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  
•       •       •

5826 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 30 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report