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.

(The Raw Story)   Fox News host: How dare the courts listen to complaints from religious minority groups. Don't those people know their place?   (rawstory.com) divider line 130
    More: Asinine, Fox News, minority religion, Gretchen Carlson, minorities, establishment clause, establishment of religion, complaints  
•       •       •

5831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-07 08:50:54 AM  
Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
 
2012-12-07 08:53:14 AM  
She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.
 
2012-12-07 09:15:31 AM  
THOSE people.
 
2012-12-07 09:17:01 AM  

Cythraul: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.


Or protect the minority from the majority?
 
2012-12-07 09:19:43 AM  

Cythraul: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.

 
2012-12-07 09:22:54 AM  
"We are pandering to the political correctness of a very few groups of people and I believe a lot of it comes down to the litigious nature of our society as well."

She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.

But that would require both a grasp of history and civics that are simply too difficult and inconvenient for Fox's Noise Machine.
 
2012-12-07 09:30:15 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


Thats the first thing that caught my eye too. But I have to say it's flawless mental gymnastics. Perfect 10!
 
2012-12-07 09:31:45 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


Don't hang out on the Politics tab much, I take it.

Cythraul: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.


It was set up to protect the straight, white Christians, men more than women. Haven't you read your (Texas) history books?
 
2012-12-07 09:33:35 AM  

Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here


So you're saying persecuted minorities should just up and leave the country, like the Puritans did? I doubt Gretchen Carlson would disagree with you?
 
2012-12-07 09:41:41 AM  

serial_crusher: Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here

So you're saying persecuted minorities should just up and leave the country, like the Puritans did? I doubt Gretchen Carlson would disagree with you?


I'm saying she should appreciate the beauty of the system we have here, and realize that it benefits those of her beliefs, too.
 
2012-12-07 09:55:03 AM  

Cythraul: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.


I just find it amusing that now it's the opposite side of Farkers defending the "1%"

/lol
 
Pud
2012-12-07 09:58:12 AM  
But if they didn't we would have those damned Jews putting up their Festivus Poles up all over the place

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-07 10:01:32 AM  
There is more concentrated stupid on Fox News than anywhere else on the planet.
 
2012-12-07 10:08:26 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.



Read a little bit farther:

"But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

This is what they actually believe.
 
2012-12-07 10:18:32 AM  
Ah, Fox News: Anti-freedom and rights since 1996.
 
2012-12-07 10:20:30 AM  

Coco LaFemme: There is more concentrated stupid on Fox News than anywhere else on the planet.


This. It's such a huge joke to anyone with half a brain. And I'm sure the executives are smart enough to know this, but as long as they can make a lot of money playing to an audience of idiots and the uninformed, they will continue to laugh their way to the bank.
 
2012-12-07 10:35:08 AM  

ArkAngel: Cythraul: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.

I just find it amusing that now it's the opposite side of Farkers defending the "1%"

/lol


Except, it isn't "1%" like Gretchen the cheerleader says either. I think there was some poll that at least a 1/3 of people under 30 now self identify as "Non-religious", and that isn't even counting other religions as well.

And just because people "didn't complain about it" when you were a kid doesn't mean something wasn't "wrong". I'm sure there were people who said 'Nobody "complained" about having slaves when I was a kid" as well... doesn't mean it wasn't right to get rid of slavery.

Decades ago, there were a lot more communities that were very "closed" off.... literally everyone in the town was probably Christian, so, even if the Courthouse lawn had a nativity scene, yes, nobody was "offended", but, that doesn't mean it was "right" for them to put it on a courthouse lawn.

Here should be the rule for putting something of a religious nature on public/government property: "If someone else put an equivalent thing from another religion in the same place, would I be offended?" If the answer is "Yes", then, you shouldn't put yours there.

Seems to me that these people who are offended that other people are now using their communities public facilities need to become Amish and go into their own little "bubble communities" that don't allow anyone else in.
 
2012-12-07 10:41:58 AM  
Often the church is right there in the center of town also. So I could never understand why they didn't just put it there.
 
2012-12-07 10:55:39 AM  
Professionally persecuted.
 
2012-12-07 11:23:23 AM  
She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population
2) You are aware that there are Christians that are against using government property for religious displays, even their own?
3) The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.
 
2012-12-07 11:28:39 AM  

Diogenes: She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.

But that would require both a grasp of history and civics


Also requires the basic ability to see viewpoints from someone else's perspective. This is a task that right-wing authoritarians are completely incapable of performing.
 
2012-12-07 11:36:09 AM  

impaler: Diogenes: She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.

But that would require both a grasp of history and civics

Also requires the basic ability to see viewpoints from someone else's perspective. This is a task that right-wing authoritarians are completely incapable of performing.


They're always right, so what would be the point?
 
2012-12-07 11:44:16 AM  

impaler: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population


To be fair, she wasn't just counting "non-Christians". She was specifically counting people who get butthurt about religious displays enough to file lawsuits.
She still pulled the number out of her ass, and it may very well be greater than 1%, but it's got to be smaller than the percentage of all non-Christians. Most of us don't really give a shiat.
 
2012-12-07 12:03:21 PM  

serial_crusher: impaler: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population

To be fair, she wasn't just counting "non-Christians". She was specifically counting people who get butthurt about religious displays enough to file lawsuits.
She still pulled the number out of her ass, and it may very well be greater than 1%, but it's got to be smaller than the percentage of all non-Christians. Most of us don't really give a shiat.


And then again many of us fully support these types of lawsuits but don't care enough to fight for them ourselves.
 
2012-12-07 12:04:16 PM  
It's actually quite clearly spelled out folks.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of non-Christian religions, or prohibiting the free exercise of Christian religions thereof; or abridging the freedom of Christian speech, or of the christian conservative press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble in a Christian Church, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against non-Christians."
 
2012-12-07 12:05:57 PM  

ArkAngel: Cythraul: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.

I just find it amusing that now it's the opposite side of Farkers defending the "1%"

/lol



Didn't realize that 1% owned 85% of America's religions.
 
2012-12-07 12:07:58 PM  

FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...


Dafuq did I just read?
 
2012-12-07 12:09:49 PM  

Cythraul: I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.


It was to protect the 1% from the rest. Fox; rewriting history to cover their failure as a news organization.
 
2012-12-07 12:10:31 PM  

ArkAngel: I just find it amusing that now it's the opposite side of Farkers defending the "1%"


Do you have to work at being stupid, or does it come naturally to you?
 
2012-12-07 12:11:27 PM  
Fascists don't comprehend freedom.
 
2012-12-07 12:14:19 PM  

dletter: Except, it isn't "1%" like Gretchen the cheerleader says either. I think there was some poll that at least a 1/3 of people under 30 now self identify as "Non-religious", and that isn't even counting other religions as well.


I wouldn't consider non-religious the most accurate term since it sort of implies they're all atheists. A lot of the "non-religious" consider themselves spiritual and/or believers in Christ and whatnot but don't consider themselves part of a particular church or religion. I like how PBS's Religion and Ethics and Newsweekly labeled them as the "none of the aboves" based on their answer to surveys that don't have an option that really describes them.
 
