Matt,

Fair enough. But does that mean we can use the fact that nearly every state in the nation has some sort of gun restriction on the books to mean that a majority of America feels that guns are a huge problem?

Protecting marriage is about the least divisive issue out there. When even the far left kookdum that's known as Oregon passes the ammendment with an astonishing 57% you know it's pretty safe to say it's not at all divisive.

Matt,
Portecting marrage from what? What's there to protect?

btw: EVEN right-wingers say that this gay marrage ban is just a last ditch effort for the Chimp to rally his base. Nice try.

It may be time to give up on the probability of the US Senate passing the amendment by a two-thirds majority. The alternative is to have two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a constitional convention, at which the constitution may be amended.

Third Eye Blind,
What state has a constitutional amendment banning gun ownership? Do you really find a law requiring a trigger lock on a gun and a state constitutional amendment banning 2 fags from getting married as equal in representing the public's will? Hate to burst your bubble but, Nebraska just passed a concealed carry law.

You lib's run on the anti-gun/pro-homo platform and conservative's will run on the pro-gun/pro-marriage platform and let's see who gets the most votes...wait a minute!...we did that and 04' and President Bush got more votes than any President in the history of US elections.

"Portecting marrage from what?"

From unelected judges redifining the meaning.

It may be time to give up on the probability of the US Senate passing the amendment by a two-thirds majority. The alternative is to have two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a constitional convention, at which the constitution may be amended.

-- This option has never once been successful since the republic was founded, so good luck

What I have yet seen addressed (maybe it has, I really don't know for certain) is what will happen if a gay couple married in a state that allows gay marriage moves to a state that does not legal recognize it. Let's say one of them gets a job with state or local government but is denied insurance for their partner due to that state not recognizing gay marriages. It seems to me this will become a constitutional issue before the Supreme Court at some point which will create a public outcry. And depending upon who controls the Senate and House, it might actually get pushed to possibly be an amendment issue.

POLL: Only 3 Percent Say Homosexuality is America’s ‘Most Serious Moral Crisis’ »

President Bush and congressional conservatives “are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage,” a move that’s sure to renew debate over so-called “values voters.” But as a poll released today by the Center for American Progress shows, the moral concerns of the American people are nothing like what the right wing claims.

Below, some highlights:

– Asked to name the most serious moral crisis in America today, 28% of Americans cite “kids not raised with the right values”; followed by 22% saying “corruption in government/business”; 17% saying “greed and materialism” or “people too focused on themselves”; and only 3% citing “abortion and homosexuality.”

– On addressing poverty: 68% of voters strongly agree that “government should uphold the basic decency and dignity of all and take greater steps to help the poor and disadvantaged in America” (89% total agree).

– On religious freedom: 67% of voters believe that religious freedom is a “critical” part of their image of America compared to less than three in 10 who believe Judeo-Christian faith specifically is critical to this image.

(Click HERE for more details on the poll, and HERE for a slideshow presentation on the findings. For what it’s worth, among voters who participated in the survey, 46% voted in 2004 for President Bush, while 36% voted for John Kerry.)

As Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times wrote this weekend, “the survey demonstrated again that the moral issues people worried about most in their daily lives were very different from the ones dominating political debate.”

Nebraska,

Take a look at what matt said, he not only quoted that states have put it in their constitution, but also have made laws regarding it. I was just reminding ya'll that to pass a law isn't all that hard to do, infact people pass laws all the time restricting who and how and why a gun can be owned and purchased.

Secondly, I live in Florida, and its pretty darn easy to get just about anything in the constitution here, for instance class size, there is a perfect example of stupid things that can be put into our constitution, i would bet nebrask has some pretty stupid stuff thats managed to invade your constitution, it doesnt mean a majority of peopple really agree, just that a majority of the poulation is apathetic, and doesn't vote at all, so the energized bases and advocates are pushing most policy, in most states, capiche?

Infact, here is a nice little one you guys have got on the ballot for this year, enjoy:

"A constitutional amendment to state that the language in the Constitution shall be construed to be gender neutral and to direct the Secretary of State to revise and reprint the Constitution to implement such construction."

this is NOT a federal issue.

what has happened to the party of Reagan?

Pro-marriage is a good idea considering our soaring divorce rate but why is the proposed amendment so narrow? The bible, in addition to the man shall not lye with man rule also defines a divorced woman who remarries as an adulterer, masturbation as sin, etc....Is this amendment the first step in the total regulation of the concept of marriage or merely a single rule aimed at a single group of people?

Ha! I'll bet you're as stupid as us! Good one TEO.

It's really sad that the GOP is using their position of power to restrict peoples' freedoms rather than safeguard it and protect it.

Marriage needs protection from the 50% of heterosexuals couples that end their marriage in divorce. They have redefined "marriage" as just a mere convenience, not a lifetime commitment.

Disallowing gays the financial benefits of marriage or civil unions is against the personal freedoms upon which this nation was founded.

It's a sad, sad day when this kind of bigotted behavior consumes the congress.

Wade

Kahn,

The class-size amendment was the biggest waste of time EVER!

We have some iron-clad requirement for classes, that leaves some schools with 10 kids in a class, and others forced to invest 3/4 their budget on portables, instead of allowing for averaging of counties or geographic groupings of counties.

Not only can the people of this state not count properly, but they vote for the dumbest things.

The point is still valid, it was a bunch of do-gooders from NY and NJ who moved down to south florida who pushed this things, they did'nt care it was going to bankrupt schools, they just want to make sure they can re-make south flroida into little-NYC. Bu I would argue that most people don't pay attention to anything but presedential elections, so the only people who are fighting are the polar opposite 5% of the political spectrum who follow this stuff, this is why America is going to the dogs, we are more concerned with voting for an American Idol, than taking part in boring old civic duty.

adriandrews,

ABSOLUTELY. I've tried to get people to acknowledge that for months, but no one even knows it's there and the liberal media sure doesn't want the American people to know it!

Forget about Congress trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. The Senate Democrats and even a few RINO Republicans like Senator Specter will continue to stall, block, and filibuster the efforts of the majority to get an Amendment to the people for a vote.

The Constitution provides another way to propose Constitutional Amendments. The states can bypass Congress and convene a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution. A Constitutional Convention can be convened by a vote of only 34 States, and the Convention could propose multiple amendments while in session! It only takes 38 to ratify it after approved. Forty-five states have already expressed their opposition to gay marriage -- 45 -- that's 7 more than we need!

Contact your state legislators and ask them to work to convene the Constitutional Convention. It has never been used to amend the Constitution -- the news only reports on the Congressional method -- but if nothing else, we need to get the procedures in place for when the liberal activist "law giver" judges do something to REALLY make Americans angry. That time will come, and we must be ready to act. We have already missed opportunity after opportunity -- but others will come.

The whole purpose of liberal Congressional Democratic efforts are to stall and block in hopes that the media and the liberals can have enough time to desensitize the issue so more people finally give up fighting for their own beliefs and it becomes impossible to get the 2/3 and 3/4 we need to stop them! Liberals and Democrats want to give people a false sense of hope that their state laws or a federal law will protect marriage from the liberal activist courts. It won't! Look at Nebraska, Oklahoma, and others. There is still that bridge for sale in Brooklyn for anyone who believe that story!

Wake up! The liberals continue their destruction of the Constitutional process through the activist judges. They can be stopped and the Constitutional process repaired, but only if Americans learn what is really happening and who is really making the laws that continue to tear America apart.

Again... Contact your state legislators and ask them to start work on a Constitutional Convention!

Talk to the groups who oppose gay marriage. Ask them to help.

E-mail your friends, relatives, and contacts. Ask they to do the same.

Write letters to the editor of your paper.

Ask other blogs to help.

Contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives too.

Ask them to vote for the Amendment, but ask too that they do what they can to work with their State Legislators to convene the Constitutional Convention!

AAR

I'm a Catholic. Today Pope Benedict released a 57 page document on the church's stance against gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Good for Pope Benedict!!

Nineteen states have constitutional amendments: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah. (emphasis - mine)

Here is why we need a Federal Constitutional Amendment:

Nebraska federal district court judge Joseph Battaillon on May 12 struck down the Nebraska marriage amendment, also called Section 29, which was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters (emphasis - mine)

The case was back in front of the court early this year. An interesting side note from this article:

Bydalek, meanwhile, said the case has had an unexpected silver lining - Bataillon's ruling last year led U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., to change his stance on the need for a federal marriage-protection amendment.

We absolutely need this marriage amendment! Most of us don't care what goes on behind another couple's closed doors, but the value in fighting for this particular amendment is that it will energize all the, shall we say, "less questioning, but more patriotic" citizenry who may then ignore the fact that their gas prices are going through the roof for the benefit of our leader's real constituency. And they may ignore the fact that the tax breaks are going only to the rich. And by ignoring all of that, they'll continue to vote for anyone and everyone who (a) praises Jesus as the official spiritual leader of the country and Bush as his second-in-command, and (b) promises to fight for our so-called mainstream values, like man-woman being the official union and man-on-top being the official sexual position, and English being the official language (with a limited carve-out for towns with Spanish-sounding names, like Boca Raton, where a lot of Republicans live). By taking the minds of the citizenry off the real issues, and instead having them focus on these social issues, the rich will get richer and the poor will stay poor. And if the social issues don't sufficiently energize the people, we can always start another war, assuming we have another 3000 or so not-particularly-important-minorities to sacrifice. It's all for a good cause - lower taxes and more profits for the oil companies!!

Nineteen states have constitutional amendments: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah. (emphasis - mine)

Here is why we need a Federal Constitutional Amendment:

Nebraska federal district court judge Joseph Battaillon on May 12 struck down the Nebraska marriage amendment, also called Section 29, which was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters (emphasis - mine)

The case was back in front of the court early this year. An interesting side note from this article:

Bydalek, meanwhile, said the case has had an unexpected silver lining - Bataillon's ruling last year led U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., to change his stance on the need for a federal marriage-protection amendment.

You boys sure do spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuality.....

Retired Spook,

You guys can rail all you want about judicial activism, but its simple reading of the constitution.

The Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guarantees that if you let straight people marry, then you have to let gays marry, unless the state has a "compelling" reason to do so and can pass strict scrutiny. Now last I checked fear of gay people, or the watering down of the holiness, or whatever other bogus charge you folks can come up with, doesn't constitute a compelling reason for the courts to deny an entire group the afforded protection of everyone else.

So in conclusion, this isn't a matter of judges overruling the will of the people. Since the will of the people was unconstitutional it was illegal for them to abridge the rights of gay people. If you don't like the constitution, then go ahead and change it, but you and I both know your ability to garner 67 votes is not going to happen.

lets see.. what might "threaten" my hetrosexual marriage... two guys a few houses away living together or the 55 year old man (about my age) who divorces his long-time wife and remarries a young trophy wife..... HUMMMMM damn she looks good and my mind is wondering

One thing I never understood in this debate over gay marriage: how is your marriage threatened if gay people can get married?

Face it. What's really the driving force behind this whole charade of "protecting marriage" is the irrational fear that "gayness" will somehow spread like wildfire through our culture if equal rights are extended to gays. The hidden fear is that if gays are allowed to get married, then the next thing you know it, they're going to be out fornicating on your front lawn.

But fear not, my fellow heteros - if you're gay, you're gay, and if you're not, you're not. The number of gay people does not increase in proportion to the level of society's tolerance towards gays. In strict Islamic nations that harshly treat homosexuals as criminals, you can bet that there are just as many gay people in the population. And extending equal treatment towards gays puts you or your family in no more danger of becoming gay than the civil rights movement put you in danger of becoming black (assuming you're not black or gay already!). Similarly, your marriage is not cheapened by gays being able to get married any more than your vote is less meaningful just because blacks or women can also vote.

This proposed amendment is not about "protecting marriage". It's not even that much about pandering to Bush's Christian Fundamentalist base, as some have charged. What it's really about is tapping into widespread hidden fears about "gayness" for political gain.

Nobody is more adept at exploiting irrational fears more than the Bushian righties. Matt is right about one thing - these fears towards gays are harbored by a majority of the public, whether they be democrat or republican or Bushian cultist. Karl Rove understands this well. The whole thing is disguised as protecting marriage, but it's really about stoking fears of rampaging gayness.

The survival of your marriage depends on love, understanding, perseverance, and fundamental compatibility - NOT whether the gay couple down the street are or are not able to get married.

The party of Reagan has been replaced by the folks who want the voters to believe that "protection of marriage" is more important to most of us than soaring gas costs, an unnecessary Bush-led quagmire in Iraq, a soaring deficit, and a Congress and President that less than a third of us believe are leading the country in the right direction. Just once I'd like to see my Republican party start focusing on uniting the country with leadership and pragmatism, and stop pandering to the religious extremists who have disproportionate influence on the party's priorities.

Retired Spook,

Absolutely 100% CORRECT! The liberal left just wants to stall until we have a majority, but not the super majority we need. It's time we stop talking to the left -- with would imply a two way conversation -- and get on with our business... the business of RESTORING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and STOP ACTIVIST JUDGES from making our laws in VIOLATION of the Constitution!

No clue (eyes shut),

That's what happens when people like you, axis, and the liberal judges choose to interpret the Constitution out of the context of history. Check back on the laws in effect when the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were written and ratified.

Check the laws on sodomy. You do know what sodomy is, right? You do know that without sodomy, there is no gay marriage, right?

Well, do you know that sodomy was illegal then -- against the law!? Do you know that a person found guilty of sodomy could get many years in prison? Do you know that a person convicted of sodomy could be hanged or whatever form of execution was deemed appropriate?

And now you are going to argue that something that was clearly illegal -- for which a person could be imprisoned or hanged -- is now "protected" by the Constitution? I don't think so!

No one would have ever imagined at the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was ratified that anyone -- in their wildest dreams -- would EVER have considered a homosexual or lesbian "relationship" a marriage! Had that anyone even thought that could have been a remote possibility it would have been addressed and stopped -- after the trial!

Now you are going to argue that the Constitution and the 14th Amendment protect "gay marriage"? I don't think so! That's exactly the logic that liberal use. That's exactly the logic activist judges use. And that's exactly what is Unconstitutional!

Teen asks why is this nation being torn apart. That's a prime example!

Until the Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy laws, and thereby the remaining state laws against sodomy, it was basically a states rights issue, but that made it a Constitutional issue. The activist judges are the ones who took it out of the hands of the states and made it a national issue.

And now you expect Americans to sit by and wait for the activist left, homosexuals, and lesbians to use The Full Faith And Credit Clause, Article IV, to force the laws of one state -- e.g., Massachusetts -- on the rest of us. That's exactly what's happening in Nebraska and Oklahoma.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause -- Article IV, of the U.S. Constitution -- provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

That IS EXACTLY where they are HEADED, that IS EXACTLY their PLANS.

Today Massachusetts... Tomorrow ALL OF AMERICA! It doesn't matter what YOU want. It's what THEY want!

Wake up America before you get another liberal "value" you don't want.

Refer back to my previous post, and contact your state legislators.

Add to that list too, contact Senator Frist and ask him to help coordinate efforts with the states to convene a Constitutional Convention -- before it is too late to do anything about it!

What we are missing are leaders who will ignite the people and tell them what to do next!

STOP listening to the left! START taking action!

AAR

repubs tend to espouse "states rights." . . . unless its against their politcal interest.

repubs have beaten liberal up with the "big gov't big spenders" for years . . . now we have the most obscene govt spending in history in your repub controlled govt.

repubs claimed for years to want to keep gov't and regulations out of our lives only to try to get into our bedrooms and sexlives and end of life decisions.

libs and lefties have their fare share of hypocrisy . . . but your christo-facists right-wing theocrats are the most dangerous.

In all that hysterical screeching, you still haven't explained how preventing gays from getting married "protects marriage". What are you threatened by?

Face it - the Bushian right preys upon your fear and ignorance.

Fear and Ignorance - the twin pillars or Bushian political power.

TEO,

I've read the 14th Amendment numerous times, but I read it again, just to make sure I hadn't missed something (a penumbra or some such nitwittery). Sure enough, nothing in there about homosexuals or marriage. Since Amendment XIV, Sections 2, 3, 4 & 5 have no relevance whatsoever to personal rights, I assume you're talking about Section 1, which reads:

(Citizenship Rights Not to Be abridged by States)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Could you please point out to me the part that says it's OK for the government to change an historic definition of anything (marriage, theft, citizenship, you name it) to grant, to a particular group, rights that heretofor have not existed?

I'm not so concerned about the effects of homosexual marriage on staight marriage as I am the can of worms it would open. Once you change an historic definition to benefit one group, you open the door to all kinds of other groups. What about a man and two women? Two men and 3 women? A man and his dog? The possibilities are endless.
Just be careful what you wish for.

AND what you are really saying Third Eye Open and Liberals, is that if you let Gays marry then you have to allow people marry 20 wives at once or you have to let a 7 year old girl marry a 50 year old man, or a liberal can marry his donkey.

Because once the flood gates are open, they are OPEN.

That's the bigger issue. If you have an amendment, the Supreme Court cannot strike it down, it becomes PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

That, is the entire POINT!

We are protecting marriage from becoming something it isn't supposed to become.

Animals marrying people
50 year olds marrying 12 year olds
People marrying 30 people at once
Etc, etc.

And before you say that would never happen, go back about 20 years when people said gay marriage would never happen.

All it takes is some idiot liberals to think any stupid idea is a good one and they will work their life away trying to make it happen.

ENOUGH!

Guys,

Polygomy is illegal from a statute point of view. They aren't being told they can't marry, just that you can only have one marriage at a time.

you can't marry a goat because marriage requires consent, you can't garner consent from an animal, this is why having sex with animals and children is illegal.

the point that I mention the 14th spook, I thought was pretty obvious, but ill explain it again. You can't enact a law that denies the rights some people hold from other people without proving that there is an imperative for the state to do so. Now what "compelling" reason do you have to tell Dan and Dave they can't get married, we have already seen your stupid excuse about guys marrying 20 women or a goat are obviously non-starters.

one of your guys mentioned sodomy being illegal at the time of the writing of the constitution, well who exactly is checking that these guys are sodomozing eachother ... was oral sex illegal too? can you prove they EVER have sex? what if they just like to cuddle a whole lot?

Third Eye....and 20 years ago everyone laughed that gays would be allowed to marry. In 20 years, there will be a clown out there that will train his goat to scratch his paw on the ground 3 times to signal "intent".

And some liberal hack judge will buy it. Take it to the bank.

Warriornation,

Dude I apprecaite your concern for slippery slopes, but man, you can't apply the rights of citizenship to an animal. You still have to prove there is compelling reasons why the state has to deny two guys marriage.

personally I don't like this issue at all, I think the government should get out of the business of deciding about marriage outside of the full faith clause. Just make everything a civil union, I mean whats in a name?

Spook,

I totally forgot to talk about your point regarding the changing of the intent behind such things as (theft, murder, citizenship etc.); that assumption is blatantly false because we reclassify things all the time: did they have 3rd degree murder in colonial times? Pot was legal and seen as medicine and used for recreational purposes, yet we reclassified it and stripped its medicinal qualities from that classification, we do things like that all the time.

If you wanna rail about "intent" you're digging yourself a hole, we have seen how grey an area it is when trying to read into the intent of dead people. I would argue that the founding fathers knew that times would change, and wanted our document to be as flexible as it could be to allow for modern problems and advances, this is why they didn't codefy things they didn't have to.

3rd eye...we are giving rights to non-citzens now...so why again would I think that giving other non-citizens rights (animals) is out of the question for you goofballs?

Warriornation,

LOL!! fair enough man, I applaud your tenacity.

When someone can get a judge in S.F. to uphold the right for his dog to purchase and own a gun, and then begin paying taxes, ill conceed the point.

“wanted our document to be as flexible as it could be to allow for modern problems and advances, this is why they didn't codefy (sic) things they didn't have to.”
Shows you are as ignorant of the Law as you are on every other subject. The Constitution is a legal document, specifically outlining what is acceptable and what is not. All laws written must first not be at odds with the Constitution; (see: [Marbury v. Madison]). The framers never intended, nor did they codify a document that left doubt as to its intent. (To “codify” is to put into codes, we no longer follow English common Law as we have codified the applicable parts.)
And speaking of English common law, JPL can better comment on this; but yes, intent was part of the original laws passed within the colonies, and “codified” into the States laws (3rd degree).

Warriornation -

"We are protecting marriage from becoming something it isn't supposed to become.

Animals marrying people
50 year olds marrying 12 year olds
People marrying 30 people at once
Etc, etc."

Oh Lordy - eyes rolling. Thanks for proving my point this whole thing is about preying upon your irrational fears than about "protecting marriage".

Yes, freedom and equality do progress over time as society becomes more enlightened. For example, around the turn of the century, in many areas of the US it was illegal for protestants and Catholics to marry. As recently as the 1960's, in many areas of the south it was illegal for blacks and whites to even be dating!

So yes, society progresses. But for crying out loud, Warrior, when women got the right to vote in the 1920's, that did not lead to pigs voting! When Jim Crow laws were abolished by the Civil Rights Act, that did not lead to earth worms getting to sit in the front of the bus, or nudists getting to sit at the lunch counter!

Is congering fearful visions of the absurd your only defense?

Warriornation -

"We are protecting marriage from becoming something it isn't supposed to become.

Animals marrying people
50 year olds marrying 12 year olds
People marrying 30 people at once
Etc, etc."

Oh Lordy - eyes rolling. Thanks for proving my point that this whole thing is about preying upon your irrational fears than about "protecting marriage".

Yes, freedom and equality do progress over time as society becomes more enlightened. For example, around the turn of the century, in many areas of the US it was illegal for protestants and Catholics to marry. As recently as the 1960's, in many areas of the south it was illegal for blacks and whites to even be dating!

So yes, society progresses. But for crying out loud, Warrior, when women got the right to vote in the 1920's, that did not lead to pigs voting! When Jim Crow laws were abolished by the Civil Rights Act, that did not lead to earth worms getting to sit in the front of the bus, or nudists getting to sit at the lunch counter!

Is congering fearful visions of the absurd your only defense?

"christo-facists right-wing theocrats"

And just are those people that the left want you to believe are so very dangerous to America? Guess?

It is anyone who is opposed to their anti-morality, anti-values agenda. It is someone who is opposed to gay marriage! It is someone who wants "under God" left where it is! It is someone who doesn't object to leaving a monument of the Ten Commandments in a park where it has stood for a half century or longer! It is someone who believes in public support and funding for the Boy Scouts!

