Liberals and math models
Jerome J. Schmitt questions how liberals pick and choose the mathematical models they like to use. On the one hand, they put total and complete faith in math models predicting doom and gloom from global warming, despite the fact that global weather is just about the most hideously complex system we've ever seen. He describes how the models in the semi-conductor industry, which tests in a closed environment with strict control over all of the variables involved, still get predictions wrong. In contrast, these same liberals completely ignore time-tested and reliably accurate models of the looming inevitable disaster that is Social Security. This is a great study in the inconsistency and hypocrisy of liberalism.
Follow up to Texan-of-the-year illegal alien piece
Michelle Malkin is amused that the Dallas Morning News was surprised at the public outrage they sparked when they declared illegal aliens the 'Texan of the Year' a couple weeks ago. They are totally out of touch with normal Americans! This issue is going to be a big factor in the 2008 election, and I think that any candidate who 'gets it' will be able to do very well for himself. Unfortunately, many of the candidates (on both sides) really don't 'get it'.
Swearing ban in Missouri
A St. Louis-area town is considering a bill that would ban swearing in bars, along with table-dancing, drinking contests and profane music. City officials contend the bill is needed to keep rowdy crowds under control because the historic downtown area gets a little too lively on some nights. This is ridiculous! Have they ever heard of a little thing called freedom of speech or the 1st Amendment?? There are laws regarding public conduct that can -- and should -- be used to calm down 'lively' crowds, but this is absolutely NOT one of them. This, too, is bordering on thought police. After all, what may be 'indecent, profane or obscene language, songs, entertainment and literature' to me might be lots of fun for you, and vice versa. Who's going to decide which of us is right? Who's going to control what people are thinking? This is a bad, bad thing.
Flag-burning in Gaza
Despite the fact that President Bush is in the Middle East to help create a Palestinian state, Palestinians are burning American flags in protest at Bush's presence. Democrats say such outrage is the result of Bush hatred (it's all his fault), but they've been burning American flags for decades, and are not likely to stop once Bush leaves office. Just watch and see. The sheer stupidity of these primitive barbarians always amazes me! Bush is trying to accomplish what they say is the most important thing to them - a Palestinian state. He is there on their behalf, and they slander him and insult his nation! I'm sure they'd happily kill him if they could, too. In fact, Bush's plans on this trip have already been changed by a Palestinian missile threat. This sort of dichotomy is typical of radical Islamists, and is precisely why no negotiation will EVER work with them. They must be defeated for their threat to be removed.
Bill Richardson drops out
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson is dropping out of the race after fourth place finishes in both Iowa and New Hampshire. That is not unexpected at all - he was most likely jockeying for a Vice-Presidential nomination the whole time. His VP-ship could pull a pretty hefty Hispanic vote, so don't be surprised if the eventual nominee signs him up.
Romney/Thompson win Wyoming
New Hampshire was the high-profile state of the moment, but Wyoming had a primary on the same day. It was won by Romney, with Fred Thompson coming in second. The interesting part of this to me is that Romney's win here actually got him more primary delegates than McCain's win in New Hampshire, but I can't recall seeing a single news report about it. My point is that this race is a lot bigger and more involved that what the MSM is spewing at any given moment.
Gideons ousted from Missouri school
For years, the South Iron R-1 School District in Annapolis, Missouri, has allowed various groups to hand out literature and information to students on school property; but now, in an effort to stop the Bible handout, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the school's equal access policy. Recently, though, a federal judge blocked the Gideons organization from handing out Bibles at any time on school property. "If everyone can use a public forum or everyone can have access through an open-access policy but the Bible, that turns the First Amendment on its head," [attorney and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat] Staver asserts. "Indeed," he adds, "the First Amendment was designed to protect and give preeminence to religious free speech." Just another example of how the ACLU is one of the biggest dangers to the American way of life, and how liberals are deliberately trying to remove God from...well...everywhere.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
The ACLU is not trying to remove your god from "everywhere". It's trying to protect everyone from one religion/religious view from public schools. In comparison, imagine if you had the book of Satan being given out in the same school, you would have the church crying foul.
The United States government needs to remain neutral to protect all religious liberties, including yours.
Pass out your religious books in church, at your private events, at your own business, at your own time. Leave public schools and US government buildings and properties neutral.
Anonymous - you need to check your history, and your reality. The ACLU -- by their actions -- is committed precisely to removing "God" from everywhere. Why else would they constantly attack every mention of God they could find? They fight to remove God from our national pledge, from our currency, from our capital buildings, and from our official documentation. But, they don't stop there - they also attack churches displaying nativity scenes on private property and they attack personal choices of people of faith on a daily basis. You've taken an undeniably incorrect position.
This article was a case in point. The link in my original post is dead now, but here's the current link to the same story. If you will read the story, you will see that the ACLU doesn't appear to have a problem with off-campus groups handing out literature after school...unless that literature is a Christian Bible.
Your suggestion about giving the Book of Satan out in school is ridiculous, and you clearly don't understand the meaning of standing on principle. I would indeed defend the right of an off-campus group to hand out anything, regardless of the nature of that religion. That's what a right is: applicable to everyone. Now, that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to influence students from turning down the Book of Satan, but of all the things that are incorrectly bandied about as a 'right', the freedom of religion -- any religion -- actually is a right specified in the Constitution. That means it applies to all religions, and I refuse to take that away from anyone. All I ask is that Christians be treated the same as other religions. That's what the Constitution promises.
In order for the government to remain neutral in protecting religious freedom, as you suggest, that would mean it needs to enforce a consistent policy of treating all religions fairly. This ACLU lawsuit does not do that - it seeks to squash Christianity in particular, leaving all others alone.
You appear to have fallen prey to the myth that there is a 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution...would you please point out that portion of the document? You can't, because it doesn't exist. The Founding Fathers enshrined the freedom of religion, and most of them spoke openly of founding America on the principles of Judeo-Christian values. But, they also recognized the importance of allowing other religions the freedom of equal protection under the law. That's the beauty of the system, and one reason America stands unique in the world. The myth of separation is based on a statement by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter, but it was actually intended for precisely the opposite purpose than it is used today: Jefferson meant it to prevent the state from exerting undue influence on religion (as it had in England) rather than the other way around. You've got it backwards.
Since when is it bad or a problem for an individual student to pray (regardless of religion) simply because he is in school? Since when is it bad or a problem for a group of students to gather voluntarily to pray (regardless of religion) simply because they happen to be in school? What are you afraid of? Simply allowing the freedom of religion is very different than endorsing a religion. Do you have a problem with Jews in public schools? Muslims in public schools? Hindus in public schools? I suspect you don't.
If you want separation, how about separating my taxpayer money from paying for abortions which I find offensive according to my religion? How about separating my taxpayer money from public schools which are an abject failure, allowing me to enroll my kids in a private school? How about separating the taxpayer funding from public schools which force their students to endure homosexual indoctrination and Muslim brainwashing (in the name of multiculturalism, of course)? Would you support these things? I suspect not.
That's the problem - it's easy to look at Christians and say we need to get out of all public spaces. But, if you're not willing to remove all religions equally, you're being a severe hypocrite. Even then, though, your argument doesn't hold water: the absence of religious beliefs (atheism) is still a belief system, and is therefore a religion in its own right.
It is simply not possible to remove religion from all public spaces, and the Founding Fathers recognized that. They also recognized that they shouldn't even try. Thus, they enshrined the freedom for all religions.
Stop trying to violate the Constitution, and my rights.
Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment