And here is Lawrence Auster's analysis of it:
They have now, in principle, completed the revolution. It was done in three stages:It doesn't matter that most "liberals" are "good people" with "good intentions" -- all "liberals" act as social enablers for the mankind-hating, power-seeking, liberty-denying leftists who set their agendas.
1. You turn the Constitution on its head by saying that the 14th amendment, which has power over the states, "incorporates" the Bill of Rights, which only has power over Congress. Thus the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is effectively translated into, "a state shall not establish a religion," changing the Constitution from a limitation on federal power over the states into a mandate for unlimited federal power over the states.
2. Then you redefine "establishment of religion" to mean, not a favored denomination which receives tax dollars and membership in which is required to hold political office, but ANY religious expression, period. With steps one and two in place, all religious expression under the auspices of state and local government is outlawed.
3. Finally, you progressively subsidize the entire society, so that everything in the society is funded by government, and therefore there is no area in the society where any religious expression is allowed. Remaining holdouts are eliminated as the grip of government funding and regulation keeps expanding.
"Liberals" are inconsistent leftists -- it is never leftism itself which they oppose, in principle, but only that they want sometimes to defer or escape some of the logical consequences of leftism. And so, since the "liberals" have no principled opposition to the demands which logically follow from the commitments of leftism, the "hard-core" leftists can always ratched them (and society) ever-leftward, and the "liberals" will always find a way to justify the new outrage.
For, after all, Gentle Reader, the *real* enemy is you and me. And those "wicked" "racist" "angry" "white" "hateful" "ignorant" "teaba-" ... Tea Partiers.
update:
In a bummer development for Waldo, Prayer restored at Port Wentworth Senior Center
24 comments:
1. Good. Excellent.
2. As it was meant to be.
3. Hooray, about time. Finally a society based on fact not fable.
How very odd, that the very men who wrote ... and the far more numberous men who ratified ... the Constitution and Bill of Rights were so totally unaware that the very amendment they wrote to specifically prohibit the Congress from either establishing or disestablishing any denomination actually give COngress the authority to prohibit Christian expression.
Prohibit christian expression?
How so?
Ilio has not answered my question, how has Congress prohibited Christian expression?
Would anyone else like to proffer an answer?
Ilíon doesn't allow his time to be dictated, or wasted, by fools.
If you want to comment on *my* blog, you had better get that concept into your head.
Ah, I see. I won't bother asking you to elucidate on your claim to determine if you had any real or justified grounds on which to make your claim that congress has prohibited christian expression.
So I shall just comment, as per your suggestion.
Congress has in no way, shape or form prohibited christian expression. Particularly in regard to the 'national day of prayer', the decision was that the government does not possess the right to promote the concept. People are however, entirely free to exercise prayer if they wish.
The 3 point 'action plan' that you regurgitated is not supported by the evidence, it is a biased interpretation predicated on attempting to support a pro-religious viewpoint.
Comment enough for you clown? Or are you another one of these http://graemebird.wordpress.com/
"People are however, entirely free to exercise prayer if they wish."
Not according to the news article. these people had the right to corporately speak and it was taken away. You call it a myth but I suspect if the group had lit candles and caled out to Rem and Stimpy in thanks for the meal nothing would have been said. Since when did freedom of speech deny the right to believe in myths?
'Since when did freedom of speech deny the right to believe in myths?'It doesn't. There is nothing stopping people believing whatever they want. Can you show me otherwise?
As it says, they can pray to themselves. Why should my ears be assailed by someone elses personal incantations? Do you know if all the members of the group were comfortable with group prayer? Or did some just go along to avoid being ostracized?
If they'd called out to Ren and Stimpy I would have laughed, same as I ought to be able to do if anyone else tries to force their viewpoint into my space. But I would also not prevent someone 'praying' to themselves if that's what they wish to do. Or does god need it to be said out loud? That'd be a bit limiting wouldn't it?
"It doesn't matter that most "liberals" are "good people" with "good intentions" -- all "liberals" act as social enablers for the mankind-hating, power-seeking, liberty-denying leftists who set their agendas."
Bloody well said, makes perfect sense and is put in language i could never put myself.
Would you mind terribly if i put that up at blogs i post at, with attribution off course?
what is it with you people.
If someone doesn't believe in your god and pray often enough they aren't worthy of life because every thought, deed and opinion they possess is wrong/evil/stupid?
With the extreme reactions I'm seeing to the mildest dis-allowances of you pushing your position, belief and behaviours on everyone else, I do wonder.
With or without attribution, I don't mind if you post the idea.
What's with us people is that you are engaging in projection -- you are attributing to us your own very serious social and psychological flaws.
'...very serious social and psychological flaws' says he who feels the need to lean on a myth. 'god' fills the gaps in your mind does he?
The only projection going on is that of you and your ilk desperately trying to protect your unfounded position by forcing it on others.
In a bummer development for Waldo, Prayer restored at Port Wentworth Senior Center
ah well, no great loss. The battle for reason will stil be won.
The more you people push your inane fables the more science and logic find evidence against it.
I love what Mike Moore did to the Westboro people and have you noticed who is protecting the familes of dead servicemen from the nutjobs?
you know, maybe if you spent a bit less time prancing around on other blogs posting minor asinine remarks and focussed a little more on your own blog, there might actually be something a bit meatier to have a good debate about.
And that photo! You look like some new age psychic hippie.
"you know, maybe if you spent a bit less time prancing around on other blogs posting minor asinine remarks"
He's projecting again.
Waldo is also wasting his time, as I'm not even reading his posts any longer; I had him pretty much pegged from his first.
ah, so phantom, you've done a comparative original word count and an evidential contributory relevance analysis have you? No? Didn't think so.
Just as you have parroted your master's words without an original thought of your own, whilst hiding under his skirts, so has he, constantly.
The only articles of any length or depth posted here are those lifted from other sites, in particular Uncommon Descent.
Your 'beacon of light' observes some numbat create his own personal delusional set of rules that evolutionists supposedly operate under, and then contributes -
“2. ANY argument that supports the first premise will do as evidence.”
It doesn’t even have to be an argument; any old assertion that merely restates the premise will do.'
And that's about as deep and meaningful as any of his 'contributions' get. Ever. No original thoughts to offer.
So, there you have it. Your idol really doesn't have much to offer anywhere, about anything. And that photo!
Ilion, the only thing you have pegged is your nose, in a futile attempt to ignore the sweet scent of reason and truth.
"Why should my ears be assailed by someone elses personal incantations?"
Well said, Where's.
Now go, and sin no more.
Nicholas, while there are people knocking on my door with bibles and pamphlets in their hands and people trying to distort the constitution and laws in their desire to promote their beliefs over others, I shall continue to contribute to discussions in that great all-pervasive environment known as the internet.
If you consider that my views are the blasphemous ones here, feel free to attack and argue against my position as much as you wish.
I am not a person of sin, not even on your terms let alone mine.
"... and people trying to distort the constitution and laws in their desire to promote their beliefs over others ..."
Rupert, you're either ignorant or dishonest. And, if you're ignorant, it's hard to see that ignorance as anything but a willful ignorance ... which is to say, as dishonesty.
"I am not a person of sin, not even on your terms let alone mine."
But of course you are a "person of sin," just as Nicholas is, just as I am.
Ilion, can you please tell me on what grounds you justify accusing me of dishonesty.
And in what way am I a person of sin?
So far as I recall, "Rupert's" first appearance was just a couple of posts above this one. Isn't it interesting, or at least odd, that I had him pegged even then?
Am I psychic, or what?
Post a Comment