Abortion remains a sticking point in health care reform legislation. The House version of the bill would allow people to use federal subsidies to buy private insurance that covers abortion, but only if the federal funds don’t go toward paying for an abortion. In other words, the insurance companies would have to use money from other sources, such as private employer insurance premiums, to pay for the coverage. But some House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, want a complete ban, and may have enough votes to derail the bill.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/20
- Prof on Diner fight can seed success
- Regular on Open thread 11/20
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/20
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/20
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/20
- Chas on Open thread 11/20
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/20
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/20
- Chas on Open thread 11/20
164 Comments
With any morality and luck at all we can all hope you’re right Phillip. No one should be required to pay taxes that kill innocent life.
Advocates of Illegal Abortion are flexing their muscle within the Repubic Party.
“Leave No Back-Alley Butcher Behind!”
Run with that.
Men and women have the right of reproductive freedom. That is the law for more than 30 years now. Those who have a problem with that are going to have to learn to get over their problem.
“Boxlock20″ declares –
“No one should be required to pay taxes that kill innocent life.”
Does that mean I get all my Iraq War taxes back?
Monkey,
You logic with that above comment is no more intelligent and mature than yielding to a child’s threat to bang their head against the wall unless you give them just what they want.
No Monkey, innocent life is jeopardized in war, but NOT taken as the objective.
Your arguments this morning a typically weak, go have another cup of java.
In the two posts above, you should understand:
You= Yourand
a= areI need more coffee as well.
“Boxlock20″ –
So… killing innocent lives is okay sometimes?
“Men and women have the right of reproductive freedom. “–BlueJay
Just where is that being denied, anywhere by anybody BlueJay?
People MUST exercise PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY with that freedom.
You never have matured enough to understand that on this subject and many many others as well.
Crap happens Monkey, crap happens all the time.
Anybody that thinks war isn’t necessary sometimes is living in a fog.
Advocates of Illegal Abortion are flexing their muscle within the Repubic Party.
It is easy to see when an opponent is supporting a weak or non-defendable position. They resort to lies and distortion of facts. Case in point.
“Boxlock20″ gives us –
“People MUST exercise PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY”
That’ll be a handy reference next time WE Blog CONs attack “Chas” for his cap-lock abuse.
But to the point:
For at least 5,000 years, women who were faced with the, ahem, “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” of bringing another kid into the world have sought abortificants and procedures to prevent that outcome.
CONs are not going to eliminate abortion.
They’re simply arguing to make it illegal.
Leave no Back-Alley Butcher Behind.
That’s your slogan.
BlueJay
Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:49 am | Permalink
Men and women have the right of reproductive freedom.
Junior,
Do you support a woman’s right to engage in prostitution? It is after all her body her choice.
Instead of discussing the implication of the topic, the local libs try to assign villain status.
But some House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, want a complete ban, and may have enough votes to derail the bill.
Looks to me, the Democrats have bigger fish to fry than casting stones.
First, this topic is NOT on the legality or illegality of abortion, it is whether or not forcing the payment of taxes on those who adamantly reject doing so, whatever their reason and conscience dictate, should be included in this massive governmental intrusion in health care and our economy.
And by the way, the law has for quite some time established the responsibility aspect for men as well as women….just try defining the courts with respect to support.
“SolDevVB” –
Prostitution is not called the “Oldest Profession” for nothing.
Perhaps the approach should be regulations rather than moralistic (and impotent) bans.
Guess I’m curious then Monkey; why are you so vocal in your support of abortion, admonition of those you deem to be “CONs” over abortion, but we never hear your voice in support of prostitution?
Are you a cafeteria libruhl?
So, “Boxlock20,” you’re cool with health insurance reform so long as half the population doesn’t get full coverage?
Then say it.
Say what you mean instead of bringing up tangential issues to distract the debate.
“Killing innocent lives…” is abhorrent to you, unless those innocent lives happen to be Iraqi. Just admit it. Grow a pair. Say what you really mean.
1. Good
2. I never care for the accounting games these systems try to implement. It is meaningless. Even if there is a provision that no money from X will pay for Y the effect is that there is still more money. And the increase enables whatever the original provision was trying to prevent.
Example:
Dept. A and B have a budget of $100 each. New funding of $100 comes in that cannot be spent on B. So A’s funding is changed to $100 from the new source and $50 existing while B’s budget is $150 from the old source. Both A and B effectively got an increase of $50 thanks to the new funding. Even though the new funding could not be spent on B.
Aside from the obvious problems with forcing taxpayers to pay for the deliberate murder of millions of infants every year, the new healthcare bills do NOT contain a “conscience clause.”
This means that pro-life healthcare workers, Christian-owned hospitals and even doctor’s clinics could eventually be forced to participate in the murder of innocent infants.
I have seen many on the left insist that healthcare workers and pharmacists should deal with the destruction of innocent infants because “that’s just part of the job.” However, like the majority of healthcare workers and pharmacists, this was NEVER “just part of the job.”
I’ve been a healthcare worker for 16 years, and never in any way assisted with a deliberate murder.
Many pharmacists worked for decades before the new abortifacient drugs were approved…yet they are now being sued for refusing to assist with murder.
Healthcare workers must retain the same rights as all other Americans…the right to refuse to assist with murder in order to retain a job!
HOW MANY OF YOU LEFTISTS WOULD KEEP A JOB (assuming you have one…), THAT WOULD FORCE YOU TO TAKE INNOCENT LIFE?
You’re losing AGAIN Monkey….don’t try and put your words in my mouth so you can feel like you’re even in this conversation.
So the issue at hand is where any source of money can be used for something that you do not approve of?
That there is no guarantees that if one source provides money to another that other won’t use it for something you disapprove of.
Tax dollars would be going to provide health care insurance not abortion.
How many know if their current policy covers abortion? If you do know it is either because you had to find out. Or were that anal retentive that you actually looked it up.
This is more making the mountain out of the mole hill, in this case it is not about a concern over abortion.
It trying to put a road block in the path of insuring people.
“ProudMan” contributes –
“Dept. A and B have a budget of $100 each. New funding of $100 comes in that cannot be spent on B. So A’s funding is changed to $100 from the new source and $50 existing while B’s budget is $150 from the old source. Both A and B effectively got an increase of $50 thanks to the new funding. Even though the new funding could not be spent on B.”
