Gay Patriot Header Image

Patriot Act Claims First ‘Innocent Victim’…

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 10:38 pm - December 25, 2005.
Filed under: War On Terror

….in his own mind. (h/t – LittleGreenFootballs).

Federal agents’ visit was a hoax – SouthCoastToday.com

The UMass Dartmouth student who claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for “The Little Red Book” by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story.

The 22-year-old student tearfully admitted he made the story up to his history professor, Dr. Brian Glyn Williams, and his parents, after being confronted with the inconsistencies in his account.

Had the student stuck to his original story, it might never have been proved false.

So yet again, the only “innocent” claimed by “excesses” of the Patriot Act is victimized by his own paranoia. I’ve yet to see a real, documented case of anyone, who isn’t breaking the law or here illegally, having their “civil liberties” violated by the Patriot Act. Or wiretapping.

If you aren’t doing anything illegal, are in this country legally and aren’t calling your al-Qaeda friends overseas, you don’t have anything to fear. Except the scare tactics of Democrats.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

64 Comments

  1. Is there any lies liberals won’t make up?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 26, 2005 @ 12:45 am - December 26, 2005

  2. At least liberals have got the subject-verb agreement thingie down.

    Comment by Tacitus — December 26, 2005 @ 11:00 am - December 26, 2005

  3. I think that kid was stupid and and idiot for doing such a thing, but to the last point….

    “If you aren’t doing anything illegal, are in this country legally and aren’t calling your al-Qaeda friends overseas, you don’t have anything to fear”.

    So, if a few federal agents come into your home one day to oh, say, just check things out, perhaps when you’re not at home, then that’s cool with you? You of course won’t mind cleaning up the mess from them opening drawers and such as they just wanted to be sure that you weren’t doing anything illegal, right?

    My life happens to fall squarely within the 3 points GayPatriot mentions, but unless you have probable cause backed up by a court issued warrant, please don’t pop by my place.

    When exactly does something illegal become legal and vice-versa? How about people who are subjected to out-of-date laws simply because they are being targeted for discrimination (i.e. Mitt Romney trotting out the “marriage license’s in MA only for MA residents” law, which was never upheld for anyone prior to legalization of gay marriage)

    Should I assume that GayPatriot (and others) are 100% in compliance of all local, county, state, federal laws where they live?

    Comment by Kevin — December 27, 2005 @ 12:58 am - December 27, 2005

  4. #3

    So, if a few federal agents come into your home one day to oh, say, just check things out, perhaps when you’re not at home, then that’s cool with you?

    What makes you think that they’d be interested in your house? Do you really think federal agents have nothing better to do than to come into your home “just to check things out”?
    And another thing: folks don’t seem to understand that all law enforcement officials have to do an ass load of paperwork to justify almost every move they make. Do you REALLY think that they would go through your house for the fun of it in the hopes of doing more paperwork?

    No. They’d only come to your house to haul your ass away to a gay concentration camp somewhere.

    Try thinking for yourself instead of listening to the hysterical kooks.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 27, 2005 @ 1:55 am - December 27, 2005

  5. Ooops. Forgot to close my italics.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 27, 2005 @ 1:56 am - December 27, 2005

  6. Sorry, but it sends a chill up my spine when I see/hear people say “well, if you’re not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about” This step is the first that other governments have taken in changing from a form of democracy to some form of totalitarian state. I would take it from recent revelations that the Executive Branch has done a lot less of that ass full of paperwork in recent times.

    I have no problem with our government working harder to ensure that terrorist cells don’t continue to form in this country. I’m just a bit confused over why there is so much side-stepping when it comes to the law. Isn’t the rule of law what we’re supposed to hold true in this great nation? There are even provisions available for the gov’t to obtain warrants after-the-fact in wiretapping/surveillance cases. The more that any branch of government considers itself to be above the law, then the more trouble we’re in. Didn’t Nixon’s actions teach us anything? Yes, let’s work to keep ourselves safe, but let’s do it with at least one eye on the Constitution at the same time.

    You may think it’s a hysterical reaction, but it’s happened in history. Jews in Germany thought if they kept their heads down, played along and did what the government said, then they’d be ok. I just don’t believe in the addage “It could *never* happen here”

    Comment by Kevin — December 27, 2005 @ 5:19 am - December 27, 2005

  7. Kevin-

    The difference between you and I is that you inherently blame America and think this country is bad and have no faith in its institutions. I on the other hand have full faith in the American people, our checks and balances and the determination of this President to execute a war against our enemies.

    Comment by GayPatriot — December 27, 2005 @ 7:28 am - December 27, 2005

  8. So, if a few federal agents come into your home one day to oh, say, just check things out, perhaps when you’re not at home, then that’s cool with you?

    If that hppens, you’re hobnobbing with terrorists. That’s treason. You should be convicted, then publically executed.

    Free speech does not include sedition or treason.

    Comment by rightwingprof — December 27, 2005 @ 8:38 am - December 27, 2005

  9. #7 GP, I didn’t see where Kevin, in his post, blames America in his post. Is this implied because he is *gasp* questioning the executive branch of the government, and has some worries of possible abuses by that branch, whether it’s correct or incorrect. This isn’t any different than many posters here who have questioned the judicial branch, and are concerned that they have overstepped their authority. Although there has been disagreement on that issue, there weren’t suggestions that those persons blame America. I have faith in the American people and our checks and balances too, but will lose it when we all start blindly accepting everything government does without question.

    #8 Let’s see if I got this straight. If federal agents come to search my home, then I’m guilty of treason. Is that correct? If the Patriot Act said or implied that, then I’d be worried.

    Comment by Pat — December 27, 2005 @ 9:32 am - December 27, 2005

  10. #7 — Well said. I’ll take faith and reason over paranoid delusion any day.

    Meanwhile: Senate Democrats object to resolution calling for Democracy in Iran

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2005 @ 9:41 am - December 27, 2005

  11. P.S. I note the objection alluded to in #10 was laid by Ron Wyden, who probably couldn’t find Iran on a map with both hands and a flashlight. (A reference to the geographical ignorance displayed by Wyden in his first senate campaign.)

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2005 @ 9:45 am - December 27, 2005

  12. What exactly is the definition of “sedition”?
    My dictionary says “public commotion , riot, not amounting to insurrection or rebellion and therefore not treason.”

    Comment by hank — December 27, 2005 @ 10:16 am - December 27, 2005

  13. #8 – #9 -

    I think the point of #8 is that federal agents aren’t evil and, so far as we know, haven’t been coming into anyone’s home without reason.

    Assuming that continues to hold up, then if you did find them coming into your home, gee do you think maybe it was that prank phone call to Zarqawi your daughter placed?

    For me, the bottom line here is: Either the Patriot Act gives government extreme, unnecessary powers or it doesn’t. Either government agents have been abusing their powers to harm ordinary citizens, or they haven’t. And those are both empirical questions.

    Among liberals, it is simply assumed that the Patriot Act is some awful law that has led to massive civil liberties violations, but… what violations? where and what is the evidence? Let’s get down to brass tacks.

    Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 10:39 am - December 27, 2005

  14. #13 cont.

    Take the left-liberal claim, “The Patriot Act lets them check on your library reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Reality check:

    (1) Nothing in the Patriot Act says that.

    (2) It probably is true that they can check a suspected terrorist’s recent library reading, in the course of an intelligence-gathering investigation. That’s a good thing, folks. If someone is a legitimately-suspected terrorist, wouldn’t you want them to find out if that terrorist has been concentrating more on nuclear, biological or chemical technologies?

    Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 11:00 am - December 27, 2005

  15. And the one-ever-reported incident of a possible abuse of the government’s investigative power has been a complete hoax.

    Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 11:02 am - December 27, 2005

  16. So, Kevin, let me ask you two questions.

    1. Do you believe Al Qaeda has, as an organizational objective, carrying out additional terror attacks in the United States?

    2. Do you believe that the Republican party under George Bush has, as an organizational objective, the extermination of homosexuals?

    All reasonable people would have to answer yes to the former, and no to the latter. Which is why wiretapping phone calls originating or terminating with known al Qaeda affiliates makes sense, and why rants about a slippery slope to death camps do not.

    Comment by V the K — December 27, 2005 @ 3:59 pm - December 27, 2005

  17. As someone who believed this story and quoted it, (although not on this blog), I will now publicly eat crow pie over it.

    That does not however mean that everything with the Patriot Act is now Blessed By God, as some might wish.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 27, 2005 @ 5:21 pm - December 27, 2005

  18. “That does not however mean that everything with the Patriot Act is now Blessed By God, as some might wish.”

    Who, Gryph?

    What “some” are you referring to? Name names, or explain your meaning, if you’ve learned something about being accountable for your statements.

    Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 5:57 pm - December 27, 2005

  19. Calarato, piling on after the whistle is a fifteen-yard penalty.

    Don’t revert to recidivistic Democrat behavior. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2005 @ 7:38 pm - December 27, 2005

  20. 7: That is completely ludicrous. I, like millions, love this country and what it stands for. Unlike you though, I don’t blindly follow the leaders of the day and their whims. I do have faith in the system and the checks and balances, but what do we do when our leaders attempt to remove those checks and balances? I still don’t have an answer to my questions on the checks that were already available, such as after-the-fact warrants.

    All of our political leaders have their problems and failings, but in my life I have not seen the leaders of our government who are so openly contemptuous of the entire system like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others. If the majority rules, then so be it, but out of a country of millions of conservative, can’t you come up with someone better than Bush? At least someone with higher IQ and reading skills – not to mention the ability to finish a sentence on his/her own.

    Comment by Kevin — December 27, 2005 @ 10:04 pm - December 27, 2005

  21. 16: 1) Yes

    2) Possibly not under George Bush, but could it happen if religious fundamentalists continue to gain more and more control of the Republican party? It’s interesting how we think it’s necessary to have democracy in other parts of the world that were/are run by fundamentalist religious (non-christian) rule, yet in this coutnry today, more and more conservatives want to inject the rule of God (christianity) into the running of the goverment. Possibly not today, but frankly I’d like to keep our government secular to be sure it doens’t happen in the future. It’s my hope that the rule of law and Constitution remain strong.

    Comment by Kevin — December 27, 2005 @ 10:09 pm - December 27, 2005

  22. #19 – Hey NDT -

    I know we often agree, and you dressed up your remark with a smiley and all, but you should think about cramming it. To use your own football analogy: you are neither coach nor quarterback. I’ve asked Gryph a valid question about his cryptic remark, which may have been a lame attempt at a dig on someone (again, we don’t know who).

    Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 10:49 pm - December 27, 2005

  23. I know we often agree, and you dressed up your remark with a smiley and all, but you should think about cramming it. To use your own football analogy: you are neither coach nor quarterback.

    Thought about it, especially since I figured I would get this kind of response, but I figured it was better to speak up for two reasons: one, because I think Gryph is better than that, and two, because I think YOU’RE better than that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 4:55 am - December 28, 2005

  24. #21 — What is your evidence that Christian fundamentalists are planning to exterminate gay people?

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2005 @ 9:43 am - December 28, 2005

  25. It’s interesting how we think it’s necessary to have democracy in other parts of the world that were/are run by fundamentalist religious (non-christian) rule, yet in this coutnry today, more and more conservatives want to inject the rule of God (christianity) into the running of the goverment.

    Um, Kevin, the problem with that logic is that, according to liberals desperately trying to spin why Saddam should have been kept in power, Saddam’s government was “secular”; thus, he could not have been conspiring with “Islamic terrorists”.

    Either you admit that secularism is no barrier to despotism or you admit that Saddam’s government wasn’t secular. Either way, you lose.

    Meanwhile, militant atheism and agnosticism is both pushed and supported by liberals and the government agencies they cow with lawsuits.

    Think about the double standard. If a teacher in a public school told children about God, the ACLU and Democrats would demand that he or she be fired. But if a teacher were fired for telling children that there is no God and evolution proves it, the ACLU and Democrats would be screaming about “free speech” and “science”. University professors are allowed to spew antireligious bigotry to students and teach classes specifically designed to mock Christians with public funds, all with liberals cheering and clapping for them.

    If you want to fight the misuse of public funds and government to push religion, Kevin, you can do it now. But since it’s your aligned “religion” of militant secularism and atheism, not a peep.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 11:05 am - December 28, 2005

  26. Meanwhile, militant atheism and agnosticism is both pushed and supported by liberals and the government agencies they cow with lawsuits.

