Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The separation of church and state - one of the core tenets of American democracy - makes Rick Santorum "want to throw up"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 519
    More: Sick, American Democracy, Rick Santorum  
•       •       •

16562 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Feb 2012 at 8:27 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



519 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-27 01:48:43 AM  

Ambivalence: The exact term "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, however the establishment clause has, time and time again, been interpreted by the judiciary to MEAN exactly that.


This same argument is used by people who say that the exact word "privacy" does not exist in the Constitution, so therefore the Founders clearly intended the establishment of an army of federal sexual stormtroopers to kick in bedroom doors and double-tap people engaged in blowjobs.
 
2012-02-27 01:51:51 AM  
img440.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-27 01:54:39 AM  

seventypercent: Ambivalence: The exact term "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, however the establishment clause has, time and time again, been interpreted by the judiciary to MEAN exactly that.

This same argument is used by people who say that the exact word "privacy" does not exist in the Constitution, so therefore the Founders clearly intended the establishment of an army of federal sexual stormtroopers to kick in bedroom doors and double-tap people engaged in blowjobs.


Well hey, if you can convince the Supreme court to go for that...

But people who biatch and moan about what the constitution means, it means no more an no less than the supreme court says it means. That goes for the 4th ammendment. That goes for "states rights". That goes for citizenship. EVERYTHING.

If you want the constitution to say "this is a Christian Nation" then you need to pass an ammendment saying just that. Same goes for gay marraige. You want to constitution to say homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, you have to pass an ammendment.

But that will never happen becuase you will never get enough support for that. And if you don't, then we are NOT a christian nation.
 
2012-02-27 02:00:43 AM  

Ambivalence: Well hey, if you can convince the Supreme court to go for that...


Fortunately, the Supreme Court did go for that. Lawrence v. Texas overturned sodomy laws nationwide. And Griswold v. Connecticut struck down laws banning the sales of contraception. Neither of these rulings have discouraged the Santorum types from arguing that the federal government belongs in people's bedrooms, however.
 
2012-02-27 02:05:46 AM  
Oh, the schadenfreude if Santorum wins the nomination. Just think -- he'd actually have a shot at being president... and Americans might just be stupid enough to vote for him!

It would be a glorious day in America. I'd just need to find a safe place to watch the country unravel.
 
2012-02-27 02:06:01 AM  

seventypercent: Neither of these rulings have discouraged the Santorum types from arguing that the federal government belongs in people's bedrooms, however.


We need to remake the federal government into hot Chinese chicks.
 
2012-02-27 02:06:18 AM  

weave: "This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square."


I'd normally be inclined to agree with this but I know damn well he doesn't want any of those wrong-faith-Muslim people in that square.


He's lying anyway, because he also doesn't want anyone of "no faith", aka atheists, in that square either.
 
2012-02-27 02:07:49 AM  

James F. Campbell: I'd just need to find a safe place to watch the country unravel.


I'm 8000 miles from D.C. It's not far enough.
 
2012-02-27 02:09:12 AM  

ib_thinkin: FTA: The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up.

Oh, for fark's sake. I don't know who I hate more: Rick Santorum for conflating "people of faith" and the "church," or a douchebag of a quote-snipper for falsely portraying him as such.


You killed my father, prepare to die.

He does believe that conflation. He's using weasel words and deflective concepts to hide it.
 
2012-02-27 02:09:19 AM  

Xenomech: [img440.imageshack.us image 640x479]


I feel like hit some ipecac.
 
2012-02-27 02:10:55 AM  

0Icky0: We need to remake the federal government into hot Chinese chicks.


Now, see, this is why Fark exists.

We need people to think outside of the box (or, in the case of hot Chinese chicks, inside of the box) and present solutions that people may not necessarily have considered.
 
2012-02-27 02:16:06 AM  
i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-27 02:28:38 AM  
So, much like Obama, Santorum would like to find a way to work around certain things in the Constitution so he can find a way to legally violate it.

And, much like Obama, his supporters will insist that he's well within his rights to do so largely because he's doing something they want.
 
