This political stalling is forcing an ever increasing number of cases into the hands of these radical judges who will NEVER stop trying to rewrite the law, thus further humiliating the Democrats.) How ironic, the very judges that the Democrats have destroyed their reputations to protect are now the people who are ruining their chances of every pushing their agenda again. Some may call it karma; I call it DEMOCRACY.

[enjolras]

The point of the judificiary is NOT to enforce the will of congress (and thus the will of the people), but rather to serve as a CHECK on that power. That is why Judges are appointed for life, by design they are to stand unnacountable to the people.

This article rails against that system. After all, public support for removing 'under god' from the pledge is likely to be quite small. Yet, at the same time the legality of that statement in a federally mandated pledge likely runs directly counter to seperation of church and state. This judge wasn't be a liberal puppet, but rather doing the very job he was appointed to do. Protecting the minority from the opression of the majority.

I find it interesting that he's telling me the democrats are trying to 'control' me socially. Yet, those who trumpet 'traditional values' are the ones who fight the most vigorous battles on my personal freedoms.

I want to be able to smoke weed, I want to be able to buy alcohol on Sundays. I want to be able to get a tattoo when and wherever I feel like it. I want to be able to turn gay and get married. I want to be able to gamble and own a casino. I want to be able to go to a brothel and get a prostitute. I want to be able to commit sodomy. In short, I want small government and I don't want it constantly regulating what I can and can't do.

A conservative congress is an oppressive one. I just named a whole list of things that I can't do.. that I imagine in many cases people might WANT to do. With those socially controlling liberals out of power I should expect to be able to do these things.. right?

Wrong.

After all, these all violate the mandate of "traditional family (read: christian) values". The conservative tells me that I'm free to act how I want, just as long as I act like they want me to. Suggest legalizing gambling and I'll be told how I'm trying to 'force' my values on them...apparently the mere existence of casinos somehow forces the conservative to actually use them. They can't stand the thought of someone operating outside of the social norms THEY define, and use every ounce of government power to try to keep people from doing it. Republican does not equal freedom, only freedom to live how they see fit.

I tend to vote democrat, because while the democrats may be whacky, they also tend to let me be much more free. I don't beleive the dems are an ideal solution, but they are much better than the Republican side of the fence. You only need to take a look at what goes in Texas, Georgia, or Arkansas to understand that.

When the Republicans understand that Freedom doesn't only extend to protect the majority, but all citizens. When they come to understand that crimes require victims, and society doesn't count.. then i'll be much more inclined to vote on that side.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by enjolras

I want to be able to smoke weed, I want to be able to commit sodomy. In short, I want small government and I don't want it constantly regulating what I can and can't do.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats frown on those two things. You want to talk regulation...there is so many things you can't do in government programs that it isn't even funny. If you're on Social Security, you can't earn more in the workforce than the set limit. Environmental regulations are everywhere. The mantra of the Democrats has been the "rich" pay more taxes. That's not being able to do what you want. Many of these big goverment programs were started by Democrats.

[TexanBob]

The problem is that more than half of the morons we have on the Supreme Court are ones that REPUBLICANS put there, people like Harry Blackmun, the "author" of Roe v. Wade or David Souter or John Paul Stevens. At least when the Democrats pick justices, they nominate people that will march in lockstep with their evil socialist plans. It's the conservatives who have trouble getting people on the court who will continue to be conservative once they are on the court.

My favorite example of judicial lunacy was two rulings the Supreme Court handed down the same day during Bush 41's term. They struck down a Minnesota law against cross-burning believing that the "right" to burn a cross on somebody's lawn was political free speech. And yet they ruled in favor of a plaintiff wishing to prevent a prayer from being spoken at a high school commencement because saying a prayer in such a setting was "too coercive".

So leading a prayer in high school is coercive but burning a cross in my yard is not?

It symbolizes two of the greatest fallacies the courts have made:
1) Freedom of religion, which the First Amendment guarantees, is not freedom from religion which is what the courts and the ACLU have turned it into.
2) Free action is not the same as free speech. As the courts have it now, I should be able to piss on Bill Clinton's leg and claim it is political free speech - the twisted logic they use in flag-burning and cross-burning cases. You have the right to say almost anything you want but you should not have the right to do anything you want to say. And yet, for all their wisdom, the goofs on the court can't make that distinction.

