Anybody readThe Moon Is a Harsh Mistresslately? Professor Bernardo de la Paz has some interesting things to say about democracy, specifically that it's designed to create the most block to progress that is possible -- and that this is good. Political gridlock keeps extremists from getting their way. For those who haven't read it... what the fuck, man?
As a big Heinlein Fan, Yea, I did read this. I recommend "Take back Your Government now" by Robert Heinlein if you want to see his 1950's political views. He was a interesting man.
But it doesn't say that in the 1st amendment. It's implied if that's how you choose to interpret it. But literally it means there shall be no national religion mandated by the gov't or restriction of any religion.
But it doesn't say that in the 1st amendment. It's implied if that's how you choose to interpret it. But literally it means there shall be no national religion mandated by the gov't or restriction of any religion.
However, it was interpreted as that by SCOTUS since 1947.
I would hope that a candidate for the US Senate would actually know these things.
The argument that someone should point out to Christard O'Derpnell is that by teaching the christian (or judeo[sp?]-christian) version of creation in a state funded public school, that means the government is then endorsing one religion over all others. How the tea-baggers are incapable of figuring this basic shit out is beyond me. Also, more stupid from O'Donnell. Following the old neoconservative strategy of 'it's only okay when we do it."
How the tea-baggers are incapable of figuring this basic shit out is beyond me.
As far as I have gathered the aforementioned tea-baggers are not too concerned with logic given their hate of government handouts and their constant braying about leaving medicare alone.
The most egregious thing wasn't even mentioned in the article, but comes out when you watch the video I will attach below. This all started as a discussion about her opinion on the veracity of evolution and the value of knowing her opinion of it when casting a vote. She is of course one of the crazy kooks who doesn't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context and makes the same old lame duck argument of "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", not knowing that it is both. She also thinks that the government telling schools, which are government institutions, what they can and can't teach is unconstitutional. Thus she thinks it should be up to school districts to decide if they want to include "intelligent design", which she seems to be a big fan of, in the lesson plan and thus implicitly wants to allow schools to lie to their students. I don't believe I've ever seen a candidate less fit for office than her. She's worse than Palin!
So O'Donnell's 1st amendment fiasco happened and the right-wing idiot brigade from the other forum I visit, one member of which I was talking about earlier, is actually trying to defend it with all the pedantic and semantic arguments they can find, most of which can be summed up in "but the words 'separation of church and state' don't appear in the constitution". The idiots, they're out there...
Most tourists cover their heads with a square piece of cloth, thousands of which are given away each day, while many Sikh men, and some women, wear elaborately folded turbans.
Mr Obama had planned to see the temple when he travelled to India next month but his advisers are said to have ruled out the headscarf option, fearing that in some people's minds, it would connect him with militant Islamism.
Militant Islamism? WTF? When did we go from 'Obama is a secret Muslim' to 'Obama is Al Qaeda'!!!???
Other prominent dignitaries have been allowed to enter the temple wearing their own choice of hat.
The Prince of Wales, for instance, wore a panama.
So, rather than just pick an alternate form of headgear he'll just skip the visit? you mean out of all the cool headgear in the world he couldn't find something appropriate?
According to the New Delhi-Based India Express, temple authorities suggested Obama wear a modified baseball cap, but stressed that a regular ball cap would not be acceptable.
"We have no problems if he wears a skull cap, the kind that Muslims wear to the mosque -- or any other cap that is modified to something similar. But we don't allow baseball caps or Army hats," Giani Gurbachan Singh, head priest of the temple told the Express.
Damn, even they think he might be a Muslim!?!?
This is just too funny. The President should man up on this and make a point of explaining that a Sikh is not a Muslim! We could have a serious 'teachable' moment here.
As to references to a "separation of church and state" well, show us where it *is* in the Constitution and then explain how churches get tax-exempt status and other 'subsidies' afforded to them.
This is just too funny. The President should man up on this and make a point of explaining that a Sikh is not a Muslim! We could have a serious 'teachable' moment here.
