December 28, 2009
— Gabriel Malor I will be indulging in the usual end-of-the-year and end-of-the-decade "top" lists, but I'm trying to keep them to the relevant or unusual. Here's a bit of the list put together by Howard Friedman of the indispensable Religion Clause blog:
1. U.S. Catholic bishops are at increasing odds with President Obama over abortion. Very public disputes, sometimes splitting the Catholic community, erupted over Notre Dame's award of an honorary degree to Obama and over the USCCB's insistence on strict language in health care reform bills to limit abortion coverage.2. Conservative Christian groups mount extensive but unsuccessful attempt to prevent passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
3. The Freedom From Religion Foundation becomes a major player in pressing for church-state separation by challenging a wide variety of practices, from sectarian prayers at city council meetings, to the tax code's parsonage allowance, to engravings at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center.
4. The Rifqa Bary case requires Florida and Ohio courts to become involved in run-away teenager's claim that her Muslim father threatens her life because of her conversion to Christianity.
Amusingly Predictably, religion journalists' top religion-related story of the year was Obama's Cairo speech.
Really? Apparently, some have mistaken Religion Clause to be a blog opposed to religious freedom. I don't know why they made that jump and I'll just assume it has to be because they didn't bother to check it out. Rest assured, it is a valuable, pro-religion resource to find up-to-date information on religious issues in politics and at the courts.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
07:21 AM
| Comments (49)
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.
Did I miss the part where Congress established a Church of the United States? Maybe it's just me, but the merest mention of a Higher Power in a public forum doesn't quite rise to the definition of establishing a religion.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 28, 2009 07:32 AM (i3AsK)
Conservative Christian groups mount extensive but unsuccessful attempt to prevent passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Really? Really? This is a hoot. This is from a professor/blogger who is deeply interested in upholding the Constitution. His sincere interests lie religious freedom and in the separation of church and state.
YET THIS ON-TRICK PONY RELIGION-HATER SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE UN-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HATE-CRIME LAWS.
Posted by: P☺sted by: at December 28, 2009 07:37 AM (z37MR)
Posted by: teej at December 28, 2009 07:38 AM (c459z)
The Freedom From Religion Foundation becomes a major player in pressing for church-state separation by challenging a wide variety of practices, from sectarian prayers at city council meetings, to the tax code's parsonage allowance, to engravings at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center
Whenever I see this kind of shit it makes me want to puke. Not because I think it fair that ministers can be provided housing as a tax free benefit, but because there are so many other issues releated to separation of church and state that could be pursued as legitimist issues.
Stuff like outmoded “blue laws” that prevent shopping on Sunday and purchases of alcohol. Until they do away with that crap they can shove all the other shit up their ass.
Posted by: Vic at December 28, 2009 07:39 AM (QrA9E)
I don't go to Church however if the Religiously Non-Religious continue their assault upon this Judeo-Christian nation there will not be anyone remaining who will fight for Liberty.
Or what Dr Martin Luther King Jr referred to as 'God's Freedom'.
PS: The Islamic Jihadist war against Western civilization would have ended long ago if the NOW, GLBT, and the Religiously Non-Religious had taken their rage over to the Middle-east and pounded away over there like they do here in America.
BUT, they don't so here we are fighting against the "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left".
Posted by: syn at December 28, 2009 07:41 AM (IlCz1)
Oh, sure, they agree with me in theory that all you taxpayers should support our leisure time. They just think I'm an annoying dick, that's all.
Posted by: erg at December 28, 2009 07:41 AM (vvUEK)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 28, 2009 07:42 AM (mvfNc)
Posted by: The GOP at December 28, 2009 07:42 AM (vvUEK)
Posted by: syn at December 28, 2009 07:43 AM (IlCz1)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2009 07:43 AM (4MoWh)
Posted by: erg at December 28, 2009 07:46 AM (vvUEK)
Anti-Christian groups are a particular hoot this time of year. They think they're being discriminated against by nativity scenes.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 28, 2009 07:46 AM (i3AsK)
How can such lists be relevant when it isn't the end of the decade?
Posted by: Bust of Pope Gregory at December 28, 2009 07:47 AM (8/DeP)
This organization has less to do with supporting the establishment clause than it does with attacking the free exercise clause.
Posted by: Bust of Oliver Wendall Holmes at December 28, 2009 07:50 AM (8/DeP)
I was talking to you, Posted by.
I know. That's what I expect from you. But you got the leftwing troll on your side. My point has been made and supported. As for Howard Friedman: he's an ass. Just look at his blog.
Okay, now here's the part where you call me stupid. Or you edit my comments.
Posted by: P☺sted by: at December 28, 2009 07:51 AM (z37MR)
With centuries, the commonly used English labels happened to use counting terminology: 19th century, 20th century, etc. Some socially inept people, failing to understand the difference between English usage and math, used this coincidence as a basis for quibbling.
We donÂ’t label decades the same way as centuries: for example, people refer often to the 1960s and never to the 197th decade. There is no coincidence of terminology to quibble over. Regardless of whether 1970 fell outside the 197th decade from the perspective of a counting quibble, 1970 has never been part of the 1960s in the context of how people use that label to communicate.