By 2025, I don't doubt that the Christians will be rounded up into re-education gulags in this country and forced to either renounce their faith or be imprisoned for hate crimes for believing what the Bible teaches - all with the court's permission. Think I'm kidding? Just watch.

[Rohirrim]

This reminds me of going to a baseball game. If the the ump makes a close call against your guy, you call him an a-hole. If he misses a call against the other team that benefits your guys, he's a good ump.

[enjolras]

1) Freedom of religion, which the First Amendment guarantees, is not freedom from religion which is what the courts and the ACLU have turned it into.

They ARE the same thing. In order to protect freedom of religion, the government can not participate in religion itself. For the government to wrap itself up in the bible fundamentally conflicts with it's role in guaranteeing freedom of religion. It would be much like me refeereing a Broncos superbowl. My bias for the Broncos would inevitably lead me to favoring the Broncos throughout the game. It's the same with religion. In order to have freedom of religion, the government has to stay out of the religion game (as well it should).

2) Free action is not the same as free speech. As the courts have it now, I should be able to piss on Bill Clinton's leg and claim it is political free speech - the twisted logic they use in flag-burning and cross-burning cases. You have the right to say almost anything you want but you should not have the right to do anything you want to say. And yet, for all their wisdom, the goofs on the court can't make that distinction.

How is speech and action different exactly? I say something, or I demonstrate it... both are designed to send a political message. Burning a flag or a cross is absolutely protected speech. It HAS to be for us to even claim to be a free society.

The court ruling you referred to was on the question of whether cross burning itself is protected and the court properly ruled that it was. They made no ruling about burning a cross on someones lawn... in which case you have other protections that come into play. We have laws (such as trespassing laws for one) to protect from that kind of thing. In a free society burning a cross is legal, it's the burning it on someones lawn that's the problem.

[TexanBob]

Our country survived just fine with 200 years of monotheism. All of the sudden, you can't have a nativity scene in a park? You can't have a bible as part of a city monument that honors a man who sheltered the homeless which has stood for 50 years? My god, our society will crumble if some ACLU pantywaist sees a Bible anywhere. What a threat to our civilization!

If the separation of Church and State were as absolute as the left wants it, we should bulldoze all the tombstones in Arlington National Cemetary, forbid any currency to say "In God We Trust" and force every public employee or those who receive public money to work on Thanksgiving and Christmas (read the label - both are religious holidays). Since the concept of "government cannot establish religion" has reached these levels of absurdity, to be consistent, the ACLU should be demading all three of these things, as I would presume you would support as well.

As for action versus speech, ask yourself what would happen if you spraypainted "**** America - Long Live Fidel's Cuba" on the Statue of Liberty. Now ask yourself what would happen if you only said you *wanted* to do this. The first instance will land you in jail. The second will only land you a well-deserved beat down.

[enjolras]

Our country survived just fine with 200 years of monotheism. All of the sudden, you can't have a nativity scene in a park? You can't have a bible as part of a city monument that honors a man who sheltered the homeless which has stood for 50 years? My god, our society will crumble if some ACLU pantywaist sees a Bible anywhere. What a threat to our civilization!

Did we really? The first two hundreds years of our existence as a nation was spent enslaving others, and when that failed trampling on the civil rights of human beings. While Christianity itself isn't to blame for that, I do think that the very homogenous culture of the southern states was. That culture had the church at it's center... which left very little room for other voices with disasterous results.

I beleive that separation IS important...because when the government is involved in religion it leaves very little room for the minority voice. That's the fear that we have, you only have to look to Afghanistan, Iran, or China to see what religious ideology can do. Separation guarantees that our culture will not be forced to homogenize around religious values.

I grant that there are those who don't understand limits. Tombstones are a good example.. the tombstone should be a reflection of the person who died. Religious symbols to honor someone who would want to be honored that way are perfectly fine to me. Many of our great leaders where clearly motivated by religion, and to seperate religion from THEM seems foolish (as in the case of that monument you reference). That's not a government endorsement of religion, but rather a reflection of the person being honored.

However, cases such as the one in Georgia with the ten commandments are not so easy. When you stick the ten commandments in a court house, your sending a powerful message that justice in the courthouse is somehow tied up in religion. That's government imposition of religious values, and should be vigorously opposed.

To me prayer in school falls in the same category. Forced prayers are a clear endorsement of religion at the government level. Silent periods to allow kids to express whatever they want to whomever they beleive in, however endorse nothing.