It is YOU... unless you happen to be a left wing liberal, a left wing activist or an atheist!

Learn their language. Learn to know when it is YOU they are really talking about.

Don't be fooled into opposing or voting against your own values, beliefs, and self!

That's called suicide!

Now, call your state legislators and Senator Frist and ask them to get that Constitutional Convention moving. Stop the stalling, blocking, filibustering, and delaying by liberals in Congress!

AAR

Sorry Aaron, it's actually about protecting what every society and every country in this world have come to the same conclusion on. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a fundamental aspect of society and prolongs the species.

It is also fundamentally right. Yes, some governments have changed their laws but society is still society.

I have no problem with civil unions for gay people God Bless them. Don't redefine marriage.

AAR-
So we should disregard the 14th Amendment? All for state's rights huh?
These arguements are the same ones that kept slavery and segregation alive for so long.
Do you know that it was people just like you who only 50 years ago said that a black marrying a white " Was a treat to marriage and the well being of our society" ? Sound familiar? And they wrote and cited state laws banning such a practice as justification.
Now that your forfathers lost that battle their grandchildren have moved on to the gays.
I only gain hope in the knowledge that you'll follow in the family tradition and lose on this one as well.

Oh and that whole sodomy tangent you went on...while revealing .....just seemed kinda wacky. Note, sodomy according to the law, is classified as oral or anal pentration so Republicans remember, the next time your wife or sweetheart gives you a hummer, make sure you're in the right state, you just could be breaking the law. ...just lookin out for ya there. Carrry on.

Leftorium

A black marrying a white is still a man marrying a woman. That is at the core issue here. What is the DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?

Is it man and woman? Is it just two people that love each other?

Most of the world and the world's religions believe it is MAN + WOMAN.

Not sure why you think this is a bad thing or such a problem that it needs to be changed.

Give Gay couples the same rights as married ones, but do not redefine marriage for something it is not.

It's not about changing the definition of marriage it's about inclusion. You see it as a redefinition, I do not.
Your stance is bad in that it creates and endorses and underclass for a certain segment of the population. It's government endorsement of discrimination. And government the last time i checked had no business in the church. Have you heard something In that regard that i havent?
It's called seperation of church and state.
Holliness is not the business of government.

RE: "...that did not lead to pigs voting! ... that did not lead to earth worms getting to sit in the front of the bus..."

And we want to MAKE SURE IT STAYS THAT WAY!

Fool me once -- shame on you. Fool me twice -- shame on me.

You must really think that anyone who doesn't agree with your left wing agenda is ignorant of what is happening around them. The news tell all. Day after day we see liberal left wing activist judges redefining, re-interpreting, modifying, and changing the Constitution and our laws.

Some of us have had ENOUGH OF IT! We do not want judges amending the Constitution by a one or two vote majority that forces the rest of America to come up with a 2/3 and 3/4 super majority to over turn.

Judges are doing with the stroke of their pens what was intended to be almost impossible to do the correct and Constitutional way. Instead of interpreting and defending the Constitution to mean what our founders and lawmakers intended, activist judges have in fact turned it against America. They make the laws and force the majority to try and work up enough votes to defeat them... to overturn their decisions which they made based on their own personal beliefs using the concept of a "living Constitution"!    A B S U R D ! ! !  ...It is more like a dead, judge controlled Constitution that we have now!

RE: "Is congering (conjuring) fearful visions of the absurd your only defense?"

No. That is your defense -- the liberal defense to everything!

AAR

It's not about changing the definition of marriage it's about inclusion. You see it as a redefinition, I do not.
Your stance is bad in that it creates and endorses and underclass for a certain segment of the population. It's government endorsement of discrimination. And government the last time i checked had no business in the church. Have you heard something In that regard that i havent?
It's called seperation of church and state.
Holliness is not the business of government.

I totally forgot to talk about your point regarding the changing of the intent behind such things as (theft, murder, citizenship etc.); that assumption is blatantly false because we reclassify things all the time: did they have 3rd degree murder in colonial times? Pot was legal and seen as medicine and used for recreational purposes, yet we reclassified it and stripped its medicinal qualities from that classification, we do things like that all the time.

TEO, comparing adding a degree of murder and legalizing (or decriminalizing) pot to changing the definition of marriage is apples and oranges. A better comparison would be to change the definition of theft to exclude someone who steals because their family is hungry, (to benefit a certain group), something I doubt you would support.

For the sake of argument, let's exclude people marrying animals, although, like Warriornation, nothing would surprise me. (I's sure any number of animals could be trained to signal intent.) That still leaves a lot of potential groups who would/could seek to be included in an expanded definition of marriage -- brothers marrying sisters, grandfathers marrying granddaughters, etc. Just not a road I think we as a society want to go down. It has the potential to be the slipperest of slippery slopes.

The gay marriage amendment isn't about marriage.
It's about gay.

Warrior-

Gay couples do not have the same rights as straight couples do and the government isnt in a hurry to give them either.
They can not pass on property, can not receive death beneits, thay have no say as to the medical care for their spouse. No rights at all actually.
The government is creating a subclass of citizens and its time it stops.
And the last time i checked we have something called the separtation of church and state. Government should just be in the business of issueing a standard marriage license. Thats all. Instead these guys want the government telling the church what to do. Is that fine with you?

Warriornation ("tennnnnhutttt!"):

I'm with you. Keep marriage between a man and a woman, and keep the man on top. Jesus wouldn't want it any other way, except if Mary Magdalene was half the woman I've heard she was, she probably spent a considerable amount of time on top, sideways, you name it...

Why don't you reactionary yahoos wake up? Bush gets you all whipped up into a frenzy over dumb issues like gay marriage, while his only goal is to get you out to the polls so you vote for people who aren't going to give a damn about your middle class interests, but who may service your hysteria by telling you that they'll fight for laws ensuring that kids say the pledge of allegiance, gays don't wear wedding rings, and people sing God Bless America in english. And you'll swallow it, hook line and sinker, while the oil execs charge you three bucks a gallon and reap in huge profits. Your kids will go off to needless wars, while mine won't ever have to, because they're two cute-as-button upper class white girls like Jenna and Barbara who don't need to join the military in order to buy themselves an education or make an income.
You're all such suckers, it's unbelievable. I have a delicious picture of Rove and Cheney reading your rants, and laughing at you.
By the way, what's the purpose behind your spending all your time on this stuff, anyway? It's like some kind of masturbatory fantasy you all share, lapping up and defending anything Bush does, whether it's cutting taxes for rich people in ways that don't benefit you, or allowing gas prices to rise to unprecedented levels. It's all very strange.

I tend to agree with Warriornation on his point about civil unions.
Civil unions are between 2 consenting adults in the eyes of the government.
Leave marriages to the churches and other groups.

Example: my parents (a man and woman are married in the eyes of their church, but not in the eyes of the state (government) where they should be considered a civil union.

Seems fair enough.
No separate, but equal there.

NOTE: I keep getting the B4B dark blue server error message, so this may result in a double post. I can't tell from this end yet.

Leftorium,

YOU PROVE THE CASE! It is exactly because of thinking like yours that we MUST Amend the Constitution NOW!

There is no way, except in the mind of a liberal or activist judge to justify gay marriage by the 14th Amendment -- unless it is taken out of the context of history -- but that is EXACTLY what you, liberals, and activist judges expect and plan to do. That is EXACTLY what Americans must understand!

You missed the whole point about my comment on sodomy.

Just how do you think that homosexuals and lesbians engage in sex. And just how do you think a "gay couple" will engage in sex -- assuming they engage in sex -- which we all know they will! Their acts are defined as sodomy... by your own words: "Note, sodomy according to the law, is classified as oral or anal penetration..."

And if sodomy was illegal -- punishable by prison or even death -- at the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was ratified, what does that tell you?

Well, let's see if I can walk you through that...

Sodomy was illegal punishable by prison or the death penalty.

Gay sex is sodomy.

Gay marriage includes gay sex which is sodomy.

Therefore: Gay marriage would have been punishable by prison or the death penalty.

Had those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the 14th Amendment intended for it to make legal something that was universally illegal to the extent that sodomy was -- and gay marriage would not have even been thought about or discussed, or considered -- it would have clearly been so stated. It wasn't!

And you are going to tell me that something that was illegal and punishable by prison or the death penalty at the time the Constitution and 14th Amendment were ratified is now protected by the same. NOT IN MY BOOK!

That is called interpreting the Constitution and its Amendments by activist liberal judges under their concept of a "living Constitution" -- which means, in effect -- NO CONSTITUTION!

That is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY!

If you want gay marriage, do it the right way. Amend the Constitution to make it legal.

AAR

Warrior -

"Aaron, it's actually about protecting what every society and every country in this world have come to the same conclusion on. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a fundamental aspect of society and prolongs the species."

Sheesh - that's got to be the ultimate "the sky is falling" rationale for prohibiting gays from being married: it will lead to declining birth rates.

Allowing gay people to marry in no way prevents, hampers, or abridges marriage between a man and a woman! So please... the "prolonging of the species" doesn't enter into the equation. Allowing or not allowing gays to be married has no affect on how many children are born.

In countries and states where gays can get married, we've seen no drop in the species ability to prolong itself, nor have we seen marriage between a man and a woman in any way threatened. On the contrary - in the places where gays are also allowed to marry, divorce rates between men and women are much lower than in those places in the US that are the most hot and bothered to pass a gay marriage ban.

Indeed, as conservative Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, the state with the lowest divorce rate in the US is Massachussetts, which allows gay s to get married. Here's the link to the whole article - but I'll reprint a few key excerpts:

"Ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts’ gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in fact Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas, which until recently made private gay sex a crime, has a divorce rate of 4.1.

A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Every one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate is roughly 50% higher than the national average.

...Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that socially troubled communities cling to absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.

Doesn’t being born again help to bring down divorce rates? Jesus was clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are “born again” and those who are not; 29% of Baptists have been divorced, compared with 21% of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23% of married born agains have been divorced twice or more.

Teenage births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state such as Texas where the religious right is strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, teen births as a percentage of all births are 16.1%. In liberal, secular Massachusetts they are 7.4%, less than half.

Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas the proportion of people unmarried is 32.4%; in Massachusetts it is 26.8%. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts has a divorce rate almost half of its “conservative” rival.

Take abortion. America is one of the few western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It is a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics.

Compare it with a country such as Holland, perhaps the epitome of social liberalism. Which country has the highest rate of abortion? It is not even close. America has a rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?

Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. Rush Limbaugh, the top conservative talk-radio host, has had three divorces and an addiction to painkillers. Bill O’Reilly, the most popular conservative television personality, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, has had three wives. The states that register the highest ratings for Desperate Housewives, the hot new television show, are Bush states."

Leftorium,

Sodomy laws should have been left to the states and their laws. I did not say that people would support keeping sodomy laws on the books in view of today's "sex oriented" culture, but that should have been left to their decision, and sooner or later, probably sooner, all would have been repealed or changed. When the Supreme Court stepped in, the activist liberal judges took that decision away from the states... and as was correctly pointed out at the time, left the issue open to gay marriage, polygamy, and ultimately, who knows what else.

Sodomy, which at one time would have resulted in prison or even death has now become openly acceptable to many/most people, but not all, depending on their own values, morals, teachings, and personal beliefs. Eventually, gay marriage may have been accepted and laws enacted to permit it in individual states, and perhaps, all states at some time in the future.

But, that was not enough for the gay activists. They needed instant gratification. They couldn't wait for social norms and culture to catch up with their lifestyles. They wanted to force their lifestyle on all Americans. So what did they do? They turned to the liberal activist courts to force their lifestyle on all Americans -- to force their lifestyle and beliefs down the throats of all Americans, even though the majority disagreed with their lifestyle. They selected Massachusetts because of the way its constitution was worded, got a one vote majority from a liberal court, forced gay marriage on Massachusetts, and now -- using "The Full Faith And Credit Clause, Article IV, of the Constitution -- intend to finish their goal of cramming it down the throat of every last American regardless of traditions, beliefs, morals, desires, or even overwhelming votes to the contrary!

As to the Civil Rights issue. That was done by the courts also. The damage should be repaired to the Constitution and judges stopped from future activist decisions. To do that, I would Amend the Constitution to include and protect the racial civil rights issues. That would repair the damage done to the Constitution and include the protection in the Constitution. I would not, however, permit activists to include the gay rights protection at this time. Propose a separate Amendment if they want, but do not include it with the Civil Rights issues of race. I would then amend the Constitution to require strict constructionist interpretations and stop the concept of a "living Constitution" that can be amended and changed by activist judges at their own discretion!

AAR

It's great to see such vibrant and vigrous defense of marriage as being between a man and a woman. This gives me tremendous hope for America!!
:)

arron wrote, "In countries and states where gays can get married, we've seen no drop in the species ability to prolong itself, nor have we seen marriage between a man and a woman in any way threatened."

Wrong,
In the Scandinavian Countries, more than 50% of the children are born without benefit of married parents, before gay “marriage, 39%. . “the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12

AAR -

"So what did they do? They turned to the liberal activist courts to force their lifestyle on all Americans -- to force their lifestyle and beliefs down the throats of all Americans, even though the majority disagreed with their lifestyle. They selected Massachusetts because of the way its constitution was worded, got a one vote majority from a liberal court, forced gay marriage on Massachusetts..."

Who ever "forced" anything on anyone? If you live in Massachussetts and you don't want to enter into a gay marriage, then don't! How does simply allowing gay people to be married have any affect whatsoever on you and what you want to do? If a gay couple is married, does that in any way stop men and women from getting married to each other?

btw, as my previous post underscores, Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, and one of the highest marriage rates - and I'm talking about marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage as practiced strictly between men and women is very much alive in Massachussetts. Allowing gays to be married has had no affect at all on the desire of men to continue marrying women, and vice versa.

Note, sodomy according to the law, is classified as oral or anal penetration..."

and is sodomy betweem a married hetrosexual couple ok????

AAR -

"So what did they do? They turned to the liberal activist courts to force their lifestyle on all Americans -- to force their lifestyle and beliefs down the throats of all Americans, even though the majority disagreed with their lifestyle. They selected Massachusetts because of the way its constitution was worded, got a one vote majority from a liberal court, forced gay marriage on Massachusetts..."

Who ever "forced" anything on anyone? If you live in Massachussetts and you don't want to enter into a gay marriage, then don't! How does simply allowing gay people to be married have any affect whatsoever on you and what you want to do? If a gay couple is married, does that in any way stop men and women from getting married to each other?

btw, as my previous post underscores, Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, and one of the highest marriage rates - and I'm talking about marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage as practiced strictly between men and women is very much alive in Massachussetts. Allowing gays to be married has had no affect at all on the desire of men to continue marrying women, and vice versa.

marriage as an instution has changed in this country several ways,, Utah practices pologomy until it was a condition of statehood to outlaw it (note it is still practiced there but underground now). Black/white hetrosexually marriage was against the law in most states it one time or another... several states until recently allowed minors to marry.

so the state of marriage has been in flux in this country for a long time, and it we look at the bible (old testament) pologomy was practiced quite a bit.. so please tel me what marriage is to be protected by the admendment???

Rathaven -

"In the Scandinavian Countries, more than 50% of the children are born without benefit of married parents, before gay “marriage, 39%. . “the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12"

Birth rates are low, and have been low, in Scandanavia for some time. This is a reflection of the fact that Scandanavia enjoys a very high standard of living (quite a bit higher than in the US). There has long been a strong correlation between birth rates and standard of living - countries with the highest birth rates are also the ones with the lowest standard of living. As living standards rise, infant mortality falls, women tend to work in professional positions that leave less time for bearing and rearing children, and access to birth control increases - hence the overall birth rate declines. All of this has nothing to do with whether gay people - who won't have children in any case - can get married.

Bane,

The FF knew that they would not state everything in a single document. They knew that certain arguments and situations would arise that they had not thought of, and to deny that is obtuse. The FF enumerated certain subjects which were seen to be of upmost importance, but where not going to write every conceivable situation. This is why they wrote the 9th amendment, to let it be known that certain rights which had not yet been written into law would have the latitude to be discussed and later codified.

"...a core body of rights protected against the powers of the federal government would have to be specified, and the residue somehow protected in general terms. This is the compromise that we have inherited from them and that we live with, and struggle with, and benefit from, every day of our lives: in the first eight amendments of the Constitution, a carefully worded list of specific rights protected from encroachment by the federal government, together with the belief that there are not only rights protected by the states but a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law."

--Harvard historian Dr. Bernard Bailyn

so you can see that the FF knew that there would be extensions of enumerated rights in the future, so therefore left this footnote if you will, to let everyone know that while society changed and grew there would need to be flexible boundries to the framework, it just would take time for the instances to arise.

Spook,

regarding your situation involving the slippery slope of family members entering into marriage. The state can show a fairly "compelling" argument as to why the marriage of relatives can be made illegal. There is a pretty clear, quantitative base of evidence that the interbreeding of kin can cause harm to the genepool and place an undue burden on the child, therefore making it of interest to the state.

Aarontime,

First, in the case of Massachusetts, it was not the legislature -- elected by the people -- who decided they wanted gay marriage or voted for it. It was the Massachusetts Supreme Court who -- in a 4 to 3 ruling -- decided and for the people of Massachusetts -- they WOULD have gay marriage! The court, in their non-unanimous, 4-3 ruling directed the Legislature to rewrite the states marriage laws within six months and there was nothing the governor, legislature, or people could do to overturn that court ruling. By one lousy vote of a liberal judge, gay marriage was FORCED on the majority in Massachusetts.

Now, repeating myself, the activists plan to use "THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE", Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to FORCE that ruling on all states. And... if the right activist liberal judges are in place... they WILL make that decision, if not now, then eventually. History shows that to be the case. Perhaps President Bush's two appointments will stop it for now, perhaps they will be outvoted. Regardless, Supreme Court judges change their interpretation, under the concept of a "living Constitution". What was illegal yesterday may be ruled legal tomorrow, and vice versa, by the SAME Supreme Court, with or without different judges! Read your history. You don't have to go far from the issue either. Check the rulings on sodomy laws!

Do you think we don't understand the way the activist courts work? Do you really think we should take your word that liberals, gay activists, and activist liberal judges won't do in the future what they have done many times in the past? Anyone who believes that is living in another world, not the world of reality!!!

I don't care what they have in Massachusetts or California for that matter. The rest of the United States does not want it and should not be forced by the courts to accept it until such time as they do. If gay activists and liberals want gay marriage, then amend the Constitution to permit it. But they don't want to do that. Instead, the rest of us must try and amend the Constitution to keep the courts from forcing the views of the few on the majority.

What part of that do you not understand?

AAR

Eyes Closed,

Do you think I am going to accept your opinion or the opinion from a liberal Harvard professor that the Constitution meant that judges could do as they please and decide the Constitution means anything they say it means.

Even a moderately intelligent person with just a modest understanding of America history knows that no one -- until recent liberal and gay activists -- would ever, in the wildest stretches of their imagination, ever have believed or intended that gay marriage was a right -- a protected right -- under our Constitution. It takes a true liberal and activist liberal judges to come up with a warped ruling like that!

AAR

AAR -

" blah blah blah...gay marriage was FORCED on the majority in Massachusetts... blah blah blah...The rest of the United States does not want it and should not be forced by the courts to accept it until such time as they do... blah blah"

Again, AAR, how is gay marriage forced on anyone? Marriage is a private affair between two individuals. If you aren't gay, and don't want to marry someone of the same sex, how is gay marriage "forced" on you? How does a gay couple saying their "I do's" have any bearing on your life at all?

This whole blather about "forcing gay lifestyle" on others is a red herring. Conferring an equal right to marriage on a minority in no way abridges or has any impact at all on the rights of the non-gay majority.

Don't like gay marriage? Fine! Don't marry a gay same-sex partner! Allowing gays to get married only affects gays. It's as simple as that. What part of that don't you understand?

Surely, with all that is going on in the country and the world, there are more important things to discuss.

If it's a private affair Aaron, then gays can privately marry on their own without the state sanctioning it.

Once you allow the state to sanction it, no longer is it private in any sense of the word.

OhioGolfer,

In November 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law. According to the information I have, 13 states still had sodomy laws at that time. Four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibited oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine banned consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Until that time, the issue of sodomy and sodomy laws had been a state by state issue.

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. At the time the Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law, 37 states had already repealed their laws or the laws had been struck down by state courts -- probably by activist liberal judges. In any case, it was a decision that had been left to and made by the states -- right or wrong.

The 2003 Supreme Court's decision changed that and by the stork of their pen, made it a U.S. Constitution issue. Their decision was not unanimous either. It was another split decision -- which further proves it wasn't a decision based on what the Constitution actually said or intended, but rather on what those judges believed is should say. It was based on their opinion of what the Constitution should say at that time based on their view of "changing cultural and social practices". By the stroke of their pen, they in effect AMENDED the U.S. Constitution and changed its meaning -- not by a legitimate Constitutional Amendment ratified by the people, but one imposed by the courts! At least, however, the 6-3 decision was better than the many 5-4 decisions under which we've had to survive!

As further proof that the Supreme Court based their decision on their own personal views of "changing cultural and social practices", the 6-3 decision reversed a ruling in 1968 -- 17 years prior to that ruling -- which said that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex. The 1968 ruling was consistent too with the interpretation of sodomy laws throughout America's history (which would have made gay marriage illegal, since gay marriage involves sodomy). That earlier ruling, and the history and laws upon which it was based, further confirms that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the 14th Amendments, nor any other Amendments ever intended to legalize sodomy -- let alone gay marriage!

As to sodomy in a heterosexual marriage, you'd have to check your state laws to see when it was legalized, but according to the information I have, Ohio didn't have any anti-sodomy laws at the time of the 2003 ruling. Ohio, had made that decision at the state level as the issue had been decided for more than 200 years!

AAR

Aarontime,

You can "blah blah blah..." all you want to, or you can learn something about history and the Constitution before you trash the concept and wonder, some time in the future, what happened to what you believed were your rights.

There are many issues surrounding gay marriage. For some it is a moral and values issue. For some, they don't believe it is right for America. For some, they don't like it and don't want it.

The real issue -- the big issue -- with gay marriage is the Constitutional issue. I have gone through that and all you can do is blah blah blah. It is apparent you do not understand the Constitution nor the process for legally amending. You apparently do not understand that activist judges are in effect amending it all the time. Under your concept, you might just as well not have a Constitution. It doesn't mean the same or provide the same guarantees tomorrow that you think you have today. The judges would tell you what your protections and rights are tomorrow which may be different than what you thought they were today!

