I been through mad different phases like Masons
to find my way & now I know that happy days are not far away
If I'm strong enough I'll live long enough to see my kids
doing something more constructive with they time
than bids I know because I been there
now I'm in there sit back & look
at what it took for me to get there
First came the "Howll!!" the drama with my mama
she got on some fly shit "What!" til I split
and said that I'ma be that seed
that doesn't need much to succeed
strapped with mad greed and a heart that doesn't bleed
I'm ready for the world or at least I thought I was
baggin' "Uhh!" when I caught a buzz
for thinking about how short I was
Going too fast it wouldn't last but yo I couldn't tell
group homes & institutions, prepare my ass for jail
They put me in a situation forcin' me to be a man
when I was just learnin' to stand without a helpin' hand
Damn, was it my fault, somethin' I did
to make a father leave his first kid at 7 doin' my first bid?
Back on the scene at 14 with a scheme
to get more cream than I'd ever seen in a dream
and by all means I will be living high off the hog
and I never gave a "What!!" about much but my dog
That's my only "Howll!" I had offered my last
Just another little "Come on!!" headed nowhere fast


That ain't the half "Arf!" get's worse as I get older
actions become bolder heart got colder
chip on my shoulder that I dared a "Uhh!" to touch
didn't need a click cause I scared a "Uh huh" that much
One deep went to for kicks
catchin' vicks throwin' bricks gettin by bein' slick
used to get high to get by used to have to "Howl!!"
in the morning before I get fly
I ate something a couple of forties made me hate somethin'
I did some "Arf" now I'm ready to take something
3 years later showing signs of stress
didn't keep my hair cut or give a "Come on!" how I dressed
I'm possessed by the darker side livin' the cruddy life
"What!" like this kept a nigga with a bloody knife
wanna make records but I'm "Wheeew'd!" up
I'm slippin' I'm fallin' I can't get up

Wasn't long before I hit rock bottom
"Howll!" was like damn look how that "how that" got him
Open like a window no more Indo look at a video
sayin' to myself that could've been yo on the TV
believe me it could be done somethin's got to give
it's got to change cause I've got a son
I've got to do the right thing for shorty
and that means no more getting high drinking forties
So I get back lookin' type slick again
Fake "What!" jump back on my "Uhh uh huh!" again
Nothin' but love for those that know how it feel
& much respect to all my "Come on!!" that kept it real
Be strong kept a from doin' wrong
"Uhh" who they is and this is yo "What uhh!" song
and to my boo who stuck with a "Arf!" through
all the bullshit you'll get yours because it's due


can't get up...I gots to get up
This is from the heart baby, don't get it twisted
Ahh X RATED!!!!!

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!

Had to make a chart, too. I should have timed myself. There were lots of pauses to hit the bong and change the music. I'm going to guess forty minutes.

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.
That's just scratching the surface.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.
>> ^heropsycho:

^Thanks, @ChaosEngine, for having an open and inquiring mind. I do appreciate it.

Now the question is -- does language shape our thinking? "What if" women were always called women in circumstances similar to when men are always called men? (Context, context, yes?)

I remember where I was the first time I called myself a "woman." It was forty years ago, and I remember everything about that moment. It felt weird as heck. A responsibility was being assumed by me, it felt like. It was my nineteenth birthday, and I was lounging poolside at a UCLA frat house in the middle of the day.

In traditional societies, there were rites of passage, weren't there? Often brutal, but still. A marking of the transition from childhood to adulthood. The closest thing I have to that in my conscious life is that moment I chose to call myself a woman for the first time.

Do you remember the first time you called yourself a man, assuming that mantle of responsibility?

I suspect it is different for men, because the word is used so much sooner for you guys. "Look at the little man!" when you are three years old. I never heard "look at the little woman." Still, that moment of truly being called a man -- or choosing that word for yourself -- does it resonate?

Thanks for taking this seriously, chaos.

And I still would be interested in your wife's take on this. She married well, I can tell. You rock.

