This is especially important in New Orleans, which has a very high number of Catholic schools. Furthermore, contrary to stereotypes about private schools, Catholic schools, especially those in New Orleans, serve a socioeconomic diverse population of students. But for whatever reason, the Left has branded themselves as the anti-God party, so I expect they will come out against this.

I'm with Bob!

I think you are confused. The seperation of church and state refers to what is taught. That seperation does not prevent aid to help rebuild Catholic schools. They will receive the same aid others will get.

I think you are confused.

No one's confused at all. The historical behavior of the left is anti-religion, anti-church, and anti-church schools. It would only be natural, and it is highly likely, that the radicals on the left will come out against the idea of helping these organizations.

They'll do it because they're that dumb. They'll do it because they're that radical. And they'll do it because they'll see it as a way to raise up the public system (where their union-controlled teachers hold sway) and at the same time stop the private schools from recovering as quickly. Too tempting for them.

In their stupidity, though, they will be cast as hateful, spiteful people whose only goal is to hurt anything related to the church. It will serve them ill, but by the time any wisdom allows them to see it over their anti-religion mantra, the damage will have been done.

And the clincher, the reason I KNOW this will happen, is that the President is in favor of providing aid to private schools. As a result, they MUST oppose it or be seen as heretics by the drooling minions.

The seperation (sic) of church and state refers to what is taught.

Really? Where'd you get that?

That seperation (sic) does not prevent aid to help rebuild Catholic schools. They will receive the same aid others will get.

They will, but the left will oppose it. And they will pay a big price for doing so.

The seperation (sic) of church and state refers to what is taught.
Really? Where'd you get that?

I meant it only in context to the Catholic schools and getting aid.

The left is not Anti-God. They are Pro-Choice. All religious beliefs are welcome as long as none are forced upon those not interested. Big difference.

I meant it only in context to the Catholic schools and getting aid.

Fastest equivocation yet by a leftist spouting talking points without any idea of what he speaks.

The left is not Anti-God.

Sure they are. Come on. Try something with a little bit of credibility.

They are Pro-Choice.

Euphemistic baloney for pro-abortion - otherwise totally meaningless drivel.

All religious beliefs are welcome as long as none are forced upon those not interested.

Yea. Those Catholic jack-boots with the midnight raids on the defenseless leftists to force them into draconian prayer sessions are so common. Be especially alert to stealth baptisms. I hear the Baptists are sneaking up on lefties and absolving them of their sins before they know what hits them.

Big difference.

Big lie.

Again, out-of-context. I meant Pro-choice when it comes to religion.

Actually, never mind Rev. I don't think anything I write will be accepted by you, unless it is wholly denegrating everyone on the left. I am sorry you are so jaded.

Again, out-of-context. I meant Pro-choice when it comes to religion.

Not out of context - you just didn't get it. I will try to make it simple for you:

I know what you meant. But you lie. The left has been on a relentless campaign to denigrate anything that has to to with the church (except for their new-found respect for Islamic terrorists) because they hate the values for which the church stands.

My point is that the only place where the left is "pro-choice" is in fact pro-abortion.

Actually, never mind Rev.

Fortunately for all of us here, YOU don't get to set the terms of the discussion here. You may attempt to ignore comments that show you for the fool, tool, and liar that you appear to be, but you cannot stop them. I feel you'd probably feel much more comfortable over at the DU, so scurry on over there for your validation. Here, you're just another leftist tool.

I don't think anything I write will be accepted by you,

Surely it could be. Just stop with the BS. Stop with the equivocating. Stop with the attempts to control the discussion. Are your "ideas" so feeble they can only stand if unchallenged?

unless it is wholly denegrating (sic) everyone on the left.

They are wholly deserving of it. And more.

I am sorry you are so jaded.

The word projection comes to mind. Go back to your guru, sinsei, or cell-leader and have them help you to look inward. You're too hung up on blaming others for your own failings and lack of common sense. Wax on, Wax off.