2012-02-27 02:35:31 AM  
The separation of church and state is meant to protect the individual from the tyranny of the church and the tyranny of the state by not allowing them to team up. Problem is republicans can never comprehend the tyranny of the church and democrats can never comprehend the tyranny of the state.
 
2012-02-27 02:44:30 AM  
And once again Rick demands we render unto Caesar the power that is rightly God's... Does this guy even own a bible?
 
2012-02-27 02:47:10 AM  
I know there are other comments before me that say this, and I am sort of late to the game I'm sure, but people like him MUST be stopped they are dangerous to all of our freedoms, including religious people. If you disagree slightly with him, you are wrong. Jew...wrong, evangelical...wrong, muslim...wrong(and in gitmo). This way of "thinking" is a poison to our country. It has to stop now.
 
2012-02-27 02:49:39 AM  

Triumph: The separation of church and state is meant to protect the individual from the tyranny of the church and the tyranny of the state by not allowing them to team up. Problem is republicans can never comprehend the tyranny of the church and democrats can never comprehend the tyranny of the state.


Yeah, be that tyrannical on me, I'd be glad to pay no taxes. farkin tyrants
 
2012-02-27 03:10:20 AM  

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


The Treaty of Tripoli (ratified June 7, 1797) disagrees with you.

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
 
2012-02-27 03:18:09 AM  

thegoodbubba: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

The Treaty of Tripoli disagrees with you.


sonofa, what I get for not finishing the thread (expanded on it at least)
 
2012-02-27 03:50:02 AM  

James F. Campbell: It would be a glorious day in America. I'd just need to find a safe place to watch the country unravel.


I'm hoping that Thailand is a safe enough vantage point, should such a thing come to pass. :-/
 
2012-02-27 04:08:26 AM  
Hey little girl... Guess what? They want to separate church & state.
3.bp.blogspot.com
I know right? What kind of person doesn't believe in an invisible man that gives you life, only to decide if he wants to throw you in a lake of fire or not. Pfffft. As if. Let's skip on over to the church & ask him for good fortune, telepathically!!! Maybe when the pastor is done fondling us, he can tell us how that old man wrangled two of every animal & put them all on a boat together. Religion is awesome & magical!!! Who would not want it sewn into our government?
 
2012-02-27 04:31:36 AM  

mamoru: James F. Campbell: It would be a glorious day in America. I'd just need to find a safe place to watch the country unravel.

I'm hoping that Thailand is a safe enough vantage point, should such a thing come to pass. :-/


I'm hopefully gonna be studying abroad in Australia when the election comes around. Although from what I hear the fundies over there are crazier than ours...
 
2012-02-27 04:43:37 AM  

Paris1127: I'm hopefully gonna be studying abroad in Australia when the election comes around. Although from what I hear the fundies over there are crazier than ours...


That depends heavily on the state. If you like weed and dislike police overbearance, avoid Queensland; if you like sanity and dislike creationist Bible thumpers, avoid South Australia.
 
2012-02-27 04:43:48 AM  
Bit late, but better late than never.

"The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool"

Voltaire
 
2012-02-27 05:11:29 AM  
Hearing, "The U.S. is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles," makes me want to throw up.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the U.S. was indeed founded on Christian principles. What does that have to do with 2012? The country has evolved over the many, many years since the founding and we have too much diversity to claim the U.S. is a Christian/Jewish/Protestant/Muslim/Atheist/Buddhist/(insert any religion) nation.

That's why we need separation of church and state, so that the government can't force followers of one faith to comply with the tenets of another, and don't think for a moment Santorum wouldn't want to do (and probably try to do) precisely that.
 
2012-02-27 05:57:22 AM  
Yeah, the US is soooo different from those nutty religious middle eastern countries.
 
2012-02-27 06:02:00 AM  
Yeah, well, santorum - exuded properly - makes me want to throw up.
 
2012-02-27 06:09:20 AM  
geek_mars:

Hearing, "The U.S. is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles," makes me want to throw up.

Where did you hear this? Did Rick Santorum say "The U.S. is a Christian nation"? If so, please provide a link.
 
