People vote their values, whether they are shallow or profound . . . whether they are religious or secular. Whenever a citizen enters the privacy of the voting booth, his decisions are based on something. Each citizen carries with him a view of the world and of reality, and each citizen values something. It is this that drives a voter’s decision when he pulls the lever for this candidate or another, for Republican or Democrat. Values of some sort are an inextricable and natural part of voting.
What one values when exercising his right to vote varies widely. Some may treasure the multi-culti goal of racial equality above all things. Some likely voted for Obama as a personal statement and an effort to right past racial wrongs. Still others may have voted for Obama because they value faddish trends and pop culture. There’s a reason why celebrity gossip is so popular; large swaths of the populace admire celebrities and attempt to model aspects of their own lives on the likes and dislikes of the Hollywood elite. Some voted Obama because it was cool and trendy to do so. That’s what they value. Then there are anti-religionists who often brandish the secular label, but who vote based on their opposition to anything that even smacks of religion. What they value is a mindset in opposition to organized religion and whether they admit it or not, it’s still a vote based on something they, personally, value.
Finally, there are the Christians. This is the only group that is frowned upon for doing what is universal and quite human . . . to vote your values. For a Christian to base his views on the Lordship of God and then to act upon that in all venues of his life is anathema to a modern mind indoctrinated to believe that religion is private, should be practiced only on Sunday, and should be compartmentalized from the rest of your secular life, less you offend the non-religious. This appears to be a special imposition on Christians only. Everyone else can vote their values whatever they may be, but Christians should purge all Christian thought before discussing politics (which is the art of influencing others to your position) or voting. It’s alright to vote for someone because he is hip and you value trendy stuff, but it’s not alright to vote based on your Christianity. And, it’s especially not alright to try to sway other Christians to base their votes on their Christianity. There are plenty of folks out there, many of them Christian, who admonish others for speaking of God and politics in the same paragraph. Poppycock I say!
To all Christians out there who want to live as if God really is Lord . . . I say do it and do it boldly! You will be behaving no differently than any other politician or voter in these United States. Whether they recognize it or not, they too are voting and influencing based on what it is they value. You, dear Christian, are only doing exactly the same thing. It’s OK for them, but it’s not OK for you? That’s utter nonsense and besides, what you value is real, profound, and has everlasting worth. To know this and to not let it guide your civic life is absurd and borders on the schizophrenic.
Am I therefore advocating a theocracy? This sort of an accusation, which many a Christian value voter has faced, is nothing more than a crude bludgeon and illegitimately wielded at that. To vote your Christian values or to sway other voters based on a shared system of Christian morality is NOT the equivalent of establishing a theocracy. The constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion . . . but, at the very same time, it does not limit the practice of religion to the confines of a pew. When a Christian bases his politics on his religion, he is a living, breathing example of an American exercising his rights. He is not a fanatic trying to establish a theocracy. The charge is wholly unfounded and unfair to the extreme.
Lastly, for those Christians out there . . . a blunt reminder to never, ever be ashamed of your Christianity nor your efforts to live your life, in every aspect, according to God’s expectations and His Will:
“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26)
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
What we must also never forget, and would be wise to assert
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, June 1st at 7:20PM EST (link)is that the wisdom of the Bible can be objectively defended based on data and history just as well as based on God’s endorsement.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Oh, I like that gamecock, "God's endorsement"
penguin2 (Diary) Monday, June 1st at 7:50PM EST (link)Has a wonderful ring to it.
\And mailloux, I do believe that the founding fathers, even those that were deist in their beliefs, like Jefferson, based our foundation of the nation upon Judeo-Christian law and beliefs. They would be appalled at how far we have strayed from that moral grounding in our present day society.
We must stand up for our values, our beliefs and no longer be cowed by them. The secular, atheism of the left is a religion to them. That it is why they are so intent on destroying ours.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
thx pen2, and it is no coincidence that values God endorses
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, June 1st at 8:22PM EST (link)also happen to be quite practical! The Founders understood this, whether they were Bible Believers or not. They all endorsed the Judeo-Christian values therein.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
There is a difference
Menlo (Diary) Monday, June 1st at 10:15PM EST (link)The issue for me is not WHETHER faith should play a role in our votes but HOW and to what extent. How specifically do you make the determination as to which of God’s laws you also want to be enforced by the government?