For whatever the reason, the majority of American people do not want gay marriage at this time.

WE DON'T WANT IT... PERIOD!

NO OTHER REASON NEEDED!!!

And that means Amend the U.S. Constitution!!!!!!!

AAR

Folks,

People like three eyes aarontime here, are the very people who are creating an ABERRATION in this country, I think it's HIGH TIME we take a STAND and strike these spineless,gutless worms back to HADES where they truly belong. AMEN??????

Let's get back to the foundation upon which we STAND, which is GOD ALMIGHTY OUR ROCK OUR SAVIOUR AND OUR FOUNDATION!!!

GOD IS THE SAME YESTERDAY,TODAY AND FOREVERMORE!!

WE NEED TO KEEP MORALITY IN THIS BLESSED LAND THAT WAS GIVEN TO US WHICH WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH A PRICE, AND WE CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY!!

Let me tell you folks, Lady liberty would not be standing here today if GOD did not have his MIGHTY hand of protection on her..............

I would like to say that I am proud to have President George w. Bush as my president to HELP DEFEND her today!!!!!!!!!

I would like to commend AAR,Warriornation,Freedom1,Nebraska militia, and many others in their unrelenting support for morality in America, May God richly bless you!!

I know I may have been sounding a little bit extreme! here lately, but I just want people to understand me that if we don't start standing up for what is right and moral in the sight of the one who is in control here above and beyond the political scene, then we are going to lose control of the SPECIAL FAMILY TIES that BIND us together the way they have for hundreds of years.

I also want to stress that and this is IMPORTANT!

GOD intended MARRIAGE to only be between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!

and it's important to understand that God was in the hearts of the people who started this nation
and they put rules to be followed by all UNDER GOD WE TRUST! You see they were GOOD people and most importantly they were UNITED!!

The pilgrims trusted God for their strength from day to day!!

Which made the special ties in everything that they done regardless!!
__________________________________________________
BUT LOOK NOW, what has happened since then, the sly devil(activist courts) have slipped in and tried to convince people ohterwise, well I'll tell you one thing, I'm not gonna sit up and believe a bunch of lies, Just so they can tell the world oh what good saintly people they are, The liberal's are a bunch of lyers bar none, they can TAKE THEIR SODOMY ELSEWHERE,ABOMINATION'S OF HADES!!
_________________________________________________

IF THERE'S ONE THING WE NEED TO DO AMERICA THEN IT'S:

"!!STOP BOWING DOWN TO THE LIBERAL ACTIVIST!!"

Michael Signorile a noted homosexual writer in OUT magazine (May 1996 p 30-32):

"The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down - this is simply about equality for gay couples - and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing to it our more equitable queer value system. Sure, marriage would ensure our inheritance rights, child-rearing rights, visitation rights, and a slew of financial benefits that mere "domestic partnership" arrangements have so far failed to deliver. But it is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture."

"[The goal is] to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society¹s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of family entirely.... Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and tranformative as the religious Right content it is."

I don't buy into the whole 'race argument' that is construed to support gay marriage. When a male and female from two different races marries - marriage is affirmed. When two people of the same gender marry - marriage is 'redefined'.

Give me logical reasons as to why marriage should be redefined. Then give me logical reasons as to why marriage should only be redefined to include gays and not all of the other options.

JJ

Jeremiah, this is why I stopped practicing Christianity: too many of these demagogoues hiding behind their Good Book in order to spread thier messages of hate and intolerance. It's Christian Fascists like you who turned this religion, which was spiritual and beautiful, into a veichle of hate.

And regarding the gay marriage issue.............who cares? If gay people want to be as misrable as heterosexual couples, fine by me! Exactly what would happen if gays were allowed to marry? God would be angered and would strike people down with a bolt of thunder? Satan would rise from hell and destroy all life?

Grow up and let this issue go.

Wow. All the conservative homo-phobes are out in full force today.

If you lackies could still generate an independant thought in your heads, then you would give the gays what they really want, rather than trying to mess with something that isn't in the cards.

Why aren't you rallying to have your states adopt a universal union for gays that will geive them all the benefits of marriage or a common law relationship? Don't you realize that 75-80% of gays would be satisified with that small concession?

The harder you try to take something away, the harder people will fight you. Why not try giving them something instead. It is a win/win situation

Hi Teenage liberal and Axis

I would appreciate a well reasoned argument from you as to why gay marriage should be allowed.

Thanks

JJ

teen,

Well at least you now admit what has been obvious to the rest of us from your posts. People like you and axis only say they are Christians when it is convenient and helps get "their" message across to those who disagree with you. By saying you are a Christian you hope that people who are Christians will let their guard down, make them think you are just like one of them, and make them believe that your message is really a Christian message. It's time that Christians put their guards up against people like you, axis, and the liberal left.

No, the reason you stopped practicing Christianity was too many expectations and morals that conflict with your "anything goes lifestyle"!!! Just trying to be a Christian takes a lot of effort and moral strength and even then we only succeed part of the time.

No, teen, you don't want the constraints that are placed on you by Christian values and beliefs. Your efforts to tear down Christians are really just you trying to justify and rationalize your decision to "do as you" please and really enjoy your "anything goes lifestyle". Christians make you feel guilty about your actions and you don't like that. You don't like it knowing that Christian see what you are doing and how you are acting and makes you more uncomfortable and guilty. If you were raised with Christian beliefs, you are now torn inside between believing you are doing wrong, and your desire to do as you please. Right now, the latter is winning. That's the really inconvenient thing about a conscience! It still sits there in the background and occasionally reminds us of our actions and makes us feel guilty.
"... demagogoues (demagogues) hiding behind their Good ... messages of hate and intolerance ... Christian Fascists ... veichle (vehicle) of hate ... God would be angered ..."

All tactics from the liberal play book designed to degrade and slander Christians in hopes that you can discredit their beliefs. It's alright for you to have your beliefs, but when others believe differently, you call them every degrading (to you liberals) name you can think of in an effort to assassinate their Character because you can't change their message.

And how do you know what God wants? How do you know what angers Him? Have you talked to Him lately or has He told you what angers Him? Oh, that's right, you said... "I stopped practicing Christianity". I guess that answers my questions. You don't have the slightest idea what God wants. Your only god is the god of material goods, of what makes you feel good, of what places no restrictions on your "anything goes" lifestyle, of what gives you the most pleasure, and of what give you the most fun. Yes all people want some of those things, but not all people place those things above all else and without any restrictions from their morals, values, and conscience.

Yes, teen, I fully understand why you stopped practicing Christianity. Will you change your mind in 40 or 50 years as you get nearer to the end of this life? Maybe. But at least you will have had your years and years of unconstrained and uncontrolled fun, pleasure, and no morals to keep you from enjoying life to the fullest, with that conscience quietly in the background watching and waiting!

Oh, and being a Christian doesn't mean a person has to agree with YOUR interpretations and beliefs... whatever those may be!

As to gay marriage. Go have your fun. Most Americans don't want it for whatever their reason.

We don't need any reason other than... WE DO NOT WANT IT....P E R I O D ! ! ! ! !

AAR

Jeremiah,

Thanks!

Glad to see you are still there.

There are so many topics and so many liberals running loose, I can't keep up with all of them!

It looks like Senator Frist's efforts to get the Amendment to ban gay marriage through the Senate will fall short of the votes needed as expected -- even though the majority of Americans support it. For now at least, Congress can not get anything past the Democrats and a few liberal Republicans like Specter. The travesty and irony is that many of those Senators are from states where the people have voted for state amendments to ban gay marriage, but their Senators do not support the views, will, and votes of their own citizens! That's a real problem, because the liberals know that if they can stall, block, and delay long enough, the shock and uproar will gradually die down and it will be even harder to get the votes we need.

When the American people want to Amend the Constitution, it takes a 2/3 and 3/4 super majority to do it as the Constitution intended. When some activist judges do it, it only requires one person -- by a 5 to 4 vote -- ONE PERSON -- judges can effectively do to the Constitution what would take almost 200,000,000 (TWO HUNDRED MILLION) Americans to do. And by that single vote, the judges can impose their views and their wills on 300,000,000 (THREE HUNDRED MILLION) Americans. Talk about a broken Constitution. That IS tyranny! Activist judges have destroyed the entire concept of that was supposedly guranteed by our Constitution. In effect we have no Constitution today. Judges can change it's meaning tomorrow or the day after to suit their own beliefs and opinions -- not yours! That is the real issue!

Too many people falsely believe that their state constitutions and laws will protect their votes and beliefs. They are being lulled into complacency by the liberal left just as the liberal posters are trying to do here. The fact is, amendments to state constitutions and state laws will not work. At some time, judges will rule the will of the people and their votes do not count one bit. Look at the Supreme Courts 1968 and 2003 ruling on state's sodomy laws -- one time it is and the next time it isn't. It just depends on their mood and thoughts and who's sitting there at the time -- whip sawing the rest of us back and forth! Unfortunately, most of today's young and middle aged adults have been "educated" in today's liberal schools. They didn't learn history or anything else for that matter. They only believe what their liberal teachers, professors, and pseudo-leaders tell them to believe. Then they ask how can this happen?!!!

As I said before, if you are in a state where you can get your state legislature working on a Constitutional Convention, ask them to help. If not your state, then maybe some of your friends or relatives can help in another state. Also, any churches or other groups who oppose gay marriage need to get moving and could contact members and voters in other states as well. You've seen the liberal posts here and can spread the word about what's going on.

We'll need all those votes in November too to vote out some Democrats! So get those voters signed up and get them motivated!

You want Representatives and Senators who share your values -- not ones who vote against you in Congress.

We surely don't want more liberal Democrats imposing their lifestyles on the rest of America if there's anything we can do to stop it.

Say Hi to Lucas too.

AAR

axis,

What, not enough death and destruction around the world for you today? Had to drop by this thread to get in a few more of your cheap shots instead!

"... homo-phobes ... " More character assassination! TYPICAL LIBERAL!

It is the liberals and gay activists who are pushing the rest of us. It is they who are using the activist courts to impose their will on all Americans. We are rallying to protect the Constitution from further abuse by the liberal left and activist judges.

Given a little time, gays could likely achieve some or most of what they want -- Constitutionally, legally -- state by state as people's values and tolerance change. But that is not good enough for them. Instant gratification demands the everyone change their views and tolerance level NOW. Liberals and gays can't wait for that. It must be NOW.

No axis, it is not the rest of America who is forcing the issue, forcing an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- it is people like you, teen, gay activists, and all the rest of the left wing liberals who "know" what's best for the rest of American and will do anything it takes to force that agenda on them!

It's time the rest of America wakes up and at least tries to do something about it!

Now go check back in your liberal play book and dredge up some more names to call those who oppose your views!

AAR

AAR,

"Even a moderately intelligent person with just a modest understanding of America history knows that no one -- until recent liberal and gay activists -- would ever, in the wildest stretches of their imagination, ever have believed or intended that gay marriage was a right -- a protected right -- under our Constitution. It takes a true liberal and activist liberal judges to come up with a warped ruling like that!"

These moderate intelligent historians know then that when the constitution was written it didn't cover slaves as citizens, actually they were covered as property, so as you can see, the constitution can change, it can morph, and it happens all the time, it just takes a sober, lucid discussion between the groups to see that the document was made to protect rights endowed by our creator, not take them away.

Hi Teenage liberal and Axis

I would appreciate a well reasoned argument from you as to why gay marriage should be allowed.

Thanks

JJ

Posted by: JJ at June 7, 2006 08:08 AM

JJ-
How about a well reasoned argument as to why it shouldn't. Just saying that marriage is intended by god to be between one man and one woman is'nt a well reasoned argument. Thats a theological argument , not a political one. With issues relating to government it should stay to the political and not theology. That's how it is in this country, that is until nutters like Jeremiah try to take over this land.

Hey Jeremiah, is there something wrong with your CAPS LOCK KEY? I'll wait until you get back from protesting at a serviceman's funeral for you to respond.

I would appreciate a well reasoned argument from you as to why gay marriage should be allowed.

-- Well, I believe that society that tolerates and embraces diversity is stronger than one that persecutes it.

Marriage beyond a biblical sense, is two PEOPLE, completing a contract for life (or until death does them part)

It is the biblical part that seems to have people up in arms. Why, I am not sure. Here in Canada, parliament ruled it legal last year on the heels of a Supreme Court decision striking down the reinterpretation of marriage being between and man and a woman.

Has society changed now because of it? Yes, but not for the worse.

You people fear that gay are going to get the right to marry and then they will have the right to be married in YOUR church, regardless of the churches stance on it.

This is silly, there will always be a religious out and no church will be bound to follow the ruling. However, there will be some that will allow it.

So what? It is going to affect your marriages? No. It is going to spread gayness all over town? No.

AAR's arguement about gays marrying being a stones throw away from animals marrying people simply goes to show how utterly ridiculous your arguements are and why most people outside your little religious right groups don't take you seriously. They think you are a bunch of bible waving freaks. And they are probably right, because thats the impression you send.

Polls done recently show that only 3-5% of americans feel gay marriage is a big enough issue to warrant a constitutional ammendment. Thats not a winning scenario.

JJ, I will repeat an arguement that was made earlier in this thread. Outside of your religious reasons for opposing it, can you give me a good, compelling reason why Tom and John should not have the same rights are Bill and Sue?

Some 50 years ago, it was the same thing for blacks wanting to marry whites, you all said the exact same thing, its wrong, its immoral, its indecent, its sacrilege. Today, its almost commonplace, although STILL raising eyebrows in some parts of the country.

Fact is, at the very core of conservatism is a FEAR and ANXIETY and this leads you to bigotry and racism. You simply have to have someone to hate. 50 years ago, you hated the blacks, strung them from trees to boot in good old southern red christian states. its a fact that 90% of ALL racists and bigots in America are conservative and many feel that the bible condones it. The blacks are tking white jobsm the blacks are moving into white neighborhoods, it just isn't right

Then you turned to hating the mexicans. Those dirty people sneaking in from Mexico in search of a better life, what nerve. Mexicans coming in an taking american jobs, using our health care, living in our cities.

Now, its time to attack the gays. Gays marrying on another, just isn't right, gays at the office, gays at the club, gays in the military, some of their gayness might rub off on me and then the next thing you know, I'll be having gay kids. Let's stop them from living together, lets stop them from adopting kids, lets deny them benefits.

Problem is that sooner or later, you are going to run out of people to hate or persecute, then you are going to be screwed because you will end up hating one another.

You like to think that you have come a long way since you persecuted and lynched blacks back in the 50's and previous, but you really havn't. All you did was receive that hat from you daddy or your grand daddy and transfer it to someone else.

The sanctimony of marriage angle is a load of crap, thats just a convenient excuse to use to justify your opposition to it. At the heart of it is bigotry and I honestly believe a lot of you homophobes are self-haters as well, you arent happy with something in your life so you need to focus on making someone elses as miserable as possible.

Axis,

The plain fact of the matter is that most racism in the United States is on the left - the racism of race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and MALDEF, and the racism of low expectations of white liberals about poor non-whites. And as for hate: the left is born of hate, and can only exist by means of intense hatred.

Gay marriage is not about bigotry or hatred for those of us on the right - it is about an understanding that marriage and family are the foundation of our civilizations. It isn't just a thing for people to do, it is a vital act to ensure that there is a future. Period.

We care not a bit what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. We are uninterested in what legal arrangements various adults make to take care of financial and medical matters - and we are more than willing to ensure that making such arrangements is as easy and inexpensive as possible. But marriage is for one man and one woman with the express purpose of forming families for the creation and raising of the next generation. We will allow nothing to interfere with this because, quite simply, we don't want to commit sociological suicide.

Eyes Closed,

Yes the Constitution changes -- through legitimate Amendments approved and ratified by the people -- not by judges making changes. There is nothing in the Constitution about judges having the power to Amend the word or intend of the Constitution as they determine best.

It is apparent that you are incapable of understanding that point, so there is no reason for me to try yet again.

Under your concept -- judges amend the Constitution -- contrary to the Amendment process specified by the Constitution.

Under your concept -- judges make our laws -- which is tyranny.

Under your concept -- we have no Constitution -- period!

I don't expect you to understand something you are incapable of understanding. Hopefully though, others will begin to think about what has happened, what is happening, and wonder why. Hopefully they will begin to think about the issue an decide they do not want judges making our laws. Hopefully, at some point, they will understand and demand we return to the Constitution!

As I said before, one way to repair the damage done to the Constitution by activist judges on the issue of slavery and civil rights as it pertains to races, it to Amend the Constitution -- essentially retroactively -- to include those rights and protections and stop further abuse by activist liberal judges.

The fact that something has been done in the past which is unconstitutional does not mean it is right or that we continue to tolerate and accept it indefinitely!!!

AAR

Thanks Axis.

Up front I have zero hatred towards homosexuals - only compassion. In the same way I have zero hatred against men who have affairs and people who sleep around. I strongly disagree with what they do, and I get angry about it but I don't hate them.

Case for marriage between one man and one woman:
1. The best environment for a child to develop is a strong family with a mom and a dad. Plenty of research to back this up. Broken families are harmful to children (do worse at school, more likely to be involved in crime, less likely to finish college, children without fathers have more health problems etc). A gay marriage by default is missing a parent. Either a mom or a dad.

2. Marriage is essential for a man and a woman’s identity. With marriage redefined what does it mean to be a 'dad' or a 'mom'? What do young boys and girls aspire to? Remember if gay marriage is allowed it will have to presented as an equal to hetrosexual marriage in school.

3. Procreation is possible. Men are not designed to have sex with men. From a physical point of view, marriage between a man and a lady is accurate.

4. A man and a lady compliment each other. Two people who are completely different came together.

5. Marriage is extremely good for the husband and wife (longer healthier life). "The evidence from four decades of research is surprisingly clear: a good marriage is both men's and women's best bet for a living a long and healthy life". Linda J. Wiate and Maggie Gallagher, The case for marriage: Why Married people are happier, healthier and better off financially. pg 64

6. Dad and Mom love children in different ways. Children need both.

Strong marriages between a man and a lady are the best possible thing in society. It needs to be protected and promoted.

axis,

Diversity in moderation is good.

Diversity taken to the extremes -- diversity for the sake of diversity -- is a bad thing.

Diversity for the sake of diversity divides! It destroys! It destroys nations!

Democrats preach diversity for the sake of diversity. Their votes depend on it!

AAR

AAR,

Just because you can't argue that the constitution does infact change, that there is no "compelling" reason that two gay men/women can't get married, or that your view of them is based on the morals you get from your religious beliefs, doesn't make me incapable of seeing your point, I just disagree with it, and have just as many rational points to rebut them with.

You argue AGAIN that judges are remaking our constitution as they go, but REPUBLICAN presidents have been appointing more judges than democratic presidents in teh past 20 years, so its another example of sore losers who use tax-paying citizens as the bulls-eye for your irrational need to use the constitution to dent rights, instead of uphold them as the document was initially setup for. Gay marriage doesn't present a single compelling reason aside from fear as to why you deny one group a right that is afforded to every other group. If you don't like the gays getting married, then make EVERYTHING a civil union and be done with it!

axis,

For a person who talks (and it is only that -- talk) about tolerance, love, understanding, diversity, and all of those "liberal code words", you sure do have a lot of hate for Christians, Conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else who doesn't agree with your view of the world!

Yep... HATE ...HATE ...HATE. Typical Liberal!

One only has to read and listen to the news to know, as Mark pointed out, that the true racists today are liberals. Just watch the news. If it involves a black, or occasionally a Mexican, the first words out of the liberal Democrats mouths are profiling, racism, discrimination, bigotry, etc. etc. etc.

I don't even need to go back through recent news to make the point. Just give it a few days. There will be some news event for which liberal Democrats charge racism or one of their similar words, and for which there is absolutely no basis in fact. Keep watching... there will be more and more and more until people finally get the point -- liberals are today's racists!

It doesn't matter what the issue is or the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with race, liberal Democrats scream racism! Why, because if they ever lose that card -- if blacks and others ever wake up -- liberals and Democrats are "outa here"!

And what a good day that will be. What a good day it will be for America!

AAR

Eyes Closed,

I've got other things to do rather than repeat facts to you which you cannot understand. Go read a good book and entertain yourself. Go look for your head... I've got a good idea where it is!

A quote from The Washington Times Commentary pretty much sums it up:

"...but as the shrinks are wont to say, 'If it is true for you, it is true for you.' For a certitude, left wing Democrats believe whatever they believe is true."

Seems like it pretty much describes a liberal's opinion of themselves and their views!

AAR

......As to the Civil Rights issue. That was done by the courts also. The damage should be repaired to the Constitution and judges stopped from future activist decisions. .......
AAR

AAR-

So giving everyone a equal rights was wrong? Ending segregation was wrong? Allowing children to attend the same schools regardless of race was the lefts diabolical plan to destabilize this country's most sacred document ( sorry Jeramiah it's not the Bible) ? Preventing lynchings was a blow to the sanctity of your "DEAD" Constitution?
Look plan and simple ,,, the Constitution is a living document giving rights and protections to all citizens. It's founders intent was to keep it a flexable and growing document to insure it would stand the test of time. That is why it is one of the oldest and most influential political documents still in effect.

AAR,

You and I can argue forever because you know that i'm right, there is no "compelling" reason that even YOUR judges can find as to why two men or women can't get married, but if you can find it, please I would love to hear it.

So I would remind you to take Rev. Moon's advice and hold your penis with a pair of pliers...oh wait, please don't do that, instead just remember that you can think whatever you want, but it doesnt change the fact that the constitution protects your right, just as it protects the rights of gay people.

Leftorium,

Did you even bother to read or understand what I said?

Did I say anything about going back and reversing the existing civil rights decisions? No, I DID NOT SAY THAT.

I said Amend and repair the Constitution the way it should have been done in the first place -- to include those rights and protections related to the issue of race.

As far as gays, propose another amendment include whatever rights you believe they should have and give the people a shot at voting on it. Don't allow judges to make that decision because there is no Constitutional guarantee, right, or protection to that effect in the Constitution -- unless you choose to ignore facts and take it out of the context of history. I would not include that issue in the civil rights issue related to race! They aren't the same thing!

AAR

Eyes Closed,

I've stated the facts. You choose to ignore them, or fail to understand.

There is no point debating with you any further here. Maybe later on another thread.

"...but as the shrinks are wont to say, 'If it is true for you, it is true for you.' For a certitude, left wing Democrats believe whatever they believe is true."