2012-02-27 06:26:26 AM  

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


Theories have observed and experimental data behind them. Religious beliefs are based around anecdote and blind faith.
 
2012-02-27 06:30:33 AM  

LovingTeacher: I will quite happily give you the right to not use birth-control, not get abortions and pray until your knees bleed, please be so kind as to recognize that I have every right to do exactly the opposite of you if I see fit.



The problem with this premise is that it is a one-way street. You may see the situation as 2 groups of people with differing opinions learning to live with each others differences.

They see it as you being a filthy heretic, and an affront to their God.
 
2012-02-27 07:17:27 AM  
www.ifsociety.com

All religions make me want to throw up...
 
2012-02-27 07:18:04 AM  

LovingTeacher: I will quite happily give you the right to not use birth-control, not get abortions and pray until your knees bleed


I wish to retain the right to burn christians, crucify them and feed the to the lions if they want the right to affect my life in any way at all.
 
2012-02-27 07:21:22 AM  
Espertron: Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

 
2012-02-27 07:56:45 AM  

GardenWeasel: Weaver95: En0ch_The_Red: I don't want to live under a Christian theocracy any more than I want to live under a Muslim, Jewish, Bhuddist, Wiccan, or any theocracy. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

I wonder what a wiccan theocracy would even look like...

Do you remember the Sliders episode, where women were the dominant power?


They did do a Sliders episode about if Wicca was the dominant religion. It wasn't a theocracy though: a news story they overheard on that world was about the controversy over separation of coven and state.
 
2012-02-27 08:02:11 AM  

Axle: Could someone please point me to where this "separation of church and state" is mentioned in the Constitution?


why not let thomas jefferson, the one who wrote it, tell you:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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.

and then there's the whole 200+ years of settled law to consider.
 
2012-02-27 08:09:30 AM  

StanTheMan: Look farkheads and subby, as a Republican, I wouldn't vote for this anti-Libertarian social conservative Santorum to get out of a burning phone booth, and he scares the fark out of me in terms of ruining a chance to eject Obama from the White House, but the expression "separation of church and state" is not, in fact, "one of the core tenets of American democracy."

It's a term used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Bible-thumping Connecticut Baptists - who would make Santorum look like Bill Maher - assuring them that yes, you will be able to practice your nice little religion in this new federal system. In fact, Connecticut had an official state religion until 1818 (Congregational Church). New Hampshire had one until 1877!

The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until like 40 years after Jefferson's death. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated (applied to the states) until 1947!

So, to recap, the term "separation of church and state" was not:

1) Ever actually in the Constitution;
2) Written by the author of the First Amendment (Madison);
3) Used by Jefferson to advance the Establishment Clause (it was actually used to advance the Free Exercise Clause).
4) Even relevant to the States until roughly the time of the Roswell incident.

Other than that, spot-on, Fark constitutional historians!


You are a retard.
 
2012-02-27 08:10:51 AM  

Bevets: The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


Much like "checks and balances", "limited government", and "separation of powers"?

The verbatim words are not there, but the principle is expressed.
It's interesting how the GOP attitude has changed over time, however.

Republican Party Platform of 1892:
The ultimate reliance of free popular government is the intelligence of the people, and the maintenance of freedom among men. We therefore declare anew our devotion to liberty of thought and conscience, of speech and press, and approve all agencies and instrumentalities which contribute to the education of the children of the land, but while insisting upon the fullest measure of religious liberty, we are opposed to any union of Church and State.


Republican Party Platform of 2008:
Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country.


mekki: Only a small fraction of a fraction of the population would vote for him.


I'm sorry, but 42% is only a "small" fraction in the sense of "not large enough to win in a two-way race".

oh_please: Really? This is the best and brightest we can come up with?


Best, brightest, and most successful. Yes.

Admittedly, the Democrats don't exactly have a deep bench on their side either, but if President Obama dropped dead of a heart attack this afternoon, they could slot in Hillary for 2012 with minimal disruption; and if he doesn't, they have at least Andrew Cuomo in the wings for 2016.

Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.


The "either" suggests the options are exclusive, which does not seem to be the case.

StanTheMan: Other than that


...not mentioning the GOP and Democratic party platform positions on "church and state" between the Civil War and WWI....
 
2012-02-27 08:11:09 AM  
Axle:

Could someone please point me to where this "separation of church and state" is mentioned in the Constitution?

FlashHarry:

why not let thomas jefferson, the one who wrote it, tell you:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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.


Bevets:

The letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (in which Jefferson assured church leaders that the government would not meddle in church affairs) was written ten years after the First Amendment was ratified. Secular Fundamentalists have a habit of conflating this letter with the First Amendment (which prohibits the establishment of a church by the federal government, but allowed state churches) Jefferson and Madison attended church services in the US Capitol.
 
2012-02-27 08:18:12 AM  
I'm just hoping the Republican field this time around is so awful because the ones with some sort of a clue thought they'd leave the field in 2012 to the incumbent (who has a pretty big advantage) and keep their powder dry until 2016.

It's a small hope I have.
 
2012-02-27 08:19:01 AM  

Bevets: The letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (in which Jefferson assured church leaders that the government would not meddle in church affairs) was written ten years after the First Amendment was ratified. Secular Fundamentalists have a habit of conflating this letter with the First Amendment (which prohibits the establishment of a church by the federal government, but allowed state churches) Jefferson and Madison attended church services in the US Capitol.


regardless, it contains a specific explanation of the separation clause by one of the principal architects of our democracy. if you don't mind, i'll take his word over yours.
 
2012-02-27 08:19:56 AM  
The sad thing is, the separation of church and state is to protect religion.

All of them. Not just the popular ones--because popularity waxes and wanes with time. The churches that were popular back when our nation was founded, they've changed a great deal since those days. With no state backing, that protects all the faiths and ministries--because when the state backs one faith, that means that a few ministries are going to have a bit more pull. That puts all churches on a tilted playing field, and that isn't what freedom of religion is about. It's about all faiths being on that level playing field. Everyone has the right to worship as they will, without interference, without skewing the field.

The problem here is that some ministries are hoping that they'll get some state backing. Why? Because they're betting that once they get that, they can use that to eliminate the competition. Rick is betting that the Protestants will be brought to heel, the Crazy Baptists are betting that the dirty Papists will see Jesus' Love once and for all and end their idol worship, the Mormons figure that they can just buy and sneak their way into everyone's hearts, and cemeteries.

We allow sneaking across the line to state backing of one faith, that puts us on a line to the sort of violence and the sort of problems that rocked Ireland for how many years? Have consumed the conflicts in the Middle East as Shia and Suuni have clashed for how long? We have lovely examples of what happens when a few particular sects get a hold of the government: every other faith then suffers.

Which is why we have that wall separating church and state. Not because folks hate religion. But because faith is too important to much up by arbitrary backing of one or two ministries now, at the cost of the rest of the nation.

You mouth breathing f*cking dolts.
 
2012-02-27 08:44:59 AM  

hubiestubert: The sad thing is, the separation of church and state is to protect religion.

All of them. Not just the popular ones--because popularity waxes and wanes with time. The churches that were popular back when our nation was founded, they've changed a great deal since those days. With no state backing, that protects all the faiths and ministries--because when the state backs one faith, that means that a few ministries are going to have a bit more pull. That puts all churches on a tilted playing field, and that isn't what freedom of religion is about. It's about all faiths being on that level playing field. Everyone has the right to worship as they will, without interference, without skewing the field.

The problem here is that some ministries are hoping that they'll get some state backing. Why? Because they're betting that once they get that, they can use that to eliminate the competition. Rick is betting that the Protestants will be brought to heel, the Crazy Baptists are betting that the dirty Papists will see Jesus' Love once and for all and end their idol worship, the Mormons figure that they can just buy and sneak their way into everyone's hearts, and cemeteries.

We allow sneaking across the line to state backing of one faith, that puts us on a line to the sort of violence and the sort of problems that rocked Ireland for how many years? Have consumed the conflicts in the Middle East as Shia and Suuni have clashed for how long? We have lovely examples of what happens when a few particular sects get a hold of the government: every other faith then suffers.

