Thursday, December 29, 2011

Religious Speak (Separation of Church and State)

 I never thought I'd be doing homework at the age of 35, on the United States Constitution. And this homework is self-inflicted. My 16 year old self would call me a Beat-Off. So, here is what I've come up with. On the subject of "Separation of Church and State", I have come to the conclusion, that the statement is nowhere to be found in our constitution. In my research, I found that the phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.[As originally commented on by EOK]

 His original text in the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, read like this,  "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.".

 Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United State's Bill of Rights. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was said.
 August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
(Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757-759, August 15, 1789)

  So, that is what I've found through some research. But I'm still a little confused on how some ordinary everyday things are deemed unconstitutional by some. For example, how can Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, say that the reference of God in the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional and infringes on his religious beliefs? I suspect, I would have to ask him. However, from what I've read and studied, I believe he is wrong. At the same time, he is obviously guilty of the crime of Douchebaggery. Maybe the ultimate Liberal mind at work. But, instead of trying to figure out  why he made this accusation, I will attempt to explain why I think he is wrong.

  Dr. Newdow argues that the term, "Under God" in the Pledge offends him as an Atheist, and violates his constitutional rights. Maybe if the pledge said, One nation, under Jesus Christ, would I buy into his statement. But in my opinion, his arguement holds no validity. I interpret the Freedom of religion too mean that the government can not tell you what God to believe in, what faith to practice, or what church to go to. Not to mention, as a sworn Atheist, you do not believe in a God, nor are you any part of a religion. So freedom of religion would not pertain to you in the context you are trying to use it. You obviously picked this "Pledge of Patriotism" to push forward an agenda.

  What I find most interesting about my research is this. "Thomas Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion."..........................................
  So when any Government agency tries passing a law, banning a Nativity scene on your front lawn. Let them know how unconstitutional, their new law really is....................................................

52 comments:

  1. Johnny,

    The Founding Fathers were all religious men and the emphasis was on freedom of religion not the restriction against legislating a State religion. Many Founding Fathers warned that the Constitution must be viewed and interpreted in the light of the era in which it was written (constructionist). They did foresee that people would look back and need to interpret what was written.

    In this case the Nation functioned exceptionally well for 150 years before someone took an obscure line from a letter written by a guy who wasn't involved in writing the Constitution and extrapolated those words far beyond the meaning that the author intended.

    In Jefferson's wildest imagination he wouldn't have believed that someone would be against saying a prayer before a high school football game, display a cross, or put a nativity scene in the Town Square. The very idea is ludicrous.

    There were 55 Delegates at the Constitutional Convention yet the "separation of church and State" is a phrase from a critic who wasn't even there. The 55 included Madison, Jay, and Hamilton among the most prolific writers of the era. Certainly their opinions might be germane?

    This is the easiest of the Liberal myths about the Constitution to disprove.

    ReplyDelete
  2. With liberals, the state IS their church.
    They worship it's powers, plea to it to provide for them and, worship no other Gods before it.

    In fact, as with other types of religious zealots, liberals try to eliminate other religions in favor of their own.

    How can they demand separation of church and state when their church IS the state?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Johnny,

    A good piece of scholarship. You better be careful - you will get banned from the moonbat cave. LOL

    I think that one of the big things that is lost on our current generation is that for the most part these people of 1787 were polite, respected each other, and they believed in individual responsibility.

    The modern Liberal (Democrat, Progressive, Socialist, whatever) doesn't believe in any of those things. Indeed radical liberals (Sal Alinsky comes to mind) shattered that culture of respect. If you disagree with them you are branded a "moron" (Mud_PILE's favorite word).

    As -Sepp indicated (and Kim Jong Il's funeral so ably demonstrated) the State is their religion - their is no room for anything else.

    What's next?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Johnny,
    Nicely done and kudos to you for making the effort for self-education.

    Your conclusion, through simple research, is EXACTLY how conservatives in this country feel about this subject. It does not take a scholar to conclude that the phrase that liberals cite as prima fascia proof is simply not there. Naturally, this never deters liberals.

    At the same time that liberals attack any mention of Judeo/Christian symbols and traditions they are fervent supporters of Muslim footbaths and prayer rooms in state financed colleges and universities.