AAR

AAR,

I love it when the only media that isn't MSM is the ones with crazy, rich guys running them...

do you support the policies of Rev. Moon?

I look foward to explaining the constitution to you at another time, ciao sugar-buttons

xoxoxo

AAR,

"As far as gays, propose another amendment include whatever rights you believe they should have and give the people a shot at voting on it. Don't allow judges to make that decision because there is no Constitutional guarantee, right, or protection to that effect in the Constitution..."

so you're saying that the people should be left to decide, through voting of amendments, and the passing of laws. If thats the level we have to reach, then how long, if ever, would the Jim Crow laws have been overturned in the south? You're saying that the people have unlimited latitude to do what they want in their state, but when the reading of the SCOTUS of the constitution in regards to minority rights went against the states interpretations, they were overruled, so how do you explain that?

AAR-

I heard you just fine. Your argument is that desision should be reversed and an amendment sought to change it, so that the Constitution is "repaired" . That ofcourse renders desegregation illegal, returning us to what some on this site would call the good ole' days. There is no need for any such action because equal protection is granted under the 14th Amendment. There is no need in calling for constitutional amendments to secure rights that are already implied. When blacks were freed they were made whole citizens of this nation and by that should have been granted equal rights. Segregation was a states rights issue some believed. Sound familiar? It took nearly 100 years and the courts to see that those rights were, not granted , but respected.
You see your trouble, like so many other conservatives, is that you're a literalist. If it isn't spelled out plainly for you, then it must not be. You base you conclusions on the historical nature and context of the Constitution. I would argue that the framers intented for the Constiution to live with the nation, to be reinterpreted and expanded upon. They didn't want it to be just a document chained to history. These men were the forward thinkers of their day and it strains credibility to think they intended for that document to remain literally interpreted.

Leftorium,

No Letorium, did I say anything about reversing that decision.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!

I said Amend the Constitution to make that decision legal the way it should have been done in the first place. That does not mean, imply, state, or say anything about reversing the decision before it is make Constitutional with an Amendment. Leave everything as it is, just make it legal with an Amendment.

Why do I say that? Think for yourself because whatever I say you will twist it to mean something else!

Liberals are really good at that!

And you want rule by judges. Let's just eliminate Congress, voting, our laws, and everything else!

Let's do it your way...

I'll appoint the judges!!!!!!!!!!!

They will be well qualified and will know the law, but I'll appoint them!

AAR

AAR-
Obviously I'm getting under your skin and i think we should dial it back a bit. Not trying to anger you here. What I'm doing is making a counter argument based on the logic of your argument.
Now having said that your statment

"I said Amend the Constitution to make that decision legal the way it should have been done in the first place. That does not mean, imply, state, or say anything about reversing the decision before it is make Constitutional with an Amendment. Leave everything as it is, just make it legal with an Amendment."

implies that as it stands now blacks have no protection from being denied housing, a job, or even the right to use a public restroom. That is as you say,until the Constitution states it so. I have already shown that the 14th Amendment addressed the illegality of such actions.

"And you want rule by judges. Let's just eliminate Congress, voting, our laws, and everything else!"

As for this statement, patently inncorrect. We have a balanced government divided into 3 branches and I think that way is best. Let congress make the laws, let the president sign those laws into being, and let the courts interpret the constitutionallity of those said laws. That way prevents any one branch from having too much power.

"Let's do it your way...

I'll appoint the judges!!!!!!!!!!!

They will be well qualified and will know the law, but I'll appoint them!"

Now this is just absurd. It shows that you have no faith in democracy at all. I do have to ask, your name wouldn't happen to be George Bush would it?

FALAFEL

AAR-
Obviously I'm getting under your skin and i think we should dial it back a bit. Not trying to anger you here. What I'm doing is making a counter argument based on the logic of your argument.
Now having said that your statment

"I said Amend the Constitution to make that decision legal the way it should have been done in the first place. That does not mean, imply, state, or say anything about reversing the decision before it is make Constitutional with an Amendment. Leave everything as it is, just make it legal with an Amendment."

implies that as it stands now blacks have no protection from being denied housing, a job, or even the right to use a public restroom. That is as you say,until the Constitution states it so. I have already shown that the 14th Amendment addressed the illegality of such actions.

"And you want rule by judges. Let's just eliminate Congress, voting, our laws, and everything else!"

As for this statement, patently inncorrect. We have a balanced government divided into 3 branches and I think that way is best. Let congress make the laws, let the president sign those laws into being, and let the courts interpret the constitutionallity of those said laws. That way prevents any one branch from having too much power.

"Let's do it your way...

I'll appoint the judges!!!!!!!!!!!

They will be well qualified and will know the law, but I'll appoint them!"

Now this is just absurd. It shows that you have no faith in democracy at all. I do have to ask, your name wouldn't happen to be George Bush would it?

FALAFEL

AAR-

Why would we need an Amendment if it's already legal?

FALAFEL

Leftorium Quote--

Hey Jeremiah, is there something wrong with your CAPS LOCK KEY? I'll wait until you get back from protesting at a serviceman's funeral for you to respond.
__________________________________________________

I've got an idea.

Leftorium, buddy why don't you crawl back to HADES? where you came from with all the rest of your gay buddies?, before GOD gets ANGRY with you and has to THROW you back into hades!!

THIS IS AMERICA!! LEFTORIUM!! EVER HEARD OF IT!!

I'M AFRAID YOU MUST BE FROM THE LAND OF THE SICK AND WEAK OF SPINE, AND KNASHING OF TEETH!!

SO SCURRY ALONG YOU CREATURE!!

Jeremiah-

That was your massively damaging comeback?!!!!
Look GodBoy, I'm not afraid of you so please don't waste your breath. I can tell you are just some ignorant hick with a serious mental defect.
With all the CAPS and the obviously ignoranting (yes I have a copyright on that word LOL) you are just looking stupid. If you have a point to make please do so in an intelligent and considered manner. If not, then please don't waste my time with this junk.

Standing firm!!

FALAFEL

Leftorium Quote

If you have a point to make please do so in an intelligent and considered manner. If not, then please don't waste my time with this junk.
__________________________________________________

I would IF I thought you worth the time!!

America has enough problems without you bunch of homos trying to interfere!!

So stop you're ingnorant attempts to walk over top of the GOOD DECENT,GOD FEARING PEOPLE of America!!

Just do as I have told you to do, unless you want to change your "EVIL", I'm getting SICK and TIRED of people like you trying to enforce your sickly de-ranged mentality of homosexuality onto the good christian people in this nation!!........

and I would say this to America!

OH, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE,OOOH, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE!!!!!
WAKE UP YOU SLEEPING GIANT!!AND WIPE THE EVIL CLEAN FOR THE SAKE OF AMERICA!!!

before it is too late!!

The plain fact of the matter is that most racism in the United States is on the left - the racism of race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and MALDEF, and the racism of low expectations of white liberals about poor non-whites. And as for hate: the left is born of hate, and can only exist by means of intense hatred.

-- You sure live in a little bubble world mark, don't get out to the how things really are very often, just watch Faux from your bubble.

Black against white racism exists, but its only 10-15% of the total. Most the rest is down south, but then those boys hate nearly everyone.

The left is the ones that have fought for civil rights and rights for minorities for decades Mark, you on the right have fought hard to keep them segregated and to keep racism hot and alive and to restrict the rights of minorities.

You on the right even fought hard to keep blacks from being able to vote, which is one of the reasons 88% of all blacks vote Democratic. Also the reason why 66%+ of all hispanics vote democratic as well as overwhelmingly the other minorities.

They see the Republican bigots in washington striking down the gays, attacking the mexicans, letting the blacks drown and you think they are going to vote for you? LOL.

Funny but I see you talking about all the hate on the left, but I don't see it Mark, the only hate on the left I see is the hate directed at all the Republican Sleaze and Corruption and Lawbreaking occuring in Washington.

Fact is that if you are corrupt and dirty, you deserve every piece of bad press until it drives you out or puts you behind bars.

Gay marriage is not about bigotry or hatred for those of us on the right - it is about an understanding that marriage and family are the foundation of our civilizations. It isn't just a thing for people to do, it is a vital act to ensure that there is a future. Period.

-- Thats a lie, for a couple reasons, the first being that there are lots on the right that want to deny civil unions rights as well, so it does not stop at marriage. Theres lots on the right pushing to deny gay the right to adopt children, so it goes a lot farther than marriage. Also, if you were so concerned, you would be helping the gays to get civil unions, which would allow you to keep marriage intacts.

This is very much about bigotry and you know it.
Conservatives think about gays marrying and they get disgusted at the thought. Homo-phobes. You want to crack down on them every chance you get.

This is also that other conservative trait: GREED. You want to deny from others what you would take for yourselves. As conservatives, you feel you are somehow "entitled" to do things, to have things that other people should not have. This is why you are against universal health care, because all you care about is your own selfish needs and as long as you have health care, you see no need that your taxes should be used to fund someone elses. But if you used your BRAINS you would discover that by having a universal healthcare system, your premiums would plumment and you would only be paying a third or less than you are now.

Jeremiah's homophobic rant above simply goes to prove my point Mark, this is 80% about bigotry and only 20% about preserving marriage.

You are homephobes, just like Jeremiah. You fear them, just as you fear the blacks in the 40's and 50's and would lynch them from trees. If you could get away with it , you would still be doing it, in fact now you would be lynching gays as well.

Thank you Jeremiah or homophobomiah, which ever you prefer for pointing out SO CLEARLY this you are bigots and racists and thats what this is overwhelmingly about. I couldn't have said it better

I would IF I thought you worth the time!!

America has enough problems without you bunch of homos trying to interfere!!

So stop you're ingnorant attempts to walk over top of the GOOD DECENT,GOD FEARING PEOPLE of America!!

Just do as I have told you to do, unless you want to change your "EVIL", I'm getting SICK and TIRED of people like you trying to enforce your sickly de-ranged mentality of homosexuality onto the good christian people in this nation!!........

and I would say this to America!

OH, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE,OOOH, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE!!!!!
WAKE UP YOU SLEEPING GIANT!!AND WIPE THE EVIL CLEAN FOR THE SAKE OF AMERICA!!!

before it is too late!!

Leftorium,

Do you really not understand what I meant by amending the constitution or are you just being hard headed? Keep working on that one. Maybe it will come to you!

What's so absurd about me appointing the judges. A judge is a judge is a judge, right? Whatever the judge says is correct, right? What's wrong with my judges?

What's wrong with George Bush's Judges? His judges are all extremely well qualified and will be more likely to interpret the Constitution the way it was intended. Even the American Bar Association gave them good to excellent ratings.

Why were the liberals so upset over President Bush's selections? He is trying to select judges who will interpret the Constitution as it was meant and intended to be interpreted. He is trying to select judges who will interpret the law, not make the law.

What's wrong with that? Surely you don't want to select liberal judges. Surely you don't intend to select the judges who will interpret the law the way you want it interpreted, do you?

You are still missing the point I was making, but that's o.k.

AAR

axis,

I know, everyone's a racist, homophobe, or whatever name you want to call them.

I think you should keep calling Christians names and doing all you can to irritate them. Who knows, they may even get mad enough to do something about you and the liberal left.

Who knows what might happen if you really stir up the Conservative right? You'd better hope that some major catastrophe doesn't happen that causes Americans to "get religion" again. If that were to happen... bye, bye, Dems! I sure could make some changes with a 2/3 majority of Conservatives!

AAR

AAR

As far as gays, propose another amendment include whatever rights you believe they should have and give the people a shot at voting on it. Don't allow judges to make that decision because there is no Constitutional guarantee, right, or protection to that effect in the Constitution -- unless you choose to ignore facts and take it out of the context of history. I would not include that issue in the civil rights issue related to race! They aren't the same thing!

-- AAR buddy, you have badly contradicted yourself in this paragraph. at the bottom of the paragraph, you speak of civil rights not relating to race, yet in the body of the paragraph, you speak of the gays as though they are an entirely different species. As though the existing civil rights do not cover them as well as you believe they are sub-human???

Gays are your doctors, your lawyers, you likely deal with half a dozen day in and day out and don't even know it. They are just like you and me AAR, not sub-human or a different species as you would like to think of them. The ONLY difference is who they choose as a partner. And that is their business alone, not yours or the governments.

That said, the civil rights that apply to YOU, also apply to them, it is outragous for you to assume that they would need to have an amendment passed just to be afforded the same rights as straight people.

Your brain isn't firing on all cylinders on this issue AAR, first you brought up that gays marrying was a stones throw away from animals marrying people, now this. If you have a prescription for rational pills, I suggest taking a couple.

What's wrong with George Bush's Judges? His judges are all extremely well qualified and will be more likely to interpret the Constitution the way it was intended. Even the American Bar Association gave them good to excellent ratings.

-- Sam Alito is a Bush lackey, he has said publically that he will "remember" (wink/wink) those that made it possible for him to be appointed. In other words, he is stating in a matter regarding the government, he will rule out of loyalty, not out of law. This is NOT a good judge, it is a CRONY, like Brownie from FEMA.

John Roberts may be a wild card, theres been no definitive sign that he is 100% on board with the conservative movement. He may rules so on some issues, but also may bite the hand that fed him as well and go his own seperate way. Now thats hes on the bench, he has nothing preventing him from doing so.

Who knows what might happen if you really stir up the Conservative right? You'd better hope that some major catastrophe doesn't happen that causes Americans to "get religion" again. If that were to happen... bye, bye, Dems! I sure could make some changes with a 2/3 majority of Conservatives!

-- Actually, the opposite is happening AAR. There is a new religious left movement under way that is sure to give you grief in 2008 and take away a lot of your base for the next presidential elections and have some effect on ther midterms as well.

If it becomes popular as expected, the religious right be a dying breed :)

Hey AAR,

I had to take a little bit of a break from all the slanderous insults from the left.

I'm sorry that I have to post so many extreme rebuttals, It's only because the left has come here to do so much dirty work!

The other day I was so upset I almost ripped my computer out of socket and threw it out the window.But I finally got settled down.

Please take my frustrations in stride.

I went to wikipedia and printed some pages about judicial activism it looks to me like it involves much corruption as like you say, it seems to try and many times in fact does override the will of the people, It's a shame that only one person just one person can override the will of an entire nation of so many good people.

Question.
Do you think since the new amendment has been delayed that would this be a prime opportunity for the christians to come together and try to start a coalition to combat the forces of the liberal left and make the will of the people known?

It seems to me that america right now at least is divided at this crucial point in time that we have a prime opporunity to stand up and transplant and renew life back to the(Christian) majority, Am I correct?

Question#2.

Does the legislature have the right or power to choose on their own to make their own decisions without the judiciary trying to create activist oriented filibuster, In other words shoulder the acitvist out?

I'm starting to figure it out.

I think the activist are using their personal beliefs to interpret and try to change the constitution so it better suits them, and their sinful lifestyle and self-rightousness, regardless of a moral tradition that has held america together up until now, Of course you and I are already the same there, no need to mention that.

Question#3
(almost same as last question#2)
Do you think the Liberal activist will try some of their sly skeems to try to create new laws in order to get there way on this new amendment or can the majority speak up and say enough we don't need your advice?

I have so many questions AAR, You are helping me to learn though and I appreciate your help!!

Question#4

If not being rude may I ask is it Ok for me to use my faith in God here?

I know sometimes I may get carried away, but I just can't help but get upset when the left uses their big theories in order to throw the moral base of everything that was ever done right in America out the window, It just upsets me to no end.

We use God in our personal everyday lives but what about in the things that make a more profound affect in changing the ways that people govern, so that things change for the better each time we create and pass new laws for America!!
In other words what base does the government have to stand on without a mightier power in control, as human beings alone, using our own judgement we have nothing to base upon, that's why I think it is critical to a nation for the leaders of a nation to show respect for the one who makes everything according to his divine plan, not just for our own personal lives but including government as well.

Anyway AAR, I appreciate the support and let's keep letting people know what those sly liberal's are up to..........let's just keep this in mind...

THOUGH HOT MAY BE THE FRAY MY SOUL CAN BOLDLY SAY THAT I AM ON THE WINNING SIDE WITH JESUS......
helps to uplift the spirit.

and by the way lucas said Hey and said keep up the good work...........and as my former pastor used to to tell me ATTA BOY!! GOOD JOB!

Nice talking to you again AAR.

Jeremiah

Axis Quote--

Actually, the opposite is happening AAR. There is a new religious left movement under way that is sure to give you grief in 2008 and take away a lot of your base for the next presidential elections and have some effect on ther midterms as well.

If it becomes popular as expected, the religious right be a dying breed.
__________________________________________________

So that makes you feel good DOES IT?

That your party will BLATANTLY LIE, and try to trick people into believing their garbage, sounds to me like another garden of eden trickery!!!

Don't trip over your nose axis!.

axis,

My brain is doing just fine. Thanks for your concern though.

I see no contradiction in what I said.

The issue of racial equality is essentially decided in the minds of most Americans, although, that too was imposed on Americans by judges.

The issue of gay rights and gay marriage HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED, except in the mind of liberals, and I certainly would not lump that divisive issue in with the settled issue of racial equality. You can believe they are the same -- I and others don't! The majority of Americans do not believe that either!

AAR

Blogs for bush

I just want to say that I apologize for any rude comments that I have made here to anyone.

Jeremiah-

If any part that apology is directed at me then I accept.

Jeremiah-

If any part that apology is directed at me then I accept.
Glad to see a civilized statment from someone here.

Jeremiah,

I'm not sure I understand all of your questions. I know I don't have any good, short answers. I'll have to think on most of them.

As to your first question: ...Do you think since the new amendment has been delayed that would this be a prime opportunity for the Christians to come together and try to start a coalition to combat the forces of the liberal left and make the will of the people known? ...It seems to me that America right now at least is divided at this crucial point in time that we have a prime opportunity to stand up and transplant and renew life back to the(Christian) majority, Am I correct?

Senator Frist and everyone else knew that the amendment to ban gay marriage did not have any real chance of getting out of the Senate this time. That was no surprise. Too many people are complacent about the issue. Americans incorrectly believe that their state amendments and laws against gay marriage are all that is needed to keep gay marriage out of their states. History, however, shows that this will not work, at least not for long. State amendments and laws can easily be thrown out by the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court.

As you have read here and in the press, Conservatives (which includes Christians) are not happy with some of what President Bush and the Republicans have done or have not done. Republicans have been acting more like liberals and less like the Conservatives who elected them. They have not been paying attention to the issues that matter to Conservatives which include tax cuts, school vouchers, reduced spending, and an amendment to ban gay marriage. They should have been more actively and aggressively pushing these issues rather that letting them lie around.

Republicans should have been tackling these issues for the past 5 years, but the only time they seem to get really motivated is around election time. That's really irritating to Conservatives (like me). Republicans know they had better do something now, if it's not too late, to get the Conservatives (including Christians) fired up and motivated to vote. If Conservatives stay home in protest -- as Democrats hope -- Republicans could lose majority control of one or both houses of Congress. As irritated as I am with the way Republicans have behaved, we can't afford to have liberals back in control now.

Conservative and Christian leaders have told Congressional leaders that if they do not start working on issues that matter to them -- like the amendment against gay marriage -- their leaders will not work to get the Conservative (and Christian) voters out and to the polls. That could be disastrous to Republicans.

Hopefully the issue of gay marriage will help unite and motivate Conservatives (and Christians) so they will get out and vote and not stay home. Hopefully too, Republicans will continue to work on the amendment to ban gay marriage until it is passed. As I've said before, talk to your state legislators and see if they will work on a Constitutional Conventions which could write amendments without needing Congress to do so.

One problem is getting Conservatives (and Christians) to agree on issues and getting them motivated. On the issue of gay marriage, some Christians support it, some are more or less non-committal, but most generally oppose it -- most just aren't fired up. I think most believe their state constitutions protect them, and they aren't that concerned.

How can we get Conservatives (and Christians) more unified and motivated? I don't know the answer to that right now. We do need some real Conservative leaders who will speak out, lead, and work on our issues. One thing is for sure, liberal Democrats do not want the Conservatives (and Christians) really stirred up. The question is how to light that fire!

For now, keep up on what's happening. Try to educate and motivate your friends and relatives. Get them registered to vote. Ask them to contact their friends and relatives to do the same, especially in other states. You can't push too hard though, or you will likely lose more than you gain.

If you don't want to hear so much liberal biased news, I would suggest Fox Cable Network News if you aren't already watching it.

Listen to some of the Conservative talk radio hosts too when you get a chance. I prefer Rush Limbaugh, but there are others. Rush is on Monday thru Friday from 12:00 until 3:00 P.M. Eastern and has over 20 million listeners. Check your local stations to find one that carries his show.

Listen to him for at least a few weeks before you decide if you like him or not. I find him very informative on many issues, but some believe he is too arrogant; although, I guess he has earned that right. You'll have to ignore some of his statements which you may or may not find offensive like "on loan from God" which bothers some people.

I know I haven't answered even your first question, mostly rambled, but I don't have a good answer, or a solution for now.

I'll keep thinking on your other questions.

AAR

Leftorium,

Yes, That apology includes you, It's just that I am concerned for America's well being in terms of HOPE for tomorrow, We are leaning in the wrong direction by condoning same sex marriage, If indeed the liberal activist do succeed in getting their way I'm afraid it will lead to even more contemptuous acts of sin, In which most definitely would lead America to be excluded from Gods gift of Thanks and Love, and only inclusion of his mighty wrath and punishment for our sin,

The only way I can describe it to you is like the prophet "jeremiah" wrote in the book of "Lamentations" This chapter clearly describes what America would be like if we would take God out of her constitution and allow same sex marriage...........

"Jeremiah's prayer for restoration"
Lamentations 5:1-22

Remember, O Lord, what has happened to us; look, and see our disgrace. Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens, our homes to foreigners. We have become orphans and fatherless, our mothers like widows.
We must buy the water we drink; our wood can be had only at a price.
Those who pursue us are at our heels;
We are weary and find no rest.
We submitted to Egypt and Assyria
to get enough bread.
Our fathers sinned and are no more,
and we bear their punishment.
Slaves rule over us,
and their are none to free us from their hands.
We get our bread at the risk of our lives,
because of the sword in the desert.
Our skin is hot as an oven,feverish from hunger.
Women have been ravished in Zion,and virgins in the town of Judah.
Princes have been hung up by their hands;
elders are shown no respect.
Young men toil at the millstones;
boys stagger under loads of wood.
The elders are gone from the city gate;
the young men have stopped their music.
Joy is gone from our hearts;
Our dancing has turned to mourning.
The Crown has fallen from our head.
Woe to us for we have Sinned!
Because of this our hearts are faint,
Because of these things our eyes grow dim
for Mount Zion, which lies desolate,
with jackals prowling over it.