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
You miss the point entirely, unfortunately.
EvanWeeks (Diary) Monday, June 1st at 11:32PM EST (link)“How specifically do you make the determination as to which of God’s laws you also want to be enforced by the government?”
The idea isn’t to have Mosaic law enforced by the Federal Government. Far from it, actually, most Christians would simply settle for the Government to stop openly endorsing murder, hedonism and moral relativism. At the moment, I would settle for something that wasn’t patently doublespeak (read: baldfaced lies) every time Obama opens his mouth.
Really, the application of my Faith to my political views has nothing to do with some paternalistic desire to apply Mosaic law to everyone around me, but more to do with desiring what I know to be best for my country and its people. For instance, pornography destroys marriages, tears families apart and rots the heart of those suffering from that particular addiction. It is unhealthy and should be discouraged by any legal, constitutional means available. Same goes for abortion, drug use, prostitution, name a vice. The key phrase here is “discouraged by any legal, constitutional means available.” At the core here is a respect for the highest law of the land, which is not, and never will be the Bible. The highest law in this country is a document penned and amended by some of the brightest minds this country has ever seen, even to this day. They were men who understood the nature of humanity and were astute students of history.
Baby’s crying, I need to wrap this up.
Anyway, I think my point is made.
EvanWeeks – Dad. Conservative. Patriot.
Alcohol?
exitsfunnel Monday, June 1st at 11:40PM EST (link)Does alcohol belong to the group of things you want the government to “discourage by any legal constitutional means” (which I’m assuming means criminalize)?
-exits
Your assumption is erroneous.
EvanWeeks (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 8:03AM EST (link)There are plenty of means to discourage unhealthy, destructive behavior other than declaring it illegal, which nearly always leads to the creation or expansion of a criminal element in society, the people who were going to behave that way anyway, regardless of the law. No, you can pile taxes onto an activity, since taxation of an activity always reduces that activity. You can regulate an activity with restrictive laws, such as minimum age laws, restricting activity to certain locations, etc. These sorts of things are already in effect in America, what’s missing is enforcement.
I’m curious about your singling out of alcohol as a vice. Prohibition was tried in the early 20th century and failed miserably at its goals. The lesson was clear: criminalization of an act is ineffective at controlling it, and only encourages good citizens to become criminals. While I don’t personally have a problem with alcohol, there are many who do. I don’t see the consumption of alcohol (in moderation) as incompatible with my Faith, and thus it is not a very big problem on my radar when compared to the bigger-picture problem that is escapism and hedonism in our culture. Alcoholism (along with drug abuse and a host of other vices) is a symptom of the problem, not the source.
EvanWeeks – Dad. Conservative. Patriot.
Okay
exitsfunnel Tuesday, June 2nd at 12:29PM EST (link)I misread ‘discouraged by any legal constitutional means available’ as a call for criminalization, mostly because you listed several behaviors (drug use, prostitution) which the government does in fact, ban.
Thanks for the clarification.
-exits
That is not faith-based
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 1:48PM EST (link)The laws you cite have a secular purpose. They are to protect people’s health and families where there is observable and empirical (rather than simply faith-based) evidence of such harm. However, I fail to see how murder gets lumped in with things like pornography, indecency, and drug use. How is it even remotely comparable?
I think there is an inconsistency in limiting yourself to “legal and Constitutional means” when you are in fact seeking to change the law. The only limits are procedural. Even then, such limits exist in theory only. Do you honestly believe a single branch of government that has abided by the Constitution in the past 40-50 years? It is plain fact that we certainly cannot be said to be living under the Constitution now.