    Oddly, the left attacks most displays of religion but holds sacrosanct the free speech part of the first amendment. You know the part that free speech guarantees the “right” to defecate on the American flag.

    Since you are on the first amendment, I request that you address the "free speech" issue in a future essay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apparently, JOB's research [thank you] has suddenly become a referendum on liberalism with ad hominem put-downs.

    Interesting twist on JOB's original intent with his post.

    Seems like the right-of-center folks have lots of venom to spit at others.

    Is THAT all you've got?

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Johnny,

    In order to not offend Mud and his ilk, I will not comment on liberalism, that filthy, whorish, soul stealing religion of state worship.

    Good job on the research. I think it is interesting to note the overall religious tone of the time before strictly interpreting the remarks of any of the founders. Most of the founders were pious men. Most attended church services regularly. But none of them felt the king or anyone else could order them to worship how the king saw fit.

    Jefferson is often called an atheist, or a deist. I don't know why. He wrote the Declaration, and I believe the word "God" gets honorable mention several times in that document.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I don't know how that could be in plainer English.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry if you can't appreciate the blunt honesty muddy.

    If the truth stings you like venom, and you see it as a "put down" when it's mentioned, perhaps you should look deeper into your own value system.

    We didn't define liberalism, you liberals did!
    And, if your own definition smacks of a "put down" well, sir that's entirely your problem if it bothers you.
    If something that was said is untrue, you certainly haven't addressed it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CS- (In regards to your last statement on the previous post)....

    I disagree. I think Adams and Franklin get plenty of credit, along with Jefferson. In fact, Madison is credited for Authoring the Bill of Rights.

    If Liberals claim him as their own, then they are wrong. Franklin was part of the Democratic Republican Party. Jefferson, along with Madison founded this party, to counteract Hamilton's Federalist party.

    I think Liberals gravitate to Jefferson, because of his ideas on a free college education, paid for by the public.

    Personally, I don't think Jefferson would approve of alot of the modern day Liberal ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In my 2nd paragraph, I meant Jefferson was part of the Democratic Republican party.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mud- (In regards to your last comment on the previous post)

    Thanks for the personal info. I am aware of what Gnostic beliefs are. All faiths and beliefs are welcomed here. As far as people jumping to conclusions on your beliefs, I explained this to Jeff (NON) once. When you are vague about certain topics, you open yourself up for assumptions. It's just Human nature, I think. Thanks again for clearing the air with your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sepp- You may be on to something. By your reasoning, Democrats who rely on Government (Welfare recipients) may very well be Atheist by nature. What's astounding though, is their abuse of the tax system. They'll become ordained, and start churches in their basements, or back room of their trailors. But, then again, they are raised to abuse the system anyway.

    You definately bring up a good point my man.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello J.O.B.
    OK let’s test the waters here as so far I have read a lot of “Generalized Statements,” “Open Ended Statements” not backed up by facts, “Strawman Arguments,” and I was really hoping that this topic was not going to downgrade into a Crap Storm. Oh Well, maybe hope springs eternal. :-)

    To add to your orginal comment “Mr. Peter Sylvester of New York had some doubts...He feared it the First Amendment might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...” A good comment and it was also the anti-political statements from the John Adam’s forces and supporters in New England against Thomas Jefferson when running against John Adams for President, and I quote, “If Thomas Jefferson is elected President he will confiscate all the Bibles in the Country.” Of course this alarmist statement against Jefferson was further from the truth but many believed it much like one would here today on other topics. Yes dirty politics are not a new phenomenon but was there right from the start.

    I would also interject, and my source is from the “Library of Congress” records as I do have access:
    In 1777 Thomas Jefferson authors the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" which DISESTABLISHED the Episcopalian Church as Virginia's state religion and “Inaugurating The Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State.”

    The statute, later cited by Jefferson as one of his life's greatest achievements, will not pass into law until James Madison shepherds it through the Virgina House in 1786.

    Then to continue:
    May 25, 1787 The Constitutional Convention starts to meet in Philadelphia, under the watchful eye of George Washington. Jefferson remains away in France. James Madison, Jefferson's best friend, is the Convention's star, and keeps Jefferson as informed about the details as he can, given the long distances his letters must travel and the Convention's self-imposed secrecy.