2012-12-07 12:14:22 PM  

theorellior: FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

Dafuq did I just read?


RepCons seem to think that the First Amendment means that the government cannot interfere in religion in any way at any time.
 
2012-12-07 12:17:15 PM  

qorkfiend: theorellior: FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

Dafuq did I just read?

RepCons seem to think that the First Amendment means that the government cannot interfere in religion in any way at any time.


They think that the government cannot interfere in CHRISTIAN religion in any way at any time.
 
2012-12-07 12:17:57 PM  

Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here


Because they were fundie a-holes and everyone in Europe was too liberal for them, so they fled to the New World to find the freedom to oppress and punish those who disagreed with them?
 
2012-12-07 12:18:09 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: theorellior: FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

Dafuq did I just read?

RepCons seem to think that the First Amendment means that the government cannot interfere in religion in any way at any time.

They think that the government cannot interfere in CHRISTIAN religion in any way at any time.


Nah, they just think that anything non-Christian doesn't count as an established religion.
 
2012-12-07 12:18:46 PM  
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting religious beliefs, including through public displays that convey a religious message.

As this is the way it has to be or we'll become Northern Ireland X 5000. Hell I've seen families fight over what Church they go to. I couldn't imagine the outcry if the Government favored a religion because then it would be over what flavor of that religion is predominant over policy.

Not to mention there is no God, and it's all bullshiat.
 
2012-12-07 12:18:46 PM  
Aren't Catholics something like 20% of the US population? Doesn't that make them a religious minority?

Given that there is no single religious group that can claim a majority (except maybe "Protestants", and if you don't know how stupid it is to claim them as a single religious body, welcome to America and don't fear the winged metal tubes whizzing overhead), EVERYONE's a minority.

Also, given that the Constitution says nothing about majority/minority status (and The Federalist Papers do a fair bit of explaining why not), a religion with 6 followers has the same rights as one with 6 billion.
 
2012-12-07 12:20:11 PM  

theorellior: FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

Dafuq did I just read?


FTA: "Earlier in the segment, Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion."

Yep, their legal analyst doesn't even understand the first amendment. Man will they be embarrassed in the morning.
 
2012-12-07 12:20:12 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


Yet, the Dominionists have manages to convince an alarmingly increasing number of people that the First Amendment protects Christians and only Christians and actually makes the US a Christian state, if only those evil Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews that don't support Israel would let them.

These people are the greatest threat a free and just America has faced in decades.
 
2012-12-07 12:21:20 PM  
I find it hard to believe that Fox News doesn't understand the 1st Amendment.........farking shills.
 
2012-12-07 12:22:45 PM  

Diogenes: "We are pandering to the political correctness of a very few groups of people and I believe a lot of it comes down to the litigious nature of our society as well."

She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here.


The Puritans fled to Massachusetts so they could set up their own intolerant, xenophobic theocracy.

Speaking as the descendant of a couple of Quakers whom the God-fearing Puritans hanged.
 
2012-12-07 12:23:36 PM  

serial_crusher: impaler: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population

To be fair, she wasn't just counting "non-Christians". She was specifically counting people who get butthurt about religious displays enough to file lawsuits.
She still pulled the number out of her ass, and it may very well be greater than 1%, but it's got to be smaller than the percentage of all non-Christians. Most of us don't really give a shiat.


If not for those 1% fox would have nothing to talk about all month. Although, I suppose they could go back to Benghazi.

What would Christmas be like without the annual Fox War on Christmas poutrage?
 
2012-12-07 12:23:53 PM  

meat0918: hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Yet, the Dominionists have manages to convince an alarmingly increasing number of people that the First Amendment protects Christians and only Christians and actually makes the US a Christian state, if only those evil Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews that don't support Israel would let them.

These people are the greatest threat a free and just America has faced in decades.


Decades? These people are a far greater threat than the Nazis or the Communists. They're trying to fundamentally redefine American culture and society to match their narrow-minded religious view. We haven't had the potential for massive damage like this since the Civil War.
 
2012-12-07 12:24:57 PM  

qorkfiend: theorellior: FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

Dafuq did I just read?

RepCons seem to think that the First Amendment means that the government cannot interfere in religion in any way at any time.


Unless it benefits them, of course. I mean, government interference in religion's responsibility to pay their taxes, that's fine.
 
2012-12-07 12:25:20 PM  

Citrate1007: I find it hard to believe that Fox News doesn't understand the 1st Amendment.........farking shills.



They understand it fine. They also understand the limited understanding of their audience and the money they bring in.
 
2012-12-07 12:26:23 PM  
There is so much fail in the article that I'm having trouble choosing what part to refute first.
 
2012-12-07 12:26:28 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Also, given that the Constitution says nothing about majority/minority status (and The Federalist Papers do a fair bit of explaining why not), a religion with 6 followers has the same rights as one with 6 billion.


Well, most people would call the "religion with six followers" a cult. Meanwhile, I say the only difference between a cult and a religion is size.
 
2012-12-07 12:26:32 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


straightrazorplace.com

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul
 
2012-12-07 12:27:28 PM  

serial_crusher: Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here

So you're saying persecuted minorities should just up and leave the country, like the Puritans did? I doubt Gretchen Carlson would disagree with you?


No. He's saying that persecuted minorities have legal avenues of argument and complaint, so they should never feel that need. The persecuted minority in this case, by Gretchen's own admission, is atheists. They are exercising those legal avenues so that they don't have to leave.

Gretchen, and you, seem to be arguing that they should HAVE to leave the country, or simply shut up and deal. That's not American, your desperate attempts to spin otherwise notwithstanding.
 
2012-12-07 12:29:09 PM  
"But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion," Pirro explained. "It doesn't give you freedom from religion, and that is what my objection is."

Because holy shiat, how can I properly enjoy Christmas unless every single government building or square inch of public land in my town is carpeted in Fake Plastic Baby Jesus and multicolored lights?
 
2012-12-07 12:29:31 PM  
I'm going to start taking bar exams from various states, I'm thinking it's quite easy to pass.
 
2012-12-07 12:29:47 PM  
Dear Fox News,

Your not helping!
 
2012-12-07 12:29:55 PM  

12349876: dletter: Except, it isn't "1%" like Gretchen the cheerleader says either. I think there was some poll that at least a 1/3 of people under 30 now self identify as "Non-religious", and that isn't even counting other religions as well.

I wouldn't consider non-religious the most accurate term since it sort of implies they're all atheists. A lot of the "non-religious" consider themselves spiritual and/or believers in Christ and whatnot but don't consider themselves part of a particular church or religion. I like how PBS's Religion and Ethics and Newsweekly labeled them as the "none of the aboves" based on their answer to surveys that don't have an option that really describes them.


I strongly suspect most of that "non-religous" group actually self-identify as "what do I care."
 
2012-12-07 12:30:07 PM  
Heh... Poor, persecuted white christians just can't get a break in this country.
 
2012-12-07 12:30:45 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


It that is their "legal analysts" then no wonder they are dumbfounded everytime courts rule against their favor.

Fox is good at picking losers
 
2012-12-07 12:33:20 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Dear Fox News,
Your not helping!


i13.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-07 12:33:31 PM  
From TFA:
I don't remember these complaints when I was growing up. I don't remember any of them, and now what will my children be fighting for?... This is what we're doing now.