What are you smoking?
Wow, glad you are around Mom_of_5!
Now get ready to get ’slimed’, by the advocates of death and a lack of personal responsibility.
Don’t worry though…looks like you can take it and let it slid right off.
Yes mom of 5 there also should be a provision that states if a health professional happens to be racist, sexist or anti Semitic. That they should not be required to do anything to help someone they hate for what ever reason!
Or as much as you are arguing.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:47 am | Permalink
Advocates of Illegal Abortion are flexing their muscle within the Repubic Party.
“Leave No Back-Alley Butcher Behind!”
Run with that.
—————-
Watch out, or the Monkey demagogue robot, set on CON, may blow a circuit if it realizes this may not be such a CON LIB issue.
As nearly as I can tell, this is a Dem issue. Republicans aren’t the obstruction to the obama. How can they as a minority party?
Courageous pro-life Dems are.
MH,
Do you have a specific part of the example which I can try to help you understand?
What are you smoking?
Monkey,
This is legit. In both Texas and Michigan, the lottery was approved because the lobbyists promised the proceeds would go to education. And factually it has. The problem is: the school budget is funded with X amount of dollars. Lotto proceeds total Y and are added to the education budget, but the Y dollars are removed from the education budget and moved to the general (or other) budgets. Ergo, the fact that lotto proceeds went to education is factual, but the education funds have still not exceeded X. Smoke and mirror politics. Both parties have dirty hands.
Wow, look at those gold and silver commodity prices this morning!
Looks like those driving that increase are not liking the economic policies of this administration’s wild creation of fiat money and deficit spending.
Looking pretty sweet for those that saw it coming and put some money in hard assets too.
This health care takeover by the government, it they pull it off, will just make it worse. Or better if you advocate for the economic destruction of this country.
The fact is factual? OK I call myself out on that one. Good Lord it is too early.
You can cut the hypocrisy on the right with a knife!
Get all them babies born but no health care for them once they are!
How foolish can you get to think the money will be seperated?
Planned parenthood says they seperate the money they receive from the government so it does not pay for abortions. BS
Reality is it allows other money to be freed up so you just use money from other sources for the abortions and replace those sources with money from the government.
It is no more than a shell game.
In fact, let’s just set a little telling trap for the cons posting here.
Resolved: At birth, all Americans should be entitled to basic health care. Can I get a second?
You can cut the hypocrisy on the right with a knife!
Do you support prostitution junior? A woman’s body, her right to choose?
Mom_of_5: In many countries with universal care, faith based hospitals do not do abortions nor is anyone who works in the health care field obliged to partcipate in any way by reason of their values base of faith, reason or morals. The same is true with same sex marraiges.
“BlueJay” offers –
“Resolved: At birth, all Americans should be entitled to basic health care. Can I get a second?”
Heh.
Them damned newborns don’t pay any taxes!
The RepubliCONs ignore the simple fact that with better health care, abortions would become almost unheard of.
Look at Europe. Abortion rates are a fraction of what they are here because people have easy access to birth control and family planning information.
I’m sick of both sides–the pro-choice feminists love this issue because fear of an abortion ban whips up passion and fund-raising for their larger goals.
Ditto for the pro-life religious fundos. Randal Terry doesn’t give a damn about the “unborn child,” but he sure knows a good gig when he sees one . . . money for nothing and the chicks are free.
I for one am tired of seeing every important question in this country reduced to its impact on a fetus.
Give us universal gov’t regulated healthcare, and abortion will go away on its own–which is something that neither side, pro-choice or pro-life, seems to want!
Its a simple truth Boxlock, not a slim no one is free from doing something they do not like in any job.It is what they are paid to do, it is part of the job they have accepted the same as a nurse has to clean up a patent who had soiled the bedding.
The same as the animal control person also picks up the dogs and cats that get ran over.
Going in, people know or at least should know they will end up doing things they do not approve of.
If they do not wish to doing something they find against their morality that makes them feel belittled or they see as pointless. They should chose a different occupation.
Or should we be arguing for the right of someone that hates White people to be able to pick and choose? To make the moral evaluation of whether your life is worth it or not?
A true story: In one city where there was so many pot holes that the city street workers could not fill them all in a timely matter. The Mayor ordered all city employees to grab a shovel and help.
One Police lieutenant refused, saying he had not studies and worked so hard to fill pot holes instead of being a Law enforcement officer. It was not what he was hired to do, shortly afterwards he was no longer employed.
No Doctor is required other then if it is a part of their oath to perform a abortion to save the mother’s life.
That is a separate issue and not what Mom is talking about, she is talking about the making of a choosing to not perform a part of the job that they took. A part that they were aware it was a part of the job they trained was were licensed to do.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:19 am | Permalink
The RepubliCONs ignore the simple fact that with better health care, abortions would become almost unheard of.
—————————
But then, Tiller would not have become a multi-millionaire. ProKanDo would have never evolved.
The socialization of abortion medicine will lead to the low hanging fruit of the competence ladder.
MHawk–
Correction . . . them damn newborns don’t hire lobbyists.
The fetus however is fully represented by the right-to-life coalition, who see the abortion issue as the perfect vehicle for ramming their religious morality down other people’s throats.
“SolDevVB” tries again –
“Do you support prostitution junior? A woman’s body, her right to choose?”
You’ve had nearly an hour to respond to:
Monkeyhawk
Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:25 am | Permalink
“SolDevVB” –
Prostitution is not called the “Oldest Profession” for nothing.
Perhaps the approach should be regulations rather than moralistic (and impotent) bans.
But (as is commonplace with WE Blog CONs) you ignore that and repeat an earlier post which has been slapped down.
Interesting comment, Regular.
So you’re saying that the federal gov’t by paying your medical bills has reduced the competency of the physicians you see?
Just wondering . . .
Prostitution is already legal in Nevada.
The religious fundos are strangely silent on that . . .
Call it red meat for the rabid or a bright shiny object to distract in the end this is meaningless and a distraction.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:24 am | Permalink
Interesting comment, Regular.
So you’re saying that the federal gov’t by paying your medical bills has reduced the competency of the physicians you see?
Just wondering . .
————-
I have medical insurance, I see private physicians not part of socialized medicine.
Today, I pick up some medicine at Walgreens, which I pay for myself with a co-pay.
Next!