To that end, I would have to disagree about the “brightest minds.” I think the authors of the fourteenth amendment were hopelessly and dangerously shortsighted. History also shows that it was not ratified by a legitimate process.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
One more addition
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 1:52PM EST (link)You claim the Constitution (and presumably the nation’s laws) to be the highest law. However, as a Christian, we are obligated to serve God first, even where we risk imprisonment. Fortunately, the incidents where American Christians have had to make such a sacrifice have been rare. However, they are growing and could become much more frequent. I would agree fully that this is one area (and really the only one) where our Christian faith can and should inform our votes and our political and legal participation.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Riposte. *grin*
EvanWeeks (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 2:40PM EST (link)“The laws you cite have a secular purpose. They are to protect people’s health and families where there is observable and empirical (rather than simply faith-based) evidence of such harm. However, I fail to see how murder gets lumped in with things like pornography, indecency, and drug use. How is it even remotely comparable?”
Law is, as you say, a procedural restriction on how we go about applying our beliefs about what is best for our country and its people. The law may have a secular purpose, but as it is written, you cannot deny the impact that Faith had on the framing of those laws, and to be specific here I am speaking of everything from the Olive Branch Petition of the 2nd Continental Congress to the Constitution itself with its associated amendments. The fact that the construction of our government and its laws were informed by the secular study of hundreds of years of history is not an indictment on their foundation in Christian ethics. Far from it, since the preceding two to three hundred years at that point were rife with political and philosophical pontification from precisely that perspective. (read that five times fast)
Murder is endorsed by our Government in its sanction and tacit approval of the abortion of unborn life. This is not the place for a debate on where human life “begins” however, so lets keep that out of this discussion.
“I think there is an inconsistency in limiting yourself to “legal and Constitutional means” when you are in fact seeking to change the law. The only limits are procedural. Even then, such limits exist in theory only. Do you honestly believe a single branch of government that has abided by the Constitution in the past 40-50 years? It is plain fact that we certainly cannot be said to be living under the Constitution now.”
There are legal, Constitutional means of changing law. The Constitution itself prescribes the proper method for introducing and ratifying amendments, and we interpret certain sections of the Constitution to allow Congress to legislate on various subjects daily. Not all of these interpretations or legislations are consistent with a strict originalist view of the document, and it’s there that I have many problems, but again, that’s a debate for another time.
You and I can certainly agree that the Constitution has been and is being trampled openly by our current Federal Government. That is one of the most shameful things about modern America, that we have so brazenly discarded the fundamental document, the founding law of our nation.
“To that end, I would have to disagree about the “brightest minds.” I think the authors of the fourteenth amendment were hopelessly and dangerously shortsighted. History also shows that it was not ratified by a legitimate process.”
Very well, lets limit this definition to the first generation, say, of leaders of our country. I honestly think that the leadership in this country has degenerated since, intellectually. Leadership of the caliber that led 13 colonies in rebellion against a world superpower, an empire spanning the globe, simply do not exist in our time. As to the 14th Amendment, I do rather like the 3rd paragraph, and would love to apply it liberally to our current ruling “class.”
“You claim the Constitution (and presumably the nation’s laws) to be the highest law. However, as a Christian, we are obligated to serve God first, even where we risk imprisonment. Fortunately, the incidents where American Christians have had to make such a sacrifice have been rare. However, they are growing and could become much more frequent. I would agree fully that this is one area (and really the only one) where our Christian faith can and should inform our votes and our political and legal participation.”
The Constitution is (and must be) the foundation for all of the nation’s law, since it is by this document that the nation is founded and its government is defined (in theory, I will grant, begrudgingly). Your assertion that we should serve God first is entirely true, and fortunately to this point has rarely been in conflict with the Law. However, should the two ever come in conflict, the choice to be made is quite clear. We are God’s creatures, and must make the choices that are most consistent with the path He has defined for us. One of the biggest upcoming examples of this is the elimination of the protection of conscience in the practice of medicine. If, as a doctor, you are asked to perform an abortion, or not even something so clear-cut as that, perhaps you’re asked to pull the plug on an elderly man who, through the providence of God, may have many rewarding years of life left. If you are one of God’s faithful, your choice here is clear. Yes, that choice may become illegal in the future and you could incur fines and lose your license. Consider, however, the eternal cost, to yourself, to your witness and to all the others who are affected by the act.