    Then by 1789 James Madison who is referred to as, "The Father of the Constitution,” proposed twelve amendments that ultimately became the ten amendments making up the “U.S. Bill of Rights.” In this respect, Madison was unquestionably the person who wrote the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution based on his mentor Thomas Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom".

    It would be correct to say that James Madison wasn't the one who came up with the idea, and there are several factors that complicate his status as author because Madison initially stood by the unamended Constitution, viewing the “Bill of Rights” as unnecessary because he did not believe that the federal government would ever become powerful enough to need one. Madison's mentor, Thomas Jefferson, was ultimately the person who convinced him to change his mind and propose the “Bill of Rights.” The freedoms described in the First Amendment, and it is widely considered that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Amendments per is correspondence with Madison as they were of particular concern to Jefferson. Jefferson himself was inspired by the work of European Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Cesare Beccaria.

    The language of the First Amendment was inspired by similar free speech protections written into various state constitutions, like the “Separation of Church and State” he personally penned for Virginia.

    ReplyDelete
  13. CS- I believe you are correct on all the points you made in your first comment. At least, all my research would lead me to believe so. Especially your third paragraph.

    As far as your second comment, you may be right. I was already banned once before, (LOLOLOLOLO) which is fine. It still won't change my political soul searching mission...;)....You might be right on your other point. If I try to get my point accross, at the same time trying to change someone's opinion on a certain viewpoint, I will use logic, and respect.

    Yes, the treatment of Kim Jong Il is disgusting on the face of it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. H/Nox- Thank you for the kind words. Your points are well taken, and your suggestion is taken even better. My next posting will be on Freedom of Speech.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Muddy- The problem I see is that alot of Radical Liberals will use the constitution to serve their purpose, or agenda. Look at Dr. Newdow for instance, I believe his only intent, was to bring publicity to his newly-formed church. (First Atheist Church of True Science). For Dr. Newdow too seek publicity for his new "Church" is perfectly acceptable to me. For him to use our Constitution, to gain that publicity, is dispicable.

    ReplyDelete
  16. TGP- Thanks for the compliment Brother. This research stuff is alot of work, but I find it fun, and fulfilling at the same time.

    The last point in your first paragraph is the most interesting. I also found this during my research, but did not include it in the post itself.

    "Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body." Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

    As far as your closing statement. The human mind can find ways to justify any action.

    ReplyDelete
  17. EOK- Very good points. But I think Jefferson's actions in "The Virginia statute for Religious Freedom" uphold my interpretation.

    DISESTABLISHED the Episcopalian Church as Virginia's state religion and “Inaugurating The Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State.”

    Jefferson believed that no governing body should have the authority to tell someone what religion they had to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Everyone- I promised some personal info on myself in the New Year. I'll start now. My entire family is Protestant going back to the 1800's. I still believe my Papa(My paternal Grandfather) was a member of the IRA. But since he passed away before I was 10, I'll never know. I knew how to create explosions using certain household items, by the time I was 8. I'll leave it at that.

    My parents were Methodists, and continued to be when they moved to Chicago in '56. By the time I was born, they got away from religious practicings. But they still believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    I am Agnostic. Which means I believe in the possibility of a God, but don't buy into religion as a whole. No certain event in my life, shaped my attitude. I was never beaten, nor sexually abused by any religious figure. I just have a hard time buying into the Bible (Any version) wholeheartidly.

    The only religions I have a problem with are Islam, for obvious reasons, and Catholicism.
    My problem with the Catholic church stems from the treatment of my ancestors in Ireland, and the mass cover-ups of sexual abuse.

    The fucked up thing, is that I agreed to let my daughter be raised Catholic. I'll keep a watchful eye, and let her make her own decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello J.O.B.
    You are quick on posting so this may be behind the topic at hand. :-)

    Ok maybe the question is, “When does one’s religion encroaches on another which required the Separation of Church & State.”

    (For the sake of argument, let’s say all are American Citizens and in parity with this aspect below)

    When I was in the Navy in the early to late 1970’s and flying to go home, next duty station, etc. there was a large group of Krishnas who would come up to you and say, “I want to give you this book as a gift.” Ok….then in the next breath ask for a $20.00 donation to their religion. I would not contribute to their religion and then they would take back the book, i.e. their Bible what ever it is call and don’t care. Another example I will give is that I live near the ocean and at this time the beach resorts had their infatuation of Krishnas. They would come up to people on vacation and ask if they had heard the blessings of Krishna? Because it was a public place they were allowed to do this.