As for action versus speech, ask yourself what would happen if you spraypainted "**** America - Long Live Fidel's Cuba" on the Statue of Liberty

Now what if I spray painted "Down with America - Long Live Fidel's Cuba" on the side of my car? That's an action, a political message, and protected speech. The fundamental problem with your example is the painting on the statue of liberty (vandalism), not the message itself. That was my point, burning crosses on other peoples property is illegal and is not protected speech... not because cross burning shouldn't be protected but because your doing it in someone elses front yard.

So I'll pose the question back to you in a different form: "Should burning a flag, a cross, or painting 'down with america' on your car be illegal?" and if so "how can we claim to be a free society if the very act of burning something or spreading a message lands you in jail?"

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Did we really? The first two hundreds years of our existence as a nation was spent enslaving others, and when that failed trampling on the civil rights of human beings. While Christianity itself isn't to blame for that, I do think that the very homogenous culture of the southern states was. That culture had the church at it's center... which left very little room for other voices with disasterous results.

I beleive that separation IS important...because when the government is involved in religion it leaves very little room for the minority voice. That's the fear that we have, you only have to look to Afghanistan, Iran, or China to see what religious ideology can do. Separation guarantees that our culture will not be forced to homogenize around religious values.

I grant that there are those who don't understand limits. Tombstones are a good example.. the tombstone should be a reflection of the person who died. Religious symbols to honor someone who would want to be honored that way are perfectly fine to me. Many of our great leaders where clearly motivated by religion, and to seperate religion from THEM seems foolish (as in the case of that monument you reference). That's not a government endorsement of religion, but rather a reflection of the person being honored.

However, cases such as the one in Georgia with the ten commandments are not so easy. When you stick the ten commandments in a court house, your sending a powerful message that justice in the courthouse is somehow tied up in religion. That's government imposition of religious values, and should be vigorously opposed.

To me prayer in school falls in the same category. Forced prayers are a clear endorsement of religion at the government level. Silent periods to allow kids to express whatever they want to whomever they beleive in, however endorse nothing.

I agree with you on several points. The historical fact is that the Founding Fathers were all deists of one form or another and their belief in God is unavoidable in the documents they brought forth. If somebody were to show the Supreme Court today our Declaration of Independence as some form of law, the court would strike it down as unconstitutional because it mentions a creator. See how silly this has become?

What they clearly meant by Congress shall make no law establishing a religion is simply that. They had fled from England where the Church of England was the official state-sponsored religion. What they were saying in the First Amendment is that they didn't want that. They wanted people to be free to worship as they so decided. End of sentence. If they wanted to outlaw all government displays of religion, they would have said so and they obviously didn't. That clearly wasn't their intent. Yet the sophistry of the Court has reached such ridiculous proportions that I dare say the authors of the Constitution would shudder if they saw what we have become.

I agree that nobody wants a Taliban-style my-way-or-the-highway state-sanctioned religion. I certainly don't. And I don't want to force little Johnny to put his head down and pray at the start of a school day if he doesn't want to. But if 29 kids in a classroom want to pray, why is only the will of the 30th kid respected? There are other ways to not participate than to force everyone else in the room to be prevented from engaging in the activity because one person objects.

Should 50,000 fans at Yankee Stadium not be allowed to sing God Bless America at a baseball game because it offends Carlos Delgado?

Now what if I spray painted "Down with America - Long Live Fidel's Cuba" on the side of my car? That's an action, a political message, and protected speech. The fundamental problem with your example is the painting on the statue of liberty (vandalism), not the message itself. That was my point, burning crosses on other peoples property is illegal and is not protected speech... not because cross burning shouldn't be protected but because your doing it in someone elses front yard.

Except that the court ruled cross-burning *is* legal as long as it meets the local fire codes. They didn't enter their decision based on property rights. They said the ordinance singled out people who wanted to burn crosses to the exclusion of people who wanted to burn garbage or leaves or Christmas trees. That's what they didn't like.

My point is if it is coercion for a child to hear a prayer spoken at a commencement graduation, why is it not coercion for a child to see a cross burning in his yard?

So I'll pose the question back to you in a different form: "Should burning a flag, a cross, or painting 'down with america' on your car be illegal?" and if so "how can we claim to be a free society if the very act of burning something or spreading a message lands you in jail?"