Wait, what? Someone looked at that woman, thought for a moment, and decided "Yes, I want her to be the mother to my children."


/ The whole cast of F&F should be barred from reproducing.
 
2012-12-07 12:33:48 PM  
Because the tail should wag the dog.
 
2012-12-07 12:34:16 PM  

theorellior: FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

Dafuq did I just read?


img163.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-07 12:35:45 PM  

mksmith: Speaking as the descendant of a couple of Quakers whom the God-fearing Puritans hanged.


To be sure, nobody much liked the Quakers, they got hanged up and down the eastern seaboard. However, the Puritans were all about the "pure" in their name.
 
2012-12-07 12:37:13 PM  
True story: Republicans raised the debt ceiling every year they held the WH and both Houses during the Bush years except 2005.
 
2012-12-07 12:43:08 PM  

Diogenes: serial_crusher: Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here

So you're saying persecuted minorities should just up and leave the country, like the Puritans did? I doubt Gretchen Carlson would disagree with you?

I'm saying she should appreciate the beauty of the system we have here, and realize that it benefits those of her beliefs, too.


BeesNuts: serial_crusher: Diogenes: ...

No. He's saying that persecuted minorities have legal avenues of argument and complaint, so they should never feel that need. The persecuted minority in this case, by Gretchen's own admission, is atheists. They are exercising those legal avenues so that they don't have to leave.

Gretchen, and you, seem to be arguing that they should HAVE to leave the country, or simply shut up and deal. That's not American, your desperate attempts to spin otherwise notwithstanding.


trivial use of my dark powers: impaler: Diogenes: She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.

But that would require both a grasp of history and civics

Also requires the basic ability to see viewpoints from someone else's perspective. This is a task that right-wing authoritarians are completely incapable of performing.

They're always right, so what would be the point?


PirateKing: Because they were fundie a-holes and everyone in Europe was too liberal for them, so they fled to the New World to find the freedom to oppress and punish those who disagreed with them?


mksmith: The Puritans fled to Massachusetts so they could set up their own intolerant, xenophobic theocracy.

Speaking as the descendant of a couple of Quakers whom the God-fearing Puritans hanged.


theorellior: To be sure, nobody much liked the Quakers, they got hanged up and down the eastern seaboard. However, the Puritans were all about the "pure" in their name.


Actually, to expand on what PirateKing, mksmith, and theorellior said, the Puritans are either a really bad example, or an ironically really good one, in this case. Contrary to popular belief, they did not come here for freedom of religion. Quite the contrary: they sought to take over and ‶purify" the Church of England (thus the name ‶Puritans"). They committed sedition against the Crown (which was also the head of the Church of England) in the process, and were sentenced to either death or the next worst thing, Transportation (exile to the Colonies). They chose the latter. They were, in effect, kicked out of England. They did not leave of their own free will (not until the only alternative was execution).

Once en route to New England, they immediately began to deny Freedom of Religion even to the majority of their shipmates who were not Puritans (e.g. the Mayflower Compact, which, contrary to what Dominionist ‶historians" will tell you, is not a founding document of the USA ― the American Revolution was about as far into the future for them as today would be for Abraham Lincoln, and besides, it was only about a ship, not even any part of North America!). When they established their colony, the only ‶Freedom of Religion" they recognized in their Massachusetts Bay Colony was the ߴfreedom" to be a Puritan. Not just a Christian. Not just a Protestant. Not even just some other variant of Anglican. You had to be a Puritan to be a citizen in that colony.

And let′s not forget how they oppressed women (Salem Witch Trials, anyone?). These people were quite simply the Taliban of Christianity and of their day.

Indeed, it was at least partly their bad example that, over 1½ centuries later, led the Founding Fathers to establish a secular Constitution that explicitly forbids any religious test for government, that derives its power and authority from ‶We the People" instead of God or Jesus or the Bible, that has absolutely no uniquely Biblical nor Christian principles in any of its legally active text (Articles or §s), etc., and a few years later to establish the First Amendment with, as Jefferson put it, a wall of Separation between Church and State. Jefferson chose his words carefully. Walls block passage in both directions.

Given how the Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists, Third Wave of the Holy Spirit aka ‶Joel′s Army", New Apostolic Reformation (NAR ― what Great Porn Dragon used to be a member of [he can tell you much more about it than I can] and what he calls ‶NARasites" for their practice of ‶steeplejacking" [infiltrating other churches and denominations and taking them over from within] and what I also like to call ‶NARisees" for their attempts to mix government and religion [what Jesus point-blank specifically condemned the Pharisees for doing on multiple occasions!]), etc. have been doing what, were it not for Freedom of Religion (the very thing they′re attacking!), would be considered seditious and thus would be executed or stripped of citizenship and exiled were it not for that, the Puritans example may be quite good after all.
 
2012-12-07 12:45:01 PM  
True story. Posted in the wrong thread.
 
2012-12-07 12:47:57 PM  

MindStalker: theorellior: FloydA: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion ...

Dafuq did I just read?

FTA: "Earlier in the segment, Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion."

Yep, their legal analyst doesn't even understand the first amendment. Man will they be embarrassed in the morning.


Except instead of an embarrassment gland, they have a second, enlarged confidence gland.
 
2012-12-07 12:48:46 PM  
I have a dream....

No, seriously. I have a dream. I have a dream that Rupert Murdoch will one day appear on Fox News and reveal his secret identity to be...Stephen Colbert. And the entire Fox News Universe will have been just one major, elaborate hoax.

It could happen. Has anyone ever seen Murdoch and Colbert together?
 
2012-12-07 12:50:37 PM  

xsarien: From TFA:
I don't remember these complaints when I was growing up. I don't remember any of them, and now what will my children be fighting for?... This is what we're doing now.

Wait, what? Someone looked at that woman, thought for a moment, and decided "Yes, I want her to be the mother to my children."

/ The whole cast of F&F should be barred from reproducing.


I think it more a case of someone saying "oh shiat, she's pregnant."

/someone link the clip from Monday's Daily Show, I'm lazy. 
 
2012-12-07 12:50:56 PM  
I don't understand why it has to be complicated. If you want to display a creche or cross or Mary-in-a-Bathtub, go for it. I won't stop you and I'll give hell to anyone who tries to stop you, even though I am an atheist. But keep religious displays off public (aka taxpayer funded) property such as city hall or the court house. It doesn't belong there. It belongs in your yard, if you decide it does.
 
2012-12-07 12:52:07 PM  
North America attracted a lot of early emigrants in search of "freedom".

However their notion of freedom didn't correspond to a modern notion involving reciprocal individual rights. Instead it meant free to do whatever they thought was right and impose their will on whoever they could without the pesky rules that came from kings. Thus Puritan groups were free to define the true religion that everybody had to follow on penalty of death, large landowners could do whatever they wanted with their serfs, servants, and slaves, and the Scots-Irish kept moving further and further into the frontier to avoid government, taxes, and law in general because a real man would just matters into his own hands.

The right wing still doesn't seem to be able to understand the notion of reciprocal freedom.
 