You O Lord, reign forever;
your thron endures from
generation to generation.

Why do you always forget us?

Why do you forsake us so long?

Restore us to yourself, O Lord, that we may return;

renew our days as of old
unless you have utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure.
__________________________________________________
This folks is why we need to uphold marriage between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!

If we don't then we will wind up in the same boat as Mt.Zion.

Almighty God he is watching us from a distance,
and I'm not trying to scare anyone into anything but it's something we need to think about.

AAR-

"What's so absurd about me appointing the judges. A judge is a judge is a judge, right? Whatever the judge says is correct, right? What's wrong with my judges?"

You never told me you were a comedian. The idea of you appointing judges is such a case of delusion of grandure it made me laugh so hard I had to scoop my pants out.

"What's wrong with George Bush's Judges? His judges are all extremely well qualified and will be more likely to interpret the Constitution the way it was intended."

I hear conservatives make this statement all the time when it comes to judges. "interptret the constitution the way it was intended" Please enlighten us. What "way"was it intended? This absolutist statement makes you sound like you possess some crystal ball that looks into the past. You must be the reverse Nostradamus.
Conservatives kid themselves by thinking they hold the patent on the way the Constitution was intended. If you wish to proceed with this literalist's historist view of the Constitution, ok I'll play along. I say that government should get out of the marriage business all together. Why you ask? I based this idea on the STRICT HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION of the First Amendment.

Article 1. 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.

Since government has no say in the realm of religion then it has no right to determine who can or should be bound in wholly wedlock. It's up to the church and not government. Seems pretty straight forward to me. The historical intention is clear. Cased closed as far as I'm concerned.
Oh and while we're at this historical interpretation of the First Amendment, let's tell the government to quit using our tax dollars funding those "faith based institutions". We know those things are churches. Come on AAR let's give um hell!! They're not following the STRICT HISTORICAL INTERPETATION of our Constitution.

As for petitioning the government with your grievances on this issue, good luck to you. Everyone knows you don't have the votes, can't get the votes, and won't get the votes. But the votes against gay marriage aren't really the votes that conservatives are looking for with this issue are they?. As Iraq proves to be conservatives political third rail ,they'll do anything they can to get attention off of it ,and away from them.

AAR-

"What's so absurd about me appointing the judges. A judge is a judge is a judge, right? Whatever the judge says is correct, right? What's wrong with my judges?"

You never told me you were a comedian. The idea of you appointing judges is such a case of delusion of grandure it made me laugh so hard I had to scoop my pants out.

"What's wrong with George Bush's Judges? His judges are all extremely well qualified and will be more likely to interpret the Constitution the way it was intended."

I hear conservatives make this statement all the time when it comes to judges. "interptret the constitution the way it was intended" Please enlighten us. What "way"was it intended? This absolutist statement makes you sound like you possess some crystal ball that looks into the past. You must be the reverse Nostradamus.
Conservatives kid themselves by thinking they hold the patent on the way the Constitution was intended. If you wish to proceed with this literalist's historist view of the Constitution, ok I'll play along. I say that government should get out of the marriage business all together. Why you ask? I based this idea on the STRICT HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION of the First Amendment.

Article 1. 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.

Since government has no say in the realm of religion then it has no right to determine who can or should be bound in wholly wedlock. It's up to the church and not government. Seems pretty straight forward to me. The historical intention is clear. Cased closed as far as I'm concerned.
Oh and while we're at this historical interpretation of the First Amendment, let's tell the government to quit using our tax dollars funding those "faith based institutions". We know those things are churches. Come on AAR let's give um hell!! They're not following the STRICT HISTORICAL INTERPETATION of our Constitution.

As for petitioning the government with your grievances on this issue, good luck to you. Everyone knows you don't have the votes, can't get the votes, and won't get the votes. But the votes against gay marriage aren't really the votes that conservatives are looking for with this issue are they?. As Iraq proves to be conservatives political third rail ,they'll do anything they can to get attention off of it ,and away from them.

-- Whats good for the goose is good for the gander Jeremiah. The difference is that there are no lies involved.

"The New Mexico progressives are part of a more visible and assertive spiritual movement that emerged in recent years as a reaction against the political success of the religious right.

Having moral values doesn't necessarily mean opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. It means living according to principles of social responsibility and compassion in public and private life, said Bruce Berlin, coordinator of the Santa Fe-based chapter

``There's a lack of values and critical thinking in terms of most (American) policies,'' he said, pointing to immigration, the war in Iraq and health care.

Among its goals, the religious left is seeking to change the practice of judging institutions and social practices by their ability to maximize money and power; to challenge what it sees as the misuses of religion by the religious right; and to combat anti-religious, anti-spiritual biases within liberal culture including the ``elitist notion that secular people are intellectually on a higher plane than people who participate in a religious or spiritual community."

You were lied to by the Neo-conservatives, who promised you abortion and gay marriage and then delivered neither. The thing is that you are too dumb to realize it like many of your christian right have. Bush has abandoned you and has no desire to implement gay marriage ban or abortion ban. The religious right to Bush is simply a convenient group of people to USE to get some extra votes. Then they ride you hard and put you away wet.

Think about it, you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Has he given you anything you wanted along the lines of your religious values? NO. All you got was a few bucks back on your tax returns.

If all the religious right was as cheap a WHORE as you are Jeremiah, then would could buy your votes easy. Your vote is for sale for $30-40 bucks.

----------------------

So that makes you feel good DOES IT?

That your party will BLATANTLY LIE, and try to trick people into believing their garbage, sounds to me like another garden of eden trickery!!!

Don't trip over your nose axis!.
Posted by: Jeremiah

-- Whats good for the goose is good for the gander Jeremiah. The difference is that there are no lies involved.

"The New Mexico progressives are part of a more visible and assertive spiritual movement that emerged in recent years as a reaction against the political success of the religious right.

Having moral values doesn't necessarily mean opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. It means living according to principles of social responsibility and compassion in public and private life, said Bruce Berlin, coordinator of the Santa Fe-based chapter

``There's a lack of values and critical thinking in terms of most (American) policies,'' he said, pointing to immigration, the war in Iraq and health care.

Among its goals, the religious left is seeking to change the practice of judging institutions and social practices by their ability to maximize money and power; to challenge what it sees as the misuses of religion by the religious right; and to combat anti-religious, anti-spiritual biases within liberal culture including the ``elitist notion that secular people are intellectually on a higher plane than people who participate in a religious or spiritual community."

You were lied to by the Neo-conservatives, who promised you abortion and gay marriage and then delivered neither. The thing is that you are too dumb to realize it like many of your christian right have. Bush has abandoned you and has no desire to implement gay marriage ban or abortion ban. The religious right to Bush is simply a convenient group of people to USE to get some extra votes. Then they ride you hard and put you away wet.

Think about it, you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Has he given you anything you wanted along the lines of your religious values? NO. All you got was a few bucks back on your tax returns.

If all the religious right was as cheap a WHORE as you are Jeremiah, then would could buy your votes easy. Your vote is for sale for $30-40 bucks.

----------------------

So that makes you feel good DOES IT?

That your party will BLATANTLY LIE, and try to trick people into believing their garbage, sounds to me like another garden of eden trickery!!!

Don't trip over your nose axis!.
Posted by: Jeremiah

Leftorium Quote--

"It's up to the church and not the government, seems pretty straight forward to me."
__________________________________________________

The churches do uphold marriage as between one man and one woman, which is the RIGHT thing to do in the sight of God the creator.

SO what do you think? that government should leave the church out and not do the RIGHT thing, and just forget about morality altogether.

What do you want the republicans to do? just wave the white flag in surrender, just so the gays can come in and take control.

Because IT WILL happen if you don't believe me!

Nope, not me! Not buyin it! It's a TRICK!!

Jeremiah, you have truly lost your way. People are not asking you to condone gay marriage, simply to accept it. Condoning it means that you embrace it and actively promote it as well. Theres a big difference between the two. You, for example may not condone a Christian marrying a Jew, but you accept it. This is no different.

I hate to say it, but a lot of Americans are already excluded from "Gods gift of Thanks and Love", especially those who you support, such as Bush. Republicans like Bush KILL, MURDER, COMMIT ADULTRY, ARE PEDOPHILES, LIE, CHEAT, STEAL and COMMIT CRIMES.

Now, you may think those admirable traits well worthy of enterance into the pearly gates, but most Christians know that evil will be punished by putting your feet to fire.

Since you lie in bed with serpents Jeremiah, so willingly, its obviously to assume that you are one yourself and commit all those sins that your republicans do, so you can expect your feet put to the fire someday as well if you don't repent and clean up your sinful and wicked ways.

Repent for all your wickedness Jeremiah, repent and pray for your soul while you still have time. Yesterday was 6 6 6 Jeremiah, sign of the devil within you.

Yes, That apology includes you, It's just that I am concerned for America's well being in terms of HOPE for tomorrow, We are leaning in the wrong direction by condoning same sex marriage, If indeed the liberal activist do succeed in getting their way I'm afraid it will lead to even more contemptuous acts of sin, In which most definitely would lead America to be excluded from Gods gift of Thanks and Love, and only inclusion of his mighty wrath and punishment for our sin

Axis Quote--

Condoning means that you embrace it and actively promote it as well.
__________________________________________________

That's exactly what you are trying to do axis, what you just said exactly describes your act of contempt, when you accept it, then you are for it!

You want people to accept it, and try to make people believe it,overlook it, and enforce it on everyone who already knows RIGHT from WRONG,and GOOD from EVIL....

.....

AND I'm still praying for you, that you might one day see the light of the follies of your wicked ways!

If you are upset because I did not include you in my apology then I apologize, fair enough?........

you take care and start reading the bible, and stop feeding off the work of the devil!!!!!!!.....

I'm just trying to help you axis, don't get offended because of some little mistake.

Only time I feed from the work of the devil is reading your diatribes Jeremiah.

You believe that it is holy to lie, cheat, steal, womanize, commit adultry, commit pedophilia, commit bestiality.

You believe its good and acceptable to commit all these in direct violation to the bible.

I don't, I see it as a sin. If you don't then don't forget your sunscreen, I hear it gets really hot down there where you are headed.

Leftorium,

Did you ever hear the expression "the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." Do you know what that means?

Strict constructionist means considering the words of the constitution in the context of history, the practices, and laws that applied when they were written -- not just what the words say.

Do you know what I and others mean by the term "conservative" judge? What is your definition of "conservative" judge?

The founders never meant that God was not to be a part of this nation as you lefties believe. You want atheism as the state religion -- no voluntary public prayer, no "under God", no Ten Commandments in places they have been for ages, NOTHING that even mentions God.

That was not what the Constitution intended. The founders never meant for "atheism" to be the religion of America!

Do you know that if, by some stroke of fate, all of the Christians in America got their act together and said they've had enough, they could theoretically amend the Constitution to make Christianity the state religion?

Not likely, but theoretically possible! Keep on irritating and demeaning the Christians!

AAR

Jeremiah,

I may not get to all of your questions before this thread goes to archives, but I'll add another quick comment on one them.

Re: "...is it Ok for me to use my faith in God here?"

Unless Mark or Matt says otherwise, which I doubt, the answer is yes!

In fact, it's high time that more and more Christians start standing up and speaking out!

The liberal left like axis and others want atheism as America's national religion. It is because Christians haven't been standing up for their beliefs and rights that this has been happening -- no public prayer, no Ten Commandments in places they have stood for ages because atheists don't want to even see the words, no "under God" because atheists don't want to hear even the mention of God, gay marriage, etc. There is no one trying to force more religion on America. We are just trying to hold on to what we have had since this nation was formed and before that. On the other hand, liberals and atheists are doing all they can to force their religion on you, me, and all Americans. Their religion is atheism. They are entitled to practice that if they so choose, but don't force it on ALL Americans.

You may need to tailor your approach depending on your audience though. When talking to fundamentalist Christians, a good "fire and brimstone" speech can get them going. When talking to a group who is strongly Christian in their beliefs, more scripture will work. When talking to liberals or those who aren't so openly Christian, a different approach may or may not work better. You will never change the mind of liberals like axis whatever you do or say. They aren't hear for that purpose.

We need more and more Conservatives and Christians to understand what is happening to America and stand up to stop it. They don't even have to change their daily routines that much. Just express their opinions when asked, or when the opportunity presents itself -- but most of all VOTE.

Vote the liberals out of office!!! And right now -- that means vote the Democrats out of office. There are a few conservative Democrats that should stay, but the "rest need to take a rest."

Don't let 'em get you down!

AAR

Jeremiah,

I may not get to all of your questions before this thread goes to archives, but I'll add another quick comment on one them.

Re: "...is it Ok for me to use my faith in God here?"

Unless Mark or Matt says otherwise, which I doubt, the answer is yes!

In fact, it's high time that more and more Christians start standing up and speaking out!

The liberal left like axis and others want atheism as America's national religion. It is because Christians haven't been standing up for their beliefs and rights that this has been happening -- no public prayer, no Ten Commandments in places they have stood for ages because atheists don't want to even see the words, no "under God" because atheists don't want to hear even the mention of God, gay marriage, etc. There is no one trying to force more religion on America. We are just trying to hold on to what we have had since this nation was formed and before that. On the other hand, liberals and atheists are doing all they can to force their religion on you, me, and all Americans. Their religion is atheism. They are entitled to practice that if they so choose, but don't force it on ALL Americans.

You may need to tailor your approach depending on your audience though. When talking to fundamentalist Christians, a good "fire and brimstone" speech can get them going. When talking to a group who is strongly Christian in their beliefs, more scripture will work. When talking to liberals or those who aren't so openly Christian, a different approach may or may not work better. You will never change the mind of liberals like axis whatever you do or say. They aren't hear for that purpose.

We need more and more Conservatives and Christians to understand what is happening to America and stand up to stop it. They don't even have to change their daily routines that much. Just express their opinions when asked, or when the opportunity presents itself -- but most of all VOTE.

Vote the liberals out of office!!! And right now -- that means vote the Democrats out of office. There are a few conservative Democrats that should stay, but the "rest need to take a rest."

Don't let 'em get you down!

AAR

Jeremiah-

"The churches do uphold marriage as between one man and one woman, which is the RIGHT thing to do in the sight of God the creator."

If that were as absolutely true as you make it sound then there would be no need for you guys to have government step in a put a stop to it. You know as well as I that churches all over this country are beginning to thaw on the idea of gay marriage. They've been performing them no less. Yes, the Catholic Church is still barring them but they're hardly an institution of forward thinking. They only just got around to pardoning Galileo for making naughty statements regarding planetary alignment. All I have to say in regards to those guys is, thank you Martin Luther!!
But anyway, I digress. My point is churches are changing and the government needs to get out of the way. If you can't win this battle in the churchyard, don't go calling your big brother, the government, to fight your battles for you.

"What do you want the republicans to do? Just wave the white flag in surrender, just so the gays can come in and take control.

Because IT WILL happen if you don't believe me!"

Yep, you got me there. We need the government to step in and help protect us from roving gangs of homosexuals, who's sole purpose in life is to break into our homes and steal our children's morality while they destroy our marriages. Don't you think you may be going a little overboard here? You know the Catholic Church believed that if Galileo’s theories ever got out, it would bring the wrath of God and an end to the world. They were partly right; it brought an end to their world of control. Now that your world of control is coming to an end, will it take you a few hundred years to admit you may have it wrong?

AAR-

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

OK I could go on but I think the point is made. So please, take this stict constructionist historical tripe back to the garage for a tune up.

AAR-

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

I could go on with this but I think the point is made, Right from one of the horse’s own mouths. See you guy's believe you know what the intent was because of the prevailing morality of the day. Well the framers were thinking beyond the morality of their day. Most of them were Humanists. When your side speaks about interpreting the constituion strictly your really just attempting to stem the tide of change. I would suggest that you and the Right take your strict constructionist tripe back to the shop for a tune up.

AAR-

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

I could go on with this but I think the point is made, Right from one of the horse’s own mouths. See you guy's believe you know what the intent was because of the prevailing morality of the day. Well the framers were thinking beyond the morality of their day. Most of them were Humanists. When your side speaks about interpreting the constituion strictly your really just attempting to stem the tide of change. I would suggest that you and the Right take your strict constructionist tripe back to the shop for a tune up.

Leftorium Quote--

Now that your world of control is coming to an end, will it take you a few hundred years to admit you may have it wrong?
__________________________________________________

Regardless of the strength or weakness of my party, I will STILL STAND for what is RIGHT in the sight of my creator, as long as I am living!!

I just hope conservatives will do the same!!

Right now at least they are maintaining that image of MORALITY by fighting against same sex marriage,helping other countries regain their freedom etc,etc.

Hopefully this trend will remain!!

Axis,

You are a joke!.

AAR,

GREAT NEWS!! I appreciate it!!

Well I will agree with you to disagree on this issue but the change is coming and no one can deny that.
As for morality and what is right that is a double edge sword. i find standing against choice to be immoral. Bigortry is immoral. Repression in all it's forms is immoral. War, while sometimes nessesary, can and is often waged for immoral reasons.
In regards to Iraq, I can't help but notice that when the WMD agrument folded, the morality issue became front and center as justification. I know you won't agree ,but when I saw these goal posts for reason and success being moved every other day, I felt that morality was used as a shield the acts of immoral people. I'll leave you with a quote from Jefferson that I have found particulary apt , especially in these times.

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."- Thomas Jefferson

Leftorium,

Where does it say anything about removing all reference to God from public view. They swore on the Bible in court. They included the reference to God when they were sworn into office. They placed the Ten Commandments in their public buildings. They said a public prayer before, and perhaps during their meetings, public gatherings, and ceremonies. God was everywhere!

Where does say they meant that there would be no mention of God on public property, in public documents, and in public meetings? It doesn't -- God was everywhere! They just wanted the freedom to worship God as they chose, not to eliminate Him from public view as you liberals want!

The founders of this nation and those who wrote and ratified the Constitution would no more have dreamed of removing God from this nation and public view than they would have believed or intended for gay marriage to be a right or protected by the Constitution!!!

If you choose to worship no god, or a material god, or the god of atheists, that's your choice.

AAR

Leftorium Quote--

I find standing against choice to be immoral.
__________________________________________________

That's just it you see, if America is given the possibility at choice then it's like this:

(Choice) introduces Immorality, and MORALITY needs to be made a STANDARD!!, and when all else fails, who do we Normally look to?

Example: Hypothetically speeking if you were to say plan a ski trip in the mountains of colorado and you knew the danger in avalanches that occur up there, but were tempted to go anyway regardless if you were the best skier in the world, and you went ahead and took the trip up the mountain anyway, and just so happens that you strike the snow with your ski pads just right and you get buried alive and possibly perish and you can only pray to God that someone will find you and rescue you before you do perish..........

Well, it's the same way with America if we are given the chance of CHOICE to do the RIGHT thing and instead we do the WRONG thing in effect we suffer the consequences!!

We need to keep morality in America for the sake of ALL AMERICA, or we are going to get buried over our heads in SIN!!

I hope you did,nt misunderstand me when I made this statement.

I just hope conservatives will do the same!!

Because I am in no way shape or form a democrat.

Leftorium,

The Myth of Separation, by David Barton makes the following claim:

Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom.

AAR

AAR

You seem to have a serious problem with comprehension.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Two quotes that seem pretty clear to me.

Tell me where does the word GOD appear in the constitution. You know I've read it many times and it still doesn't seem to be there. Now if and I say IF the founders were so hot to have this nation an under God state, don't you think that maybe one or two of them would have slipped his name in there somewhere?
Surprise Surprise, they did not.

"They said a public prayer before, and perhaps during their meetings, public gatherings, and ceremonies. God was everywhere!"

Please don't assume because you know what that does to you and me.

I’ll clue you in as to how much the founders wanted the government of the USof A to be locked in step with religion or God. By act of Congress in the 18th Century, CHRISTMAS, as a federally recognized holiday was BANNED!!! Individuals could have celebrated it if they wished but Congress was actually in secession on Dec. 25th. Now for God fearing folk, which I'm more than sure many of them were, who wanted government to recognize the existence of God, don't you think they would have had the government recognize that holiday? That is if they wanted government to be permeated with religion?

This whole God and government thing that the Right see's as a founding principle of our country is an idea a lot more contemporary than they would have you believe. In fact, there were no 10 Commandments on Courthouse walls or Under God We Trusts anywhere in government at the foundation of the republic. At George Washington's inauguration, he could have taken the oath on a stack of hay if he so chose! My point is it was up to those individual people to choose what they took the oath of office on. TThat's why they brought there own Bibles to the ceremony,
Those little religious statements that you so staunchly point to as proof of government's recognition of God actually slowly but surely crept into the public halls and ceremonies over the years. The majority of which made their appearance in the mid to late 19th century. Even the words "under God" didn’t make an appearance in the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950s.

The implications of the First Amendment are clear. Government is not to establish or endorse, or install religion, or the practice of it. That means that they aren’t even suppose to fall one-way or the other on the existence of God. Men can believe as they will, but government is not the arena of spiritual theology, it is the tool that deals with the earthly lives of men. AMEN.

The Myth of Separation, by David Barton makes the following claim:

Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom.

AAR

Well a book that has been totally discredited is your defense here? Hmmmmm.
That thing is a complete piece of right wing propoganda and is incorrect in parts (I say that instead of the more apt word, LIES), and it plays fast and lose with the facts in others.
But lets use your book and it's author's theories for one moment. Do you know that if Barton is correct as he asserts, that this is a christian nation, then it is impossible, even Illegal , for non christians to hold public office. He so much as say's so in that tradgic waste of a forest he calls a book. So please come back when you have something real to show me. that book proves nothing but it's auther doesn't know what he's talking about. Please try a constitutional scholar next time. Don't give me right wing hacks.

The Myth of Separation, by David Barton makes the following claim:

Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom.

AAR

Well a book that has been totally discredited is your defense here? Hmmmmm.
That thing is a complete piece of right wing propoganda and is incorrect in parts (I say that instead of the more apt word, LIES), and it plays fast and lose with the facts in others.
But lets use your book and it's author's theories for one moment. Do you know that if Barton is correct as he asserts, that this is a christian nation, then it is impossible, even Illegal , for non christians to hold public office. He so much as say's so in that tradgic waste of a forest he calls a book. So please come back when you have something real to show me. that book proves nothing but it's auther doesn't know what he's talking about. Please try a constitutional scholar next time. Don't give me right wing hacks.