    I would also add that I have worked with engineers who were from India and were of the Hindu faith. Not a problem as I respected their religion and they respected mine. The topic never came up. (Just as some Christians believe that they are supposed to go out and testify, so were the Hindus instructed)

    My last two Doctorate Professors in Electrical Engineering were from Iran and of course were Muslim. Once again, I respected their religion and they respected mine. The topic never came up.

    Now on the other hand the Bell Ringers of Salvation Army standing in front of stores. To me it is an almost Currier & Ives memory and makes me feel warm and fuzzy. I do contribute.

    Now here in lies the problem, where I enjoy the sight of Bell Ringers at Christmas, I don’t like Krishnas in my airport or my vacation spots nor would want them in front of the stores clinging their little finger bells and drums asking for donations.

    Now I am sure we can give a lot more examples of every different religion and how one would not be to the liking to others, but they do have the right to be there so to stop it you have to ban all solicitations from these places with no exceptions. You allow one, you allow all.

    ReplyDelete
  20. EOK,

    On yur last post, then you must allow all. The government is NOT allowed to pass any law establishing religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. The government cannot ban all religions from public spaces, nor are they allowed to promote any religion over another.

    I don't like Krishnas either. I don't like Full Gospel Pentecostals screaming at intersections. I don't like atheists demanding the removal of memorials. I don't like Obama being president. But, I like their freedom to do all those things.

    ReplyDelete
  21. EOK,

    Not to split hairs, but I believe saying "many people believe Jefferson wrote the first amendment" is an open ended statement with no facts to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello TGP,
    Your statement, “The government is NOT allowed to pass any law establishing religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. The government cannot ban all religions from public spaces, nor are they allowed to promote any religion over another.”

    Sorry if I did not make what I was trying to say clear. Of course the government is not allowed to pass any laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of. Nor the inverse.

    I think the litmus test here and the point I am trying to make is, and it has been the reason by the Legal Department of Target Corp. as just one recent example that they will no longer allow the ringers at holiday time. Up to this point they had made the exception to the “No Solicitors” rule by allowing the Salvation Army to set up in the past. Per their Legal Department Target was setting themselves up for a law suit for allow Salvation Army but not others (I decided I did not want to pick out just one religion here as an example) you must allow others or that would be discrimination on religious grounds. Again not my legal interpretation but the Legal Department of Target.

    You continued with:
    “I don't like Krishnas either. I don't like Full Gospel Pentecostals screaming at intersections. I don't like atheists demanding the removal of memorials. I don't like Obama being president. But, I like their freedom to do all those things.” I like your last concluding statement and well stated. My ADD mind just had a sick thought, what would be the feelings of many if Satanist set up a bucket, chanting with a gong, set up in front of Target. An extreme comparison but one that could have to be heard in court. Food for Thought. In summation, this is the point I was trying to make.

    You then pointed out quite correctly:
    “Not to split hairs, but I believe saying "many people believe Jefferson wrote the first amendment" is an open ended statement with no facts to back it up.”

    Yes I agree as I was working today and was multitasking when I typed this up and did not follow though with that thought as well as I should have. I Sincerely, thank you for pointing it out. I would have stated that based on the communication letters at the Library of Congress’ Archives between Madison and Jefferson when he was in France, the 12 amendments pass on to Madison that 10 of those amendments were eventually accepted as the “Bill of Rights” were first penned by Jefferson in a communication to Madison in Philadelphia at that time.

    Thank you again as I have enjoyed this exchange. This is the way it is supposed to be. Good Job.

    ReplyDelete
  23. All,

    I think that we are mixing apples and oranges here. We appear to all be of a mind now that the clear intent was to prevent the establishment of a State religion while maintaining an environment where everyone is free to exercise their respective religion.

    However - access is another thing altogether and we will really broach that subject when Johnny moves on to the secondary meaning of the First Amendment - Freedom of Speech.

    In the cases mentioned above by EOK - at our local WalMart there are two Salvation Army bell ringers (covering both main entrances). WalMart doesn't have to allow them access to their customers, but they would be foolish if they didn't as 85% of Americans are Christians and it would be front page news if WalMart booted the Salvation Army. But WalMart owns the parking lot, it's their business, and they have rights too.