    Sorry NDT,

    I still refuse to believe that Christians, who comprise over 90% of our country’s population and control about 100% of its government’s offices, elected OR appointed, are somehow a persecuted minority. It just doesn’t wash.

    What they are instead however, are not-so-recent converts to the Cult of Victimization. You know, its that old song: I’m a Victim, Your a Victim, and Oh How We All Suffer. Accompanied by the non-melodious un-tuned Whine that Cuts Steel.

    Bah!

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 28, 2005 @ 12:03 pm - December 28, 2005

  27. regarding #24
    please take a look at AmericaBlog.com
    He follows The American Family Ass. closely.
    They may not say “exterminate”, but they get pretty close. ‘GAYS’caused the Holocaust”? We’re “diseased”? Responsible for “the end of the world”? It goes on and on and on…
    Oh they did one good thing. They’re threatening to pull their support for Rick Santorum.
    Take a look.

    Comment by hank — December 28, 2005 @ 12:39 pm - December 28, 2005

  28. #27 — I looked through the website of the American Family Association, and couldn’t find any of the things you mention. Perhaps you should post links.

    The AFA website does post an article by a gay activist (Link: http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/takeover.asp) reading in part:

    The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence — will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated.

    I note elsewhere in the web, the essay is dismissed as satire. Still, it shows me that the AFA and AmericaBlog are both populated by extremists, who engage in a lot of name-calling and dishonest caricaturing of each other.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2005 @ 1:19 pm - December 28, 2005

  29. Of course, when one looks at Americablog, John Aravosis, and his cronies like Mike Rogers and Michelangelo Signorile, you must remember that these are the people who claim that concentration camps for gays already exist and that, if Bush was elected, they were “leaving the country”.

    I wonder how fast we could raise the money to repatriate them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 1:32 pm - December 28, 2005

  30. I still refuse to believe that Christians, who comprise over 90% of our country’s population and control about 100% of its government’s offices, elected OR appointed, are somehow a persecuted minority. It just doesn’t wash.

    By that logic, black South Africans, who composed the majority of their country’s population, could not possibly have been persecuted.

    What we’re seeing, Gryph, is an awakening of political consciousness among Christians, who are starting to realize that they no longer have to endure the abuse of tax-funded antireligious bigots like Paul Mirecki or lunatics like Michael Newdow who use their children and far-left courts to push their bans on public religious expression. They ARE a majority, and they can vote like one.

    This is why, in the 2006 elections, I predict that religion will take a GREATER role, not a lesser one. The Republicans are well-aware that voters, in general, consider Democrats to be anti-religious — and that a key portion of the Dems’ strategy is going to be to try to appeal to religious voters. What you will see is the Dems’ continual pandering to militant atheists and agnostics getting dragged out onto the public stage and used against them.

    Unfortunately, since the same folks claim to speak for “gay rights”, we’ll get more of the “ban the Bible” stuff. This is no different, Gryph, than Bevan Dufty and Tom Ammiano using “gay rights” as an excuse for being patently anti-military and stupid.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 1:46 pm - December 28, 2005

  31. I don’t know how to post a link. Did you look at AmericaBlog.com?
    It’s all for the AFA newspaper.

    Also, That link to Phelps the other day was great. What a sad creature.

    Comment by hank — December 28, 2005 @ 1:51 pm - December 28, 2005

  32. #31 — Instead of reading what the nuts at Americablog (who believe the concentration camps have already been built) say about the nuts at AFA, I went straight to their website and used their search feature to see what they said about homosexuality and the Holocaust.

    Indeed, the AFA believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Yes, they oppose efforts to normalize homosexuality socially. But I didn’t see anything about death camps or exterminating the wretched sodomites. (I know, Conspiracy Theory 101: The fact that your enemy doesn’t talk about their conspiracy just proves that they’re hiding something.)

    And yes, they get hysterical when talking about the ‘Gay Agenda,’ the same way John Avarosis gets when he talks about the ‘Religious Right.’ To me, they’re two asses of the same horse.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2005 @ 3:04 pm - December 28, 2005

  33. By that logic, black South Africans, who composed the majority of their country’s population, could not possibly have been persecuted.