Leftorium,

Just what part do you allege has been discredited, and by whom? Let me guess...

Did the Washington D. C. public schools use the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom?

Did that in fact occur while Thomas Jefferson was alive?

Did that in fact occur while Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States?

Did Thomas Jefferson draft the Declaration of Independence? Wasn't there mention of God there too?

Don't like Thomas Jefferson? Well he was only one of many. We can locate more for you!

Perhaps some of our Conservative history students can comment on the issue, not just Jefferson, but how much the Bible and religion played a role in the lives of Americans when the Constitution was written and ratified.

AAR

Leftorium Quote--

. Men can believe as they will, but government is not the arena of spiritual theology, it is the tool that deals with the earthly lives of men.
__________________________________________________

Yes, But it should also be a base for government, Just because it deals with the everyday lives of men does not mean it cannot be a moral base for government and everything else that is done MORALLY CORRECT so to speak, because that is where MORALS come from and that is the HOLY WORD OF GOD.

Leftorium, this country HAS NO base without God Almighty, If God is IN IT then and ONLY then is it CORRECT.AMEN!.

In jerusalem where jesus grew up the sadducees tryed to get away with the arresting of the apostles for their message of HOPE, But an angel appeared during the night and unlocked the jail doors and told the apostles to go tell the people
of the temple courts their message, the guards came back and found the doors securely locked but could not find the apostles. The sanhedrin brought the apostles before the courts and were angered because they told the apostles to not teach their message before their people.

And PETER AND THE OTHER APOSTLES REPLIED:

"We must obey God rather than men!

The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead-whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might have repentance and forgiveness of sins of Israel.
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who Obey Him.
__________________________________________________

I would like to stress the last line where Peter said The Holy Spirit is given by God as witnesses to those who Obey him, and yet they tried to imprison the apostles for their beliefs, but alas' The lord God our creator WOULD NOT allow it to happen which is why he sent his mighty angels to the rescue......................

....And yet to this day we are STILL persecuted for our beliefs, which is the very reason democrats are still trying to get everything taken away that has ANYTHING to do with God ALmighty................

George Washington put God there for a reason and that reason was for you and me every generation to come for the rest of the worlds existence to have a base to put everthing that we do whether it be for government reason's or otherwise it was put there for a moral foundation so the rest of the world could follow and be MORALLY CORRECT!!

HIGH IMPORTANCE FOR AMERICAN VALUES--MORALITY!!!!

The Liberal's can fight and cause divide in this country, But ONE DAY there will be NO MORE of this bickering and fighting..................

Like God done for his apostles, he will do the same for America!!!!!

TAKE IT FROM PETER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN"

Leftorium,
I mean Thomas Jefferson, my bad.

Leftorium,
and George washington too!

Leftorium,

Let's see.

Any book by a Conservative or a Christian is a right wing hack?

The only books you accept are books written by liberal college professors, or their equivalent?

Hummmmm...

RE: "Now if and I say IF the founders were so hot to have this nation an under God state, don't you think that maybe one or two of them would have slipped his name in there somewhere?"

First, I did not say they wanted an "under God" STATE in the way you imply. I do say they would not have tried to eliminate "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance though.

Why would they have the need to include something in the Constitution that was so obvious? Something that was part of their culture? Something that was part of their everyday life?

Did they include anything in the Constitution about the right to have a family? The right to have Children? The right to have food? The right to drink water? The right to own a horse? The right to drink beer? The right to... well, some readers will get the point, but not you!

I can think of many, many things that people had and still do have that were not mentioned in the Constitution. Do you think that everything they believed to be obvious would have been listed in the Constitution? Do you think that because it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, but was a fact of life, that activist judges can change it at will? You do. I don't!

Where does it say anything about gay marriage in the Constitution? Where does it say there is a right for gays to marry?

Let's see, when exactly did that term come into existence? Thomas Jefferson? I don't think so! Abraham Lincoln? I don't think so! Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt? I don't think so? Dwight Eisenhower? I don't think so. Ronald Reagan? I can't say.

As I pointed out before, sodomy was punishable by imprisonment or even death at the time the Constitution was ratified. Do you deny that? Every state had sodomy laws up until at least 1960? Do you deny that? There is no gay marriage without sodomy. Do you deny that? So as of 1960 at least any gay marriage practitioners would go to jail. Right?
Now, though, you say the Constitution protects gay marriage. NOT IN MY BOOK!!!

The point is, if you know anything about history, you know the role God played in their lives. I did not say that everyone was a Protestant. a Methodist, a Baptist, a Catholic, or any other denomination, group, or faith. Most were Christians, however. The Constitution did not mean God was to be removed from anything related to the government. It meant that Congress could not designate the Methodist faith as the State Religion!

Apparently we learned from different history books. I am not going to even attempt to teach a history course here or spend the next year debating something that is obvious to me.

I don't intend to convince you of anything!

I've said what I wanted to say.

As far as "ASSuming"...

Catch you on another thread!

AAR

Leftorium,

It is a shallow claim to say that God should not be acknowledged in the constitution, In fact every word of the constitution even the punctuation is making referrance to God!!

George Washington's Opening Paragraph:
Proclamation!

Whereas it is a duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God,
to obey his will, to be Grateful for his benefits,
and humbly to implore his protection on favor.

Jeremiah,

Good point!

I'm sure the left wing liberals will deny it ever happened, and say it has nothing to do with the issue in typical liberal fashion.

I found the following on one Website...

"...The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: 'Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . .'"

"The words 'to obey His will' are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in 'secularism.' In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people."

Keep working with your Christian friend and relatives. Get some of them involved if you can. Hopefully some of them will read some of the comments and understand the liberal's plans for a Godless society. Anytime you hear them talk about secularism, that's basically what they mean -- just like France -- and we see where they are!

Hopefully too, Americans will begin to see and understand where the liberals are planning to take America -- down the drain with their anything-goes lifestyle.

Catch you on another thread.

AAR

AAR,

Yes, Those words "Obey his will" should mean something to the Liberal's but it seems the other way around though for some odd reason They think like Obey man or something, but I think the liberal's will learn otherwise when they see what damage they have done to this country.

You know that word secularism it is an evil word, I came here to blogs for bush going on a little over a month now and I just can't believe the minds of some of these liberals,

These liberals here they are so far from morality and the truth that I am truly perplexed I am absolutely PERPLEXED at how (axis) and That abomination (eyes blind) and (teenage liberal) of how these guys can sit up and curse and stand up for all these worldly pleasures, the way I see it these guys are part of an ongoing secularism movement or something to that effect, these people are going to bring judgement day upon this nation, and it could be a costly judgement for America, and you know another thing this internet is a lot of cause for evil to spread the way it has..........

There is so much evil, God help america!!

AAR, I would ask a favor of you, this sunday when you go to church ask the congregation to pray for America!!

Meanwhile just keep up the excellent work!!

-- Funny, but when I read the constitution, I notice that there is only 1 mention of religion in the whole document, that being the first ammendment. The rest is completely GOD free. Thats the way it was intended, for government to make good sound policy decisions, not religious ones.

The founders never meant that God was not to be a part of this nation as you lefties believe. You want atheism as the state religion -- no voluntary public prayer, no "under God", no Ten Commandments in places they have been for ages, NOTHING that even mentions God.

That was not what the Constitution intended. The founders never meant for "atheism" to be the religion of America!

Jeremiah

Evil exists all over the place, in every nook and corner. What are you going to do? If you find that praying makes you feel better, then go for it.

Each one of us face our demons in our own way and hopefully will find peace with whatever method we choose.

Condemning others, Jeremiah, it's not good for your soul.

Canadian Observer,

If you want your Sodomy,abortions,false Gods,Take out God in public places, and live an any-thing goes lifestyle it's fine with me?

Just remember one thing Keep it away from America, because we already have enough, we don't need anymore, because we are trying to restore back the tradition of God in government and the American way of life!!!

I'm not condemning ANYONE I'm just trying to wake people up before it is too late!!

I care about people's souls!!, this earthly body is going to pass away and return to the dust we came from, But your soul lives FOREVER and if we condone all the immoral acts of some who choose to take that road then our image is totally destroyed, and many will spend eternity in hell because they were given a choice without any standard of morality SET IN STONE as an example to them, and,, Who are most influential examples in America? The President-congress-and any branch of government.

Although this day and time it seems the president almost anyway has no power to govern his nation of people, It seems the EVIL LIBERAL COURTS have shoved the president out of his role as leader of this nation, I think it's time we took a stand and give that right back to the president and do completely away with the activist courts they have NO business with their foolishness in governmet PERIOD!!

If it's hard for you to understand anything that I have told you, and don't have a bible then go get one and read the book of Revelation, Read about all the warnings to the nations and Gods Almighty judgement for the sin of his people!!

I just want the people of America to do what is good and for the cause of Christ, because he willingly gave his life for you and I and some of the worst criminals and sinners in the world the least you could do is acknowledge that God should remain in the schools and public places!!

Like I said I don't want to condemn anyone, I just care about people who are in need of the LORD JESUS CHRIST THE ONE WHO PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE FOR YOUR SIN!!

JESUS WORDS TO YOU!!

John 8:12

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

JESUS PROVES THE PHARISEES GUILT BY GIVING SIGHT TO A BLIND MAN.

John 9:39-41

Jesus said, "For judgement I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind".

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?

Jesus said, "if you are blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
_________________________________________________

So when you think about other ways or methods to find a cure for your disgust and guilt, Just remember one thing.

THERE IS NO OTHER CURE FOR YOUR SIN OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST!!!

axis,

That's because you continue to read the words without understanding what they mean.

That's because you continue to take the words out of the context of the history in which they were written.

AAR

Really AAR. Please elaborate where god and religion is in the constitution in your eyes

Really AAR. Please elaborate where god and religion is in the constitution in your eyes

Jeremiah

You see, this belief that the only true religion is your religion, is partly to blame for the mess we find ourselves in today. All over the world, people are saying the same thing about their faith as you are about yours. Each one thinking that they have found the keys to paradise.

If you could just keep whatever you believe to yourself and not become fanatical in converting others, perhaps we all may enjoy a more peaceful existence.

When I say, you, I mean everyone who pushes their religion onto others, sometimes with violence. I am not anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, etc., etc. If you worship Jesus and that gives you comfort, well, that is wonderful, just don't assume that it is a universal answer.

axis,

I don't need to explain anything to you.

You are actually a waste of my time and everyone else's here, but since you choose to deposit your piles of Canadian garbage here, I and others at least tell people where the piles are. After that, your liberal readers can choose to step over and around it or wallow in it like liberal pigs!

I do not provide any of my comments in the hopes of explaining anything to you. I provide them for those who choose to think on their own. Unfortunately, most have been educated in the liberal controlled schools using the liberal revisionist textbooks which portray liberal revisionist version of history written the way liberals want it viewed, not the way it happened.

If any of the readers want to learn the history behind the words of the Constitution, it won't take much reading and research on their part to learn the facts and expose you and your kind for what you are. They will need to read the history books that were written before you liberals started writing your own books with your own version of the facts -- the facts as you want people to believe -- not the facts as history itself established them!

We're still waiting to see the latest liberal history book which claims the Holocaust never happened and which portrays Hitler as just a nice, church attending Christian fellow!

You wouldn't acknowledge anything that doesn't fit with your brainwashing liberal agenda, no matter what is said. That's not your purpose.

The Constitution does not say that people have a right to have families; the Constitution does not say that people have the right to have children; the Constitution does not say people have the right to have food; the Constitution does not say that people have the right to have water.

The people had no reason to believe that some group of liberal nuts, two hundred years later, would try to claim that God -- who was part of their everyday lives -- was to be hidden from public view.

The people who wrote the Constitution had no reason to think -- in their wildest imagination -- that some liberal nuts, two hundred years later -- would claim that the Constitution protects gay marriage -- something that would have been met with years of prison time or the death penalty.

Deny what you will -- say what you please.

Your purpose it to brainwash -- not educate!

AAR

AAR and Jeremiah-

Well I see there is a lot to sink my teeth into this morning. I have glanced at all of your posts that you left over night and have seen acrobatics in logic and revisionist historical references. I would love to debate those points with you both. However, I am short on time and will be out of the country for the next two weeks with limited access to the Internet, so let's continue our liberal/conservative battles then.

I will however leave with a couple of little bits. Barton's work has been criticized by not only liberals but also by conservative writers who see his work as being revisionist history at best. In fact his assertions that the overwhelming majority of this country were practicing Christians in the 18th century has been proven false. In truth only 20 to 25% were actual practicing, bible in hand, in the church pews on Sunday, Christians.

Barton's work is accepted whole-heartedly by white supremacist movement. They often cite his book as evidence that all non-white non-Christian people should be exiled from this country. Has to make you both very proud I know. He even accepts such praise from white power groups and often shares the stage with these wastes of flesh.

AAR- I see you are still holding on tight to your classroom bible example without addressing the mountain of evidence that I submitted (gov. banning of the Christmas observations and no mention of god in the constitution to name just two). Well I don't expect a response because it's clear you have none on that. But it's all based in fact I assure you.

Jeremiah- while your commitment to your view of God is clear, that does not mean that the founders shared your view. In fact a short read through some of the founders writings on the role of god in government's daily affairs reveals evidence that is contrary to the Evangelical's view. I will say that taking the work proclamation, as evidence of a reference to God is such a stretch I can't even fathom how you'd not see references to god in road signs.

Anyhow I have to run but will see you both in a couple of weeks. Good day to you both.

AAR and Jeremiah-

Well I see there is a lot to sink my teeth into this morning. I have glanced at all of your posts that you left over night and have seen acrobatics in logic and revisionist historical references. I would love to debate those points with you both. However, I am short on time and will be out of the country for the next two weeks with limited access to the Internet, so let's continue our liberal/conservative battles then.

I will however leave with a couple of little bits. Barton's work has been criticized by not only liberals but also by conservative writers who see his work as being revisionist history at best. In fact his assertions that the overwhelming majority of this country were practicing Christians in the 18th century has been proven false. In truth only 20 to 25% were actual practicing, bible in hand, in the church pews on Sunday, Christians.

Barton's work is accepted whole-heartedly by white supremacist movement. They often cite his book as evidence that all non-white non-Christian people should be exiled from this country. Has to make you both very proud I know. He even accepts such praise from white power groups and often shares the stage with these wastes of flesh.

AAR- I see you are still holding on tight to your classroom bible example without addressing the mountain of evidence that I submitted (gov. banning of the Christmas observations and no mention of god in the constitution to name just two). Well I don't expect a response because it's clear you have none on that. But it's all based in fact I assure you.

Jeremiah- while your commitment to your view of God is clear, that does not mean that the founders shared your view. In fact a short read through some of the founders writings on the role of god in government's daily affairs reveals evidence that is contrary to the Evangelical's view. I will say that taking the work proclamation, as evidence of a reference to God is such a stretch I can't even fathom how you'd not see references to god in road signs.

Anyhow I have to run but will see you both in a couple of weeks. Good day to you both.

Leftorium,

Glad to hear that you are short of time. At least that reduces the amount of liberal trash!

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what part of the following is wrong? Just what part do you allege has been discredited, and by whom?

Did the Washington D. C. public schools use the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom?

Did that in fact occur while Thomas Jefferson was alive?

Aren't there in fact many cases where that occurred? The norm even?

Wasn't the Bible routinely used for education purposes?

Did that in fact occur while Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States?

Did Thomas Jefferson draft the Declaration of Independence? Wasn't there mention of God there too?

I'm not interested in what you claim was discredited?

I'm interested in what you deny as facts!

As far as Christmas, I'd have to read up on that, the history behind it, who voted which way, and why -- after I check to see if it even happened the way you said it did. Why don't you do that research for me? You and axis have a bigger staff. I have to do all mine myself, plus get other work done.

Now why don't we just have a complete and thorough discussion about the life and times and what was the general practices, lifestyles, and norms of the time? ...What they believed. ...What they did. ...What they accepted as the norm. ...What they did not accept or believe. ...What penalties existed. Etc., etc., etc.

You still haven't acknowledged the facts about sodomy laws. You still haven't acknowledged the penalties. All you allege is that the Constitution protects what was a crime in all states up until at least 1960!

Do you deny that too???

Mountain of [your liberal] evidence... I think not!

I'm sure your vacation will be enjoyable.

AAR

A republican style of government is meant to protect minorities from the abuses of the majority. Keep that in mind when debating this.

Frawg Fog...

Your definition?

That statement covers the universe. By your definition, the majority has no rights on anything. Anything goes. If even one person believe or practices it, they are the majority. Their beliefs and practices are to prevail -- the majority has no say!

A single person or a handful has more rights than millions. That's exactly part of the problem! That's exactly the problem today. You LibDims want to force the views of the few upon everyone else... even if they overwhelming oppose that view. Well... I don't buy that! But I digress...

Thrown out of this discussion.

And before the rest of you libbies read "minorities" to mean blacks, that's not the subject, issue, or definition we are talking about. We are talking about the practices of a few ruling the will of the many!

You can buy into that version of your democracy (republic) -- I, most Americans don't!

Now back to my previous questions so I can tell what part of history you believe is wrong.

We can't get on with the next questions if you can't or won't answer those.

If you won't answer, we are going to have to list them as facts!

AAR

AAR-

Some things to chew on while I'm away.

Reverend John Mason's 1793 prediction that the godless document (referring to the Constitution) would one day impel the Divinity to "crush us to atoms in the wreck."………
……. In 1863, the "nondenominational," albeit entirely Protestant, National Reform Association was founded for the specific purpose of lobbying Congress to put God into the Constitution. Today's Christian conservatives frequently use the slogan "Let's put God back into the Constitution," thereby implying that "secular humanists" have managed to overturn what was originally intended to be a marriage of church and state. Nineteenth-century clerics knew better and were honest about their desire to reverse what they regarded as the founders' erroneous decision to that can work to separate church and state. At an 1864 convention in Pittsburgh, the National Reform delegates were in a dither about how to word the proposed amendment before presenting it to President Lincoln and the Congress, so as not to offend any orthodox Protestant denomination. They were not worried about offending Jews, Catholics, or dissident Protestant sects like Hicksite Quakers, who were appalled by the idea of tampering with the Constitution in order to blur the distinction between church and state. After rejecting acknowledgment of "Almighty God" and "His revealed will" as too imprecise, the ministers finally agreed on a rewording of the preamble that would replace "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." with "Recognizing Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government."
(source)
Freethinkers: A history of American Secularism, Susan Jacoby. Metropolitan Books, Holt and Company, NY (2004) pp 104-105

Frawg Fog...

Your definition?

That statement covers the universe. By your definition, the majority has no rights on anything. Anything goes. If even one person believe or practices it, they are the majority. Their beliefs and practices are to prevail -- the majority has no say!

A single person or a handful has more rights than millions. That's exactly part of the problem! That's exactly the problem today. You LibDims want to force the views of the few upon everyone else... even if they overwhelming oppose that view. Well... I don't buy that! But I digress...

Thrown out of this discussion.

And before the rest of you libbies read "minorities" to mean blacks, that's not the subject, issue, or definition we are talking about. We are talking about the practices of a few ruling the will of the many!

You can buy into that version of your democracy (republic) -- I, most Americans don't!

Now back to my previous questions so I can tell what part of history you believe is wrong.

We can't get on with the next questions if you can't or won't answer those.

If you won't answer, we are going to have to list them as facts!

AAR

AAR-

From Wikipedia about Thomas Jefferson.

.....Jefferson served as governor of Virginia from 1779-1781. As governor, he oversaw the transfer of the state capitol from Williamsburg to Richmond in 1780. He continued to advocate educational reforms at the College of William and Mary, including the nation's first student-policed honor code. In 1779, at Jefferson's behest, William and Mary appointed George Wythe to be the first professor of law in an American university. Dissatisfied with the rate of changes he wanted to push through, he would go on later in life to become the "father" and founder of the University of Virginia, which was the first university at which higher education was completely separate from religious doctrine.

The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History

by Dr. John W. Baer

Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

Faith-Based Charities Unconstitutional, says the father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

[Editor's Note: someone should send this to Bush and those who are pulling his strings, or better yet the opposition, or is there none anymore?]

Researched by Jim Allison
February 21, 1811

Veto Messages

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'' The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. this particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

[Emphasis added]Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

James Madison.

Here are some of the BOGUS quotes that you should immediately refute if you see them used in a letter to the editor, in an online forum, or anywhere else for that matter.

1) "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" - Patrick Henry

2) "The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." - Abraham Lincoln

3) "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." - George Washington

4) "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court case)

5) "The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drown from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." - Noah Webster

6) "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader." - Samuel Adams

7) "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison

8) "There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet." - Noah Webster

9) "Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin

10) "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." - Abraham Lincoln

11) "I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens." - Thomas Jefferson

AAR-

Is it true that Madison said "Our future is staked on the 10 commandments?"

Research and writing by Jim Allison.

On page 120 of David Barton's book The Myth of Separation, David Barton quotes James Madison as saying:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

Barton gives the following footnote for the quotation:

Harold K. Lane, Liberty! Cry Liberty! (Boston: Lamb and Lamb Tractarian Society, 1939), pp. 32-33. See also Fedrick Nyneyer, First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association (South Holland" Libertarian Press, 1958), pp. 31.

The only problem with the above is, no such quote has ever been found among any of James Madison's writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know where this false quote originated. Apparently, David Barton did not check the work of the secondary sources he quotes.

Robert Alley, an distinguished historian at the University of Richmond, made an attempt to track down the origin of this quote. The following is his report on his effort as published in "Public Education and the Public Good," William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,, Summer 1995, pp. 316-318:

C. The Ten Commandments Hoax

In July, 1994, the organization Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) pointed out that Rush Limbaugh had incorrectly attributed to James Madison a quotation concerning the centrality of the Ten Commandments to "American civilization."(245) Quickly rising to Limbaugh's defense were several California residents who wrote letters to the Los Angeles Times. One writer prefaced the alleged quotation with the following: "Here (as quoted in The Myth of Separation by David Barton) is precisely what Madison said."(246) The bogus quote followed: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far From it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."(247) What the writer, Rick Crowell, did not tell us was that Barton cited as his only sources for those words two twentieth century writers, Harold K. Lane in Liberty! Cry Liberty!, (248)and Frederick Nyneyer in First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association.(249)

Responding to the public hubbub, editors of The Papers of James Madison, John Stagg and David Mattern, referred all inquirers to a letter dated November 23, 1993, in which Mr. Mattern wrote concerning the alleged quotation: "We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private."(250) This expert response has not dampened the ardor of those who privately would have Madison affirm their own distorted version of American history. Crowell accused Mr. Mattem of "revisionism at its worst."(251) I offer here a reconstruction of the convoluted trek of the words in question.