I suppose there has to be a question of context here. If you burn the flag or the cross on your car in your own backyard where only you and your friends are watching it, I don't have a problem. But that's obviously not what you'd do. You'd want to make a spectacle of yourself by driving it down public streets or in front of a particular sidewalk as a means of provoking a violent response. Should inciting violence not be a crime? We deny freedoms in all sorts of ways as a matter of public safety and keeping the peace. In my opinion, this is no different.

If it is illegal for me to kneel and pray on the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic, how can we truly be a free society? But it's right there in the FACE Act that passed Congress and stood up to Supreme Court scrutiny. Why is your right to burn an American flag any more sacred than my right to say a prayer? If your answer is "well, you can go somewhere else to pray" my response would be "well, you can go somewhere else to burn the flag."

Why shouldn't hijacking a jet and crashing it into the Pentagon be considered a form of political free speech if action must equate speech? Clearly, the hijackers were making a political statement, why should we then have not honored their right to free speech if actions=speech?

If Johnny Jihadist said "I think planes should be hijacked and flown into government buildings" he has the right to express his opinion. But acting on it is a whole different thing. Hard not to see the difference here, I hope.

[Arkie]

The founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed. They had just left the religous wackos in Europe where religion was forced onto them.

James Madison wrote, "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

[enjolras]

Except that the court ruled cross-burning *is* legal as long as it meets the local fire codes. They didn't enter their decision based on property rights. They said the ordinance singled out people who wanted to burn crosses to the exclusion of people who wanted to burn garbage or leaves or Christmas trees. That's what they didn't like.

I'm going from memory here, but I beleive the supreme court ruled that a state CAN ban Cross Burning when it is used as a means of intimidation. Cross burning, in and of itself, can not be made illegal and the simple act of burning a cross does not suffice as evidence of the intent to intimidate. I imagine in that almost all situations, however, burning a cross in someones front yard IS designed to intimidate those living inside...

In the end cross burning and flag burning are subject to all of the same laws and regulations as any other form of assembly and protest. All of the court decisions surrounding this didn't give people the blanket right to burn crosses or flags when and where they FEEL like it.. but rather gave them the right to do it in the context of free assembly. You can't break into someones house and burn a flag and hide in the first amendment... the act of breaking into the house is still illegal.

But if 29 kids in a classroom want to pray, why is only the will of the 30th kid respected? There are other ways to not participate than to force everyone else in the room to be prevented from engaging in the activity because one person objects.

Because sometimes the rights of the minority have to be weighed against the rights of the majority. That's a hard lesson that took this country a LONG time to learn.

I had two cousins that lived in Utah for awhile. They have all sorts of interesting stories about going to school. The teachers would routinely ask the class 'how many of you are mormons?' and the entire class would raise it's hand except for my cousins. They'd do thinly veiled Mormon activities and be force to participate in Mormon religious discussions. The net effect of this was that these kids where being coerced into participating in a religion they wanted no part of. It was a public, government run school openly advocating one religion over another. It was extremely difficult for these kids to get around that...

Why can't the school just teach.. and leave religion to the family where it belongs?

If it is illegal for me to kneel and pray on the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic, how can we truly be a free society? But it's right there in the FACE Act that passed Congress and stood up to Supreme Court scrutiny. Why is your right to burn an American flag any more sacred than my right to say a prayer? If your answer is "well, you can go somewhere else to pray" my response would be "well, you can go somewhere else to burn the flag."

I have no issue with you kneeling and praying wherever you want, unless your prayer is intended as a form of intimidation in which case it should be subject to the same rules as cross burning. It's illegal for me to torch a cross on the front steps of a church (although it may be legal to do it across the street) after all...

[enjolras]

Oh and the Yankees fans can sing God Bless America as much as they want... if a private business (baseball team) wants to incorporate religion into their program more power to them.

Hell theres a minor league baseball team that has given out bibles.. and has had noah, moses, and samson bobble head night. I'm perfectly ok with that.

[TexanBob]

My sister's family are Mormon and I'm very familiar with their activities. I've never felt forced to participate in any of it, even their prayer times. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't but it's on my own volition.

Although I agree that a teacher should not be asking children what religion they belong to, particularly by show of hands. It's none of her business and can be perceived as prejudicial, even if the question were "how many of you are Jewish" or "how many of you are Muslims". I would have reported the teacher if this were true.

I've never thought of praying as a form of intimidation. Praying is an act of humble submission to God - that's why some people feel it necessary to go on their knees every time they pray. It should be the antithesis of intimidation. The only people who could feel threatened by it are the people who don't understand it.