    Don’t be silly. Black South Africans, unlike American Christians, didn’t have the right to vote and had no say in the future of their country.

    Christians, on the other hand, dominate every civil institution of power and Government in the country. This isn’t a case of the Sunni’s dominating the Shiites through force of arms.

    The fact that you refuse to face is that the “culture war” is between different groups of Christians. It’s not between “secularists” and Christians.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 28, 2005 @ 5:21 pm - December 28, 2005

  34. I’ve never read AmericaBlog. I read his links to AFA. It’s their paper, in their words.
    It’s not as mild as you make it sound. “Life expectancy 25″?

    Comment by hank — December 28, 2005 @ 5:40 pm - December 28, 2005

  35. “Indeed, the AFA believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Yes, they oppose efforts to normalize homosexuality socially. But I didn’t see anything about death camps or exterminating the wretched sodomites. (I know, Conspiracy Theory 101: The fact that your enemy doesn’t talk about their conspiracy just proves that they’re hiding something.)”

    The AFA also uses as references for its “facts”, press releases and propaganda written by other anti-gay organizations such as Focus on the Family and Agape Press. Or Christian World-Nut daily. All groups that are anti-gay to the point of frothing at the mouth. Give it a break.

    If you want to defend Christian anti-gay orgs or publications that are not hate-based, you might try http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com or http://www.firstthings.com. And while I do not consider these to be hate groups, that does not mean that they are not unreasonably prejudiced.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 28, 2005 @ 6:48 pm - December 28, 2005

  36. Christians, on the other hand, dominate every civil institution of power and Government in the country.

    I think evangelical Christians have far less influence in Government than militant secularists have in media, academia, and especially the courts. If Christians have so much power, then why wasn’t the Faith-based initiative passed? Why are religious symbols banned from public display? Why are there almost no evangelical Christian characters in mainstream film or TV? It doesn’t look like Christians control much of anything.

    The AFA also uses as references for its “facts”, press releases and propaganda written by other anti-gay organizations such as Focus on the Family and Agape Press. Or Christian World-Nut daily. All groups that are anti-gay to the point of frothing at the mouth. Give it a break.

    All I see is two competing interest groups, each trying to demonize the other.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2005 @ 7:19 pm - December 28, 2005

  37. Don’t be silly. Black South Africans, unlike American Christians, didn’t have the right to vote and had no say in the future of their country.

    And if it were up to the gay left, neither would American Christians.

    The fact that you refuse to face is that the “culture war” is between different groups of Christians. It’s not between “secularists” and Christians.

    Hardly. I am fully aware of the differences among Christians. Unfortunately, as a Christian, I am automatically branded as “homophobic” by gay leftists. I am repeatedly told that I cannot be gay and Christian. I am repeatedly mocked by people who call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democratic politicians use their “faith” as a reason to legally strip gays of rights.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 7:22 pm - December 28, 2005

  38. It’s pretty easy to find extremists on either side.
    And blanket statements like ” the lefties hate America” or the religious right wants to “exterminate gays”, weaken an argument.

    NDT, if your friends persist in saying that you can’t be Christian and gay, take them to an Episcopal service (among several others).

    Comment by hank — December 28, 2005 @ 7:41 pm - December 28, 2005

  39. 25: First of all….you don’t know me personally, nor do you have any idea about my personal religious beliefs or affiliations, so please don’t automatically assume I’m an atheist to make your point. Let me just tell you that you’re flat out wrong.

    How exactly does wanting to keep religion separate from government instituions constitute the “religion of atheism”? Last I checked, people were still free to worship religions of their choice in this country at home or their place of worship. I just don’t want to see goverment instutions turned into relgious ones. At every chance fundamentlists try to prostelitize/convert people by inserting religion into goverments/public institutions. Tha whole “intelligent design” nonsense is proof. It’s a big misstep to take a religious belief (which I fully respect, being I have religious beliefs myself) and change into a scientific theory.

    Comment by Kevin — December 28, 2005 @ 9:08 pm - December 28, 2005

  40. #38
    if your friends persist in saying that you can’t be Christian and gay, take them to an Episcopal service

    Hank,
    Don’t take them to my (former) Episcopal Church. There are orthodox dioceses that are not quite so welcoming.

