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  
•       •       •

5836 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:59 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-07 08:50:54 AM  
6 votes:
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 12:17:57 PM  
4 votes:

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 10:35:08 AM  
4 votes:

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 09:22:54 AM  
4 votes:
"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 10:01:32 AM  
3 votes:
There is more concentrated stupid on Fox News than anywhere else on the planet.
2012-12-07 08:53:14 AM  
3 votes:
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 03:06:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:50:56 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:20:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:17:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:23:23 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-12-10 03:53:24 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-12-10 03:23:28 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-12-09 05:27:29 PM  
1 vote:
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%"
2012-12-09 04:33:31 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-12-07 05:57:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:06:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:00:53 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:21:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:51:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:25:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:20:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:18:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:16:21 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:08:46 PM  
1 vote:
"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 03:06:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:02:47 PM  
1 vote:
Conservatives know nothing about America. News at 11.
2012-12-07 03:01:31 PM  
1 vote:
I thought Fox existed solely to benefit the "1%"?
2012-12-07 02:14:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:02:47 PM  
1 vote:
When will my religion be recognized by the US government? How about my celebration of the Christmas season?

cdn.motinetwork.net
2012-12-07 01:35:27 PM  
1 vote:
"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 01:18:18 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:13:15 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:04:43 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:01:04 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:00:38 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:53:10 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:48:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:43:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:30:45 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:30:07 PM  
1 vote:
Heh... Poor, persecuted white christians just can't get a break in this country.
2012-12-07 12:23:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:23:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:18:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:14:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:10:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:09:49 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:05:57 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:44:16 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:55:39 AM  
1 vote:
Professionally persecuted.
2012-12-07 10:41:58 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:20:30 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:18:32 AM  
1 vote:
Ah, Fox News: Anti-freedom and rights since 1996.
2012-12-07 09:41:41 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:33:35 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:30:15 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:19:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:17:01 AM  
1 vote:

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?
 
Displayed 58 of 58 comments

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