“Do you support prostitution junior?
Monkey,
Are you junior’s spokesman now?
What Regular posted is not an outright lie, but it is so misleading that it has the effect of a lie:
You are on Tricare which Wiki defines as
TRICARE, formerly known as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), is a health care program of the United States Department of Defense Military Health System. TRICARE provides civilian health benefits for military personnel, military retirees, and their dependents, including some members of the Reserve Component.
So you’re right, you go to civilian doctors and you have co-pays, you may have a monthly premium etc. but any major costs are picked up by the federal government.
Everyone having the option to have what you have would not reduce the competency of doctors any more than Tricare already does.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:33 am | Permalink
What Regular posted is not an outright lie, but it is so misleading that it has the effect of a lie:
——————
What I said wasn’t a lie, I was just correcting the misinformation you are trying to spread.
Just because people have engaged in a particular behavior for thousands of years does not make it right. People have been killing each other, raping each other, and on and on for thousands of years. Doesn;t mean it is right.
False argument
Notice how CapnA frames his comment. Ram their religious morality down other people’s throat. Where does morality come from, Capn? What makes one moral issue religious and another not?
Or are they just disingenuous, mindless buzzwords designed to inflame the emotions?
junior?
No position on prostitution (no pun intended)?
What if it was government sponsered/funded?
It is a woman’s right to choose prostitution isn’t it junior?
It wasn’t misinformation, Regular.
The Democratic plans are very similar to the Tricare system.
It’s not “socialized medicine.” It’s the gov’t allowing people to join a national pool that is administered by the gov’t.
Doctors would still be in private practice just like they are now under the Tricare plan.
That’s exactly the problem with this debate. We have the models in place. We see that they work.
But the right-wing continues to viciously attack universal health care as “socialism,” which it is not.
We have a real need for an honest debate on the merits of the bills. Instead the right-wing comes out with a “no compromise” all out attack using any argument possible, true or not.
Mainly not.
I don’t remember a “junior” posting here solie. Is this a nic of “Regular”’s that I missed?
outlander–
If the United States were a religious theocracy like Iran, you’re argument would have merit.
Since the founders expressly omitted any reference to God in the Constitution and expressly argued in favor of freedom FROM religion, it has none.
Which of my questions of you were you addressing Capn?
You’re tap dancing again.
“expressly argued in favor of freedom FROM religion”
Please show your work.
writerdog,
Yours is a totally straw a argument.
Taken to your illogical conclusion anyone could be required to do anything that an employer decides to require of them regardless of the moral, ethical or legal consequences.
It wasn’t against the law to force Jews into the gas chambers now was it. Hum, seems like those that did, if caught, now are paying with the threat of life as a result.
Health care workers are doing what they do because of…yes income, but also because they desire to further life and health not take it.
Junior’s argument is ludicrous as well.
“Get all them babies born but no health care for them once they are!”—BlueJay
Just because bad and unfortunate things happen in life to some, actually all, is no reason to assume killing them before they even have a chance is right or the thing to do. Just dumb!
Monkeyhawk
Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:47 am | Permalink
Advocates of Illegal Abortion are flexing their muscle within the Repubic Party.
————
Interesting posts here today. Writer has morphed over from that ‘other blog’ where no one disagrees with him and cap is still spreading lies and distortions and from looking at the above monkey still doesn’t realize that ‘his’ own party is in the drivers seat. If they want socialized insurance they should just vote on it and pass it.
Why don’t they. Could it be that their own party doesn’t support this idiotic plan that would bankrupt a once great nation. Could it be that many dems are listening to their constituents.
As for writer to compare emptying a bedpan to killing a baby is just so emblematic of the left. The unborn are the most helpless among us and someone has to speak out for them. Thank goodness some dems have values that haven’t been corrupted by those they are surrounded by.
And cap well cap just has so many problems I don’t know where to start except to say what has been posted overandoverandoverandover again.
Reg’s insurance is the result of an employment contract he signed with the gov. He worked the number of years required to get this insurance cov for life just as union workers and other do.
It just shows the lefts desperation when they think it is alright for those like BJ to say they deserve free healthcare coverage while saying in the same breath that Reg is some kind of charity case because he uses the insurance he worked to earn.
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read
Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.”
Cap get out your dictionary and look up the difference in ‘of’ and ‘from’. For an instructor we have to spend a lot of time instructing you.
Intreseting that most of the posters on this thread are male, my feeling is if you don’t have a va gina you have no dog in the fight
Have none of you CONs ever heard of the concept of the wall of separation of church and state, Jefferson wrote about based on the First Amendment?
Do you not remember that England in the 16th and 17th century was Anglican and required everyone to go to that and only that church every Sunday, and Roman Catholics and Jews were banned or killed?
Did you not hear of the Thirty Years War in Europe only about a century before the US was founded which pitted Catholic against Protestant in what turned out to be the most vicious war of its time?
The defeat of the Spanish Armada (Catholic) against the (Protestant) English?
It’s you religious fundos who need to go back to school to see all the hurt and pain that your intolerance has caused throughout history.
It’s exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent here.
So Freebird1971….using the same logic, if you don;t pay any federal income tax, you have no dog in the fight about who should pay how much in income tax?
So Freebird1971….using the same logic, if you don;t pay any federal income tax, you have no dog in the fight about who should pay how much in income tax?
•Freebird1971
Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:11 am | Permalink
Intreseting that most of the posters on this thread are male, my feeling is if you don’t have a va gina you have no dog in the fight
================================
I disagree.
1. Males pay taxes too. (Abortions paid for by taxpayer is the topic)
2. *It takes two to make a fetus.
*Incidences of rape, incest, and the life of the mother excluded.
I almost forgot . . . the Founders so detested others ramming their religion down people’s throats that they explicitly stated that “there shall be no religious test to hold office in the United States.”
This was a rebuke of England that in 1700 or so passed a law that no Catholic could be monarch.
Oh brother, CapnHyperbole. And you just proclaim an issue “religious” so that you don’t have to answer hard questions about it?
So, where does morality come from, Capn? What makes one moral issue religious and another not?
CapnAmerica-
Quit blathering and answer the question. Your arguments are without any weight
“Have none of you CONs ever heard of the concept of the wall of separation of church and state, Jefferson wrote about based on the First Amendment?