I think you and I agree on much here, but are simply approaching the subject from different perspectives.
EvanWeeks – Dad. Conservative. Patriot.
Some disagreement
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 3:55PM EST (link)I hate to say it, but I honestly do not find credible a pro-life position that is based on something more than or other than one’s basis for opposition to the killing of some group of born individuals. There of course is no “debate” over when life begins (a biological fact), only over when to protect it. This makes no sense in a land that requires “equal protection” of the laws. Indeed the law should not even tolerate a state’s or its people’s acceptance of abortion. With that in mind, I fail to see how it fits in with things like obscenity and drugs.
As to the legal process, it warrants being defied via a “lesser magistrate principle,” something I would wholeheartedly support and encourage throughout our nation today. I wish more voters and people they put in office would support it. Those who see what the left has done would often see it as the only hope for making any positive change.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Some Examples?
exitsfunnel Monday, June 1st at 11:27PM EST (link)I agree that we all take our values into the voting booth – that seems almost undeniable to me. The rest of the diary though I think is built on a straw man – that somehow christians are some sort of repressed minority who are prevented from voting their values.
I think that that is some kind of fantasy. If it’s not, can you offser some examples? From where this atheist is sitting it sure seems like politicians on both sides of the aisle are off about their religion almost every time someone puts a microphone in front of their face.
In any event, having constructed your straw man, you sure did do a great job of knocking the stuffing out of it, I’ll give you that much.
-exits
Public Prayer, Religious Displays
EvanWeeks (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 8:44AM EST (link)..to name a few.
Prayer (by both students and teachers) in School has been under fire for decades now, to the point of teachers losing their jobs over a prayer as the day begins, and students being suspended or expelled over religious expression. Google “school prayer” and enjoy the litany of sources, since I won’t bother to list them here.
Religious displays of all kinds are also under fire. This last Christmas season, there were numerous stories in the news about nativity displays being taken down or banned outright, as well as protesters shouting rudely at those participating in these scenes.
Then who can forget the ongoing row over proposition 8 in California. This is the best example in America today wherein a religion, an entire religion, is being targeted for persecution simply because of their involvement in the (entirely legal) passing of a law through the democratic process.
So you see, it’s not entirely a straw man. Whenever Christians publicly display their values and beliefs, much less vote them, they are shunned, persecuted openly, and are never, EVER defended by the public at large. Christians, along with the ever-hated White Male, are the politically correct group to hate in this day and age.
EvanWeeks – Dad. Conservative. Patriot.
Evan Weeks, I appreciate . . .
mailloux (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 10:30AM EST (link)you jumping in . . . please see my response to exitsfunnel below.
Take Care, mailloux
exitsfunnel, I'm back online and would like to reply . . .
mailloux (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 10:28AM EST (link)First off, however, I want to publically thank Mr. Evan Weeks for responding in my absence. It is my diary and therefore my responsibility to answer criticisms of it, but Mr. Weeks has, in my opinion, masterfully retorted.
Next, I guess I’ll even thank you for indicating that I knocked “the stuffing” out of my “straw man”. I’m glad the diary was effective in at least that way. But, we differ on whether it’s a straw man or a real opponent with teeth. I say the latter. You, of course, assert the former.
As Mr. Weeks well pointed out, there is a growing litany where any public expression of Christianity is immediately and legally confronted by a host of organizations (e.g. ACLU, Freedom from Religion). So much for not prohibiting the free expression of religion . . . if, note you, it’s the politically incorrect religion of Christianity. In contrast, take Minnesota, for example, where public colleges installed Muslim bathing facilities (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2137749/posts). Mysteriously, there was no outcry from the usual suspects (e.g. ACLU).
So, what kind of message does this send? It tells voters and politicians alike that your Christianity is something you can do in private, but never, ever let it intrude into the public sphere. Mind you, it’s not a Nazi storm trooper kind of oppression. It’s a far more gentle tact . . . no night of the broken glass, but in the end, effective nonetheless. It’s the bottling up of Christian free expression by a formidable, not made of straw, opponent.