    Comment by John — December 28, 2005 @ 9:51 pm - December 28, 2005

  41. 24: Wanting to take away rights from gays is a pretty good first step. Take a look at documents like the Texas Republican party platform…it speaks to be deeply religious *and* wanting to take rights away from gays / enacting laws against gays. No, I don’t believe there are camps that exist. My point though, is that it’s always good to keep an eye on our government so it doesn’t get out of line.

    Remember: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Comment by Kevin — December 28, 2005 @ 10:03 pm - December 28, 2005

  42. How exactly does wanting to keep religion separate from government instituions constitute the “religion of atheism”? Last I checked, people were still free to worship religions of their choice in this country at home or their place of worship.

    I’m sorry, but this is what the First Amendment says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Of course, if a class of public school seniors choose to have a prayer offered at their graduation ceremonies, the ACLU will vigorously prosecute the school district under laws expressly written to prohibit those seniors from freely exercising their religion in such a manner.

    That’s not “separation”; that’s “suppression”.

    At every chance fundamentlists try to prostelitize/convert people by inserting religion into goverments/public institutions.

    Like I said before, if it’s inserting religious beliefs into governments/public institutions that bothers you, one would think that you’d be speaking out against tax-funded public universities pushing courses whose express purpose is ANTI-religious activity taught by ANTI-religious bigots paid with tax dollars.

    Hence my double standard point. These people can spew as much of their religious beliefs as THEY wish with tax dollars, and nary a peep comes from you and your fellow liberals. But let a person just once mention God in a positive light, and you act as if children are being tied to chairs and forced to say the Rosary for their suppers, screaming about “separation”. You and the ACLU would have a yelling fit if a teacher was fired for telling students that evolution disproves God, but you demand peoples’ heads for pointing out that evolution does NOT explain the origin of life, which is the root of what intelligent design talks about.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 10:25 pm - December 28, 2005

  43. Now, to this point:

    At every chance fundamentlists try to prostelitize/convert people by inserting religion into goverments/public institutions.

    Which does what, exactly?

    Really, I’m asking. Does saying “under God” magically transmute children into Christians? If little boys sing “Hava Nagila”, will their foreskins fall off? If I taught a classroom session on Japanese culture, would my students suddenly become Shinto? Am I required to pay homage to the Pope because I once spent a night in a Catholic hospital?
    When I drive to work on a public roadway each morning, aren’t I in danger of becoming Ba’hai or Mormon with one stray look left or right?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 10:45 pm - December 28, 2005

  44. Like the left pretends they haven’t been suing like crazy to remove religious expression from public life for the past forty-some years. I think what the left can’t stand is that Christians no longer roll over when the ACLU or Michael Newdow tries to drive religious faith even deeper into the closet. It used to be that atheists sued, and Christians lost, and that was the end of it. It’s very upsetting to the leftist universe that Christians have formed counterparts to the ACLU and are fighting back when the left tries to stigmatize religion. I mean, when you have a group of people suing to prevent the public expression of religion, what message does that send other than “religion is bad?”

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 1:07 am - December 29, 2005

  45. #20
    but what do we do when our leaders attempt to remove those checks and balances?

    So who has attempted to remove the checks and balances?
    Want to know what would really be unconstitutional? If Congress tried to strongarm their authority over the powers of the president in this case.

    I still don’t have an answer to my questions on the checks that were already available, such as after-the-fact warrants.

    “After-the-fact warrants” don’t apply in this case as supported by the Constitution and numerous judicial precedents.

    At least someone with higher IQ and reading skills – not to mention the ability to finish a sentence on his/her own.

    So what exactly is Bush’s IQ and what are his reading skills? Seems to me that he has always done just fine finishing a sentence on his own. You don’t get to be governor of Texas or POTUS with low IQ and reading skills no matter what the NEA wants you to think.

    BTW, sedition is the incitement of rebellion against a government.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2005 @ 3:49 am - December 29, 2005

  46. At least someone with higher IQ and reading skills – not to mention the ability to finish a sentence on his/her own.

    I still don’t understand why Bush, who has an MBA from Harvard, is considered dumber than Al Gore, who flunked out of law school and divinity school. We also know Bush got better grades at Yale than John Kerry.