Yeas, he wrote that to the Danbury baptists, assuring them that the the federal goverment would not be interfering with them
“Do you not remember that England in the 16th and 17th century was Anglican and required everyone to go to that and only that church every Sunday, and Roman Catholics and Jews were banned or killed?”
We are talking about the US, not England. You specifically talked about the founding fathers.
What does the above have to do with their discussion
“Did you not hear of the Thirty Years War in Europe only about a century before the US was founded which pitted Catholic against Protestant in what turned out to be the most vicious war of its time?
The defeat of the Spanish Armada (Catholic) against the (Protestant) English?”
Did you not hear we were talking about the United States? and the founding fathers?
*Incidences of rape, incest, and the life of the mother excluded from my points concerning taxpayer paid abortions….Not fetus making.
Since the founders expressly omitted any reference to God in the Constitution and expressly argued in favor of freedom FROM religion, it has none.
What did the founders believe should determine law?
If the people decide the law, then they decide the law. If their decision is religiously based, then it is none of your business.
The founders had no problem with religion influencing law, if you disagree, please provide a reference. They also wanted everyone to be free to practice whatever religion they wanted. That does not mean that religion can not have influence on law in a democraticaly represented government. Everyone has a religion, even those who claim they have none.
Capn’s own secular religion influences what he thinks the law should be. Only in his case, he thinks his religion is the only one that should matter. Maybe Capn should learn a few valuable lessons about what Democracy really means.
“Jedediah Morse:
“To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”
“John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]”
“John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress”
““ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 “
Let me put it another way it should be a woman’s right to have an abortion but it also should be the right of taxpayers not to pay for it except for Anti’s exclusions.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:17 am | Permalink
Have none of you CONs ever heard of the concept of the wall of separation of church and state, Jefferson wrote about based on the First Amendment?
—————————
On April 21, 1803, Jefferson wrote this to Dr. Benjamin Rush (also a signer of the Declaration of Independence):
“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”
CapnAmerica-
You are free to have whatever religion you want, or none. Few, if any, care. By the same token, so may any other person within the United States. And they make excercise it whether you like it or not. If they get their principles from it, and you get yours from staring at a tree or a plate of spaghetti, your choice.
Ahhh…the same old tired argument from the ComradeCapn.
The “ wall of separation” was never intended to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of religion.
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
George Read (September 18, 1733 – September 21, 1798) was an American lawyer and politician from New Castle in New Castle County, Delaware. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Continental Congressman from Delaware, a delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, President of Delaware, and a member of the Federalist Party, who served as U.S. Senate from Delaware and Chief Justice of Delaware.
“Anticipating the Declaration of Independence, the General Assembly of the Lower Counties declared its separation from the British government on June 15, 1776. Once the Declaration of Independence was actually adopted, the General Assembly called for elections to a Delaware constitutional convention to draft a constitution for the new state. Read was elected to this convention, became its President, and guided the passage of the Thomas McKean-drafted document, which became the Delaware Constitution of 1776.”
The Deleware Constitution on 1776
“ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
” I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced.”
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration”
Done. You can all go back to your regularly scheduled programming
“KSGolfnut” tries –
“The “ wall of separation” was never intended to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of religion.”
And the difference is…?
“my feeling is if you don’t have a va gina you have no dog in the fight”
You sure got that right! ‘Sides, if’n your a right-winger gwettin’ a D&C it ain’t like it’s really an abortion. ‘Boshuns are what low-life, non-American people get.
About prostitution being legal…Isn’t that what marriage pre-1980 was? Or marrying a rich woman so you can sit on your duff? Or insurance companies?
“The founders had no problem with religion influencing law, if you disagree, please provide a reference. They also wanted everyone to be free to practice whatever religion they wanted.”
Actually, I only disagree with the ‘free to practice…’ bit of it. reference Mary Dyer. Not the only case, but is the most referenced.
On a side note, I’ve always had a bit of a problem with ‘founders’. Most people consider our founding fathers as the framers of the constitution. I consider our Founding Fathers as the people who came a century or more earlier. Y’know, the people who were tired of getting their keesters kicked for their religious beliefs so fled to America to kick the keesters of anyone who didn’t agree with their beliefs. Kinda like the milquetoast who got the daily swirly in school so became a policeman to show them!
KSGolfnut-
False. The explicit ban on a “religious test” was intended to indeed keep religion out of government.
To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.
So what.
The argument is not that the Founders weren’t essentially Christian (with a wide variety of definitions of that term). Washington went to Anglican service every Sunday.
The argument is that “the government of the United States is not Christian, nor does it support Christianity, nor reflect Christianity (except in the broad parallels that good ethics mirror any religion one can think of), nor any other religion.”
That’s the argument that has been well established in the affirmative that CONs now wish to re-write the history of . . .
So, where does morality come from, Capn? What makes one moral issue religious and another not?
******
Irrelevant. The issue is abortion. Abortion is permitted under US law. US law is based on the gov’t which is based on The Constitution.
Where does The Constitution derive its authority?
“We the People.”
ComradeCapn:
True. The explicit ban on a “religious test” was intended to keep government out of religion.
LittleJohn makes abundantly clear why he’s a CON–
We are talking about the US, not England. You specifically talked about the founding fathers.
What does the above have to do with their discussion
Did you not hear we were talking about the United States? and the founding fathers?
******
History wasn’t your strong suit, was it, LJ?
Before the Founders drafted The Constitution, they thank GOD, unlike you, were aware of what had caused CONflicts in previous times.
One of the primary areas of CONflict was one group of religious people demanding that another group of religious people abandon their false religious beliefs. Both religious groups were willing to, nay were HAPPY to kill for the privilege of “defending” their faith.
Gov’t’s like England (Anglican) and Spain (Roman Catholic) and Holland (Lutheran) were locked into their “national” religions and intimately bound with that religious identity.
This led to war, to repression, to torture, to inhumanity, to seizing property, to every imaginable evil one can think of.
That’s exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent here. And exactly what the religious-nut jobs are trying to impose 250 years later . . .
Capn. The game is not “dodge the question”. You are the one who made the overreaching comment; “the fetus however is fully represented by the right-to-life coalition, who see the abortion issue as the perfect vehicle for ramming their religious morality down other people’s throats.”
Now you want to run away from it. Don’t blame you.