In citing David Barton's The Myth of Separation as the source, Mr. Crowell apparently missed the fact that Barton did not include the words, "of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government."(252) In a video tape Barton inserts "of all our political institutions" but still omits the "capacity of mankind."(253) This video version was read into the Congressional Record by Representative Dannemeyer on October 7, 1992.(254)

Barton's sources are two, or three, depending upon how you sort out his confusion. Apart from citing the Lane volume of 1939, he offers as his other source Frederick Nyneyer's First Principles in Morality and Economics; Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association. (255) In fact, his source appears to be an article entitled "Neighborly Love and Ricardo 's Law of Association". (256) Far from appearing in a source by Nyneyer, the alleged quote is found in the latter article and drawn "[f]rom the 1958 calendar of Spiritual Mobilization."(257) Barton's attempted documentation becomes exponentially more curious. He seems to have no clue as to his sources. When approached about his mythical additions to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, he deleted the references in a later edition of his tape.(258)

The connection between the Ten Commandments and James Madison has been variously advanced by numerous commentators from the political right over the past several decades. In 1964, Clarence Manion wrote:

As Madison stated in the [T]he Federalist, our entire political experiment swings upon our capacity to govern ourselves according to the moral law.... The only people who can afford the great luxury of a civil government strictly limited by law are those people who recognize and are willing to live by their natural, God-imposed obligations and responsibilities under the Ten Commandments.(259)
There is nothing in The Federalist Papers remotely resembling what is argued by Manion. Madison never mentioned the Ten Commandments in any of The Federalist essays. There are, however, two points to be made. First, Manion, while claiming to cite The Federalist Papers, does not have the temerity to quote Madison. Second, while Manion espouses generally the same sentiment about the Ten Commandments as does the Barton material, the references to the Decalogue are utterly different from the Barton version.

Proving that a quotation does not exist is a daunting task. If you cannot find it in any extant manuscripts or collections of Madison's works, just how does one prove it will not turn up in someone's attic tomorrow? Of course you cannot. That is why the Madison editors were careful in how they phrased their response. But, after all, it is incumbent solely upon the perpetrators of this myth to prove it by at least one citation. This they cannot do. Their style is not revisionism, it is anti-historical.

We likely have not heard the last of this nonsense, but it is important to press the new media frauds to document what they claim. Because they cannot do so in most instances, time may ultimately discredit the lot of them.

Footnotes:

(245) Howard Rosenberg, "Limbaugh Devotees Rush to his Defense", L.A. Times,July 111, 1994, at F1.

(246) Id. at F1.

(247) Id.

(248) David Barton, The Myth of Separation 308 (1992) (Citing Harold K. Lane, Liberty! Cry Liberty 32-33 (]939)).

(249) Frederick Nyneyer, First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association 31 (1958).

(250) Letter from David Mattem to Gene Garman, Nov. 23, 1993. A copy of this letter was supplied to the author by Mr. Mattem, current editor of The Papers of James Madison.

(251) Rosenberg, supra note 245, at F1.

(252) BARTON, supra note 248, at 155.

(253) Barton, supra note 82, at E3072.

(254) Id. at E3071.

(255) BARTON,supraa note 248, at 308.

(256) 4 Progressive Calvinism 31 (1959)

(257) Id.

(258) See supra text accompanying notes 233-36.[*]

[*]The supra text cited in note 258 as taken from "Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 314-315.

One other remark about the Danbury Letter is in order here. David Barton in America's Godly Heritage(233) comments upon the Danbury Letter with outrageous disregard for the facts. After totally missing the point of the Danbury Letter, Barton incorrectly asserts that in his reply Jefferson explained that the First Amendment was to prohibit the establishment of a national denomination only.(234) He also fabricates a long list of things Jefferson supposedly used to explain the First Amendment. He quotes Jefferson as saying that "such a wall would protect the church from the government, that there would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices (whether public prayer, the use of the Bible, etc.)."(235) It is appalling that the Jefferson Letter, readily accessible to the public, should be so abused. Barton's claims have no relationship to truth but can be floated easily to support political agendas concerning school prayer. Under pressure from critics, it is reported that Barton has now withdrawn some of his lies about the letter to the Danbury Baptists.(236)

AAR-

Just another little installment from my research team.

Is it true that Madison said "Our future is staked on the 10 commandments?"

Research and writing by Jim Allison.

On page 120 of David Barton's book The Myth of Separation, David Barton quotes James Madison as saying:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

Barton gives the following footnote for the quotation:

Harold K. Lane, Liberty! Cry Liberty! (Boston: Lamb and Lamb Tractarian Society, 1939), pp. 32-33. See also Fedrick Nyneyer, First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association (South Holland" Libertarian Press, 1958), pp. 31.

The only problem with the above is, no such quote has ever been found among any of James Madison's writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know where this false quote originated. Apparently, David Barton did not check the work of the secondary sources he quotes.

Robert Alley, an distinguished historian at the University of Richmond, made an attempt to track down the origin of this quote. The following is his report on his effort as published in "Public Education and the Public Good," William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,, Summer 1995, pp. 316-318:

C. The Ten Commandments Hoax

In July, 1994, the organization Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) pointed out that Rush Limbaugh had incorrectly attributed to James Madison a quotation concerning the centrality of the Ten Commandments to "American civilization."(245) Quickly rising to Limbaugh's defense were several California residents who wrote letters to the Los Angeles Times. One writer prefaced the alleged quotation with the following: "Here (as quoted in The Myth of Separation by David Barton) is precisely what Madison said."(246) The bogus quote followed: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far From it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."(247) What the writer, Rick Crowell, did not tell us was that Barton cited as his only sources for those words two twentieth century writers, Harold K. Lane in Liberty! Cry Liberty!, (248)and Frederick Nyneyer in First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association.(249)

Responding to the public hubbub, editors of The Papers of James Madison, John Stagg and David Mattern, referred all inquirers to a letter dated November 23, 1993, in which Mr. Mattern wrote concerning the alleged quotation: "We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private."(250) This expert response has not dampened the ardor of those who privately would have Madison affirm their own distorted version of American history. Crowell accused Mr. Mattem of "revisionism at its worst."(251) I offer here a reconstruction of the convoluted trek of the words in question.

In citing David Barton's The Myth of Separation as the source, Mr. Crowell apparently missed the fact that Barton did not include the words, "of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government."(252) In a video tape Barton inserts "of all our political institutions" but still omits the "capacity of mankind."(253) This video version was read into the Congressional Record by Representative Dannemeyer on October 7, 1992.(254)

Barton's sources are two, or three, depending upon how you sort out his confusion. Apart from citing the Lane volume of 1939, he offers as his other source Frederick Nyneyer's First Principles in Morality and Economics; Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association. (255) In fact, his source appears to be an article entitled "Neighborly Love and Ricardo 's Law of Association". (256) Far from appearing in a source by Nyneyer, the alleged quote is found in the latter article and drawn "[f]rom the 1958 calendar of Spiritual Mobilization."(257) Barton's attempted documentation becomes exponentially more curious. He seems to have no clue as to his sources. When approached about his mythical additions to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, he deleted the references in a later edition of his tape.(258)

The connection between the Ten Commandments and James Madison has been variously advanced by numerous commentators from the political right over the past several decades. In 1964, Clarence Manion wrote:

As Madison stated in the [T]he Federalist, our entire political experiment swings upon our capacity to govern ourselves according to the moral law.... The only people who can afford the great luxury of a civil government strictly limited by law are those people who recognize and are willing to live by their natural, God-imposed obligations and responsibilities under the Ten Commandments.(259)
There is nothing in The Federalist Papers remotely resembling what is argued by Manion. Madison never mentioned the Ten Commandments in any of The Federalist essays. There are, however, two points to be made. First, Manion, while claiming to cite The Federalist Papers, does not have the temerity to quote Madison. Second, while Manion espouses generally the same sentiment about the Ten Commandments as does the Barton material, the references to the Decalogue are utterly different from the Barton version.

Proving that a quotation does not exist is a daunting task. If you cannot find it in any extant manuscripts or collections of Madison's works, just how does one prove it will not turn up in someone's attic tomorrow? Of course you cannot. That is why the Madison editors were careful in how they phrased their response. But, after all, it is incumbent solely upon the perpetrators of this myth to prove it by at least one citation. This they cannot do. Their style is not revisionism, it is anti-historical.

We likely have not heard the last of this nonsense, but it is important to press the new media frauds to document what they claim. Because they cannot do so in most instances, time may ultimately discredit the lot of them.

Footnotes:

(245) Howard Rosenberg, "Limbaugh Devotees Rush to his Defense", L.A. Times,July 111, 1994, at F1.

(246) Id. at F1.

(247) Id.

(248) David Barton, The Myth of Separation 308 (1992) (Citing Harold K. Lane, Liberty! Cry Liberty 32-33 (]939)).

(249) Frederick Nyneyer, First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association 31 (1958).

(250) Letter from David Mattem to Gene Garman, Nov. 23, 1993. A copy of this letter was supplied to the author by Mr. Mattem, current editor of The Papers of James Madison.

(251) Rosenberg, supra note 245, at F1.

(252) BARTON, supra note 248, at 155.

(253) Barton, supra note 82, at E3072.

(254) Id. at E3071.

(255) BARTON,supraa note 248, at 308.

(256) 4 Progressive Calvinism 31 (1959)

(257) Id.

(258) See supra text accompanying notes 233-36.[*]

[*]The supra text cited in note 258 as taken from "Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 314-315.

One other remark about the Danbury Letter is in order here. David Barton in America's Godly Heritage(233) comments upon the Danbury Letter with outrageous disregard for the facts. After totally missing the point of the Danbury Letter, Barton incorrectly asserts that in his reply Jefferson explained that the First Amendment was to prohibit the establishment of a national denomination only.(234) He also fabricates a long list of things Jefferson supposedly used to explain the First Amendment. He quotes Jefferson as saying that "such a wall would protect the church from the government, that there would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices (whether public prayer, the use of the Bible, etc.)."(235) It is appalling that the Jefferson Letter, readily accessible to the public, should be so abused. Barton's claims have no relationship to truth but can be floated easily to support political agendas concerning school prayer. Under pressure from critics, it is reported that Barton has now withdrawn some of his lies about the letter to the Danbury Baptists.(236)

Jeremiah-

I quote you,

"TAKE IT FROM PETER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN""

Where is Saint Peter's name on or in the Constitution of the United States of America?

Leftorium,

My, my, my. Another mountain of mush!

I thought you were short of time.

Let me guess. A bunch of your liberal friend gathered up that pile you want me to sort through.

You are slipperier (or more slippery if you prefer) than a bowl of fresh boiled okra. Ever tried that?

I'm only trying to find out what portion of my statements YOU believe were "allegedly" discredited. The rest of the book can be wrong as far as I'm concerned if that makes you happy. I'm only trying to figure out if everything you said was discredited as you say.

Now you go and bring Rush Limbaugh into the discussion. Yes, even Rush makes an occasional mistake. The last I heard, he is only right about 98% plus of the time. Perhaps the one you quote is one of those rare mistakes, perhaps not. You surely don't expect me to take the word of a liberal for that, and I'm not going to sort through it, because that isn't my question.

Since you brought him up, let me encourage all readers to listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few weeks. Conservatives may like what they hear and liberals can hear what's going on in the "enemy" camp. Rush welcomes all! Check your local stations for one near you!

Now let's try for a third time...

Was George Washington the first President of the United States? (Added to give you a real easy throw-away question.)

Did the Washington D. C. public schools use the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom? (We may want to talk about other states and schools later.)

Did that in fact occur while Thomas Jefferson was alive? (Should be another easy one.)

Aren't there in fact many cases where that occurred? The norm even?

Wasn't the Bible routinely used for education purposes?

Did that in fact occur while Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States?

Did Thomas Jefferson draft the Declaration of Independence? Wasn't there mention of God there too?

I'm not interested in what you claim was discredited. I'm interested in what you deny as facts!

Now why don't we just have a complete and thorough discussion about the life and times and what was the general practices, lifestyles, and norms of the time? ...What they believed. ...What they did. ...What they accepted as the norm. ...What they did not accept or believe. ...What penalties existed. Etc., etc., etc.

You still haven't acknowledged the facts about sodomy laws. You still haven't acknowledged the penalties. All you allege is that the Constitution protects what was a crime in all states up until at least 1960!

Do you deny that too???

We are trying to sort through your pile of liberal rubbish and find out about history.

We can talk about how you arrived at your "conclusions" later. Americans need to know how those decisions were made, not sort through a pile of legal "junque" that even some lawyers can't understand.

We already know what you believe. We want Americans to learn a little history to see how you concluded that the majority of Americans have no rights -- that judges make the law -- that a handful of people trump the rights of millions.

I am only asking a few simple, straightforward, easy to understand questions. That's all.

Answer the ones you can and we'll try the others again later.

I have many more questions and examples once you answer these. This could take several days, even weeks before finish, and work across several threads, but we'll keep working the issue as we can agree on some basic facts of history.

Let's see if we can't walk people through the issue and see just how you and the liberal courts arrived at their positions!

We will reach some conclusions later... maybe not the ones you would like, but that's all right too. We just want the American people -- a few at least -- to understand your logic and that of the activist liberal judges!

Oh, I don't recall asking about Madison and the Ten Commandments, but thanks for the offer.

As for accepting anything from a liberal as "bogus" and "discredited", I don't think so unless I check it out myself. For now, we'll just put those in the "noted" category.

AAR

AAR-

Congress and Christmas

Look it up.

After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution. Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.

Leftorium,

Christmas is a national holiday.

Do you propose to eliminate it?

AAR

AAR- Since you are hard of head I submit this. Written by those smart that you or I.

Oh and Rush limbaugh has a mistatement (lie) pointed out to him everyday. Why because he makes one or should I say tells at least one everyday. We can bat that back and forth later but as for now read on. I know it won't sink into your head, as it will be imparted to you by a liberal. But enjoy none the less.

Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.

Research by Jim Allison
On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the following claim:
Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. Notice why Jefferson felt the Bible to be essential in any successful plan of education:

I have always said, always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.
Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public Schools of Washington," in the Records of the Columbia Historical Society, vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127. Barton's quotation from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last Words of Saints and Sinners, 1969.

Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was president of the board for a school system that used the Bible for reading instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this manner. In fact, some readers of this web site have claimed in their e-mail correspondence with us that Jefferson requested the Bible to be used for reading instruction. But nothing in Barton's source supports either of these claims. In fact, Barton's source suggests that someone other than Jefferson was responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and that this policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:

On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D. C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city. Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in which:

...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin language.
As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency (check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point). There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an answer to that question.

In 1812 the board of trustees established a school that used a curriculum developed by the British educator Joseph Landcaster, who's system of education was becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Wilson describes Landcaster as an "enthusiastic but somewhat visionary schoolmaster, who adopted an inexpensive method of educating, especially the masses of the poor. The curriculum of his schools included reading, writing, arithmetic, and the Bible." In an 1813 report to the board of trustees, Henry Ould, the principle of the Landcasterian school, related the progress his students had made in reading and spelling:

55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are learning words of four and five letters. Of 509 out of the whole number admitted that did not know a single letter, 20 can now read the Bible and spell words of three, four, and five syllables, 29 read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables, and 10 words of four and five letters.
In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the school board for retirement in Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied claim, Jefferson was not president of the school board when the Bible was being used for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want his readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion that his own source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or dishonest in his use of evidence. Either alternative should cause the reader to question the soundness of Barton's scholarship.

So what about Barton's quote from Herbert Lockyear's The Last Words of Saints and Sinners? We tracked down the book and discovered that it had no footnotes that direct the reader back to either Jefferson's own writings, or to secondary accounts of Jefferson's life; the quote, in other words, is untraceable. Moreover, we've never seen this quote referenced in any scholarly work on Jefferson's attitude toward religion, or in any account of Jefferson's death (the context of Lockyear's book). If Jefferson uttered these words, it has apparently escaped the notice of most historians.

We have simply never encountered a legitimate scholar that reports an unfootnoted quotation from a secondary source writing some 140 years after the fact as the truth, especially when that quotation seems not to be known to other scholars. If Barton wants us to accept this quote as authentic, he should be able to indicate to where it can be found in Jefferson's works, or else point us to a secondary source that provides the relevant documentation. Barton does neither. It's hard to resist the conclusion that this quote was fabricated by Lockyear, and that Barton reports it knowing full well that there are questions as to its authenticity. [Newsflash: Barton now admits this quotation is fabricated! Check here for details.]

Finally, we draw your attention to a last, nagging inaccuracy in Barton's passage. While it's true that Jefferson was elected president of the Washington public school board in 1805, Wilson (Barton's source) goes on to note that Jefferson was "prevented from ever discharging its duties by others of paramount concern." Once again, Barton misreports his source; he leaves out information that indicates that Jefferson was not as involved in the work of the school board as the title "president" suggests. There is no good reason for Barton to omit this information unless, of course, he wants to mislead his readers.

And that answers that!!!!

AAR-

Is that the answer you were looking for?!!!!!!!

AAR-
I'll get to your other ridiculous assertions later.

Got to catch a plane.
To be continued........

I hate to jump in so late in this thread, but someone has to put a stake in the heart of the big fat lie repeated by Aarontime back on 6/6/06:

Quoting the formerly-rational commentator Andrew Sullivan, Aarontime asked: “Is it a fluke [that] Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants [while] Texas...has a divorce rate of 4.1?” Sullivan's and Aarontime’s point in asking these questions, obviously, is to suggest: (a) that Blue Staters have better values than Red Staters, the latter being nothing but weak-valued hypocrites; and (b) that states that impose same-sex "marriage" on their populace, like Massachusetts, will not suffer any negative effects on marriage in their states.

These claims are FALSE. Once and for all, please note that the main reason Massachusetts has a low divorce rate is that it has a LOW MARRIAGE RATE; and the main reason the Red States have high divorce rates is that they have HIGH MARRIAGE RATES. Places with high marriage rates tend to have high divorce rates, simply because BOTH rates are measured against the overall population (i.e., married as well as unmarried). Obviously, a state where a higher percentage of the population has been married has a larger pool of potential divorces than a state where no one has ever married.

To illustrate the point, here are actual marriage and divorce rates for select states for 2002 (measured per thousand of general population):

State - - - - - Marriages - - - Divorces
Alabama: - - - - - 9.8 - - - - - - 5.4
Arkansas: - - - - 14.3 - - - - - - 6.2
Georgia: - - - - - - 6.5 - - - - - 2.5
Massachusetts: - - 5.9 - - - - - - 2.5
New Jersey: - - - - 6.0 - - - - - - 3.4
New York: - - - - - 7.3 - - - - - - 3.4
Texas: - - - - - - - 8.4 - - - - - - 3.9

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

Interestingly, in 2002, red state Georgia had the same low divorce rate as blue state Massachusetts, even though Georgia had a higher marriage rate. So nice try, Aarontime, but your and Andrew Sullivan's statistical card-trick is exposed as a FRAUD.

Finally, neither Sullivan nor Aarontime has any evidence to support their claim that same-sex "marriage" will not damage marriages in Massachusetts. Only time will tell us if there's an effect. But given how ANEMIC the marriage rate is in Massachusetts even before same-sex "marriage," I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a significant drop in the marriage rate for opposite-sex couples in Massachusetts over the next few years.

JPL,
Thanks, I'll bookmark this so when they bring this up again I'll cite your numbers. Because, you know they'll repeat these claims again, real soon.

Leftorium,

Now, see that wasn't so hard. You didn't answer my questions, but we did make a little progress.

Smarter than you? If you say so. Smarter than me? I'd need more information. More knowledgeable of the specifics of a particular subject? Probably, but I can learn fairly quickly given the "right" information!

Actually, I already had the exact information days ago. I was just waiting for you and your research staff to come up with it. I have others also and will work on more when I get the time.

"Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading."

The way I read it, the Bible was used in the D.C. public schools, as it was in many (most?) schools at that time -- at the time this nation was formed -- at the time the Constitution was ratified. The Bible and religion was a key factor and the norm in the lives of the people.

Did Jefferson himself put it in the schools? The article wants us to think that Jefferson himself didn't request that it be placed there, but it doesn't prove he didn't. I would say there was a good chance he did or at least supported the fact that it was placed in the public schools. Did he object to it or disapprove? Not the way I read it.

Like you, I'm a little short of time, but I'll see what I can summarize from this document and see if we can agree later on those "facts". If I get any of it wrong, I'm sure you will help me get the facts straight, but that's o.k.

So far, I haven't seen where all my statements were debunked and discredited as you so adamantly stated, though, do you?

We'll get back to some of the other questions, but let's work on those sodomy laws for a while. We'll start with an easy one and you tell me where I'm wrong...

Did all of the states have anti-sodomy laws in effect as late as 1960?

Forget about whether it applied to homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual or a combination. Let's just start with some simple, easy to understand questions for those like myself who aren't lawyers and may get confused by a liberal fog bank.

Did all of the states have anti-sodomy laws in effect as late as 1960?

The Internet and Google are a great thing. Everyone should do a little research of their own into sodomy laws, the history of religion in the United States, activist judges, and the manner in which activist judges essentially "amend" our Constitution by the stroke of their pens. It might be eye opening to some.

I'll have to get back to Rush Limbaugh later this evening, or tomorrow. Got some errands to run and more work to do since I'm no longer a college student.