    I wonder where Kevin got his MBA, that he can look down on Bush’s intellect.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 9:04 am - December 29, 2005

  47. If I were in a graduating class,and the majority wanted a prayer to Allah, I would object. I’m guessing , so would you.
    The great thing about a Democracy, is the protection of the minorty from the majority.

    When I was a little boy the words “under God” were not in the pledge. I remember how strange it felt to have to add them. It screwed up the cadence.

    We WERE taught Creationism in a science class, but not as an alternative to evolution, but rather as a (contentious)religious concept. We were told to make up our own minds.
    Why not teach intelligent design in a comparative literature class, or comparitive religion? We don’t teach science in Home Economics.

    BTW that’s not the definition my dictionary gives of “sedition”. It is what I’ve always heard, but I was surprised to see another definition.
    It’s The Oxford Dictionary (pretty old, but it’s an old word).

    As far as having a degree goes, well…I have a Masters in English (and French), and you’ve seen how, from time to time, I mangle the Language.
    I don’t however, say “nucular”.

    Comment by hank — December 29, 2005 @ 12:34 pm - December 29, 2005

  48. If I were in a graduating class,and the majority wanted a prayer to Allah, I would object. I’m guessing , so would you.

    No, for two reasons.

    – It was their decision

    – My theological tradition puts the onus for conversion on the Holy Spirit, not on the method in which the Spirit works. The Bible, for instance, is a means through which the Holy Spirit CAN work, but it’s not some book of magical spells in which hearing, reading, or reciting it will turn you into a Christian.

    Thus, hearing a prayer to Allah by choice of the people to whom the ceremony is most important will not turn me or anyone else into a Muslim, so why should I care about it? I DO have a problem with so-called “secular” schools forcing children for grades to recite prayers and make Islamic observances when they’re not Islamic, but I could even bend on that if sufficient safeguards were in place.

    The endless irony to me is that atheists and agnostics completely deny the power and reality of God and say that no rational person would ever believe in one — yet must do their absolute best to completely ban any mention of God from anywhere, lest people be “converted”. Methinks it has more with them trying to change the OUTSIDE world to match what they wish their INNER reality was.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2005 @ 1:54 pm - December 29, 2005

  49. If I were in a graduating class,and the majority wanted a prayer to Allah, I would object.

    But offering said prayer would not constitute the establishment of a state religion. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that says anyone has the right never to be offended by someone else’s behavior.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 2:47 pm - December 29, 2005

  50. This sounds very magnanimous, but something tells me you would object I would. Or at least demand “equal time”.

    Comment by hank — December 29, 2005 @ 3:09 pm - December 29, 2005

  51. I might object. I might decline to participate. I might just pray to Jesus instead of the Islamic moon-god, but I wouldn’t sue to use the power of the courts to stop someone else from publically professing their religious belief.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 3:27 pm - December 29, 2005

  52. I think evangelical Christians have far less influence in Government than militant secularists have in media, academia, and especially the courts. If Christians have so much power, then why wasn’t the Faith-based initiative passed? Why are religious symbols banned from public display? Why are there almost no evangelical Christian characters in mainstream film or TV? It doesn’t look like Christians control much of anything.

    Now you are trying to change the rules to fit an outcome. I did not refer to “Evangelical Christians” in my post. I said “Christians”. Mis-characterizing all Christians as Evangelical or Fundamentalist is primarily a tactic of the Left, so I’m surprised to see you using it.

    That fact is that a large number Christians, maybe even a majority, do believe in many of the ideas that you attribute to “militant secularists”, such as a fairly rigid adherence to the concept of a separation between Church and State.

    This is nothing new. John Adams was against public proclamations of religious holidays such as Christmas, and was even against the idea of having military and congressional chaplains. Are you going to call him a militant atheist?

    As I said before to NDT, the culture wars are not between secularists and Christians. They are between different groups of Christians.