One of the things that I dislike the most about the Sift are the numerous times that words and intentions are put into my mouth that are utterly absent in what I actually say.

I have repeatedly said "unconscious" sexism. And I have applied that phrase to both men and women.

But suddenly I am being painted as some hysteric who is lashing out at the big bad men who have hurt me so bad by their big bad sexism.

This entire culture is sexist. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes looking around them will agree with that statement.

If that feels like an assault to you, rather than a statement of fact, I would ask you to look inside and ask yourself why you are so defensive about a statement of fact.

I'll repeat what I said before -- do you really think you know absolutely everything about everything and have nothing to learn? Spend one day -- one day -- listening to how often women are called girls. Substitute the word "woman" if she is more than 18 years old, and see how that shifts your internal landscape. Spend one day -- one day -- substituting the word "boy" every time you hear the word "man" and see if it doesn't squeege you out.

You can call this trolling if you want to. I call it my little attempt at education.

I also know that it is pretty fruitless. Like I said before, I first started having this conversation FORTY YEARS AGO, and after some headway in early days, it is now worse than ever.

I am grateful for the strides women have made in the past sixty years. I am aware that, although there may be cultures where women have been heads of state (India, Pakistan) where America can't quite bring herself to do it -- still and all, American women have many more rights than those other cultures.

I am grateful that young women today are so blase about their own sense of equality that they blithely minimize themselves with their language. They don't know what it was like forty years ago -- there were authors and authoresses when I was growing up. Poets and Poetesses. Now there are authors and poets. That is so cool, I can't hardly stand it.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

Context matters.
Calling a grown woman "girl" at the workplace is probably out of line. Calling a few racist, drunk hipsters "girls" seems rather appropriate. If you are immature enough to shout racist remarks at strangers, you are immature enough to be justifiably called "girl". Is there such a thing as a mature hipster? I'm inclined to say no.
I voted for the video because I enjoyed it but your trolling makes me want to vote against. Worse still, you've made me agree with @Yogi.
As for knowing Sifters and their personalities, try this... As you read the responses attacking your statements, you're dismissing them as the opinions of sexist men (boys?), the products of a blatantly sexist world. You might also be thinking that if you've done or said anything wrong, it's because you're damaged from decades of sexism and thus your mistakes are our fault anyway.
How'd I do?

*beg because I have one power point that will be wasted if I don't use it now.

Plus it annoys the hell out of me that I am still having this same fricking fracking conversation after FORTY YEARS. I mean, SAME EXACT CONVERSATION.

"Women call themselves girls so it is okay."

No, it is not. It is horrifying that they undercut themselves. It was horrifying 40 years ago when 80 year old women would simper and and giggle when men would call them girls. That is not empowering, it is infantilizing.

Plus, the payoff on this vid is GREAT. What the cop says. It is PERFECT.

Getting out there is a much more worthy goal than maintaining the empire. If we (U.S.) don't get our shit together, the rest of the world will leave us here. And they should.

My favorite photo. I remember showing this to a friend. After I pointed out that the little spec on the left side, just above the rings, is Earth, he asked "that's a REAL picture?". It is disappointing to me that pictures such as this are not part of our collective conscience. Pictures like this should be on the front page of every newspaper, magazine, and blog when they are released.

Unfortunately, lacking a more expansive perspective or frame of reference, such pictures probably don't register with people nowadays like they may have 30-40 years ago. Maybe we've been so desensitized, in a way, by relatively routine Shuttle flights and countless videos of numerous, nameless somersaulting astronauts, by movies, video games, incredible CGI worlds and "artist's renderings" that it's difficult to grasp just how incredible these pictures and videos really are. I'm old enough to remember how awed I was while watching the moon landings on TV, and that feeling has never left me. It was an amazing, wonderful, historical event.

And now, here we are over forty years later, still spending trillions of dollars on war and empire while NASA has to pay Russia for rides to the ISS and beg congress for relatively miniscule amounts of money for telescopes and exploration. WTF happened?