I would agree, except the American public is just too fucking stupid right now to handle that. It's a sad truth: he would just be encouraging teabaggers to get extra crazy.
I wonder what the response would be if he wore a yarmulke or a Catholic skullcap? Or a beanie? Perhaps a tuque?
As to references to a "separation of church and state" well, show us where it *is* in the Constitution and then explain how churches get tax-exempt status and other 'subsidies' afforded to them.
The bit where there's separation of the church and the state is known as the first amendment. The reason as I understand as to why they get a tax-exempt status is because they're not allowed to talk politics while at the podium in church. You know, keeping church and state separate.
The reason as I understand as to why they get a tax-exempt status is because they're not allowed to talk politics while at the podium in church. You know, keeping church and state separate.
That's correct. They qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations because they do not seek a profit and only use money and donations to cover operating costs. Many scientific and charitable organizations are also in the same group, but the moment their institution is used as a political mouthpiece, they risk forfeiture of said status.
You will notice that if you go to a church with a pastor conscientious of these regulations, the political side of hot-button topics will be explicitly avoided. The pastor at the church I went to in my childhood was extremely good about this; politics never hit the podium. Each homily was more of a seminar on Catholic ethics delivered in a form that a layman could understand. I have my problems with Catholicism, but that was still pretty interesting. Way better than my Catholic religion teacher telling us that we were obligated to vote with our religion (false).
Good answer. Now we just need someone to explain this to the socialcons...
So, what is the response when someone brings up the fact that politicians have gone to and spoken at churches making speeches that are obviously political. Also many of the recordings of Jeremiah Wright were clearly political in nature. Do we have an answer for those points?
1) Churches are often community meeting spaces. A speech there by someone unaffiliated with the church is not technically a speech by the church, but it's pushing it. Sanctioning should be considered. 2) Pastors preaching politics should have their churches immediately stripped of tax-exemption or watchlisted to ensure that such acts do not continue. If you're not profiting and you're not endorsing candidates or making statements explicitly political (i.e., a homily on government spending), you shouldn't be taxed. Cross those lines and you're fucked.
Comments
Ugh. That was pretty sad to read.
My favorite headline it's kicked up so far: "Christine O'Donnell learns the First Amendment is a thing that exists."
I would hope that a candidate for the US Senate would actually know these things.
Also, more stupid from O'Donnell. Following the old neoconservative strategy of 'it's only okay when we do it."
I will now amend that statement to, "There is exactly one woman to whom I would gladly give the Hokuto Hyakuretsu Ken."
Is Obama Skipping Temple Over Headgear? Damn, even they think he might be a Muslim!?!?
This is just too funny. The President should man up on this and make a point of explaining that a Sikh is not a Muslim! We could have a serious 'teachable' moment here.
As to references to a "separation of church and state" well, show us where it *is* in the Constitution and then explain how churches get tax-exempt status and other 'subsidies' afforded to them.
I wonder what the response would be if he wore a yarmulke or a Catholic skullcap? Or a beanie? Perhaps a tuque?
You will notice that if you go to a church with a pastor conscientious of these regulations, the political side of hot-button topics will be explicitly avoided. The pastor at the church I went to in my childhood was extremely good about this; politics never hit the podium. Each homily was more of a seminar on Catholic ethics delivered in a form that a layman could understand. I have my problems with Catholicism, but that was still pretty interesting. Way better than my Catholic religion teacher telling us that we were obligated to vote with our religion (false).
So, what is the response when someone brings up the fact that politicians have gone to and spoken at churches making speeches that are obviously political. Also many of the recordings of Jeremiah Wright were clearly political in nature. Do we have an answer for those points?
1) Churches are often community meeting spaces. A speech there by someone unaffiliated with the church is not technically a speech by the church, but it's pushing it. Sanctioning should be considered.
2) Pastors preaching politics should have their churches immediately stripped of tax-exemption or watchlisted to ensure that such acts do not continue. If you're not profiting and you're not endorsing candidates or making statements explicitly political (i.e., a homily on government spending), you shouldn't be taxed. Cross those lines and you're fucked.