2012-12-07 12:53:10 PM  
You know how some people can be staying stuff, then try to slip in a substantial lie, and that lie just stands right out from the rest of what they're saying? Utterly discordant? Sort of like walking through a reasonably pleasant garden: tulips, roses, hyacinths, jonquils, big steaming pile of shiat, daffodils... Their body language just screams "I'm lying to you"?

/ The 'pile of shiat' vibe just rolls off of Grechen Carlson every time I see her. Even in still photos.
 
2012-12-07 12:55:07 PM  

jayhawk88: "But the interesting thing about this is that the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause and it says there is no way that you can interrupt the establishment of a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion," Pirro explained. "It doesn't give you freedom from religion, and that is what my objection is."

Because holy shiat, how can I properly enjoy Christmas unless every single government building or square inch of public land in my town is carpeted in Fake Plastic Baby Jesus and multicolored lights?


You can take my multicolored lights out of my cold, dead hands!

Honestly, as an athiest I have no problem with nativities and Christmas stars because as far as I'm concerned Christmas is a secular celebration of a cute little folk story. It may as well be Cinderella day for all the religiosity it has ever implied to me, and I really like the time off work.
 
2012-12-07 01:00:38 PM  
It doesn't give you freedom from religion, and that is what my objection is.

Dear Lord some people are farking stupid.
 
2012-12-07 01:01:04 PM  

IlGreven: Dr Dreidel: Also, given that the Constitution says nothing about majority/minority status (and The Federalist Papers do a fair bit of explaining why not), a religion with 6 followers has the same rights as one with 6 billion.

Well, most people would call the "religion with six followers" a cult. Meanwhile, I say the only difference between a cult and a religion is size.


So, to say you agree with me is to say you agree with me. I think?

// size, yes - also history
// if Christianity or Islam was born today (in the same form it was at its creation as distinct from other religious groups), how many followers you think they'd get?
 
2012-12-07 01:03:03 PM  

corronchilejano: It doesn't give you freedom from religion, and that is what my objection is.

Dear Lord some people are farking stupid.


Well, it doesn't. Just freedom from government religion. Doesn't do a thing about all those people going around religioning on their own time & dime.

Of course, that's not what this stupid coont meant, so your point still stands.
 
2012-12-07 01:03:21 PM  

Diogenes: "We are pandering to the political correctness of a very few groups of people and I believe a lot of it comes down to the litigious nature of our society as well."

She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.

But that would require both a grasp of history and civics that are simply too difficult and inconvenient for Fox's Noise Machine.


You have that backwards about the Puritans. Fled, not so much. Came here so they could enforce their religious beliefs that were considered illegal or "Gray area" elsewhere is more accurate. But then again Columbus DID find America first right. Please ignore the native Americans that could speak with Columbus in his native tongue. 

Puritans then were the Muslims / Southern baptists of today.
 
2012-12-07 01:04:20 PM  

BeesNuts: serial_crusher: Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here

So you're saying persecuted minorities should just up and leave the country, like the Puritans did? I doubt Gretchen Carlson would disagree with you?

No. He's saying that persecuted minorities have legal avenues of argument and complaint, so they should never feel that need. The persecuted minority in this case, by Gretchen's own admission, is atheists. They are exercising those legal avenues so that they don't have to leave.

Gretchen, and you, seem to be arguing that they should HAVE to leave the country, or simply shut up and deal. That's not American, your desperate attempts to spin otherwise notwithstanding.


No, I agree about the legal avenues etc etc. I just don't see how the Puritans tie to any of this. Sure, they left their home country because it didn't have those legal protections, but they didn't exactly set a precedent for tolerance when they got here. They subjugated the indigenous people, burned witches, hanged Quakers, and despised Catholics. The US Constitution, and the first amendment to it, didn't come about until several generations later, by a group that arguably didn't have a lot in common with those guys.
 
2012-12-07 01:04:43 PM  

corronchilejano: It doesn't give you freedom from religion, and that is what my objection is.

Dear Lord some people are farking stupid.


I want someone to explain, non-snarkily, how "freedom from religion" is not implied fairly heavily in "freedom of religion". If I'm free to worship as I choose, isn't "none, and stop asking me" a valid choice? If not, can you explain how the people retain any freedom at all in that wording?

"I'm free to worship as I choose, but I must worship" is not freedom - it's compulsory prayer/service (and in an awesome twist, compulsory speech is largely prohibited by that same First Amendment).
 
2012-12-07 01:05:12 PM  
Err, I was a bit broad on Muslims. Was going more for typical DEATH TO AMERICA variety.
 
2012-12-07 01:10:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I want someone to explain, non-snarkily, how "freedom from religion" is not implied fairly heavily in "freedom of religion". If I'm free to worship as I choose, isn't "none, and stop asking me" a valid choice? If not, can you explain how the people retain any freedom at all in that wording?


Because the text is as follows:

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.

It doesn't say you're free to not exercise religion.

Yes, it is a stupid, simplistic, moronic "legal analysis".
 
2012-12-07 01:13:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: "I'm free to worship as I choose, but I must worship" is not freedom - it's compulsory prayer/service (and in an awesome twist, compulsory speech is largely prohibited by that same First Amendment).


It also does not prohibit compulsory speech, again with the simplistic, moronic reading of the text.
 
2012-12-07 01:13:15 PM  

serial_crusher: BeesNuts: serial_crusher: Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here

So you're saying persecuted minorities should just up and leave the country, like the Puritans did? I doubt Gretchen Carlson would disagree with you?

No. He's saying that persecuted minorities have legal avenues of argument and complaint, so they should never feel that need. The persecuted minority in this case, by Gretchen's own admission, is atheists. They are exercising those legal avenues so that they don't have to leave.

Gretchen, and you, seem to be arguing that they should HAVE to leave the country, or simply shut up and deal. That's not American, your desperate attempts to spin otherwise notwithstanding.

No, I agree about the legal avenues etc etc. I just don't see how the Puritans tie to any of this. Sure, they left their home country because it didn't have those legal protections, but they didn't exactly set a precedent for tolerance when they got here. They subjugated the indigenous people, burned witches, hanged Quakers, and despised Catholics. The US Constitution, and the first amendment to it, didn't come about until several generations later, by a group that arguably didn't have a lot in common with those guys.


Yeah, but you had John Jay arguing that the new country needed to ban Catholics from holding office and that America had to be a Christian nation following the word of God.

I can imagine that his words actually had the opposite effect he intended; i.e. the Framers of the Constitution made doubly sure to keep religion and government separate as best they knew how.
 
2012-12-07 01:13:29 PM  

Cythraul: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way."

I think the constitution was set up to protect the rights of all people in the country, not just 99 percent of them. I may be wrong.


I found it fascinating that someone who works for FOX news is mad about an institution that protects 1% of society in a way she finds unfair. Do these people LISTEN to themselves when they talk?
 
2012-12-07 01:15:05 PM  

serial_crusher: impaler: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population

To be fair, she wasn't just counting "non-Christians". She was specifically counting people who get butthurt about religious displays enough to file lawsuits.
She still pulled the number out of her ass, and it may very well be greater than 1%, but it's got to be smaller than the percentage of all non-Christians. Most of us don't really give a shiat.