AAR

AAR-

Well my friend, I can see that even in the face of facts you are impervious to reason. It's an admirable quality and will make you a champion of the right wing evangelics one day. When you are presented, as requested, with a rebuttal to the jefferson question, you see dates that PROVE that Jefferson was in fact NOT the President of anything during the introduction of the Bible or Watt's Hymnal into the D.C. schools. You conveniently ignore that fact. As rebuttal , you assert
"Did Jefferson himself put it in the schools? The article wants us to think that Jefferson himself didn't request that it be placed there, but it doesn't prove he didn't. I would say there was a good chance he did or at least supported the fact that it was placed in the public schools. Did he object to it or disapprove? Not the way I read it."
Now please AAR, you know as well as I all you're doing is assuming. No facts just assumptions. Now what would you base that assumption on? Is it the thoudsands of volumns of text from Mr. Jefferson in which he supports the unification of church and state? If you possess these texts then I suggest you get them to the Jefferson library at Montecello because they would love to have them. As a son of the great state of Virginia I know I would love to see my fellow Virginias have a chance to study these writtings.
What I really think is , you don't know squat about Jeffersonian philosophy. You haven't given me one quote or document from the man that would back up your dubious claim that he supported the unification of church and state., All you have are the rantings of a lone voice. One "historian" who beliefs aren't supported by one jeffersonian society or even the Jefferson Library. I think it's interesting that you'd rather believe the "interpreter" of Jefferson ,and that's being quite generous to the guy, rather than Jefferson himself.
As for the reason the Bible was used as a study guide I see again you completely glossed over that fact. i suggest you go back, reread it , and come up with something to counter what was said.
I ask you to please do a little more study on Jefferson and not use Barton as your only source. You know google and Nexus are great things. Also for a complete overview of the time period in which Jefferson lived I'd suggest reading up on The Age of Enlightenment or The Age of Reason. I think you would find those philosipher views on religion and government quite intrigueing. I know that the founders found them quiet interesting.

I will entertain your intense facination with sodomy and laws at a later time.

AAR-

Well my friend, I can see that even in the face of facts you are impervious to reason. It's an admirable quality and will make you a champion of the right wing evangelics one day. When you are presented, as requested, with a rebuttal to the jefferson question, you see dates that PROVE that Jefferson was in fact NOT the President of anything during the introduction of the Bible or Watt's Hymnal into the D.C. schools. You conveniently ignore that fact. As rebuttal , you assert
"Did Jefferson himself put it in the schools? The article wants us to think that Jefferson himself didn't request that it be placed there, but it doesn't prove he didn't. I would say there was a good chance he did or at least supported the fact that it was placed in the public schools. Did he object to it or disapprove? Not the way I read it."
Now please AAR, you know as well as I all you're doing is assuming. No facts just assumptions. Now what would you base that assumption on? Is it the thoudsands of volumns of text from Mr. Jefferson in which he supports the unification of church and state? If you possess these texts then I suggest you get them to the Jefferson library at Montecello because they would love to have them. As a son of the great state of Virginia I know I would love to see my fellow Virginias have a chance to study these writtings.
What I really think is , you don't know squat about Jeffersonian philosophy. You haven't given me one quote or document from the man that would back up your dubious claim that he supported the unification of church and state., All you have are the rantings of a lone voice. One "historian" who beliefs aren't supported by one jeffersonian society or even the Jefferson Library. I think it's interesting that you'd rather believe the "interpreter" of Jefferson ,and that's being quite generous to the guy, rather than Jefferson himself.
As for the reason the Bible was used as a study guide I see again you completely glossed over that fact. i suggest you go back, reread it , and come up with something to counter what was said.
I ask you to please do a little more study on Jefferson and not use Barton as your only source. You know google and Nexus are great things. Also for a complete overview of the time period in which Jefferson lived I'd suggest reading up on The Age of Enlightenment or The Age of Reason. I think you would find those philosipher views on religion and government quite intrigueing. I know that the founders found them quiet interesting.

I will entertain your intense facination with sodomy and laws at a later time.

You're welcome, Bane! That old lefty canard just doesn't seem to want to die, so you're right that these stats may come in handy again in the future....

Leftorium,

I think you made a wrong turn at the last branch in the road.

I really don't care if Jefferson placed the Bibles in the school or not -- he certainly didn't disapprove or ask that they be removed. The issue is not with Jefferson, the issue is about those Bibles in public schools. The Bibles that were used as text books, and the role of religion in the lives of people at the time the Constitution was ratified. I already know the role religion played in America at that time. You are the one who denies it. I really don't care if Jefferson approved the text books or not, the fact is, they were there and in other schools as well, or are you still denying that? Wanta make a bet they said prayers in the schools then too?

You were the one who said all the things about Jefferson were discredited. I'm just trying to see which ones you don't believe are true. Maybe you disagree that Jefferson was president -- who knows. I'm just trying to see what "facts" we can agree to so I can continue to the next questions. The only thing that I can see that is in question is whether Jefferson himself placed the Bibles in the schools.

I have no fascination with sodomy laws, but if people are going to understand what's happening they need to understand some history. I'm just trying to chop this elephant (or donkey) into small enough pieces so we can agree on those pieces. If those pieces are too big, we'll keep slicing that critter up until the pieces gets small enough to handle.

The fact is, the history of sodomy laws relates directly to court decisions which relates directly to the issue of whether or not gay marriage was ever intended to be a guaranteed and protected right under the Constitution -- which it isn't and wasn't! We just need to walk people through it step by step from beginning 'til end.

Glad to see you checked back in though? Was that from the airport or the plane?

Have a nice flight in any case.

AAR

Leftorium Quote--

Where is Saint Peter's name on or in the Constitution of the United States of America?
__________________________________________________

Leftorium,

I don't care if his name wasn't in the constitution!!

NOW,I want to get one thing straight here!!

The words of Gods apostles are FAR GREATER(of far more importance!!) than any peice of liberal propaganda or any President that has ever sworn in, they are far greater than any supreme court justice laws, than any lesislative branch or governor or mayor or whoever holds a position of leadership!!

LET'S JUST DO AS THE MAN SAYS, AND WE"LL BE JUST FINE!!

The rules of the constitution do not even compare to the rules of Almighty God!!!!

I would take Gods book ANY DAY over the constitution!!

Gods word is what makes a nation of people tick so to speak, without his holy word there is complete disorder of conduct PERIOD!!

Leftorium, you are placing all your faith in man.

But, God says,, without me, ye can do NOTHING!!!

Leftorium, you are letting satan lead you astray by believing in that hopeless liberal propaganda!!

Now I am tired of discussing the issue with you, that's why I REST MY CASE, No need in further discussion, If you can't accept the truth, then what need is there in further arguments?, You can try to make the claim that God is no longer an issue in the constitution, But I will not accept such HYPOCRISY, for George Washington has already proven that for me, along with many others more or less relevant to the matter at hand!!

Proverbs 28:26
He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe.

So, I leave you with this final trustworthy phrase!!

MANS Words: YOU NEVER CAN TELL!!

GODS WORD: YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!!

Canadian Observer Quote--

"If you worship Jesus and that gives you comfort, well, that is wonderful, just don't assume that it is a universal answer"
__________________________________________________

Canadian Observer--

That statement is severely flawed!!!!

HOW COULD YOU????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOD IS THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JESUS CHRIST IS HIS SON WHO CAME TO THE WORLD TO SAVE YOU AN ETERNITY OF TORTURE!!!!!!!!!!!

MR. CO, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Leftorium,

From the Library of Congress Website...

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a 'crowded audience.' Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

AAR

Leftorium,

From the Library of Congress Website...

"The Old House of Representatives... Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the 'hall' of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the 'Oven,' which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit."

Do you realize how long I can go on citing examples of the importance of religion -- God -- to our founders. The importance of religion to those who wrote and ratified our Constitution. The importance of religion to the people when our nation was formed and when the Constitution was ratified? I can start through the states, through the counties, through the cities, through the schools, throughout public life. Religion -- God -- was the norm!

They and the Constitution meant freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Again, that means God was part of everything. What they did not want, was to be told how to worship Him. They did not want a "national" religion, e.g. Catholicism. They did not intend, however, for God to be removed from public view!

They did not need to include the word "God" in the Constitution... It was understood!

AAR

AAR,

I wonder, what is it with leftorium?

He does'nt seem to acknowledge the truth!

Jeremiah,

Liberals can't afford to do anything so rational and logical, it would destroy their entire agenda.

Today's schools don't teach real American history, and without that, Americans can't understand what is, what was, or what was meant! Many of today's high school students can't even locate on the globe a state like New Jersey, an ocean like the Pacific, or a country as publicized as Iraq. They are taught how to put condoms on cucumbers, but not subjects they need like good English, effective writing skills, effective speaking, civics, math, science, and history.

Hopefully, some of our readers who are much better at effective writing skills than I will take some of the facts and thoughts, organize them, and put them in a form that more people can understand.

Since Leftorium and other liberals won't even admit something as simple as the fact that Thomas Jefferson was president, I can see this discussion will eventually cover many threads.

AAR

Leftorium

As far as the constitutional document expanding, I don't know exactly what is meant by expanding, but when something is expanded it is blown out of porportion to what the original document would say.
Truth, every person should have the same rights when it comes to what is right and what is wrong.
To go out of the context of the constitutional documents by wanting what we want just because it feels good, or because others are doing it, we have to base our thinking upon something more concrete, more solid, something that has the foundation. There's only one thing that has stood the test of time, that has ridden out every storm of life, every peril, every contest and every hope of all who have faith and that is the scriptures of the Creator of This wonderful expansive Universe and this earth we live in.
It's called the scriptures of the Holy Writ.
Nothing, will ever overthrow it, no ideology, no thoughts of human, because it remains inerrant and infallible. Why? Because the Author is the Holy Spirit of God that indwells His chosen ones.
And when time has come and gone, when we as mere human mortals pass this earthly time, we can look back and then see the truth as it really is.
Of course by some it's distorted, it's ridiculed, its cursed, but "Woe unto that one when the stone rolls from the mountain"
"Did you never read "The STONE which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?"
The liberals and far left can say to me.,"Truth without love is bigotry and I must say "Love without Truth is Hypocrisy."

AAR,

So in other words, Leftorium is using a bunch of scraped-up liberal propanda to prove his point when in reality, He has NO clue, Right?

AAR,

So in other words, Leftorium is using a bunch of scraped-up liberal propanda to prove his point when in reality, He has NO clue, Right?

AAR,

I've got some more folks interested in the blogs here at blogs for bush.

I am trying to get other christians interested in this fight for morality in america, and it seems that blogs for bush is the place to be, as well as contacting senators and other state and local officials.

Since I am energizing others to blog here I will let some of them take my place for a while, because I seem to lose my memory for the words that I really want to say when I start to make a post, I just hope that what I have said may encourage others to take a stand for what is right in the sight of the creator.

Also I would like to address something that you said earlier in your last post................

.."Hopefully, some of our readers who are much better at effective writing skills than I will take some of the facts and thoughts, organize them, and put them in a form that more people can understand."
-------------------------------------------------
I hope I am not misunderstanding what you said there but, Really I think you do a very good job at presenting the facts as they are in your own special way, you are a brilliant person AAR, you have the God given talent of writing skills, and most importantly! You acknowledge Jesus as your savior, and I am really proud to see that, Hey, he's all we need ya know..........
--------------------------------------------------
..actually I have to admit that I am the one that needs more lessons on writing skills, which is a big part of the reason I am going to let others take my place here for a while, I know I have probably been laughed at, and made fun of, and called names by the liberal's but that's ok I really don't mind because I have been made fun of all my life, I shrug it off like a gnat or something to that effect.....................

Because really all that matters to me is that I know Jesus, for he cares, and understands my prayer as well as others, and most importantly for who he is as savior of the world.............

You know God had mercy on the Israelites, when he freed them from the grips of the Egyptians, and God gave the power to Moses to do his will,and he delivered the Isrealites from the Egyptians, and which at the same token I believe he will do the same for the christian's of America............

Let us not get disheartened, for all we have to do is be still and God will do our job for us!!
Amen!

AAR, bless you,It's been a joy talking to you!!

Jeremiah

Since this is a political blog and not a pulpit for espousing religious dogma, I will not continue to debate the merits of Christianity with you. It is clear you did not understand my post.

Religion does not belong in the political arena, as it causes nothing but problems. We have seen this time & time again with different religions in a variety of countries. By all means, keep whatever faith you follow, in your heart, where it belongs, not in government where it does not.

Jeremiah,

I read your comments, but won't have a chance to reply until this evening or perhaps tomorrow.

AAR

(Still getting server errors, so this may be another double post.)

Jeremiah,

I read your comments, but won't have a chance to reply until later today or perhaps tomorrow.

AAR

AAR,

That's fine, No hurry!

AAR,

That's fine, NO hurry!

Jeremiah,

I'm still running short of time and won't have time to do justice or comment on all of your questions, but I'll make a couple of quick comments for now.

Glad to hear you are getting some others interested in what's happing on the blogs, and in America. We need all the help we can get. We are facing an uphill battle because Americans have taken too much for granted for too many years and the America we knew has been and is in trouble. If Conservatives and Christians don't start standing up, defending, and really fighting for their views, beliefs, and lifestyle, they will be replaced by ones from those who do!

There are many things contributing to the decline of the past 50 or so years, but the problem with the liberal activist courts is one of the biggest contributors. Americans have allowed that to happen -- for a host of reasons. Many of the most divisive issues in America have been created or fostered by the liberal courts. The issue of gay marriage is just the latest!

Canadian Observer did make one point about B4B being mainly a political blog. That ties back to the comments I made earlier when I said:

You may need to tailor your approach depending on your audience though. When talking to fundamentalist Christians, a good "fire and brimstone" speech can get them going. When talking to a group who is strongly Christian in their beliefs, more scripture will work. When talking to liberals or those who aren't so openly Christian, a different approach may or may not work better.

Personally, I would limit the amount of scripture you use on a political blog like this one, or you will lose most of those you want to influence. Most of those who read a blog like B4B will just skip over the sections which quote a great deal of scripture or which makes too many specific references to the Bible or Christian faith and beliefs. Some is appropriate -- maybe more depending on the topic -- but use it judiciously. If axis or others want to start quoting the Bible, then I'd feel free to correct them, including appropriate quotes of your own, but I wouldn't go too much beyond that on a politically oriented blog like this one. If you want to include a quote occasionally to make a point about your beliefs, I don't think that would cause the readers to skip over the rest of what you what you are saying.

If axis and others want to defend Hitler as a Christian or attack Christians, then I will come back and defend Christians and Conservatives against their attacks and attempts at character assassination and deformation! It's not a black and white issue though, nor a sharp line that one can easily define.

Blogs 4 Bush is just one of many Conservative blogs and the one I read more than others, but there are other good ones as well. Check out some of the links on the B4B blogroll. You or your friends may like others equally as well. Also, check some of the religious blogs, especially the Christian blogs. You may find one or more you like there too. You may want to check on what liberals are saying on B4B and then update other blogs on the issues and what the liberals are up to. You won't learn what's really happening if you only read and comment on the news you like to hear. As irritating as it is, it's what we don't like to read or see with which we must be the most concerned and worried!!!

Who knows, you and some of your friends may want to start one of your own with a link back to B4B or others. I keep thinking about doing just that, initially through something like the free Google blogs.

I had planned to write more, but times up again. We need more hours in the day and days in the week!

I won't have time to check back through the above to weed out any logic errors or see if it makes sense. Hopefully there aren't too many. I will run it through the spell checker, but that won't catch correctly spelled words used incorrectly!

If what I said about not quoting too much scripture on some blogs came across wrong or negatively, let me know because that means, that in my haste, I didn't correctly say what I meant and intended.

AAR

(Got a B4B server error the first time and will try again. I rewrote it slightly.)

Jeremiah,

I'm still running short of time and won't have time to do justice or comment on all of your questions, but I'll make a couple of quick comments for now.

Glad to hear you are getting some others interested in what's happing on the blogs, and in America. We need all the help we can get. Most of all, we need votes in November! We are facing an uphill battle because Americans have taken too much for granted for too many years and the America we knew has been and is in trouble. If Conservatives and Christians don't start standing up, defending, and really fighting, really fighting for their views, beliefs, and lifestyle, those will be replaced by ones from the people who do fight for theirs!

There are many things contributing to the decline of the past 50 or so years, but the problem with the liberal activist courts is one of the biggest contributors. Americans have allowed that to happen -- for a host of reasons. Many of the most divisive issues in America have been created or fostered by the liberal courts. The issue of gay marriage is just the latest!

Canadian Observer did make one point about B4B being mainly a political blog that I'll comment on. That ties back to the comments I made earlier when I said:

You may need to tailor your approach depending on your audience. When talking to fundamentalist Christians, a good "fire and brimstone" speech can get them going. When talking to a group who is strongly Christian in their beliefs, or religious or Christian blogs, more scripture will work. When talking to liberals or those who aren't so openly Christian, a different approach may or may not work better. In the case of political blogs like B4B, the latter is usually the case.

Personally, I would limit the amount of scripture you quotes you use on a political blog like this one, or you will lose most of those you want to influence. Most of those who read a blog like B4B will just skip over the sections which quote a great deal of scripture or which makes too many specific references to the Bible or Christian faith and beliefs. Some is appropriate -- depending on the topic -- but I would use it judiciously.

If axis or others want to start quoting the Bible, then I'd feel free to correct them, including appropriate quotes of your own, but I wouldn't go too much beyond that on a routine basis on a politically oriented blog like this one. If you want to include a quote occasionally to make a point about your beliefs, I don't think that would cause the readers to skip over the rest of what you what you are saying.

If axis and others want to defend Hitler as a Christian or attack Christians, then I will come back and defend Christians and Conservatives against their attacks and attempts at character assassination and deformation! It's not a black and white issue though, nor a sharp line that one can easily define.

Blogs 4 Bush is just one of many Conservative blogs and the one I read more than others, but there are other good ones as well. Check out some of the links on the B4B blogroll. You or your friends may like others equally as well. Also, check some of the religious blogs, especially the Christian blogs. You may find one or more you like there too. You can check on what liberals are saying on B4B and then update other blogs on those issues so others know what liberals are up to. You won't learn what's really happening if you only read and comment on the news you like to hear. As irritating as it is, it's what we don't like to read or see that many times we must be the most concerned and worried about!!!

Who knows, you and some of your friends may want to start a blog of your own with a link back to B4B or others. I keep thinking about doing just that, initially through something like the free Google blogs.

If what I said about not quoting too much scripture on some blogs came across wrong, negatively, or reduces your enthusiasm, let me know because that means, that in my haste, I did not correctly say what I meant and intended.

AAR

Canadian Observer,

I disagree to an extent with your statement that religion does not belong in the political arena.

Religion affects our beliefs, our morals, our values, our ideas, our lifestyles, our wants, our desires, what we want for our families and children, and everything about and around us. Those ideas, beliefs, and philosophy translate into and affect what we want politically, the way we vote on issues, and the people for whom we vote, and just as importantly, who and what we do not want -- such as the liberal agenda for America! Yes, our religious views do directly affect our politics!

I would tend to agree that we do not want a "national religion" but I disagree that we want all reference to God to be removed from public view as liberals are trying to do now. There is nothing wrong with voluntary public prayer, "under God", the Ten Commandments, and other religious traditions that have been part of this nation from the beginning. I don't say put the Ten Commandments on all of our new public buildings and parks, but leave those alone that are there already. And if someone wants to install a monument to our war heroes for example, and that monument contains a cross, or possibly the Ten Commandments, let them do so! If 70% of the people want to leave a monument in a park that has been their for half a century or maybe even longer, leave it alone. Those one or two individuals who don't want to see it can look the other way! And if those people want to sell off that part of the park to a private organization to satisfy the ACLU that it must be removed from public property, then let them do so!!!

Why should a group of atheists or agnostics, or their rules and agenda, be the ones who can make the laws that affect me, my lifestyle, my family, and what I want for America.

It's high time that Christians and Conservatives start standing up for what they want rather than sitting back while atheists make the decisions for them!

Oh, yes, religion DOES BELONG in politics -- not to the extend of a national church -- but IT BELONGS THERE nevertheless!

AAR

AAR, (lengthy discussion)

I find what you say to be encouraging news, at least I know I have a freind when I come to blogs for bush.

I will try to cut back a little bit on my hostile approaches towards the liberal gang, because it's like you say, The fight for morality isn't going to be won overnight!, Which is why now that you encourage me, I will try and continue working although at a more tailored approach!

I have shown my dad the sight here and he seems to be interested, he will be making a few blogs in the near future, although he is a devout christian as I,,and he will be choosing the issue's most concerning America's Morality.

Now, I would like to reenter topic here......

I talked to my pastor yesterday and I asked him about the issue concerning T. Jefferson and the constitution...........

He said that....when T. Jefferson was referring to the great wall of seperation that the liberal's
continually referr to as RELIGION STAYING OUT OF GOVERNMENT affairs,, is absolutely INCORRECT,.......

and this is what I want you to stress to Leftorium when he returns is that....

(I'll let you explain to him)
(Because I need to work on my writing skills)

What T. Jefferson was referring to was in fact.....

There shall be NO GOVERNMENT interfere or INFRINGE ON RELIGION, which in turn choosing christianity as providing a base for all government to rely on!

I'm sure you'll agree that there is no where in the constitution where it says CHURCH AND STATE!

Here I have in front of me the American dictionary of the English Language, written by Noah Webster in 1828.

NW says it like this, and this is what we need to stress to people like Leftorium and the rest of the liberal gang!

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed .... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

And....... "All government originates in families, and if neglected there, it will hardly exist in society.... The foundation of all free government and of all social order must be laid in families and in the discipline of youth....The Education of youth, and employment of more consequence than making laws and preaching the gospel, because it lays the foundation on which both law and gospel rest for success"

I don't think Mr. Webster could have said it any better, and I like what he says in his opening line of his dictionary......

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the rightous do? Psalms 11:3

He also wrote this:

"Government loses half it's value, where the moral and social duties are imperfectly understood, or negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is a work of far more importance to the character and happiness of our citizens, than any other improvements in our system of education."

AAR, This is the message we need to get across to people like Leftorium and the rest of the liberals!, and we need to let them know that we as christians are going to uphold the moral values that have stood ever since the pilgrims landed.........

.... even back at that early date in time Noah webster emphasized..... about Horace Mann and his evil doings......... by taking the Bible out of the education system, and alot of the liberal's will bring up Horace Mann's Corruption to this day...

...But later on Noah webster introduced A Federal Catechism and was later recognized as: The American Spelling Book, which introduced civics in 1794,........It gave a short explanation of the principles of the American Constitutional government and defined America as "representative republic". The "defects of democracy" were discussed and students learned distinctly why a "federal representative republic" is a "better form of government." !!!

I know you are probably like me in that Noah Webster deserves credit for all that he wrote!

P.S. Take your time and review what I have said, No rush.

Jeremiah

AAR,

I don't understand that last quote that I made there where Noah talks about the differences in "defects of democracy" and "representative of republic" please explain that to me if you will?