I am sure the left will freak out over this. Just like they have already with the Government reimbursing churches for out of pocket expenses acting as shelters and such for hurrican victims. They are beyond anti-God. Look at them trying to destroy the boyscouts because of the God issue mainly

I have not lied. I know noone on the left that has ever done anything to:

denigrate anything that has to to with the church . . . because they hate the values for which the church stands.

Acceptance for those that are different. Helping and caring for those that cannot help themselves. 'Christian' values are exactly what we on the left are FOR. We just don't need to do it in the name of a particular god, guru, sinsei (sic), or cell-leader. We don't force others to share our spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, and we don't want others to force theirs on us.

Of course there are no Catholic jack-boots, etc. The problem is that there are other religions that do seek to convert others. And they all think they are the "ONE TRUE RELIGION". If we start allowing for some, we have to allow for all. So if you don't start down that slippery slope, you won't crash at the bottom.

And this will annoy you I am sorry, but pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Just because I think there are times when a woman must make the choice to do it does not mean I am for it. I have a son, and I can not imagine my life without him. I think abortion should be the LAST option, but it should be an option.

You go Rev!! It is funny that I had the same view as you on his comments. The Seperation of Church and State, that has to do with teaching religion? Me thinks he is in left field. Pro-choice means choice of religion? Me thinks he is in left field. Dude if you are going to come on here and blab DU talking points at least know what they are. Sometimes it is better to let people think you are stupid than to open your mouth and prove it. I suppose the the Right to Bear Arms means, you must turn them into the Govt. at your earliest possible conveinience. I suggest that you exercise your 5th ammendment right at this point.

Rev=1
Radical=0

I have not lied. I know no one on the left that has ever done anything to:

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Those behaviors and attitudes are all over the place. Denying them is not effective in the face of reality. It does continue to amuse me that leftists such as you think the only way to push your agenda is to act one way and talk another. Of course if I was motivated by the things you all stand for, I'd be denying them too for the American public is put off by them.

Acceptance for those that are different. Helping and caring for those that cannot help themselves. 'Christian' values are exactly what we on the left are FOR.

You are the George Carlin of leftists! Such humor. Such irony! So funny!

We just don't need to do it in the name of a particular god,...

That is rich. Your god is hedonism. Your god is finding the lowest common denominator and becoming it. Your god has the motto "if it feels good - do it." Why don't you just admit it? It will make you feel better about yourself.

Of course there are no Catholic jack-boots, etc. The problem is that there are other religions that do seek to convert others.

Ooooh! And you're powerless to resist. Well, I suppose that's true, how else do you explain becoming a lefty? Totally open to suggestion. David Copperfield could work miracles with you.

And they all think they are the "ONE TRUE RELIGION". If we start allowing for some, we have to allow for all. So if you don't start down that slippery slope, you won't crash at the bottom.

This is what the left calls it. We call it throwing out the baby with the bath water. Or anti-religion. Which is what it is.

And this will annoy you I am sorry, but pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

Sure it does. More denial on your part. And rationalization. Whatever it takes for you to be able to look in the mirror, I guess. The 1.5 million abortions a year, put the lie to your hogwash. That's not "last choice" or anything like it. Its more like "oops," get that thing outta me. Its inconvenient and after all, its just a blob of tissue."

Just because I think there are times when a woman must make the choice to do it does not mean I am for it.

Sure it does. If not, you'd be against it. And what's this crap about a "woman" having to make the choice? Did the man help to get the woman pregnant? Does he have no say in whether the child lives or dies? How liberal of you.

I have a son, and I can not imagine my life without him.

Absolutely without value. If you support abortion - who cares what you think about your own kid? You are sentencing millions of others to death. At least Eichmann was proud of his position while he exterminated millions.

I think abortion should be the LAST option, but it should be an option.

I go with protecting the unborn child - who should never - NEVER - be considered an "option." Doing so is the only way you all on the left who sanction the wall-to-wall killing of the unborn can talk about the issue is to maintain the fiction that there is no child involved. Liar.

"And this will annoy you I am sorry,"

Lying usually does.

"but pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion."