    If WalMart gets a request from one of the twelve remaining Hare Krishnas in the US to do their thing in front of WalMart and they decline, I suspect that wouldn't make front page news (it shouldn't after all). It has nothing to do with "Freedom of Religion" - no foul. That's a business decision by WalMart and not a Constitutional issue.

    If a Muslim complains to the manager at WalMart about the Salvation Army the manager should tell them to shop somewhere else. You don't have a Constitutional right to shop at WalMart.

    Religious activity in appropriate settings in government buildings or on government property does not create a Constitutional crisis either. A prayer to open the day in Congress or to mark the end of a day aboard a Navy ship at sea, marking a grave with a cross or flying in a Chaplain on a government helicopter to conduct a voluntary service for Marines on the beach. No foul, no Constitutional issue.

    Whether anyone is offended or not is of no consequence. You have no Constitutional right to go through life without being offended.

    ReplyDelete
  24. EOK- I believe we are in complete agreement with your last comment. As much as some religions irritate me, you have to respect their rights.

    As far as tha Krishnas go, those "Hairy" bastards annoy me too. The were great in the movie Airplane though. LOLOLOLOL........

    ReplyDelete
  25. EOK- You better be careful, I was born with Ninja speed. Better not blink. :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. EOK- You'll also come to find that I tend to forget something when posting a reply to a comment.

    Ok maybe the question is, “When does one’s religion encroaches on another which required the Separation of Church & State.”

    If that's the question, the answer is simple. The encroachment happened in Virginia in the 18th century. That's when the state enacted a State religion, thus calling for a separation of Church & State.

    ReplyDelete
  27. EOK- For your response to Tenth. Any religion has a right to solicit donations. If you are "Told" you have to donate, that would be a violation of your First Amendment rights. Unfortunately, I would have to say that Satanism would fall under Freedom of Religion. So long as they're not breaking any public laws. The First Amendment applies to ALL. If we start deciding who amendment protect and who they don't, we will be entering some shaky ground.

    ReplyDelete
  28. CS- Well said. I am starting to think we are all on the same page with our religious freedoms.

    I must apologize though, I will be spending the next few days getting ready for a New Years getaway. The posting on the Freedom of Speech will not be done 'til I get back. Probably sometime Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Johnny,

    Have a very Happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Johnny and friends,

    The first amendment does not have anything to do with Target or Wal-Mart. It only applies to the government. If Wal-Mart doesn't want Muslims asking for donations at Wal-Mart, that is Wal-Marts right. It is not so much as CS stated that the Muslims don't have a Constitutional right to be at Wal-Mart, but that Wal-Mart has a Constitutional right to turn them away.

    ReplyDelete
  31. EOK- well argued, as usual. I do enjoy having Engineer as a 'regular' on my blog because of the logical and thorough way he presents his points. I'm sure that the regulars here stand in awe of his comments.

    Sadly, there were some fairly unthoughtful things said by others. At the outset, CS channeled Thomas Jefferson and apparently spoke with him from the grave:

    In Jefferson's wildest imagination he wouldn't have believed that someone would be against saying a prayer before a high school football game

    I'd say that CS tapped his own 'wild imagination' on that one!

    Hardnox is once again slippery on facts. He wrote:

    At the same time that liberals attack any mention of Judeo/Christian symbols and traditions they are fervent supporters of Muslim footbaths and prayer rooms in state financed colleges and universities.

    Tell us, Hardnox, where did you fetch this piece of nonsense? Was it in a dream or from some specious 'news' source? I know that you disdain anyone to the left of Goldwater, but quit making us stuff and citing it as 'fact.'

    TGP wrote a most interesting statement just above my comment here. He wrote:


    The first amendment does not have anything to do with Target or Wal-Mart. It only applies to the government.


    Then, in an odd turn of events, TGP undoes what he just said:

    ...but that Wal-Mart has a Constitutional right to turn them away.

    Is anyone else confused??

    ReplyDelete
  32. Will wonders never cease - I actually agree with Mud_PILE - we did get off point, though it was the use of analogies by EOK that did that.

