One might wonder why such a law is necessary. Republican state Rep. Dwayne Bohac, who introduced the bill, explained how he had become upset upon hearing from his 8-year-old son that the Christmas tree at his public school was referred to as "a holiday tree."As if, now, no one's going to get sued. Or is that the point? If the school officials avoid saying "Merry Christmas" and having Christmas trees because they are litigation averse, there's never a lawsuit. I think Perry et al. would love to have a lawsuit about this, even if they think they will lose it. There's political gain in any legal outcome.
Bohac said he brought his concerns to the school district office, where he was told words like "Christmas" weren't used at the school because officials were afraid of being sued.
And yet, even with this law, those officials might still avoid saying "Merry Christmas" and having Christmas trees because of timidity about lawsuits. It's not as if the new statute requires Christmas trees and Christmas greetings.
Perhaps all that ever happens is this political theater with Rick Perry celebrating Christmas in June. Perhaps that was the point.
ADDED: Perry's phrase "organizations that have nothing to do with them or their communities" is sending out the bat-signal to Madison's Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Posts
102 comments:
Let me be the first to wish Mr. Perry a faith filled Ramadan.
I hope he gets all the press he was aiming for, as that would appear to be the reason for this bill.
The anti-Christmas stance is of a piece with the pro-gay and pro-Muslim demands in schools and government.
It's the same multi-culti propaganda that Canada and Britain has already experienced, and the next steps to come are awful.
The aim of course is to destroy Western culture, and subjugate white people in general, to recognize their new master: the omnipotent state.
Time to replay Dalrymple:
"...the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better."
We are told obvious lies, and forced to remain silent, and then forced to repeat the lies ourselves, leaving men with hollow chests, and our once great culture hollowed out.
Thank you, baby boomers, lefties, Democrats, socialists, Obamaphiles, and diversity worshippers.
You killed America, and left a shithole police state.
Pogo has it right.
You got it, Pogo.
I think that it's a shame that a law like this is necessary in 2013AD er CE America.
What would Jesus say?
"What would Jesus say?"... Somehow, I don't think it would sound too much like what Pogo said and SGT Ted and m stone ditto'd.
As my mother would say: That's not very Christmas-y.
Texas Democrats' hopes of regaining control of the state government after 20 years in the wilderness depend on an increasing turnout of the state's growing Hispanic population.
The state's growing, heavily Catholic Hispanic population. Which really does take the Christmas holiday seriously.
This isn't the battle state Democrats really want to take on, as long as the parameters are simply the allowance of words "Merry Christmas", "Feliz Navidad" ... or "Happy Chanukah" since the Jewish holiday is also subject to exclusion and is also part of the bill (hey, the Speaker of the Texas House is Jewish).
If it can be shown that the bill is allowing more pro-active religious activities in public schools (i.e. -- forcing the children of other religions or atheists to become formerly involved in celebration of the two holidays, then any challenges will have a chance of succeeding without being PR disaster with the general public for the ones filing suit. If not, it's not a court fight state Democrats are really going to want to be on the anti-Merry Christmas side of, if they're trying to show they're different from the national party (which state Dems already are trying to run away from on the anti-fracking issue, since that's creating tens of thousands of high-paying jobs in the state's Hispanic-majority areas).
More desperate straw-grasping by the Gone Obsolete Party. Hispanic voters are not going to abandon the dems over this issue.
Totally agree, Ann. My catholic grandma would not abide such hate of other people.
I also laugh how the Christians want to be able to proclaim their faith in the public square but consider other faiths declarations in the public square the downfall of the country.
Demonization of the other is alive and well in America.
The Devil can quote the Bible better than I.
And I am far too great a sinner to suggest what Jesus would say.
But Althouse seems to think that the only Chrisitan response is cheek-turning.
That's what Alinsky counts on, of course.
But Chrisitianity sometime demands a righteous anger. Jesus displayed this when overturning the temple moneychangers.
Well, the State has become a den of thieves, and now demands we meekly bow to Mecca or Hollywood.
Choose your battlefield, Ann. We live in a very secular world and use weapons of choice when we can.
Having said that, this is a spiritual battle and will only be won by God and man in concert.
WWJD and aphorisms serve no purpose.
We are not too far away from Chrisitianity being declared hate speech.
It's happened elsewhere, why not here?
"What would Jesus say?"...
"Vote is the best revenge"?
Is it Christmas already? Merry Christmas!
America is Christians' to lose.
Render unto Rick Perry et al. that which is Rick Perry's et al. Meanwhile, stand firmer than a rock
Luke 10: 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
re: Christian America
The secular alternative has a history of committing more murder, rape, enslavement, and abortion than any other philosophical design, other than Islamic alternatives; but, they are in close competition over the duration.
I thought that appealing to the law was the civil, mediated thing to do.
Religion need not apply?
Ditto's Pogo.
I vote ditto's pogo.
Christians should just go in the closet.
Everyone else, come out.
Stand with Pogo today... and you too may be able to call things by their name.
Christian name.
Islam does not play well with other religions. Christianity and Judaism do.
It has to do with which religions have enforcers.
The law could look into that.
"Go and preach to all nations.....just don't mention my name because it might offend somebody".
Isn't that in the bible somewhere?
1. Without regard to the "Separation Case" decision, as written by a once active KKK member, the "establishment clause" was written into the "Bill Of Rights" to keep the Federal Government from establishing a State Church. [Some of the states maintained official churches into the 1820s.]
2. The Federal Courts have given "Atheism" the same status as a religion. [James J. Kaufmann vs. Garay Rl McCaughtey et. al.; 7ath Circuit Court Of Appeals, Decided Aug. 19, 2005.]
Love your Muslim neighbor, Ann, I agree.
Extending mercy (Luke 10)is not the case in Texas. Denying God is.