Depends on how you are using "pro-choice", if you use it to mean that abortion on demand should be legal, you are PRO-ABORTION! If, like myself, you mean that you support people choosing whether or not they will participate in risky and irresponsible sexual behavior, then you aren't pro-abortion at all! Far from it! :)

"Just because I think there are times when a woman must make the choice to do it does not mean I am for it."

Sure it does. She made a lot of choices before the choice to kill the baby she made. You are a proponent of ignoring those choices that could prevent her even contemplating the murder of her unborn child.

"I have a son, and I can not imagine my life without him."

But you'd have killed him just the same if you'd made the opposite "choice". Just a "choice" away, huh?

"I think abortion should be the LAST option,"

Once you get to the point where an abortion is possible, you've ignored all other options so by default it is the "last" one. That is what is called a "platitude".

"but it should be an option."

Not for people who willingly participate in risky and irresponsible sexual behavior.

It does continue to amuse me that leftists such as you think the only way to push your agenda is to act one way and talk another.

For instance?

We call it throwing out the baby with the bath water. Or anti-religion. Which is what it is.

No, it is 1st amendment freedom of (and consequently from) religion.

And what's this crap about a "woman" having to make the choice? Did the man help to get the woman pregnant? Does he have no say in whether the child lives or dies? How liberal of you.

I think there are some times when a woman must make the choice alone, not every time, but sometimes. For example:

I go with protecting the unborn child - who should never - NEVER - be considered an "option."

The rape victim should not have the option?
The 13yr old incest victim should have the option?
The woman dying because of complications should have the option?

It is not so black and white. Everyone knows that there are those that abuse their rights or privileges. But you can not punish some few for the wrongs of others.

The right to bear arms? I enjoy that right as well.

Not for people who willingly participate in risky and irresponsible sexual behavior.

But for others?

"But for others?"

What type of situation did you have in mind?

What type of situation did you have in mind?

I think the Rev is working with my post that will explain other situations. If he posts that one first he won't have to post this one. But just in case:

The rape victim?
The 13yr old incest victim?
The woman dying because of complications?

For instance?

The continual denial of those on the left - including you - that you are pro-choice and not pro-abortion. And then you all fight to the death to continue to make abortion available to everyone, everywhere and in some cases demand that the state pay for it. Its a big lie. You act one way and you talk another.

Another is in the left's phony claim to "support the troops" all the while cheering on terrorists who are killing them and their supporters like Cindy Sheehan.

I could go on and on, but I tire of this since it keeps coming up over and over and I sense that it may be one of the tactics of the left to just keep repeating the lies over and over and denying the truth more vociferously all the time in hopes someone will finally believe them. You are failing. We see through the ploy and you just humiliate yourself the longer you try to defend your hedonistic beliefs.

No, it is 1st amendment freedom of (and consequently from) religion.

Sure. Whatever. Liar.

I think there are some times when a woman must make the choice alone, not every time, but sometimes.

Of course you would.

The rape victim should not have the option?

Nothing to do with choice.

The 13yr old incest victim should have the option?

Nothing to do with choice.

The woman dying because of complications should have the option?

Nothing to do with choice. I find it quite revealing that you attempt, feebly but attempt nonetheless, to rationalize over a million killings a year based on a small minority of special cases that have nothing to do with the reason that 99 percent of women opt to kill their unborn children. This is a perfect example of the illegitimacy of your arguments and your need to act one way and talk another.

It is not so black and white. Everyone knows that there are those that abuse their rights or privileges. But you can not punish some few for the wrongs of others.

More lies. No one seeks to punish anyone. What we want to do is to protect the unborn from irresponsible "parents" whose minds turn first and foremost to knives and suction devices to solve their "problems." Problems which just happen to be unborn children, contained in the womb, totally dependent on its "mother" for life sustaining bio-support, and helpless to defend itself from her and her $250,000.00 a year abortionist. No wonder you all chose Howard Dean the abortionist as your leader.

The right to bear arms? I enjoy that right as well.