KSNut–
How does not permitting a religious test keep gov’t out of religion?
After 1700 (or so), no Catholic could rule England.
That’s a religious test.
That keeps a religion (Catholic) out of gov’t and by default requires that a Protestant be the ruler.
This insures that the country will be ruled by a Protestant.
It is the very essence of religion in government.
Gov’t’s like England (Anglican) and Spain (Roman Catholic) and Holland (Lutheran) were locked into their “national” religions and intimately bound with that religious identity.
Correct – the founders goal was to keep Government out of religion as was already pointed out.
outlander–
You do want to ram your religious morality down other people’s throats.
I see abortion as morally wrong. But as an American, I don’t have the right to impose my morality on to others who disagree, except by the ballot box.
You and the Taliban have this in common–you both want to seize power and force the government to do what your religion dictates.
My question is why don’t you join Al Qaeda. There’s no abortion in Saudi Arabia, that’s for sure. No drinking alcohol either.
CapnAmerica continues to blather along, without answering the question.
“History wasn’t your strong suit, was it, LJ?
Before the Founders drafted The Constitution, they thank GOD, unlike you, were aware of what had caused CONflicts in previous times.”
So, go ahead and counter the statements by the several of the founding fathers—I can give you more— and prove that thye founding fathers
“expressly argued in favor of freedom FROM religion”
I’ll wait. The problem is, your ideology gets in the way of your study of history.
And your incessant capitilization of the letters con in any word that happens to contain them, shows a tenacity for childish, jr high behavior. But please go on with it.
And on the “religion out of government” v. “government out of religion” question –
Nothing from WE Blog CONs.
What’s the difference?
Say Capn, show me where the separation of church and state is written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I’ll wait.
You can keep religion in an institutional sense out of government, banning such as the “no Catholics law” Capn quotes. But you can’t keep religious principles out. They are part of what people are. And there is no way to know why a person supports, for instance, abortion restrictions. And to dismiss it as “ramming religion down others’ throats” is as intellectually lazy as it gets.
The founding fathers wanted neither a state run church, or a church ran state. However, neither did they “expressly argued in favor of freedom FROM religion”
In fact, many, many of them acknowledged the hand of God or religion in what they were doing in establishing a new country and style of government
Solly,
At various times, the church owned and operated brothels, so it sacrificed any moral authority it might have had on the subject. And yes, I believe that prostitution ought to be legalized, the girls should get publicly funded healthcare and police protection along with the rest of us, and pay taxes just like everybody else. Outlawing and stigmatizing it has never worked and placing it outside the law has caused many more problems and horror stories than legalization would. The problems with outlawing any vice is that
A. It has never been possible to effectively enforce and thus causes disrespect for laws in general.
B. It places it beyond the power of the state to regulate.
C. It de facto allows the abuse and murder of women engaged in the profession.
lj,
When establishments of religion demand the state write laws specifically designed to enforce that establishment’s religious/moral behavior on people whose religious beliefs may be counter to the establishment’s view, we have theocracy. That is exactly what the framers intended to prevent. You certainly don’t want the government dictating your sermons; don’t demand the government enforce them!
Right now 55% of the country (polling) at the very least wish to see stricter limits on abortions if not a complete ban.
It’s not wise to pass legislation including funding for something the majority of the country has issue with.
Monkeyhawk
Posted November 4, 2009 at 11:53 am | Permalink
And on the “religion out of government” v. “government out of religion” question –
Nothing from WE Blog CONs.
What’s the difference?
————————————————–
Government out of religion is in the Constituition.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
You can’t take religion out of Government unless we are completely Governed by atheists.
That’s my opinion.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
James Madison–
“the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.”
Was it possible in the new United States to be prosecuted for atheism, as it was in England and most European countries?
No.
Why not, if the United States government did not allow freedom FROM religion?
Answer–because the United States government was founded on the notion that a national religion is government intervention into religion AND religious intervention into government.
The founders didn’t want either one.
Dear Shark,
The rather large shadow that just passed over you was the cap’n. Yup. He jumped you again. Better luck next time.
-Sollie
Jed-
I well understand your argument. The same can be said of the “moralizing” of the government nanny state. The mantra is it is immoral, or wrong, for one person to have health insurance and not all. Not to get into that discussion, but the fact is, that all law is based on somebody’s morals, whether thay got them from scriptures of whatever sort, Philosphers such as Socrates or Mao, or Kant, or whomever. The founding fathers did indeed recognize the benefits of religion, and the basis of religion on much of moral lie. You simply want to argue which “moral base” is correct. That’s fine, really. I have no problem with that. If you want to base your arguments on the Koran, that is your priviledge. What the people end up accepting, without the courts intervention, is the lowest common denominator of what the “morals” of the society will accept.
Jed-
I well understand your argument. The same can be said of the “moralizing” of the government nanny state. The mantra is it is immoral, or wrong, for one person to have health insurance and not all. Not to get into that discussion, but the fact is, that all law is based on somebody’s morals, whether thay got them from scriptures of whatever sort, Philosphers such as Socrates or Mao, or Kant, or whomever. The founding fathers did indeed recognize the benefits of religion, and the basis of religion on much of moral lie. You simply want to argue which “moral base” is correct. That’s fine, really. I have no problem with that. If you want to base your arguments on the Koran, that is your priviledge. What the people end up accepting, without the courts intervention, is the lowest common denominator of what the “morals” of the society will accept.
Regular
Posted November 4, 2009 at 11:54 am | Permalink
Say Capn, show me where the separation of church and state is written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I’ll wait.
——————–
Still waiting…
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is written the words: “Separation of Church and State”
spin-Capn-Spin. You can;t back up your statement. You know it. And now, so do we all.
Kia,
There was a time within my memory that an even larger majority of people demanded that racial discrimination be written into laws and enforced. We called them “Jim Crow” laws. These laws are now a part of our history that many of you want forgotten.
Majorities at various times have wanted Catholics, Jews, Native Americans, Chinese, Mexicans, Baptists and Communists lined up and shot. That’s why we have a Constitution that when enforced, protects individual rights from the prejudices of the majority.
Jed
Posted November 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
Kia,
There was a time within my memory that an even larger majority of people demanded that racial discrimination be written into laws and enforced. We called them “Jim Crow” laws. These laws are now a part of our history that many of you want forgotten.