If we only count the percentage of people who vocally complain on one side, then shouldn't we only count the percentage of Christians who complain when these displays are removed? Because it sure as heck isn't 99%.
 
2012-12-07 01:18:18 PM  

Kazrath: Diogenes: "We are pandering to the political correctness of a very few groups of people and I believe a lot of it comes down to the litigious nature of our society as well."

She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.

But that would require both a grasp of history and civics that are simply too difficult and inconvenient for Fox's Noise Machine.

You have that backwards about the Puritans. Fled, not so much. Came here so they could enforce their religious beliefs that were considered illegal or "Gray area" elsewhere is more accurate. But then again Columbus DID find America first right. Please ignore the native Americans that could speak with Columbus in his native tongue. 

Puritans then were the Muslims / Southern baptists of today.


They had multiple motives, and I probably oversimplified. But they also didn't take kindly to the King and State telling them how they should worship. Intolerant or otherwise, they were limited in how they chose to express their faith.

And they weren't the ones who ended up drafting and passing our Constitution. So whatever their designs on the New World, saner heads prevailed.
 
2012-12-07 01:19:25 PM  

incendi: Dr Dreidel: I want someone to explain, non-snarkily, how "freedom from religion" is not implied fairly heavily in "freedom of religion". If I'm free to worship as I choose, isn't "none, and stop asking me" a valid choice? If not, can you explain how the people retain any freedom at all in that wording?

Because the text is as follows:

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.

It doesn't say you're free to not exercise religion.

Yes, it is a stupid, simplistic, moronic "legal analysis".


Well, given that I asked for something non-snarky, I'd say your analysis is left wanting. I counter that it very much does say I'm free to not exercise a religious belief, as that's part of almost every other freedom we have (pretty much except commerce, and the dislike of that interpretation is palpable 'round these parts) - the freedom to NOT join. Just to go to the rest of Amdt 1:
-my freedom of association means I can NOT join a group,
-my freedom to petition government means I'm also free to leave my legislators (and yours) alone
-my freedom of speech means I can remain silent (and case law backs that up, meaning I can't be forced to speak)
-my freedom to print what I want means I'm also free to not print anything

And yet my freedom of religion means I have to pick one? Why is that special compared to the rest of the freedoms guaranteed in the First?
 
2012-12-07 01:24:14 PM  

SilentStrider: THOSE people.


Whenever you hear someone say "THOSE people", it's a pretty fair indication that they don't consider the people in question to be PEOPLE.

/the people won't be people when they hear this sound
 
2012-12-07 01:26:22 PM  

Dr Dreidel: incendi: Dr Dreidel: I want someone to explain, non-snarkily, how "freedom from religion" is not implied fairly heavily in "freedom of religion". If I'm free to worship as I choose, isn't "none, and stop asking me" a valid choice? If not, can you explain how the people retain any freedom at all in that wording?

Because the text is as follows:

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.

It doesn't say you're free to not exercise religion.

Yes, it is a stupid, simplistic, moronic "legal analysis".

Well, given that I asked for something non-snarky, I'd say your analysis is left wanting. I counter that it very much does say I'm free to not exercise a religious belief, as that's part of almost every other freedom we have (pretty much except commerce, and the dislike of that interpretation is palpable 'round these parts) - the freedom to NOT join. Just to go to the rest of Amdt 1:
-my freedom of association means I can NOT join a group,
-my freedom to petition government means I'm also free to leave my legislators (and yours) alone
-my freedom of speech means I can remain silent (and case law backs that up, meaning I can't be forced to speak)
-my freedom to print what I want means I'm also free to not print anything

And yet my freedom of religion means I have to pick one? Why is that special compared to the rest of the freedoms guaranteed in the First?


It's solely a limitation on the law-making authority of Congress. It doesn't say there can't be an established religion, and for a while it was regarded as acceptable for the states to have established religions. That was shot down later, of course. In that view, you could regard it as saying that the federal government cannot prevent a state from establishing a religion, or dictating to a state how it must exercise that established religion. You have to abandon a lot of circumstantial evidence of what the founders meant and a lot of later supreme court rulings, but there you are.
 
2012-12-07 01:30:22 PM  

incendi: You have to abandon a lot of circumstantial evidence of what the founders meant and a lot of later supreme court rulings, but there you are.


So, to answer my original question, "No"?
 
2012-12-07 01:34:41 PM  
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.

For clarity, I meant that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
means the federal government cannot establish a religion at a federal level; mandate it at the state level; or prevent it at the state level. The topic is off-limit for federal laws.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
means the federal government cannot dictate the practices of a state-established religion.

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.

is different as it is positively affirming a freedom of speech and press which are not to be abridged, and a right to assemble and petition for redress which are likewise not to be abridged.

/This is not what I actually believe. It is what some people believe.
 
2012-12-07 01:35:27 PM  
"I don't remember these complaints when I was growing up."

Really, Gretchen?! You never heard any complaints about Jewish kids being forced to sing Jesus songs during public school class time? You never heard from the Sikh kids whose parents didn't think that "write letters to Santa" was a valuable or culturally important way of killing December hours that could have been better spent on "math" or "history"? You never knew a JW kid in school whose parents took him out of class for most of December rather than have a constant onslaught of Xmas Xmas Xmas Xmas, totally alienating the kid from the school and his schoolmates?

Perhaps if she grew up in something other than a tiny town in Minnesota with a 90+% white and 100% Christian population she might have actually been exposed to differing opinions and non-small-town thoughts? Of course then she'd have too many "big city commie" ideas in her pretty lil' head and she'd never have got that job at Fox News.
 
2012-12-07 01:35:29 PM  

Dr Dreidel: So, to answer my original question, "No"?


Haha, essentially.
 
2012-12-07 01:42:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: incendi: You have to abandon a lot of circumstantial evidence of what the founders meant and a lot of later supreme court rulings, but there you are.

So, to answer my original question, "No"?


As it's already clear I didn't spend much time reading the original question, basically my revised shortened answer is "Freedom of religion does imply freedom from religion in the sense you're talking about, however, the first amendment can be obnoxiously read to not imply freedom of religion."
 
2012-12-07 01:54:00 PM  

LarryDan43: What would Christmas be like without the annual Fox War on Christmas poutrage?


As far as this atheist is concerned, it would still be loud but tolerable.
Although as a sometime bell-ringer for the sallies, I do bring it on myself :P
 
2012-12-07 02:02:47 PM  
When will my religion be recognized by the US government? How about my celebration of the Christmas season?

cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2012-12-07 02:03:53 PM  

HairBolus: The right wing still doesn't seem to be able to understand the notion of reciprocal freedom.


The Quakers believed in that heresy. Every other British colony hanged them for that nonsense. Everyone is a child of light? Whatevs!
 
2012-12-07 02:09:10 PM  

nekulor: When will my religion be recognized by the US government? How about my celebration of the Christmas season?


Isn't that an artist rendering of The Crimson King from The Dark Tower?
 
2012-12-07 02:14:56 PM  

Fart_Machine: nekulor: When will my religion be recognized by the US government? How about my celebration of the Christmas season?