As much as you enjoy the right to kill the unborn. Wait, that's no right. Its just a bad decision by the US Supreme Court and that decision's days are numbered.

No, it is 1st amendment freedom of (and consequently from) religion.

The first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Couldn't find anything about freedom "of" or "from" religion in there. There is language which prevents the government from establishing a "state" religion by law. There is language in there to guarantee people have the right to practice their religions without government interference. There is that part about freedom of speech, but that's non-germane.

You must be using the same liberal lens that recent Supreme Court liberal justices use when they make decisions based on newly-found "rights" and "laws" that have escaped the court's vision for over two centuries - like the Kelo decision or the infamous Roe v Wade debacle.

There ya go again, Scar! You're actually quoting the text of the Constitution! That's not how liberals operate.

"Everyone knows that there are those that abuse their rights or privileges. But you can not punish some few for the wrongs of others. The right to bear arms? I enjoy that right as well."

Oh! So you are saying we are just indiscriminantly trying to ban abortion just like the Stalinist left wants to ban fire arms. Right? Wrong! We are specific in that abortion in place of responsible sexual behavior is what we oppose. :)

"The rape victim?
The 13yr old incest victim?
The woman dying because of complications?"

Tell me how anyone of those individuals got to where they are because they engaged in irresponsible sexual behavior.

And then you all fight to the death to continue to make abortion available to everyone, everywhere and in some cases demand that the state pay for it. Its a big lie. You act one way and you talk another.
Another is in the left's phony claim to "support the troops" all the while cheering on terrorists who are killing them and their supporters like Cindy Sheehan.

HA, now that’s funny. How has Cindy Sheehan supported them and who has EVER cheered on terrorists? Bulls**t analogy.
Are you actually going to offer any proof of your claims or are simply going to keep repeating your right-wing talking points?

RAD: The rape victim should not have the option?
REV: Nothing to do with choice.
RAD: The 13yr old incest victim should have the option?
REV: Nothing to do with choice.
RAD: The woman dying because of complications should have the option?
REV: Nothing to do with choice.

They ALL have a choice. Or are you saying now that killing an unborn child IS allowed, sometimes?

As much as you enjoy the right to kill the unborn. Wait, that's no right. Its just a bad decision by the US Supreme Court and that decision's days are numbered.

Even if it is overturned, it will not go away. It will become a state issue and there will be states that keep it legal.

We are specific in that abortion in place of responsible sexual behavior is what we oppose. :)

By outlawing abortion totally?

Tell me how anyone of those individuals got to where they are because they engaged in irresponsible sexual behavior.

That was my point. Some abuse the system, but the system is the way it is to protect those that do not abuse it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Freedom FROM religion

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Freedom OF religion

Funny I didn't see anything in the First Amendment that speaks to Seperation of Church and State either. Seems that must just be a memo from T.J.. Lets just see how the left twists the Constitution to read what it doesn't.
1. God can't be referenced by the Govt., or private groups.
2. Our history of Christianity can not be displayed on Govt. property for which this property was founded.
3. This fool thinks the 1st Amendment gives the right to abortion.
4. They say the first Amendment gives them the right to carry signs, which slander, contain profanity, and gives aide and comfort to the enemy in a time of war.
5. 1st Amendment gives them the right to broadcast false reports to the masses via the MSM.
That is just the 1st Amendment!!
1. The 2nd Amendment makes criminals kill.
2. Honest people need to be disarmed to stop gun violence.
3. Guns kill(funny I have never seen a gun act alone)
4. The biggest lie of all, the 2nd Amendment is for hunters only and they do not need assault weapons.
Their twisted version of the Constitution is why I am so proud to be a Republican. That is why they will never win.

I didn't mean to start such as heated discussion, but I stick by my OPINION. I do believe the Democrat Party, COLLECTIVELY, is anti-God. I wonder where John Kerry, my fellow Catholic, stands on this issue. Would he go on record supporting the use of public funding for the rebuilding of faith-based schools? I doubt it. Anyone know his phone number?

HA, now that’s funny. How has Cindy Sheehan supported them and who has EVER cheered on terrorists?