Which is why we have that wall separating church and state. Not because folks hate religion. But because faith is too important to much up by arbitrary backing of one or two ministries now, at the cost of the rest of the nation.

You mouth breathing f*cking dolts.


It is posts like this why I have a crush on you. And why you are in a very easy on the eyes peach-orange color. You say what I would like to say but much better than I could. Keep it up!
 
2012-02-27 08:51:32 AM  

FlashHarry: i'm guessing he probably feels the same way about free speech and a few other american rights. after all, like the other members of the taliban, he "hates us for our freedoms."


Now, that's not fair! Santorum has made it very clear that he hates and is willing to fight Islamic-fascism.

/apparently Christian-fascism is ok though
 
2012-02-27 08:58:17 AM  
hubiestubert:

Which is why we have that wall separating church and state. Not because folks hate religion. But because faith is too important to much up by arbitrary backing of one or two ministries now, at the cost of the rest of the nation.

You mouth breathing f*cking dolts.


Its just a weird coincidence that there are a lot of haters in this thread?

When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952)

There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life...The Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state. It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions and forbids hostility towards any. Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668 (1984)

The religious nature of a recipient should not matter to the constitutional analysis, so long as the recipient adequately furthers the government's secular purpose. If a program offers permissible aid to the religious (including the pervasively sectarian), the areligious, and the irreligious, it is a mystery which view of religion the government has established, and thus a mystery what the constitutional violation would be. The pervasively sectarian recipient has not received any special favor, and it is most bizarre that the Court would, as the dissent seemingly does, reserve special hostility for those who take their religion seriously. Mitchell v. Helms 530 U.S. 793 (2000)
 
2012-02-27 09:02:19 AM  
Separation is a principle, not a "core tenent" (SIC)

And the core idea was that you can be free to believe whatever you like and government cannot force you into a faith. It is not any part of the Constitution, and there is no prohibition to anyone in public service to express their religious beliefs. (See the First Amendment.)

I believe you are an idiot.
 
2012-02-27 09:13:56 AM  

That Magnificent Bastard!: Separation is a principle, not a "core tenent" (SIC)


did submitter misspell "tenet?" it looks correct to me. why the SIC (sic)?
 
2012-02-27 09:21:09 AM  

Weaver95: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."



the church can form a lobbying group and propose legislation just like any other organization or special interest in D.C. of course, they'll lose their tax exempt status and be just one more voice among the many already in D.C. but that's how it goes in the big city.

People of faith do have a role, and they can (and often do) vote according to their beliefs. But no religious organization can have any more say or any more rights than any OTHER religious group, and that's the key point you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp. Christianity is merely ONE voice in the chorus. Muslims, Jews, Pagans and even scientologists and UFO cultists and fringe groups also get a seat at that table.


I think it's worse than even that- would he tolerate State involvement in matters of the Church? Influence has never in history traveled one way from one organization to another. It hasn't happened because it cannot happen. If churches and religious leaders get a say in government apart from the ordinary right to vote that its members have, then eventually government must have a say in matters of religion because the organizations of religion and the organizations of government will eventually begin to share members one with another.

I am fairly certain that Rick Santorum is an ignorant man with zero introspection and not the slightest bit of personal restraint. This WILL affect all areas of his life and scandal will eventually find him. A person with so few restrictions or so easy a method of rationalizing hatred and bigotry will not be in the spotlight without a serious stain for very long.
 
2012-02-27 09:52:55 AM  
I have not read the thread, but hope someone brought up the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 by now.
 
2012-02-27 09:55:15 AM  
"The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural,Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible."

--- Dan Barker
 
2012-02-27 09:56:13 AM  

crispyone: It's just BS and I can't figure out how anyone can defend it. I recently moved to NYC and was suprised to see that my kid has jewish holidays off...but no Christian holidays off at all.


they go to school on easter and christmas there? seriously? farking commies...
 
Displayed 50 of 519 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report