More evidence? I see it among politicians who happily trumpet their Christianity in one sentence and in the very next sentence promise to keep their “faith tradition” to themselves where they can value it in private. But, why bother to so boldly declare your Christianity before the electorate? Because, so many are still nominally Christian. It’s a way to make a connection with a significant segment of voters. The next sentence, where the politician promises to keep his Christianity bottled up, plays up to the cultural expectation that the Christian religion is for Sunday only and/or behind closed doors. Well, actually not even for behind closed doors . . . there was just recently an incident where San Diego County tried to stop private Bible Studies (see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C522637%2C00.html).
One last thing I want to speak of, and that’s what I consider the straw man charge of “legislating the Bible.” It is a topic worthy of a post all to itself and I’m in the process of doing just that. So stayed tuned and read it when it comes out. Then, let’s debate some more.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this diary and taking the time to comment on it.
And, knowing you are an atheist, I’ll be praying for you. Also, please try reading my “Dear Kim” letters. They are posts that are basically copies of the letters that I’m sending my niece. They are written as a basic apologetic for God and Christianity. With respect, I’d very much value your take on them. They are at the following links:
http://www.redstate.com/mailloux/2009/04/30/what-senator-charles-schumer-has-to-do-with-my-niece/
http://www.redstate.com/mailloux/2009/05/12/dear-kim-letter-2-science-in-conflict-with-religion-%e2%80%93-a-modern-fallacy/
http://www.redstate.com/mailloux/2009/05/27/the-atrophy-of-awe-and-wonder/
Take Care, mailloux
Thanks
exitsfunnel Tuesday, June 2nd at 12:21PM EST (link)Thanks Mailloux (and Evan) for having taken the time to reply.
I’m of course familiar with the examples you supplied. As issues unto themselves they are an interesting and mixed bag. At one end of the spectrum, organized prayer in public school I think really is pretty offensive and at the other is the situation in San Diego County which, if it’s been faithfully reported here and on other Conservative sites, really does seem to be outrageous behavior by the state.
But none of those issues, it seems to me, rises anywhere near the level your diary suggests (it’s vague on specifics for obvious reasons) whereby Christians are uniquely discouraged (by some unstated mechanism) from expressing and voting their values.
Fully seventy-six percent of the US population identifies themselves as Christian. The President (and each of his successors going back 150 years) is a Christian. An overwhelming majority of the Congress are Christians. Christians dominate virtually all of government at all levels. The whole ‘Christians as repressed minority’ argument is on its face absurd. It’s the worst kind of identity politics, because it contains not even a kernel of truth.
-exits
exitsfunnel, there's this too . . .
mailloux (Diary) Tuesday, June 2nd at 1:23PM EST (link)the state of Connecticut and their legislative effort to wrest control of the Catholic Church away from the Catholic hierarchy (i.e. the Bishops). Yes, that’s right, I did write the words, “legislative effort.” That’s an egregious attack on religious freedom. Would they (the CT. legislature) have tried the same thing with perhaps a Mosque known to donate to questionable Muslim charities? I think not. The story by the way is here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15325
All in all, the list can go on and on. There are plenty of examples where Christians are being told to keep their Christianity very, very private indeed.
Just because Christians are the majority in terms of religious identity doesn’t change the fact that Christians are constantly being fed the message that although it’s OK to declare you are a Christian, you’d better keep it a private matter. When you can’t even have a moment of silence in a public school setting (not actual prayer, but only a moment of silence), what kind of message does that send religious people?
Also, I don’t think I’m playing an identity politics game. Identity politics tend to play up the victim status. I’m not a victim. Victims often don’t fight back. I do. Identity politics victims usually want some special status. I don’t want any special status. I just don’t want anyone telling me I can’t invoke religion when discussing politics . . . and no less when discussing religion/politics with co-religionists! It’s happened on more than one occasion and it’s the reason I penned this very diary. Am I an isolated case? Maybe . . . but I suspect not.