Majorities at various times have wanted Catholics, Jews, Native Americans, Chinese, Mexicans, Baptists and Communists lined up and shot. That’s why we have a Constitution that when enforced, protects individual rights from the prejudices of the majority.
————————————————–
It’s not about rights. It’s about footing the bill.
I assume CONs would be perfectly happy with a gold leaf image of the Buddha sitting outside the court house.
Kia,
“It’s not about rights. It’s about footing the bill.”
Of course it’s about rights. And you want to sit in the examination room and make the decisions that you consider women unable to make “correctly.” “Footing the bill” is just your way of getting your foot in the door to do just that, and is a false argument from the beginning.
“MonkeyHawk” Brings up a very valid point. When this country was much more homogenous in nature, it was easier to “allow” such religous icons on or near the court house, or any official governmental function. The country is no where near that now. So, the question is, what to do. There are several approaches. Not allow any such display, allow any that private citizens wish to donate and display, allow those which characterize the flavor of the community the governmental edifice serves. The first is obviously the easiest. The second would be,in my mind, the most Constitutionally correct, but could get quite messy and become unworkable. The third is also fairly easy, but probably would not if paid for by tax dollars.
“but probably would not if paid for by tax dollars.”
Should have read but probably would not pass Constitutional muster if paid for by tax dollars.
Monkeyhawk
Posted November 4, 2009 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
I assume CONs would be perfectly happy with a gold leaf image of the Buddha sitting outside the court house.
——————
Idolatry is not part of the Christian faith.
littlejohn, I see that your list has been cut and pasted to literally dozens of websites (I suspect it may have started with David Barton’s scurrilous Wall Builders site).
The reality is that the “founding fathers” were hardly of one mind when it came to separation of church and state, but the strict pro-separation side did prevail at the convention. The first great religious fight in an election occurred between Jefferson and Adams, with Adams representing what could then be considered the “religious right” (very different from the “know nothing” crowd we have now).
For a historically literate account of the role of the faiths of the founding fathers, I would recommend this book by the late Forrest Church.
So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle over Church and State
To argue that the Constitution was meant to apply only to variations of Christianity just flies in the face of reality.
Let’s try that again.
http://www.amazon.com/So-Help-Me-God-Founding/dp/0156034875/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257363517&sr=8-4
“littlejohn, I see that your list has been cut and pasted to literally dozens of websites (I suspect it may have started with David Barton’s scurrilous Wall Builders site”
So, are you saying that the quotes are incorrect?
Someday, I’m going to be asked to give the prayer at a graduation ceremony somewhere.
And when I do, I’m going to let fly with the Islamic call to prayer:
“ALAH, AKBAR!”
See how the “Christians” like having somebody else’s religion rammed down their throats for once.
BTW, “Alah akbar” just means “God is great” in Arabic.
Nothing especially Islamic about it except for the language.
CapnAMerica-
Big deal. Go ahead. Be my guest. And by the way, expect to be sued by the UCLA–if the have any conscious
”
“And when I do, I’m going to let fly with the Islamic call to prayer:
“ALAH, AKBAR!”
“Nothing especially Islamic about it except for the language.”
Except that it’s the Islamic call to prayer (so you say
“Someday, I’m going to be asked to give the prayer at a graduation ceremony somewhere.”
I thought that that sort of thing was Unconstitutional? Why would you participate?
By the way, while the ACLU is suing your ass, I will be defending you for the “free exercize” of your religion
“See how the “Christians” like having somebody else’s religion rammed down their throats for once.
November 4, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
BTW, “Alah akbar” just means “God is great” in Arabic.
Nothing especially Islamic about it except for the language.”
So which religion is being rammed down their throats?
Agnatha-
In fact, there were several of the founding fathers that seem to have been deists, and not Christians at all. However, the majority seem to have a faith that religion had a large part to play in the lives of men, and goverments.
“In fact, there were several of the founding fathers that seem to have been deists, and not Christians at all. However, the majority seem to have a faith that religion had a large part to play in the lives of men, and governments.”
And this means what, exactly? The government that was created did not establish any religion, and in fact the non-establishment was intentionally broad (that is, it didn’t “just” apply to Christian faith-and I know you didn’t attempt to imply that it did-it was widely understood to apply to all faiths, and non-faiths).
CapnAmerica: The UK is worse than the concept ofa Ruler or Monarchy being Catholic. Until last month, no Roman Catholic could be their Prime Minister or lead a National Party.
The high-jacking of this thread is mostly scroll-over discussions that have happened before and will happen again.
Except for this little gem:
“But as an American, I don’t have the right to impose my morality on to others who disagree, except by the ballot box.
You and the Taliban have this in common–you both want to seize power and force the government to do what your religion dictates.”
Translation: I will only use the government to force my morality on others. As opposed to the Taliban that used government to force their morality on others.
Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
Agnatha-
It means to me that one not need to step outside their faith when dealing with matters of governemnt. It means that anyone, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, may petition the government for redress, regardless of where they got their principles from> It means that, in the natural sense, as shown by the quotes, that matters of faith may be mirrored in matters of the government. The fact it, all law is based on morality. Someone’s morality. One need not check their faith at the door of the government.
Proud Man–
What part of “except by the ballot box” did you not understand?
“Except by the ballot box” is one of many ways to seize control of the government. Hence both statements are the same.
Thanks, sursum.
You’re right, that makes it even worse–and it is exactly what the founders didn’t want happening here.
Unfortunately, the religious fundos insist on bringing it back . . . see how they attacked Obama for being a Muslim.
1. He’s not.
2. So what if he were? That’s exactly why The Constitution forbade religious tests to hold office. You don’t have to be of a certain religion or ANY religion to hold office in America.
So which religion is being rammed down their throats?
*****
Answer: none, except the general religious view that there is a God who answers prayer.
But it will be perceived as being Islamic because it doesn’t follow established Christian tradition, as if you didn’t know before you even asked . . .
Seizing control of the gov’t by means of the ballot box is . . . uh . . . voting.
The alternative is what, PM?
UCLA = University of the City of Los Angeles
ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union
I’m a card-carrying member . . .
So which religion is being rammed down their throats?
*****
Answer: none
Exactly. Except you stated that is what you would do to those “Christians” by shouting it.
“But it will be perceived as being Islamic because it doesn’t follow established Christian tradition”
Umm, you are the one that called it the ISLAMIC call to prayer, so it must BE Islamic, according to you.
