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
    More: Asinine, Fox News, minority religion, Gretchen Carlson, minorities, establishment clause, establishment of religion, complaints  
•       •       •

5837 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:59 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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