And if people don't believe that God exists and responds to prayer, why are they so intimidated by people who do? If I prayed daily to the God of Chewy Chocolate Centers, you'd be inclined to laugh at my stupidity rather than take me to court.

I grew up in the 60s in the South and we had a "prayer time" for silent prayer. I was unchurched. I just sat there for the 90 seconds or so that it took and respected what was an important time for others even though it wasn't for me. I didn't become a Christian until after high school. I can't remember ever feeling intimidated or coerced by people who took a moment to quietly pray to themselves. I think it would have been selfish and rude for me to insist that my wishes to not pray trump the wishes of those who did UNLESS they were demanding that I pray with them. As long as the children are told they can pray if they wish to, I don't see the harm and didn't even when I was the supposedly intimidated non-believer.

That's why I think the whole issue is a crock used by people who are anti-religion to force their views on the rest of us by their means of intimidation and coercion.

[Rohirrim]

I think there is intimidation and coercion on both sides of this argument. After all, secular humanists didn't work for years to put "In God We Trust" on our money, or "...under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They considered those things just fine without the religious input. Now the Christians want to put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. etc. etc. Those who believe in the separation of church and state are fighting a "defensive" battle. They are not the ones doing the imposing of their ideas on the population in general.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I think there is intimidation and coercion on both sides of this argument. After all, secular humanists didn't work for years to put "In God We Trust" on our money, or "...under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They considered those things just fine without the religious input. Now the Christians want to put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. etc. etc. Those who believe in the separation of church and state are fighting a "defensive" battle. They are not the ones doing the imposing of their ideas on the population in general.

Balderdash! The Ten Commandments have been in courthouses for over a century. It was there all over the country and it's the ACLU and their communist pals who have been filing suits all over the place trying to get them removed. Those who believe in the separation of church and state are the ones on offense and have been on the offensive since the 1950s. You're opinion is 100% ass-backward to reality, pal.

The left wants to force their belief system (aka "religion" although they won't call it that) on us all. Christianity has been in the public square in this country since Day One and the left wants it banned. Wake up! You are swallowing a bunch of lies because once they've abused you of any moral calling you will quietly acquiesce to the wishes of the State. That's the goal of the left and you are swallowing the bait.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Balderdash! The Ten Commandments have been in courthouses for over a century. It was there all over the country and it's the ACLU and their communist pals who have been filing suits all over the place trying to get them removed. Those who believe in the separation of church and state are the ones on offense and have been on the offensive since the 1950s. You're opinion is 100% ass-backward to reality, pal.

The left wants to force their belief system (aka "religion" although they won't call it that) on us all. Christianity has been in the public square in this country since Day One and the left wants it banned. Wake up! You are swallowing a bunch of lies because once they've abused you of any moral calling you will quietly acquiesce to the wishes of the State. That's the goal of the left and you are swallowing the bait.

I think that you're the one buying into a bill of goods.

The "goal" of the Left is to enforce that primal right: The right to be left alone - on the street, in the courthouse, in the schools, in the bedroom. A right those fundamentalist preachers just cannot allow.

[enjolras]

The left wants to force their belief system (aka "religion" although they won't call it that) on us all. Christianity has been in the public square in this country since Day One and the left wants it banned. Wake up! You are swallowing a bunch of lies because once they've abused you of any moral calling you will quietly acquiesce to the wishes of the State. That's the goal of the left and you are swallowing the bait.

This is just trash.. you've debated better than this, but this statement belies some incredibly large leaps in logic.

I don't want to force my belief system on you. Neither do most of the folks at the ACLU. We simply want to create an environment where EVERYONES belief system can co-exist. Wanting the a religion neutral government isn't forcing anything on you. Does taking the ten commandments out of a courthouse challenge your belief system? No, rather it sends a clear message that government is (and should be) free of religious bias.

You see anything that reduces the visibility of Christianity as an effort to force beliefs on you.. explain to me how that works exactly. It's the same issue with gay marraige... I've been told that by supporting gay marraige that I'm forcing my heathen beliefs on the poor innocent Christians of this country. Interesting, but to be honest I don't CARE what you beleive. By banning gay marraige, particularly on religious grounds, YOU<--- are forcing your beliefs on a whole class of people who don't see things the way you do.

By taking the ten commandments out of the courthouse and religion out of government I'm not telling you what to beleive, but rather I am making sure my government isn't in the business of telling people what they should beleive either.

[Arkie]

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.