Isn't that an artist rendering of The Crimson King from The Dark Tower?


I'm polytheistic. Crimson King/Khorne for Overgod.
 
2012-12-07 02:17:09 PM  
If a church or other privately owned property wants to have religious symbols on their property that is fine, it is their legal right to do so but that I don't want to see a shrine to baby Jesus sitting in front of my courthouse or at the park that I help pay for with tax dollars.
 
2012-12-07 02:41:09 PM  

LarryDan43: serial_crusher: impaler: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population

To be fair, she wasn't just counting "non-Christians". She was specifically counting people who get butthurt about religious displays enough to file lawsuits.
She still pulled the number out of her ass, and it may very well be greater than 1%, but it's got to be smaller than the percentage of all non-Christians. Most of us don't really give a shiat.

If not for those 1% fox would have nothing to talk about all month. Although, I suppose they could go back to Benghazi.

What would Christmas be like without the annual Fox War on Christmas poutrage?


It really gets you in the Christmas spirit.
 
2012-12-07 03:01:31 PM  
I thought Fox existed solely to benefit the "1%"?
 
2012-12-07 03:02:47 PM  
Conservatives know nothing about America. News at 11.
 
2012-12-07 03:06:34 PM  

The Why Not Guy: I don't understand why it has to be complicated. If you want to display a creche or cross or Mary-in-a-Bathtub, go for it. I won't stop you and I'll give hell to anyone who tries to stop you, even though I am an atheist. But keep religious displays off public (aka taxpayer funded) property such as city hall or the court house. It doesn't belong there. It belongs in your yard, if you decide it does.


or their church. that might be a good place for it. they'd also be less likely to get complaints from fellow like-minded church go-ers.


/my FSM bowl and meatball are tastefully adorning my pasta machine
 
2012-12-07 03:06:36 PM  

grokca: LarryDan43: serial_crusher: impaler: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population

To be fair, she wasn't just counting "non-Christians". She was specifically counting people who get butthurt about religious displays enough to file lawsuits.
She still pulled the number out of her ass, and it may very well be greater than 1%, but it's got to be smaller than the percentage of all non-Christians. Most of us don't really give a shiat.

If not for those 1% fox would have nothing to talk about all month. Although, I suppose they could go back to Benghazi.

What would Christmas be like without the annual Fox War on Christmas poutrage?

It really gets you in the Christmas holiday spirit.


FTFY
 
2012-12-07 03:08:46 PM  
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children." - morning prayer of all Fox News employees.

/14GOP88
 
2012-12-07 03:16:21 PM  
Why do they bother telling us the names of these cookie-cutter women on Fox?

Why not just label them AFB Another Fox Blond - there's no need to keep them seperate
 
2012-12-07 03:18:54 PM  

Diogenes: "We are pandering to the political correctness of a very few groups of people and I believe a lot of it comes down to the litigious nature of our society as well."

She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.


To set up a godly commonwealth and hang Quakers? I think I might be missing your point.
 
2012-12-07 03:20:31 PM  

eiger: Diogenes: "We are pandering to the political correctness of a very few groups of people and I believe a lot of it comes down to the litigious nature of our society as well."

She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here. And how the separation clause protects churches, too.

To set up a godly commonwealth and hang Quakers? I think I might be missing your point.


I should have read the thread first. Seems like my work has already been done here.
 
2012-12-07 03:21:53 PM  
God damn it, this is the second article like this in a day that not once did it occur to me might be satire.

At this point, are conservatives trying to gain support by saying such vapidly idiotic things that to hear them is to destroy one's own brain cells?
 
2012-12-07 03:25:17 PM  

Diogenes: She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here.


Actually, they came here to practice religious discrimination. Which they did, hanging witches, Quakers, and Baptists.
 
2012-12-07 03:32:40 PM  

that bosnian sniper: God damn it, this is the second article like this in a day that not once did it occur to me might be satire.

At this point, are conservatives trying to gain support by saying such vapidly idiotic things that to hear them is to destroy one's own brain cells?


A dumb society is a compliant society.
 
2012-12-07 03:51:48 PM  

serial_crusher: BeesNuts: serial_crusher: Diogenes: Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here

So you're saying persecuted minorities should just up and leave the country, like the Puritans did? I doubt Gretchen Carlson would disagree with you?

No. He's saying that persecuted minorities have legal avenues of argument and complaint, so they should never feel that need. The persecuted minority in this case, by Gretchen's own admission, is atheists. They are exercising those legal avenues so that they don't have to leave.

Gretchen, and you, seem to be arguing that they should HAVE to leave the country, or simply shut up and deal. That's not American, your desperate attempts to spin otherwise notwithstanding.

No, I agree about the legal avenues etc etc. I just don't see how the Puritans tie to any of this. Sure, they left their home country because it didn't have those legal protections, but they didn't exactly set a precedent for tolerance when they got here. They subjugated the indigenous people, burned witches, hanged Quakers, and despised Catholics. The US Constitution, and the first amendment to it, didn't come about until several generations later, by a group that arguably didn't have a lot in common with those guys.


Oh most def. They didn't come here to SET UP a free-religion love-fest. But they came here to escape the religious (and political as COMA points out eloquently above) persecution of their country.

That lesson, that the majority can and will subjugate the minority, particularly if the wind of righteousness and religious belief fills their sails, was hard won in this country. And much as our founders claimed that the truth of universal equality is self evident, their actions betray the boundaries of that belief in the interest of expedience, not any crack in the facade of the fundamental realization itself.

I'm not gonna write a treatise on it, but I guess agree to disagree, I think the comment was at least moderately related. I was able to draw parallels without much of a struggle. If people weren't able to see these people and these actions and these words from different perspectives, the world would be boring, and we'd probably have already agreed to do something really stupid, like try and replace our water with olive oil. Or run our cars off of the severed penises of mountain lions.
 
2012-12-07 04:21:35 PM  

grokca: LarryDan43: serial_crusher: impaler: She explained that courts ordered religious displays at public buildings to be removed "because we listen now to the less than 1 percent in society that feels this way." [citation needed]

1) Christians are not 99% of the population

To be fair, she wasn't just counting "non-Christians". She was specifically counting people who get butthurt about religious displays enough to file lawsuits.
She still pulled the number out of her ass, and it may very well be greater than 1%, but it's got to be smaller than the percentage of all non-Christians. Most of us don't really give a shiat.

If not for those 1% fox would have nothing to talk about all month. Although, I suppose they could go back to Benghazi.

What would Christmas be like without the annual Fox War on Christmas poutrage?

It really gets you in the Christmas spirit.


Every year since they started dictating "proper" Christmas behavior, I have become less likely to say "Merry Christmas" to anyone. This year, I am actively avoiding it completely.
 
2012-12-07 04:25:54 PM  

Diogenes: Fox's Noise Machine.


Hey, that's the name of my Ted Nugent cover band!
 
2012-12-07 05:00:53 PM  
Really? 1%?

Didn't they just breathlessly report the CNN and Gallup surveys done in October showing 20% of the country no longer claims any religious affiliation, including 34% of people under 30? Didn't they spend several days on how scary that number was for "traditional" society? Already forgot, I guess, because it complicates the double faux outrage.