Thanks again for engaging in this discussion and sharing your opinions with me. I appreciate the debate even if we don’t see things in the same way.
Take Care, mailloux
Mailloux, please see my reply to exits. Thoughts? (nt)
penguin2 (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 8:42AM EST (link)Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
Exitsfunnel, I think you are being a little disingenuous here...
penguin2 (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 8:26AM EST (link)when you say there is no discouragement of Christians “from expressing their values.” There has been a driven, 50 years attack (and more) on any public expression of the Christian faith. Just as the ACLU and associated groups got prayer out of public schools, you and yours are systematically dismantling religion in this country.
There are tons of examples, besides what Mailloux and Mr. Weeks noted. Try the memorial crosses on roadsides for accident victims, try the 7 foot cross in the desert of California, commemorating veterans of WWI that has been there since 1934, now covered by plywood. This case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Everywhere it can the ACLU files suits-your goal is to destroy religion, not just suppress it’s expression. Add the war on Christmas, don’t say Merry Christmas…Christian bashing, vile jokes, etc. all acceptable. Not quite able to get away with it against the Jews (yet) because people are still quite sensitive to anti-Semitism in this country. I believe that your goal is to remove every visible symbol of Christianitty and Judaism in this country. The ACLU will be going after the Crosses on our churches, the Star of David on the synagogues, because it “offends” the atheist across the street.
The only wall that I believe you’ll finally run into is Islam. From what I see they don’t put up with people coming in and destroying their practice of their faith.
I am just a regular American citizen, not a theologian (obviously), so I say again -you are being a little disingenuous here. No need to do that,. Say outright what the ACLU and like groups are all about. You see, your atheism, which is your religion, is trying to destroy mine.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
Yep.
icbm (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 11:34AM EST (link)Well put, all around.
penguin2, sorry for the late reply, and . . .
mailloux (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 3:55PM EST (link)you summed it up beautifully. This is no straw man as exits asserted. It’s quite real and I don’t know how much more evidence one can present . . . I think it’s reached beyond a reasonable doubt.
And, I still don’t think this is “identity politics.” We Christians don’t want any extra privileges. We just want to enjoy our right to the free exercise of religion specified in our constitution. The purpose of my post was simply to tell other Christians to “Be not afraid” (to borrow one of the mottos of the late Pope John Paul II).
Thanks for your input, penguin2 . . . it’s always insightful and valuable.
Take Care, mailloux
what if lincoln gave his second inaugural today?
icbm (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 11:39AM EST (link)how do you think most of the left would react to his religious comments?
forget about even all of his comments – what about the one phrase “the judgements of the L-rd are true and righteous altogether”? or what about the phrase “with firmness in the right as G-d gives us to see the right”?
how long would it take the left and much of the media to start talking about the danger of theocracy, etc. etc.?
Im glad you wrote this
panthera (Diary) Wednesday, June 3rd at 10:56AM EST (link)Ive been seeing a lot of what I call crappy logic in discussion boards:
Of Miss California-
“The ‘morality’ issue being dicated by someone who thinks that it’s ok to pose topless but it’s not ok to marry the person you love. it’s great that she reflects this state….”
“When people adhere to a principle (like “biblically correct” whatever that means) over reason, empathy, and decency, they are dangerous. Not caring about the real human consequences of your thoughts and actions is the essences of irresponsibility. Doing so on the public stage is dangerous.”
It really frustrates me.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
The "taboo" ain't new. It's been around more than
icbm (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 11:33AM EST (link)fifty years now as a force in American politics. First, the Left was able to eradicate any ties between public schools and religion, and then they moved on to trying to eradicate religion from all public life.
If you haven’t already, you should read Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court decision in 1962, the first major political success for the anti-religious folks in America.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=206
icbm, you have an appropriate user name . . .
mailloux (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 3:58PM EST (link)like an intercontinental ballistic missile, you made short work of laying waste to the claim that there isn’t a concerted anti-Christian movement in existence.
Thanks for the examples and the links.
Take Care, mailloux