She referred to the foreign insurgents and terrorists in Iraq as "freedom fighters in an interview with CBS. And she was not talking about Iraqi insurgents either - she was referring to the terrorist jihad fighters that were coming across the border into Iraq from other countries like Syria specifically to kill American troops. The MSM refused to cover that statement - big surprise! That clearly shows that she does not consider them as anything but patriots deserving of support. Her support mechanism was controlled and organized by the CPUSA - the freaking Communists. They are absolutely against America and support terrorists everywhere in their effort to attack and damage America.

Her attempts to demoralize Americans and our troops also encouraged the enemy to attack and fight on in the face of impending defeat. She gave aid an comfort to the enemy. In my book that is treason plain and simple and she is a traitor. And she dishonors her son n the bargain.

They ALL have a choice. Or are you saying now that killing an unborn child IS allowed, sometimes?

And now, having lost the argument, you resort to playing word games. I never said that there were not instances where an abortion might HaVE to be performed. To save the life of the mother would be one of them. That has nothing to do with "choice," per se. At least not "choice" as you libs have defined it. In your sicko world, "choice" means "whenever I want one." You can continue to deny it, but we've already been there and done that - you live in denial. You must in order to live with yourself.

Even if it is overturned, it will not go away. It will become a state issue and there will be states that keep it legal.

There may well be, but it will be based on the will of the people - not some black-robed ancients who live in a world that is only loosely connected to ours.

By outlawing abortion totally?

No one said that. You make stuff up out of whole cloth. You agrue based on what you want our position to be, not what it is.

That was my point. Some abuse the system, but the system is the way it is to protect those that do not abuse it.

Sure. Whatever. Keep on saying that. Pretty soon you might even convince yourself. Just don't try it here - we see it for the tripe that it is.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Freedom FROM religion

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Freedom OF religion

Using those rose-colored glasses again? Or is it the special liberal lenses you're issued after you agree to drink the Kool-aid? Sorry if I don't take your "interpretation" as gospel - you're just making it up as you go.

I didn't mean to start such as heated discussion,

Its OK. Every time the subject comes up here, the liberal cockroaches come out of the woodwork to "'splain" what am. Sooner or later, their attention span wanes and they wander back to Kos and DU or a room in their parents' house where they can do some lines.

I wonder where John Kerry, my fellow Catholic, stands on this issue.

As the Lurch-looking senator would be the first to tell you, "It depends..."

Would he go on record supporting the use of public funding for the rebuilding of faith-based schools?

He'd likely vote for it before he votes against it.

Anyone know his phone number?

There are several on his web page. Good luck.

"HA, now that’s funny."

Not as funny as this flailing attempt at saving face after you've lost the debate.

"How has Cindy Sheehan supported them"

Lying about the motivation of the United States of America provides aid and comfort to the enemy. Her buddies in Code Pink have delivered "humanitarian" aid to the inhuman monsters in Iraq. Enough? Or would you like more?

"and who has EVER cheered on terrorists?"

Her and her hero Michael Moore call them "freedom fighters" and Moore-on said "they will win."

"Bulls**t analogy."

Hardly.

"Are you actually going to offer any proof of your claims or are simply going to keep repeating your right-wing talking points?"

You've been offered "proof" of our claims.

"They ALL have a choice."

Wow! Rape victims (whether that is incestual rape or not) have a choice in whether or not they get pregnant? Do tell, dumbshit! People with life threatening medical conditions CHOSE to be in a position to CHOOSE between their life and that of their unborn child? :) Buffoon.

"Or are you saying now that killing an unborn child IS allowed, sometimes?"

YOU YOU YOU, you fucking stupid sack of shit, YOU said that "CHOICE" was paramount. We played by your rules, you got the shit slapped out of you. Now you've resorted building straw men. Are we then to assume that CHOICE had nothing to do with your bloviations?!

"Even if it is overturned, it will not go away. It will become a state issue and there will be states that keep it legal."

Why do you leftists fight it so then? :)

"By outlawing abortion totally?"