Your arguments are one again, disjointed, contradictory, and does not reflect too highly on your education.
But then, you aleady knew that
“I’m a card-carrying member ”
Then you should know better
By your “voting” logic the actions of Hitler are justified since he was legally voted into office. The same goes with G.W. Bush. I know you don’t think the things these men did were proper.
The means of taking control of government are irrelevant. The stated desire to use government to impose morality on society is the issue. You cannot claim on one hand to oppose it and on the other hand endorse the same practice.
It is not the how the power was acquired but what you are proposing to do with it that makes you no different than your antagonists.
ProudMan
Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
The high-jacking of this thread is mostly scroll-over discussions that have happened before and will happen again.
Except for this little gem:
“But as an American, I don’t have the right to impose my morality on to others who disagree, except by the ballot box.
—————-
Yes, ProudMan, I caught that too. CapnA has a sore arm from patting himself on the back so much, while criticizing folks doing the same as he espouses, ie who vote their conscience, as “ramming their religion down other people’s throats”.
“It means to me that one not need to step outside their faith when dealing with matters of government. It means that anyone, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, may petition the government for redress, regardless of where they got their principles from> It means that, in the natural sense, as shown by the quotes, that matters of faith may be mirrored in matters of the government. The fact it, all law is based on morality. Someone’s morality. One need not check their faith at the door of the government.”
Several things:
1) Matters of morality (or, as I would prefer, ethics) do not necessarily equal matters of faith, or for that matter non-faith. Even people who attribute their moral/ethical beliefs to their faith, when it really comes down to it, draw from other sources as well as their faith when it comes to personal morality, including temperment and historical/environmental factor such as the stability of their home life, and the examples of conduct they had when they were growing up. This is not to dismiss the effect of religious beliefs, but they are nowhere close to the only factor effecting moral outlooks.
2) Of course, people are going to bring their perspectives, including their faith, or non-faith, into public issues. However, the Constitution clearly sets limits on the degree to which a government in this country can reflect the faith of its dominant constituants. An office holder’s or voting public’s free exercise of religion ends when it infringes on the free exercise of religion, or other Constitutional rights, of others.
Put another way, free exercise of religion, much less selected quotes from selected founding fathers, does not equal license to claim that the religion of the majority rules.
By your “voting” logic the actions of Hitler are justified since he was legally voted into office.
This is a common misconception. Hitler never won a nation-wide victory before he seized power.
He was installed as Chancellor in a compromise move which he then took advantage of.
He also staged the infamous Reichstag fire incident to whip up fear of “communists” which he then used to purge the gov’t of his enemies and impose a fascist totalitarian state.
Have two different countries. Problem solved.
Move on, there’s nothing more to see here.
Bush’s 9-11 “tragedy” had the same effect as Hitler’s Reichstag fire–it allowed him to demonize anyone who disagreed with him as a “terrorist lover.”
Him and his fellow CONs who are now pretending like they never were for the war and that we should pull out NOW . . .
“An office holder’s or voting public’s free exercise of religion ends when it infringes on the free exercise of religion, or other Constitutional rights, of others.
Put another way, free exercise of religion, much less selected quotes from selected founding fathers, does not equal license to claim that the religion of the majority rules.”
I don;t believe I really said anything to the contray, However,
selected quotes from selected founding fathers,”
Seems to imply that it was a small minority of the founding fathers. I can certainly add more. I didn;t think to clog up the weblog with them.
Again, all law derives from someone’s morality. Generally, derived from the people at large. That’s all law…whether it is a law about how to treat the homeless, how to make sure everyone has health care, or how to go about slowing global warming, can be measured in a sense of right or wrong. The argument that “you can;t bring your religious values” into the discussion, is disengious and contrary to the principles of the founding fathers.
Outlander,
Let’s stick to discussing his positions and not CapA.
“Bush’s 9-11 “tragedy” had the same effect as Hitler’s Reichstag fire–it allowed him to demonize anyone who disagreed with him as a “terrorist lover.”
So, are you one of the BUSH MADE IT HAPPEN ones?
or, do you just like comparing Bush to Hitler?
ProudMan: I appreciate your trying to be big. But I’m doing no different than you and have been engaging CapnA for some time on this issue. OK?
“This is a common misconception. Hitler never won a nation-wide victory before he seized power.”
Could not similar statements be made about Clinton and GW Bush getting less than 50% of the popular vote yet still taking office? Did not all three legally take control in their countries?
Again, the point is that you are endorsing using force to cause people to “be moral”. Just like the “other side” whom you deride for using force.
As you wish Outlander. No disrespect intended.
“Seems to imply that it was a small minority of the founding fathers. I can certainly add more.”
I would stop and think about the sources you get those quotes from. The precise listing of quotes you provided can be found in exactly the format and order you listed them on multiple websites. These folks have an agenda. The quotes are lifted without any sort of context from the time they were said. The time of the founding fathers was not our time. That being said, the issue as to what degree a government should reflect and promote particular religious faiths was discussed, a lot, and our Constitution was the result. It is clear that the accomodationist side did not prevail.
“Again, all law derives from someone’s morality.”
Actually, that is not true. Some laws derive from the self interests of those who promote them. Why do you think companies and industries have lobbyists?
“Generally, derived from the people at large. That’s all law…whether it is a law about how to treat the homeless, how to make sure everyone has health care, or how to go about slowing global warming, can be measured in a sense of right or wrong.”
Leaving aside the fact that many laws are designed merely to deal with civil details, not to mention what I said above, you ignored my primary point. Morality does not simply equal the accumulation of religious beliefs.
“The argument that ‘you can’t bring your religious values’ into the discussion, is disengious and contrary to the principles of the founding fathers.”
You are exaggerating what your presumed opposition is saying. I know of no strong advocate for church and state seperation who actually argues that “you can’t bring your religious values into the discussion”. However, saying that an official can not represent his/her own particular religious values as the official religious values of the state, or that voting majorities can not, in their advocacy of “their” religious values, make those particular religious values the offical values of the land if there is no secular reason to do so, is not muzzling either freedom of speech nor freedom to freely exercise their religion. In other words, an official can express his/her faith just like any othr citizen can. The official can even say that his/her faith leads him/her to take a particular stand on an issue. However, an official can not make the claim that his/her election means that his/her faith was elected, and act on that basis, particularly in the absence of a secular reason to do so.