That's just the percent that have no religion at all. Factor in all those who are religious but non-Christian, and you're not dealing with some trivially small percentage of the population who's not entirely behind your particular savior birth diorama.
 
2012-12-07 05:06:23 PM  

jaerik: Really? 1%?

Didn't they just breathlessly report the CNN and Gallup surveys done in October showing 20% of the country no longer claims any religious affiliation, including 34% of people under 30? Didn't they spend several days on how scary that number was for "traditional" society? Already forgot, I guess, because it complicates the double faux outrage.

That's just the percent that have no religion at all. Factor in all those who are religious but non-Christian, and you're not dealing with some trivially small percentage of the population who's not entirely behind your particular savior birth diorama.


You know what happens when you corner a dog? The dog usually is not level headed and logical. These people are backed into a corner, God forbid they have to be progressive or something.
 
2012-12-07 05:10:42 PM  

Citrate1007: I find it hard to believe that Fox News doesn't understand the 1st Amendment.........farking shills.


Oh, they understand the part that says Congress Can't Stop the Media from Talking, or however that goes. All the rest is just static. Something about religion and not coveting thy neighbor's manservant, right?
 
2012-12-07 05:11:27 PM  

pciszek: Diogenes: She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here.

Actually, they came here to practice religious discrimination. Which they did, hanging witches, Quakers, and Baptists.


To be fair, there have been times when I've wanted to hang some Baptists.
 
2012-12-07 05:44:42 PM  

meat0918: hillbillypharmacist: Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Yet, the Dominionists have manages to convince an alarmingly increasing number of people that the First Amendment protects Christians and only Christians and actually makes the US a Christian state, if only those evil Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews that don't support Israel would let them.

These people are the greatest threat a free and just America has faced in decades.


I'd argue that's the war on drugs, but they are a close second.
 
2012-12-07 05:50:58 PM  

jaerik: Factor in all those who are religious but non-Christian, and you're not dealing with some trivially small percentage of the population who's not entirely behind your particular savior birth diorama.


Factor in the non-Protestants, and you're now talking the majority of the country. At present, though, most protestant sects seem OK with nativity scenes at Christmas time, despite the tradition's roots in papist idolatry.

Probably be at least until the late 2040s before the country goes majority non-Christian though.
 
2012-12-07 05:57:05 PM  

dletter: Here should be the rule for putting something of a religious nature on public/government property: "If someone else put an equivalent thing from another religion in the same place, would I be offended?" If the answer is "Yes", then, you shouldn't put yours there.


THIS! THIS! THIS!

I still remember the storm of controversy that San Jose had when they decided to put up a stupid (and I do mean stupid: it looks like a dino turd) Quetzalcoatl statue. A huge chunk of the controversy came from the "OMG, that's pagan!" people, with a lot of backing from the local churches.

These were pretty much the same people throwing a conniption whenever the subject of maybe, perhaps not officially celebrating the birth of Jesus came up. And i doubt that a single one of them realized the hypocrisy of their position.

/ Seriously, though... that statue sucks.
 
2012-12-07 07:22:15 PM  
So if I heard her correct, she is suggesting that we don't listen to the 1%?
 
2012-12-07 09:44:07 PM  
W...what in the name of Eru Ilúvatar did I just read?
 
2012-12-08 12:29:07 AM  

theorellior: To be sure, nobody much liked the Quakers, they got hanged up and down the eastern seaboard.


When you run around preaching peace and love, pacifism and brotherhood with your fellow man, you tend to get hung. Or nailed to a tree.

/also, 18th century Quakers tended to be sanctimonious assholes.
 
2012-12-08 09:37:29 PM  
Conservatives have twisted their interpretation of the Second Amendment around to mean the exact opposite of what the authors intended and what tradition has had it mean since the amendment was proposed and ratified.

Here its is in black and white, FTA: "Earlier in the segment, Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro said the First Amendment prohibited government from preventing the establishment of religion - not prohibited government from the establishment of a religion."

The Second amendment prohibits Congress (the Legislative Branch) from establishing a religion, not from interferring with bigots' attempts to establish their religion. Futhermore this is interpreted to mean that 1) it will not establish a religion and 2) from penalizing or preferring one religion with respect to others. This is the foundation of freedom of religion and tolerance for other religions. Second, there is a clause prohibiting tampering with the free exercise of religion. The Government can not intervene in matters internal to a church or religion, and can not regulate or control people's private (or collective) religious beliefs, rites, etc.

Wikipedia observes, correctly:

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Perhaps the talking head on Fox does not remember objections to Congress breaking these rules (I doubt if it was because Congress never did), but that is irrelevent. Republicans want it to break the Constitutional rules and have been campaigning for such violations for decades, even before the Fox Talking Head was born. They have slipped a reference to God into the Pledge of Alligeance to the Flag (in 1954) and have attempted to establish a generic Judeo-Christianity ever since, although the Judeo- part of this alliance dates only from the neo-con period--Jews were victims of religious bigotry, not partners in it, until recently.

The US, has, of course, not been charry about interferring in religious customs such as polygamy (the Mormons), or medical care (the Jehovah's Witnesses) and Congress and other legislatures has long maintained many Blue Laws, Sunday Shopping Laws, etc. to the detriment of say, Jews who want to take Saturday off and work Sunday, or Muslims who want Friday off, or people of other religions, seeing as there is at least one religion for each day of the week if you start legislating statutory holidays and days of rest.

The reason the Amendment was made in the first place is that there are many people who would love the establishment of their own religion at the expense (taxes as well as rights) of other people's religions. The Founding Fathers were acquainted with established churches. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales all had an establshed church. England still does. So does Denmark. Established churches are still supported by tax dollars. Tithes are still required perhaps.

Charles Darwin was a Quaker (and he married a Quakeress, Emma, a cousin of his). He had to convert to the Church of England (or possibly Scotland) to get a university degree. The Churches controlled the Universities. The Churches and the Universities had their own Members of Parliament and the House of Lords. The Church was a branch of the Government and the Government was sometimes a tool of the Church. Even today, the Queen is official Head of the Church of England although the Archbishop of Canterbury is the effective acting head of the religious and church side of things.

Jews were not allowed into Parliament, or the Universities, or Public Office, or the Armed Forces, any more than the Church, without a token conversion at last. Benjamin Disraeli lost four elections before winning his seat and he couldn't take that seat until a show down between the Establishmentarians and Disestablishmentarians resulted in him being allowed into Parliament physically as well as by election.

Establishment is a great and very expensive privilege. It means that one religion and one church is officially sanctioned and supported by the Government. It means some people are more citizens than others because of their religious affiliation. But it also means the Church is funded by and thus controlled by the Government because he who has the gold makes the rules (the Other Golden Rule).

I don't think that Conservatives would be happy with the tyranny of God and Country if it was somebody elses's God and Country. So it is evident that the seditious buggers aim to own both exclusively at your expense.

America has sometimes been less religious (less prone to religiosity and pious clap trap) that is, than today. But it has never had an Establishment of Religion, and I hope it never does because Republicans and reactionaries and plutocrats are bad enough without an Established Church squatting Her fat buttocks on your face in the name of whatever Demon-God of This World that She worships besides Herself.
 