    You are right Mud_PILE - the First Amendment restricts the Federal government from designating a State religion though it also expressly forbids that government from restricting its practice.

    Therefore designating the Presbyterian Church as the "official" church of America would be contrary to the Constitution. However it is equally contrary for that same government to direct a city (Las Cruces, New Mexico) to remove crosses from its seal or direct that a cross on a hill be boxed up.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mud,

    You're confused because you choose to be. The first amendment, and all of the others, only apply to the government. WalMart may set any rules it wishes. WalMart can be racist, homophobic, homofanatical, anti-Christmas, whatever, and no one can sue them based on Constitutional grounds. At least they shouldn't be able to. If I don't want your business, you have no say in it. If I was the government, and I didn't want you to be gay, then you have a case.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mud- To think, we just buried the hatchet. If you are just going to come here and point out flaws in other peoples opinion and comments, don't come here. I'm asking for input, not judgement. I want you here for the purpose of sharing some of YOUR stories, or YOUR ideas. I don't need a critic here. The sad thing, is I know you have it in ya. You are very well spoken on your blog posts. Even if I don't agree with your posts, I still feel like they were written with passion, and intelligence. But when you come over here, you just seem like an argumentative beat-stick. Bring some good intelligent ideas, or opinions over here, I know you have them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. mud,
    You are an imbecile of the highest order.

    Google "footbaths in colleges" and get back to us.

    ReplyDelete
  36. mud,
    You are an imbecile of the highest order.


    Apparently Hardnox has difficulty with a person such as me who points out his idiocy.

    JOB- I cannot allow idiotic statements to stand as truth. Would you like me to post a bunch of shit and let it stink up your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mud_PILE,

    There you go doing that 1984 doublespeak stuff again. Johnny's point and generally our point has always been that you "post a bunch of shit and let it stink up . . . . blog[s}"

    That's your style, it's what you do.

    Why are you afraid of Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  38. mud,
    You accuse us of posting shit. Now that's a real joke. You should have posted on Johnny's Funny Ass Fridays.

    You still haven't answered my question but you offer falsehoods in return.

    Btw, I thought you swore not to return but now we see you here. Lonely in your moonbat world?

    Sucks to be you!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Would you like me to post a bunch of shit and let it stink up your blog?"

    Bwaaaaahahahahahaha!

    Did you really just say that?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes, Sepp, I said that but, because your nose has become numb to the stench of feces, you can't seem to identify it any longer.

    Hardnox- I'm waiting for your moronic list of 10 things you 'believe' in that liberals have done to destroy this nation. WEll, actually only 9 more since you already told us one of them.

    Come on, Hardnox, we all need a little laugh here on the day after.

    CS- afraid of Jesus? Why would I be afraid of a mythical creation? If I were afraid of Jesus, then I" ought to be afraid of Big Foot, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Paul Bunyan and of course, Mithra.

    It is noteworthy to see that you use the word, 'afraid of' in your question to me. There are very few things that scare me in life, CS. Do YOU have lots of fears, boogiemen, and spiritual beings who haunt you?

    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mud_PILE,

    You are obsessed with Jesus - or proving that he didn't exist. Why do you care?

    If he's mythical, why does it matter what he said?

    You are completely confused. I say again - why do you fear Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  42. mud,
    I'll not play your sophomoric game, where I ask you a question and you demand an answer to a different question.

    You have yet to answer a single question that anyone has ever asked.

    I'll wait for your answer... then again never mind.

    Go fuck yourself you insolent troll.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hardnox,

    I fell out of my chair laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  44. ...looks like Hardnox has given up on debating me. Well, don't feel so bad; you are #508.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "JOB- I cannot allow idiotic statements to stand as truth. Would you like me to post a bunch of shit and let it stink up your blog?"

    Mud- First off, you CAN allow idiotic statement to stand as truth, because this is not your blog, it is mine. And considering that everyone is arguing on a computer, research is only a mouse click away.

    Secondly, you just don't seem to provide any of your own ideas, thoughts, or even (And especially) explanation of comments. I'll show you. And this is all from comments you left on this post.

    "Sadly, there were some fairly unthoughtful things said by others. At the outset, CS channeled Thomas Jefferson and apparently spoke with him from the grave:" You then went on to say,
    "I'd say that CS tapped his own 'wild imagination' on that one!"
    Why did CS tap into his wild imagination? Try explaining yourself. What was wrong with CS's ideas, or thoughts, on Jefferson? From your point of view.