We need to get to Mars. A Mars mission, I believe, would jolt this country back to reality about what is truly possible and worthwhile. A new perspective. We aren't doomed as a species, yet. But we can't stay here.

>> ^transporter:

42 st. bernards x [7 cups per day per dog / 140 cups per forty lb bag of dog food] x $35 per bag = $73.50 per day
or $2205 per month or $26,827.50 per year. I don't own a dog or know how to shop for dog food so all this could be drastically overstated, but good lord. whoever's behind the camera is a good man; that or they are receiving some awesome donations/subsidies.
also, i want more videos of these dogs. i would seriously watch a full length documentary, and there doesn't even have to be a narrative. just these dogs rolling around on each other.


I second that. Totally watchable.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

42 st. bernards x [7 cups per day per dog / 140 cups per forty lb bag of dog food] x $35 per bag = $73.50 per day

or $2205 per month or $26,827.50 per year. I don't own a dog or know how to shop for dog food so all this could be drastically overstated, but good lord. whoever's behind the camera is a good man; that or they are receiving some awesome donations/subsidies.

also, i want more videos of these dogs. i would seriously watch a full length documentary, and there doesn't even have to be a narrative. just these dogs rolling around on each other.

Forty years ago. I remember three things from the book (at least, I think it was that book)

1. Grok

2. The "truth-teller." Someone asked them to say what color the house was, and she said -- the side that I can see is yellow.

3. Oh, yeah, four things -- the fact that every step she took, it looked like someone was arranging her long skirt, that somehow she was outside time.

4. The line "there are two types of people in the world -- those who know they are bi-sexual, and those who don't."

It's been forty years. I wonder how accurate my recollections are.

Is it time to re-read it?

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
A bit of a tangent from our discussion of evolution and religion: have you read Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"?

@hpqp: you may be right... and i may be way off base

i guess in my mind 'child abuse' is systematic, and this could have been just a one-off

as i said, i routinely got worse than this... but that was going on forty years ago

we all see things differently through an often-distorted lens of our own memories and experiences... and to me, something just doesn't ring true here - of course you can disagree... your opinion is just as valid as mine

let me give you an example of where i'm coming from though: my folks were very much a couple of 'spare the rod, blabla' parents - when i was naughty (which was often), i'd be physically punished

just before my 16th birthday, my parents filed for divorce - on separate occassions each of my parents brought me with them to their respective lawyer's office, where i was asked to give a statement regarding the other parent's abuse of me -- i asked each of them 'what does it matter?' and their responses were that it would help that parent's bargaining position and eventual financial settlement - each parent offered me incentives to speak out on solely their behalf

i refused, and petitioned the court for my own emancipation at age 16, which was granted

sooo... for me, it's not whether or not that what happened to hillary adams is 'child abuse' (this can be so subjective, especially when it's a single instance captured on video)

rather, i'm suspicious of the motivation and manner of her coming forward now - she's obviously a canny individual (the hidden video camera is our first indication of that), and add to that the facts i mentioned in my first post

it just strikes a chord with me, remembering how dirty i felt while my parents tried to involve me in their revenging themselves on each other

Dan is the moral monster for trying to turn people against their Creator. Let's see what Job says about the incident:

Job 1:21

And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”

Job knew that all he had was from the Lord, and belonged to the Lord. When thrown into tribulation, Job praised His name.

Job had outstanding moral character. Was Job sinless?:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

No, he wasn't, by his own words. The only one to ever live on this planet without sin is Jesus Christ.

Now let us examine Job 2:3

And the LORD said unto Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a blameless and an upright man, one that fears God, and turns away from evil? and still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Dan said this is a confession, which is patently false. God did not commit a crime here, he was acting as a Judge. Satan is the accuser. He brings up charges against people to God like a prosecuting attorney.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

So when God is saying, "you moved me against him to destroy him without cause", He is saying that Satan brought a false accusation against Job. That Job was tried and tested of the accusation and found to be innocent. They are speaking of a legal matter, not some capricious action that God undertook.