2012-12-08 09:45:37 PM  

brantgoose: ...The Second amendment prohibits Congress (the Legislative Branch) from establishing a religion, ...


wat
 
2012-12-08 10:01:23 PM  
The United States began as a series of colonies under the aegis of the British crown. Britain had an Established Church, the Church of England, and established branch-churches in the other three Kingdoms, the Kirk of Scotland, the Church of Ireland and the Chruch of Wales. These established churches date from Henry VIII's break with the Roman Catholic Church and especially from his declaration of his own protectorship over the Church in England, making him and his descendants the heads of the Church of England.

In the colonies, more religious variety and freedom prevailed, but only just.

Roman Catholics and Quakers and others were persecuted in Massachusetts by the Puritans and Pilgrims. I have a family connection with both the Witches of Salem and their Persecutors, but also with the famous Heretic, Anne Hathaway.

People fled into Connecticut to escape the Puritan theocracy, and Rhode Island was also created to escape religious strife. Many of my newly found ancestors are turning out to be Quakers from Rhode Island with former residency in Massachusetts or Connecticut. Many of them fled to Nova Scotia before, during or after the Revolution depending on how long it took them to realize that war was coming and how willing they were willing to abandon rich established farms for wilderness and Canadian winters.

I have also discovered I am descended from a lot more Baptists than I knew. The Baptists were a bit far out by English Dissenter standards because they did not practice infant baptism. They believed you had to be a rational adult to accept God's Grace and Salvation. You couldn't be innoculated with it like these new-fangled vaccinations against Small Pox using cow's blood from cows with the cow pox (vaccination comes from vaccus, Latin for "cow").

I also have a lot of Irish ancestors who were hiding under names I thought were Scottish or English or Census references to French, Dutch, German, English or Scottish origins that were obviously BS.

These Irish were mostly Protestants from the great Ulster Plantation, which was England and Scotland's first overseas colonization project, which involved hunting Irish peasants with dogs and shooting them like wild animals for eight hundred years, or worse yet, leaving them in the hands of bailiffs while the family removed to the comforts and luxuries of London or rural England.

Several US states are connected with one religious colony or another (Rhode Island and Pennsylvannia with Quakers and the Pennsylvania Dutch (really Germans and Anabaptist "heretics"), several states with the rise of the Mormons, and Maryland and other states with other religions. The Moravian Brothers (Protestants, Eastern Europe and Germany) and others were great preachers to the poor. The Baptists went into the most remote and smallest rural communities to bring their version of the Gospel to the poorest and most uneducated pioneers and hillbillies. The British Colonies were a hotbed of religious revivalism and experimentation, a sort of Wild West free-for-all where old world heretics and new world enthusiasts could have a go at creating new religions without the oppression of Church, Crown and State.

And so they did. American religion is a free enterprise market for the most part, and the winners innovate and serve demand, while the losers fall by the wayside or slowly become small sects of kindly, often liberal old people whose wisdom and goodness would have appalled their fanatical ancestors.

New England, like the Netherlands, is full of liberals because it was once full of Puritans of a more fiery, God bothering and gold loving people. The South remains full of idiots, which comes from a Greek word which means a person who neglects his public duties as a free citizen for private profits and ease--the type of person who gets out of jury duty and who doesn't vote unless he is really riled up. The type of person who tells Michael Moore that military service is for those other people, not people like us. In short, conservative peasants, lumbering through life with a rifle in one hand and a Bible waiving in the other to sanctify their idiot prejudices and fears and hatreds.
 
2012-12-08 10:10:44 PM  
When religion and politics, or religion and money, mix, they both become corrupt thereby. That is my credo and I'm sticking to it. Doesn't matter which religion either. If I were to cease to be an atheist and were to return to my own native (liberal) church, I would not change that opinion a jot or an iota. I've seen too many churches and congregations, preachers and holy rollers, of too many different sects to believe in any one of them, even the more moderate, tolerant, well-intentioned, rational and liberal one I was brought up in.

If you can't be Quietist, at least be quiet!

I agree with Adam Smith's concern that an Established Church which isn't full of gentle hypocrites is liable to be full of troublesome fanatics and politically ambitious SOBs, while a government dominated by angry, fractious, needy greedies and polemicists (such as were plentiful among the Dissenters) is even worse.

Either the Government governs, or religion does, and government was to Smith the lesser of the two evils. Better to have a nice Church of England vicar or priest who likes to hunt and fish or who plays around with literature or science hobbies and writes little monographs or large volumes of sermons for every occasion than deal with a fractious and meddlesome lot of Bible-thumping idjits.

Being an economic liberal, Smith could also see how the Great Merchants misunderstood or misrepresented their interests to the Crown, to Parliament and to the People. He was no apologist for business, and a sound critic of mechantilism and its shiboleths. You're lucky people like him inspired a liberal democracy to come in the UK while our Amercan cousins were creating a liberal democracy in America.

No church deserves a monopoly of any state, nor any state a monopoly of religion.
 
2012-12-09 04:33:31 AM  
Let's just invest heavily in education. As long as we can keep the creationists from writing the science books then sooner or later knowledge will eliminate this debate. Religion can't get you if you learn to insist on facts before you are taught to believe in the things you can not touch, see, experience, or prove in any re-creatable manner. Yes it will take generations, yes it will be worth the wait, yes we will have to listen to Gretchen's incoherent attempt to make Christians the victims until then.
 
2012-12-09 05:27:29 PM  
How about we make a "1%" deal with the Right. We'll agree that the 1% have no rights and we'll let you keep your mangers and baby Jesus' and we get to pass an 80% tax rate on the other "1%"
 
2012-12-10 03:23:28 PM  

pciszek: Diogenes: She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here.

Actually, they came here to practice religious discrimination. Which they did, hanging witches, Quakers, and Baptists.


And that's still the dichotomy we have here today. In the 1600's two groups moved to America in droves: the Puritans and the Quakers. The Puritans came here so that they could fight against religious freedoms and the Quakers came here to establish religious freedoms. One side promoted tyranny and the other promoted consensus and freedom from oppression.

America is still suffering from the legacy of allowing those a$$hole puritans to have any say in the new world.

To dumb it down even more: Quakers are the Mystics and Puritans are the Skeksis.
 
2012-12-10 03:53:24 PM  

Leeds: pciszek: Diogenes: She should hope to never be in the minority. Perhaps she forgets why the Puritans fled to come here.

Actually, they came here to practice religious discrimination. Which they did, hanging witches, Quakers, and Baptists.

And that's still the dichotomy we have here today. In the 1600's two groups moved to America in droves: the Puritans and the Quakers. The Puritans came here so that they could fight against religious freedoms and the Quakers came here to establish religious freedoms. One side promoted tyranny and the other promoted consensus and freedom from oppression.

America is still suffering from the legacy of allowing those a$$hole puritans to have any say in the new world.

To dumb it down even more: Quakers are the Mystics and Puritans are the Skeksis.


My favorite version: America got England's Puritans and Australia got England's criminals. Australia got first choice.
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

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