When using language to communicate, the most successful approach involves using words as your readers and listeners will understand them. The alternative is acting like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Stolen from here.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 28, 2009 07:51 AM (mvfNc)
Posted by: dunflyin at December 28, 2009 07:52 AM (GdalM)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 28, 2009 07:52 AM (mvfNc)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 28, 2009 07:54 AM (mvfNc)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2009 07:54 AM (4MoWh)
My wife works for a Mercy Catholic hospital as an allied health professional (she's a therapist). The nuns are a bit serious about that whole "don't kill unborn babies" part of their religious world view. They'd just as soon shut down their hospitals before they'd perform abortions.
Which is their right.
What's appalling to me is that nobody on the reality-based Left thinks of that as being an option. Guess what, Messrs. Yglesias, Klein et al. some organizations have core principles.
And, besides, the work-around fix to address the need is easy -
have the VA perform abortions.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 28, 2009 07:54 AM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Scofflaw at December 28, 2009 07:55 AM (jo8cv)
Interesting; before Hillary Clinton was misogynized by lily-white Feminists who were down on their knees sucking on Oba Mao's magnificence the saying went 'if all the straight, christian WHITE MALES......'
The moment Hillary lost the primary was the moment 'white male' was replaced with 'white people'.
Identity politics-the dregs of insanity for useless idiots.
Posted by: syn at December 28, 2009 07:56 AM (IlCz1)
Posted by: eman at December 28, 2009 07:57 AM (4MoWh)
Posted by: The GOP at December 28, 2009 08:02 AM (vvUEK)
@24 Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 28, 2009 11:54 AM (ruzrP) -
Yeah, what he/(she?) said. Oh, except for the part about the VA doing abortions. That comes back to my tax dollars paying for the murder of an unborn child. Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted by: teej at December 28, 2009 08:02 AM (c459z)
aww shit, now I gotta do an Ace
My mistake: I scanned a few links on Friedman's blogroll, which were mostly anti-Christian/anti-conservative and attributed it to Friedman.
Posted by: P☺sted by: at December 28, 2009 08:02 AM (z37MR)
Posted by: GarandFan at December 28, 2009 08:02 AM (ZQBnQ)
Posted by: Intrepid at December 28, 2009 08:03 AM (92zkk)
Unfortunately, the number 1 will be re-defined as number 3 so that The Won's Harvard Constitution appears logical and provides clarity for those living in the 57th State .
This is what a Harvard degree will get you, the right to re-define all reasoned meaning if some reasonable meaning gets in the way of imposing Harvard's tyrannical oppression.
Posted by: syn at December 28, 2009 08:07 AM (IlCz1)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 28, 2009 08:08 AM (mvfNc)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 28, 2009 08:12 AM (WvXvd)
You get used to it.
As for the VA, I'm not in favor of the VA performing abortions, but the VA is a government run healthcare provider. Given that the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Government are controlled by Trotskyites Democrats, it wouldn't be much of a problem for Obama to declare that the VA would start providing "needed medical services" beyond its initial charter.
This would be a landmark decision, made in an unprecedented fashion, to rectify the failed policies of the previous administration.
The only mitigating factor here is that such a decision would require Obama to have the testicular fortitude to do so.
Fortunately, he doesn't.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 28, 2009 08:14 AM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Methos at December 28, 2009 08:15 AM (zyyJm)
Hate crimes. What an idiotic concept. As if crimes, especially violent ones, are done out of love.
A feel good concept, invented by idiots to demonstrate to others how civilized they, in their superior goodness, have made us.
People like this have managed to stick a dagger in the heart of otherwise viable societies since the metric "civilized" was first postulated. They were self important gas bags then and now.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at December 28, 2009 08:17 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at December 28, 2009 08:28 AM (QgUu6)
Hate crimes. What an idiotic concept.
Amen to that.
What we have here is more laws to benefit more lawyers (sorry, Gabe). not society. If the laws now on the books were actually enforced, then there would be no (perceived) need for more laws.
I knew a family who had to deal with this nightmare over, of all things, a squished Twinky on a schoolbus. In a gross abuse of law, they were forced to spend a great deal of money for no real reason as no one was harmed or injured, but a hate crimes law was broken. It's this type of thinking that reduces respect for the law. And in this case, there should be no respect for vaporous laws where the meaning can be interpreted in a myriad of ways.
A healthy society should have no tolerance for stupid laws made by stupid lawmakers. But, then again, a healthy society wouldn't elect stupid politicians at all.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 28, 2009 08:35 AM (i3AsK)
Trying out for a slot at Homeland Security?
Posted by: Iskandar at December 28, 2009 08:44 AM (DwKMY)
Posted by: Benson at December 28, 2009 09:18 AM (qzcNU)
Posted by: Benson at December 28, 2009 09:21 AM (qzcNU)
Posted by: laws of thinking at March 22, 2011 06:14 PM (ANwOD)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2027 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Another great post!
Again we see the sources behind the thinking.
Posted by: P☺sted by: at December 28, 2009 07:30 AM (z37MR)