Is that a quote? :) Did you quote me, flailing dipshit? Nope.

"That was my point."

No it isn't. It's mine!

"Some abuse the system, but the system is the way it is to protect those that do not abuse it."

No it isn't. It's the way it is to keep abortion availabel on demand. Keeps your buddy Howard Dean in the money!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

That's a quote from the constitution. The following is what a stupid fucking leftist twists it to mean:

"Freedom FROM religion"

NO! That's not what is written and has NOTHING to do with WHY it is written. That means that the government may not endorse or establish a specific religion as was the case with the Church of England.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Another quote from the Constitution. Less spin this time, but you still can't follow the letter of the law here:

"freedom OF religion"

Talk about talking points. Freedom of religion to do WHAT!? Simpleton. Going back to the first part, it says that congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Your constant attempts to tie abortion on demand to the right to bear arms, you forget an imporant point - The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution. Not true for abortion. :)

No one said that. You make stuff up out of whole cloth. You agrue based on what you want our position to be, not what it is.

Kettle, meet Pot. That is all you have done.

You only see black and white. That is where you get lost. The world is many shades of grey.

not some black-robed ancients who live in a world that is only loosely connected to ours.

Like the writers of the constitution. That is why "interpretation" is necessary. Times have changed a little bit from when they wrote it and made those first few crucial amendments.

Kettle, meet Pot. That is all you have done.

This, for all of you out there that don't recognize it is what we call the last, feeble flailings of a liberal moonbat who has been bitch-slapped silly and all it can think of is the Pee Wee Herman-esque "I know you are but what am I?" response.

StupidlyPurple, you are now officially BlackAndBlue. What prize do we have for the silly little troll, Johnnie?

"Kettle, meet Pot. That is all you have done."

Really? Quote it! Prove it! :) Loser.

You only see black and white. That is where you get lost. The world is many shades of grey.

You truly are without a clue, aren't you? Some things ARE black and white - right and wrong. Killing the defenseless unborn is one that leaves no wiggle room for your senseless rambling nothings. You can talk until the cows come home and you'll never make the case for killing the unborn. Never. For there is no case to be made. Only your idiot rationalizations which amount to a hand full of dust.

Like the writers of the constitution.

Perhaps you should do a little reading and find out who these writers actually were. They were not a bunch of 80-something year old Justices; they were men from every walk of life who came together to write it. And they'd all be appalled today at the foolish lengths liberal drones like you would go to try to defeat the meaning of that wonderful document to suit your "feel good" mantra.

That is why "interpretation" is necessary. Times have changed a little bit from when they wrote it and made those first few crucial amendments.

Interpretation is reserved for the supreme court - not you. Times may have changed but right and wrong have not, much to the chagrin of hedonists like yourself who like redefining the rules to suit the latest trends, fashions, and whims. You want things changed, change the Constitution. I dare ya.

"That is why "interpretation" is necessary. "

You aren't interpreting, you are twisting it to mean something it does not - such as your "freedom FROM religion" bullshit. There is no such thing and simple common sense should tell you that. You aren't protected by the constitution from hearing or seeing things you don't like.

This post is deleted for being off topic.

Warning:

The topis is Religious Schools and federal aid. No more discussion on abortions.

-- Moderator

The Constitution is a literal document, it says what it says. If it don't say it it isn't happening. I love the interpretation angle, interpret what fool? It is written in black and white, the world is black and white, the only grey area is missing between your ears. You leftwing freaks have played the grey area thing out, moveon and find a new angle the gig is up. You freaks think the 1st Amendment has 1000 words, funny thing is I can't find the ones you claim are in there. I have looked between the lines, on top, under and just can't find those words that you preach are there. Freedom from religion, man you are just stupid.

That is why "interpretation" is necessary. Times have changed a little bit from when they wrote it and made those first few crucial amendments.

Posted by: RadicalPurple at October 19, 2005 03:21 PM

You libs always conveniently forget that the framers of the constitution dealt with possibility of "changing times" in 1791 with the 10th Ammendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

By "interpretation" you Libs mean that judges have the right to legislate from the bench.
This wrongly usurps the constitutional rights of the states, or the people, through their elected represetnatives in the House and Senate to determine these issues.