Job 42:12-16

The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. And so he died, old and full of years.

God restored Job to even more abundance than he had before. The fact of the matter is this: That Job was falsely accused by Satan, put on trial, found to be innocent, and restored when he was cleared of the charge. Neither was he sinless, and he himself praised God even through his trials, and repented in sackcloth and ashes.

It's the stated goal of rabid, militant antitheists like Dan to destroy peoples faith in God. That is what is morally repugnant. A person following the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, truly following them, is going to be one of the most moral, upright, compassionate people you'll ever meet. If everyone followed what Jesus taught, there would be no war, poverty, violence, greed or hatred. The world would be a near-utopia.

Dans mind is what is compromised, and so is anyone else thinking that Christianity is immoral. You'll notice that these kinds of attacks, that always subtlety twist scripture to lead people astray, don't ever focus on Jesus. That's because Jesus is so obviously righteous that to attack Him would only make them look like fools. Instead, they focus on trying to malign Gods character by framing judgements He made in the OT in a bad light. That is their entire argument against Christianity, and anyone with discernment should see how hollow it really is.

Further, the United States was founded on judeo-christian values, so for any American to criticize them, while enjoying the freedoms they founded, is foolish and ignorant. Dan doesn't know where he comes from, or where he is going. The new atheists blame evil on religion, but it is not a system that creates evil; it is what dwells in the hearts of men. America is not perfect, but it certainly was founded on biblical principles, and you are seeing the results today of when we stop giving God the glory for how He has greatly blessed this nation.

americans combine the notions of christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

@NetRunner

I don't really believe the "blackmail" theory. It just speaks to how sudden and drastic his about-face seemed to me. I mean, this guy had a HUGE progressive mandate when he got elected. Landslide victory, both Houses, 60-40 in the Senate (although sabotaged by "blueblood" prags). Then, Obama chastising the Repugs that "elections have consequences", and the optimistically prescient Nobel Peace Prize. Finally, some change I can believe in! Go, Obama, go!

And then... he just started caving. Offering compromises when compromises weren't called for or necessary in my view. And then failing to learn very quickly, if at all, that the opposition wasn't interested in anything but opposition. I agree that their "personal courtesy" was truly "partisan posturing", and he may has gotten suckered to a point.

Maybe part of the problem is that he has surrounded himself with people that have never shared his vision. Maybe this is some brilliant plan to expose the Republicans and the system for what it is so he has the support to proffer true progressive change in a second term, but I don't think so.

You can point to the list of his many accomplishments and tell me I'm wrong, but the big picture in this country hasn't changed. His victories are little more than election year bullet points. Very little has changed overall. Health care and financial reforms are a joke. Corporations are still raping this country's middle class by sending jobs and cash overseas while paying very little or no taxes. Unions, the very fucking organizations that created the middle class and kept it strong, are legally and financially weaker and have lower participation than ever. Environmental protections are being stripped at alarming rates, the country's infrastructure continues to crumble, students and teachers alike are being hamstrung by budget cuts, 1 in 50 Americans are in prison or on probation, and although we were walking on the fucking moon forty years ago, we currently have to rent space on Russian rockets just to get American astronauts to low earth orbit. Yeah, we have no money for roads, bridges, schools, health care, or Orion spacecraft, but we spend (borrow) many times that needed to fund these things for three useless wars and an entire Empire of hundreds of bases around the world. I'll spare you the Eisenhower reference.

Something fundamental has to change in this country, and I think that any change that matters is going to have to be HUGE change, even revolutionary.

I see a completely different Obama than the one I supported in 2008. Rhetoric that you want to hear is still just rhetoric. Palliatives for the disenchanted, and dogma for those who should be. Yeah, I know it's "yes, we can", not "yes, he can". That's what OWS is all about. Obama failed. OWS is Plan B.

I hope I'm absolutely wrong. I hope he does well and effects positive, substantive change. Unfortunately, I'll be voting for him not because I think "he can", rather, as the best of a bad lot.