Very well, I will accede your point that some laws come from self-interest or are civic in nature. That does not alleviate the fact that many laws dealing with interpersonal or even corporate “responsibility” aren;t inherently of a moral nature.
“you ignored my primary point. Morality does not simply equal the accumulation of religious beliefs”
I don;t believe I did. In fact, I pointed out earlier that morality stems from various religous beliefs, philosophies, etc.
In fact, I know of several highly moral people who profess no religious at all. They are either atheistic, or agnostic. There are many paths to believe what one believes.
” However, an official can not make the claim that his/her election means that his/her faith was elected, and act on that basis, particularly in the absence of a secular reason to do so.”
I never said that, or even implied such a thing. If I did, it was completely unintentional.
“know of no strong advocate for church and state seperation who actually argues that “you can’t bring your religious values into the discussion”
Sorry, have to disagree here.
Really, for what you have written, I see no real difference in our position. THose positions you seem to think I am supporting are not mine.
I advocate no religious test for office, I really don;t care. Muslin, Buddhist, Snakehandler, Methodist, Atheist or Agnostic. Makes no difference. The ideas the person espouses as the role of goverment, the ideas of how to handle the problems of the day, the month the year, and the future are what are important. Sorry if I have presented myself differently
To get a well researched, accuate and documented lesson in the role of religious symbolism, Christian by the way, that formed this country, and is visibly present all over our Nations Capital read,
‘One Nation Under God – Religious Symbols, Quotes and Images in Our Nation’s Capital’
Author: Eugene F. Hemrick
Here’s a synopsis:
“Explore a dimension of Washington, D.C., most tourists never see, with this unique guide to the religious imagery and art contained in our most famous public monuments and buildings.
With beautiful pictures and descriptive text, “One Nation Under God” is more than a guidebook — it’s a lesson in the all-to-often ignored heritage that makes our nation great.
In these pages you will discover:
- Fascinating facts about America’s past.
- The astonishing location of a striking bronze statue of St. Paul.
- Which five Catholic exemplars are forever honored at the U.S. Capital.
- Places where biblical references and quotations pertaining to salvation history are prominently displayed.
- The surprising site of some of the finest religious art in the world.
- Fundamental Christian principles literally carved in stone by our Founding Fathers.
- The conjoined history of our nation and our salvation.
- And much more, including beautiful panoramic pictures and maps.
Marvel at the all-too-often forgotten religious foundation of our nation, and take a “tour” of the Capitol with this unique book.
“Father Hemrick’s photos capture the influence that religion has had upon our republic and its institutions. They are a wonderful inspiration to all.” — U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich.”
Argument over!
Boxlock–
Your “argument over” is as hollow as Bush’s “mission accomplished.”
Which five Catholic exemplars are forever honored at the U.S. Capitol?
Gee, I can remember when Kennedy might not get elected because he was a Catholic. Those forward thinking folks back in the 18th Century . . .
(heavy sarcasm)
Hey, does that book also point out clues to the Knights Templar’s hidden treasure?
The ‘jawless fish’ goes all agnostic.
Capn,
Read the book if you don’t except the synopsis given by the publisher.
I’m not going through it for you.
The Capital is chuck full of examples of religious references on buildings and monuments, most directly related to Christianity at that.
Synopsis from Barnes & Noble
Guides you through our nation’s most famous public monuments and buildings drawing attention to the religious influences they incorporate
Looks at the importance and role that faith played in the history of our country
Summarizes the history of the monuments and includes a map with the locations of the religious artwork
Contains panoramic pictures of buildings on and around Capitol Hill
Now go do your own work Capn, quit being so lazy, or is it just your weak attempt to refute the obvious.
House Democrats are working on yet another phony amendment that they claim will remove government funding of abortions from the health care reform bill. However, it appears the Ellsworth amendment does nothing to remove the massive new abortion-funding program in H.R. 3962. The new bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled last week funds abortions with taxpayer dollars in two ways. First, it sets up the public option — a government-run health care plan that will pay for abortions — and it funds abortions by giving members of the public affordability credits that can be used to pay for abortions.
Some 41 pro-life House Democrats will not stand for such an outrage, and neither will a single House Republican.
Meanwhile, Republicans are mounting a sensible health care bill to exclude abortion funding, death panels, and illegal aliens – just like Obamanation promised but would not deliver.
He LIED.
late for you parkay.
And since I am the ONLY poster so far as I know who has EVER gotten a personal response from you, I will ask you what it is you do to encourage pro life.
Americans die every day for lack of health care. Your lack of concern for them certainly is not pro life.
littlejohn, fair enough.
Boxlock: “Capn, Read the book if you don’t except (sic) the synopsis given by the publisher.
I’m not going through it for you.”
Translation: I haven’t read the book either, but I can find the synopsis on a website.
“Translation: I haven’t read the book either, but I can find the synopsis on a website.”
And obviously Agnatha and Capn……can’t.
Give ol’ “Boxlock20″ some slack
His time is taken up by his scholarship of Thomas Jefferson’s presidency from January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781.
There’s just not enough time in ol’ “Boxlock20’s” day to be bogged down in, y’know, facts.
Boxlock indirectly admits he didn’t read the book: “And obviously Agnatha and Capn……can’t.”
Argggggh! The stupid, it buuuuurns!
Why would be unable to link to a synopsis of a right wing Christian apologist book, even though I successfully linked to the Forrest Church book earlier upthread?
By the way, what do you know about Eugene Hemrick, Boxlock? He is no fire breathing religious conservative.
“Why would be unable to link to a synopsis of a right wing Christian apologist book”
It should be noted, I was referring to Boxlock’s probably implicit assumption here.
I doubt Hemrick’s book, although possibly apologist for religious accomodation by government, was really what one would call “right wing”.
Spit on yourself much there Agnatha when you’re feeling desperate and losing? Ha ha, you sure seem to be now.
“Spit on yourself much there Agnatha when you’re feeling desperate and losing? Ha ha, you sure seem to be now.”
Translation: I don’t understand what you said, so I’ll just say you’re losing.
Parkay,
Shouldn’t you be all packed and have your passport and visas in order? Roeder’s trial is approaching. Brazil is nice this time of year.