"The times have changed since they wrote it"

Ya you are right, they have changed in the decay of morals. Thanks to your liberal immoral blathering and "interpretation". For your info the only thing that has changed is technology. We are the same as when it was written with cars instead of horses, bic pens instead of ink wells. The only thing that has really changed is the liberals on the Supreme Court that try to legislate from the bench, with the intention of forcing corrupt ideas and practices on the people. You think that "We the People" means "We the Supreme Court". Well thats a changing now isn't it. That is realy your issue, the Supreme Court is no longer in your control. The Interpretation is about to be removed and Application put in it's place. You can't stand that thought. When Roe v Wade gets overturned I know that the liberal city metropolis will try to keep it at the State level, after all the major cities are blue and have the majority of welfare recpients. We in the burbs and the rest of the State will override your Bulls*it. Yep thats right once we get a National Voter ID in place you will lose 50% of your votes!! That is why you are fighting it so fiercly, we will win that battle too. Then my dead relatives can rest in peace and stop voting for democrats.

Radical Purple,

Now that the Moderate has spoken, we can get back to the real issue:

You'd have a much better leg to stand on if the left wasn't leading the charge to remove the cross from Mt. Soledad in San Diego...something which has been there for quite a long time (I grew up with it frequently in view) and simply cannot cause offense to anyone other than exceptionally hate-filled people who are anti-religion. So vitriolic is this hatred that the left is fighting to prevent the people of San Diego - via democratic process - from changing the status of the land the cross sits on so it won't have connection to government. This is not ensuring the free exercise of religion - this is just hating religion and wishing to expunge it from the public square.

The left has deliberately mis-interpreted the 1st Amendment to mean a "wall" of separation...there is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing. The people of this country are almost all believers, and almost all believers are Christian...ergo, the laws and standards of our society MUST be based upon Christianity. To try and base them on something else would be an absurdity...akin insisting China base its laws and standards upon those of Botswana. But never let it be said that the left isn't in to absurdity...after all, the left is where it is figured that a school system which can't teach kids to read is the best place for kids to learn about sex.

They are not misinterpreting the first amendment, they are trying to rewrite it, through the Courts. Interpretation is a term they use to mean "It only applies to democrats and what they want it to say". We are a country that operates on a majority rules standard of Govt., they have suceeded in having the minority rule. That is what is stopping here in California. The Governator has taken every issue to the people and bypassed the democrats in the legislature. Man those dems are squeeling like stuck hogs. This is happening all over the country. With the class of people who now run the DNC I predict they will be extinct in about 5-10 years.

A prime example of my comment is Toledo Ohio. The neo-nazis came to protest, they were not violent, the black citizens and the black gangs were. The Mayor now says that he will apply for a Court order to ban neo-nazis from coming there to protest again. Banning their Constitutional right to assemble, nobody banned Lois racist Farafreak, Cindy Sheehan. Do not assume that I am defending the neo-nazis in any way, they are trash as well in my opinion, but they do have the same Constitutional rights as all the other extremists. Censorship of one group and not of the rest is wrong. If I were a member of that group I would be back this weekend and call the Mayors hand. I do not support the neo-nazis one bit, I do support their right to be heard as long as they peacably assemble. Just as many other extremists groups, Code pink etc have done in the past.

I agree with the moderator, back to the topic. It would be irony if they object to the faith based help. I just don't see anywhere in the Constitution where religious organizations are banned from recieving financial help at least equal to every other group. And likewise I don't see where anyone is entitled to get money, but they will complain that they didn't get enough and complain that religious groups got more etc etc. They will cry the mythical Seperation of Church and State. Yes I say mythical because it is one of those catch phrases that was used and adopted by the liberals as a matter of fact and used to discriminate against religion. The 1st Amendment states exactly what is religiously allowed and the Govts role. Black and white, letter of the Law. No grey areas that I see.