    However, an inter-denominational war within Christianity does not make for sexy TV ratings or political campaign flyers. So thus you have walking blow-holes such as O’Reilly shoveling such crap as the “War on Christmas”. Thanks to them, “Merry Christmas” is now no longer a blessing of good wishes, it has become a wild-eyed furious political statement made through clenched jaws. I hope O’Reilly, got his well-earned lump of coal in his stocking this year. I fact, I hope he was wearing them at the time.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 29, 2005 @ 3:36 pm - December 29, 2005

  53. Would you sue a theater group for putting on a play which offended you?
    I’ve seen that idea put forth, either here, or on another blog site.

    Comment by hank — December 29, 2005 @ 3:37 pm - December 29, 2005

  54. #52 — You manage to completely avoid answering the question while reiterating your baseless talking points. That’s some fine weaseling.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 4:59 pm - December 29, 2005

  55. #53 — That depends. Ordinarily no, but if the play were publically funded, I might take issue with it. Because despite the whining of certain people that Christians rule the Government, works of art that attack religion can be funded by tax dollars — for example, Serrano’s Piss Christ and that portrait of the Virgin mary smeared with elephant dung — but those that promote religion can not be. That, to me, is not a just and equitable state of affairs.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 5:20 pm - December 29, 2005

  56. That’s why I don’t miss the NEA. Or rather the ‘artists’ who chose the recipients.

    I asked because of Corpus Chrisi, Terrace Macnallys’ play positing that Jesus was gay. It wildly offended some people.
    The demonstrations against it, made it a sell-out.

    Comment by hank — December 29, 2005 @ 5:58 pm - December 29, 2005

  57. #47

    I don’t however, say “nucular”.

    Well aren’t we the arrogant snob? As an English Major (what a complete waste of time), then you know what a Shibboleth or a colloquialism is, right? I’ll make it easier for you. How about regionalism?

    You would also know that it is included in the Oxford Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. Even though the mention that some consider it incorrect (i.e. arrogant pricks), they also note that it is an acceptable pronunciation. Wikipedia notes that it was also the pronunciation of former Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Carter (an officer on the first Nuclear sub) and the precious lord and master BJ Clinton. So, as far as I’m concerned (and as I posted before), anybody who slams Bush for saying “nucular” has to be an arrogant prick.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2005 @ 3:03 am - December 30, 2005

  58. #56

    The demonstrations against it, made it a sell-out.

    I highly doubt that. Although some douchebags who supported it might have made those claims. The same was said about The Last Temptation of Christ. Neither of these can claim to be top grossers, let alone most memorable.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2005 @ 3:11 am - December 30, 2005

  59. #54

    #52 — You manage to completely avoid answering the question while reiterating your baseless talking points. That’s some fine weaseling.

    Now you are just resorting to name-calling, you big sissy.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 30, 2005 @ 7:57 am - December 30, 2005

  60. #56 — So, what you’re saying is, for a mediocre artists, offending Christian values can be a marketable substitute for talent.

    #59 — That still doesn’t answer my questions, but thanks for proving my point that when libs can’t defend their arguments anymore, they accuse the other side of name-calling. Bonus points for using actual name-calling in your “answer.”

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2005 @ 9:48 am - December 30, 2005

  61. It was A Manhattan Theater Club production, which would have had a short uneventful run (the reviews were only so-so) and disappeared. Instead, once the demonstrations started, the sales picked up, to the point at which, it did indeed sell-out.
    I’m not saying anything about “mediocre artists” (although Macnally is NOT mediocre), or “offending Christian Values”. Those are your words.
    There is nothing like “banned in Boston” to help pique interest in a failing project. It might just be better to “let sleeping dogs lie”.

    As I will with #57

    Comment by hank — December 30, 2005 @ 1:10 pm - December 30, 2005

  62. #61

    It might just be better to “let sleeping dogs lie”.

    As I will with #57

    No surprise there. Anything else you could add would only further expose your arrogance (ignorance).

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 1, 2006 @ 4:39 am - January 1, 2006

  63. Look TGC. I’m not looking to pick a fight with you. Why don’t we simply ignore one another from now on. It’s clear that we do not agree on anything and never will.

    Comment by hank — January 1, 2006 @ 8:02 am - January 1, 2006

  64. Great point. I second that. :-) This is a terrific site and certainly will visit again!

    Comment by sony notebook computers — March 29, 2006 @ 10:02 am - March 29, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.