    Here's another example.

    "Hardnox is once again slippery on facts. He wrote:

    At the same time that liberals attack any mention of Judeo/Christian symbols and traditions they are fervent supporters of Muslim footbaths and prayer rooms in state financed colleges and universities.

    Tell us, Hardnox, where did you fetch this piece of nonsense? Was it in a dream or from some specious 'news' source? I know that you disdain anyone to the left of Goldwater, but quit making us stuff and citing it as fact."

    Hardnox answered, and you provided no follow-up. Did you google footbath? Is his statement still wrong?

    Here is what I've found with my Conservative friends. On the blogs, and in life. You can disagree with them all you want. As long as you present your ideas, and thoughts on a topic. Even if it ends in no compromise, everything will remain civil, and all will be good. Trust me, CS and I have had plenty of disagreements, but we still respect each other's opinions. At least I respect his. I can't speak for him.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Johnny,

    You have my respect and my friendship. I've enjoyed our discussions (even when you are wrong!). LOL.

    I think I've told you before. In my discussions with Mud_PILE I usually try to get to a ground truth. Mud_PILE doesn't like that, he doesn't want to build a discussion on a framework of truth. He's a drive by insulter - that's one hell of a lot easier than research or fact finding. These sophomoric "traps" that he tries to set are pretty juvenile for someone who is probably several years older than me.

    The very first time Mud_PILE and I had a discussion, my other blog buddies kept telling me I was wasting my time - in the end, they were right.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Johnny,

    I wish you success in turning Mud into a debater. Your reply to EOK on the Funny Ass Friday post pretty much sums up all of Mud's remarks:


    NANNER NANNER.

    ReplyDelete
  48. CS- You S.O.B. I've been right at least once, haven't I????????????

    LOLOLOLOLOL, I am so glad I stumbled onto you guys. It's been fun, and I anticipate even more fun this new year.

    CS & TGP- It may be useless with Mud, but I can't help myself. I am going to try to change him. At least his debate practices. I like him, and I don't know why. He pisses me off as much as you guys sometimes. That's what I like about him. Maybe that makes me a glutton. I just wish he had better debate skills.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I just wish he had better debate skills.

    Oh, don't worry about my debate skills, JOB. I'm top-notch in that department.

    The difficulty I run into on this blog [and the posse blogs that allow comments] is that I am used to debating with adults, not adolescents.

    I'm rusty in that genre because it has been quite a long time for me to go back to those adolescent, junior-high days type of emotional blur.

    It's painful to watch the Amateur Hour day after day. I sat through 3 of my grand-children's holiday programs recently. You get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Oh, don't worry about my debate skills, JOB. I'm top-notch in that department."

    Translation: I'll either call you names or, disappear until the post is forgotten.

    "The difficulty I run into on this blog [and the posse blogs that allow comments] is that I am used to debating with adults, not adolescents."

    Translation: I find it difficult to argue a sane and logical point.

    "I'm rusty in that genre because it has been quite a long time for me to go back to those adolescent, junior-high days type of emotional blur."

    Translation: I can go back to the adolescent blur of name calling in a heartbeat but, the genre of civil debate using common sense doesent work for me.

    "It's painful to watch the Amateur Hour day after day. I sat through 3 of my grand-children's holiday programs recently."

    Translation: I'm such a selfish old grouch that it was murder to watch my grandkids performing in a christmas program.

    So what deep and intense "debate" is going on at the moonbat cave this week?
    Arguing over which one of you loves Obama the most or, what his favorite color is?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Mud,

    Do you even read what you write? You are the most juvenile person I know. Everything you post is "I'm rubber you're glue." Get real.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Tenth,

    It's a combination of projection (he's painting everyone the way he lives) and liberal (democrat, progressive, socialist, whatever) "1984" doublespeak (the exact opposite of the truth).

    If you view liberals in the psychotic mode of projection and doublespeak - then you can understand what they are saying.

    Mud_PILE is the text book example.

    Obama pulls that crap all the time. He and Harry Reid refuse to pass legislation that the majority of Americans want - but it is the Republican's fault. Textbook liberal dogma.

    ReplyDelete