The asymmetry is pretty high level.
The idea of human rights as given as if objective a priori is a development of Judeo-Christian culture.
To dismiss Judeo-Christian culture on the basis of human rights is incoherent.
Islam works on tribalism, for example. Their objections should be understood as tribal, not human-rights oriented.
If that's not in the law, get it in.
There was, after company-wide news postings but before 9/11, a large traditional annual flame war of activist Jews against Christmas, never resolved and always enjoyed, having to do with office decorations. Human rights were at least respected on all sides.
That died out I think after Islam showed up.
We just want to keep calling the Redskins and the Christmas tree by their traditional name.
Is that too much to ask?
Pogo,
The aim of course is to destroy Western culture, and subjugate white people in general, to recognize their new master: the omnipotent state.
Pogo, that's ridiculous. Christianity doesn't equal "white people," and neither equals "Western culture." There are scads of non-white Christians. (There are more Anglicans in Nigeria than in the UK, to the consternation of the entity that thought of itself as the Church of England.) There are people of every "race" on the planet who embrace "Western culture." There are likewise people of every "race" on the planet who aren't keen on the "omnipotent state."
The death of Christmas was a great blow to Lionel, as well.
What's different about Judeo-Christian and Islam, the better translation of What Would Jesus Say, has to do with rights being based on watching out for the rights of the other guy, and only for your own rights by generalization.
It's only by watching out for the rights of the other guy that any moral component comes in. You are addressed for the first time and become something other than an interchangeable part. That's the introduction of morality. It's something that's the opposite of a war of wills.
The assumption of the law is that the other guy does that too.
Not so with Islam.
The culture matters.
Hit the guy on the head and take his stuff is also a stable social arrangement, just not a Western one.
Michelle battles the strawmen, and wins.
The city of Steubenville, Ohio got a new logo or seal that shows various distinctive features of the city. High atop the hill overlooking the city sits the distinctive Franciscan University of Steubenville Christ the King chapel spire with cross, seen here at night. This feature is on the right edge of the logo.
The (non-local, out of state) Freedom From Religion Foundation threatened to sue and the city was acting as spineless as a jellyfish until a petition gathered steam and attorneys offered free legal representation to fight the lawsuit. Then the city grew a spine (as reported by the Columbus Dispatch) and so they're keeping their logo.
No word yet on a lawsuit being filed. You gotta stand up to the bullies.
Love the way lefties conflate "hate" with Christians' desire to be able to say "Christmas" without being stifled. Your citation of the fable of the Good Samaritan has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation. The establishment clause simply means that the government cannot establish a religion, not that religion is forbidden everywhere. As a "law professor" (sometimes I really wonder about you, Ann) you should know better.
Agree...Good Samaritan parable has nothing to do with the behavior of government.
Jesus' teaching about render unto Caesar is more about the person and the state.
Christmas carols need more rams' horn, less cowbell.
Going with Pogo.
"Merry Christmas" is a social greeting.
It doesn't mean that you have to be Christian to hear it or repeat it.
It is a politeness.
Most of the time, when someone says "How are you doing?", they do not want a detailed litany.
So a specific subset of atheists, Jews, and Muslims have declared they cannot be polite.
Their lawsuits, based on the notion that a govt worker using the word "Christmas" in just about any context represents an establishment of religion, are also a revealing indication that thy have a Marxist/totalitarian mindset that whatever is not mandatory is forbidden, and whatever is not forbidden is mandatory. They have no social flexibility. They use the inclusiveness argument to bring about the exclusion of anything but their own views.
Re: "holiday tree"
Which holiday, exactly, does it represent?
Unless the anti-Christmas folks start forgoing their Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays, and stop giving their family presents on Christmas, they are hypocrites who should be ignored.
"What would Jesus say?"..
" I am the way, the truth, and the life."
you should know better.
No, she doesn't.
ADDED: Perry's phrase "organizations that have nothing to do with them or their communities" is sending out the bat-signal to Madison's Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Perhaps under a different regime, the IRS can look into to that organization's finances and political contributions.
What would Jesus say
" I am the way, the truth, and the life."
And by the way "holiday" is derived from "holy day"...that's kind of religious too, isn't it? We should just be calling them "trees", right?
Here's what Jesus said about inclusion:
Jesus said: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God," (Mark 10:14).
I consider myself as an agnostic/atheist and over the years as I have grown more secure and comfortable with my beliefs, a certain amount of connection between religion and government doesn't really bother me anymore.
It makes me wonder if at least some of those who speak out are insecure or unconvinced of their own beliefs and don't want to be reminded of it.
I know there is more to it than that and that some religious leaders lead the charge to keep religion and government separate. And it is important to be vigilant.
Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine today that some modest decorations here and there are going to cause the condemnation, by government, of a religious minority.
Then again maybe the NRA could back off on guns a little if FFR could back off on a creche or two.
Hey -- guys and gals in the military happen to be practicing Christians are getting hammered.
No Bible on a desk (or bookshelf?) at work, can't read certain things at work. Can not talk about your faith.
Christianity (and conservatism) are the new porn for this perverse generation.
Ironic.
But perhaps more than that, evil.
We really do have a problem in Texas that this bill may help solve.
There have been a number of high profile cases in the last few years in which students who wished to express religious opinions were punished, banned, and censored by schools.
Imagine the uproar from the left if a school tried to ban a student from wearing a 'gay pride' shirt or holding up a 'gay pride' sign at a pep rally.
Well, students who want to the exact same thing only expressing religious opinions have been punished.
This bill fixes a real problem. That problem being the many people in government who view the First Amendment as a problem.
The end is near.
God help our once great country.
Pulling out the old "you, a law professor" routine.
That's so 2005.
Anyway, actual lawyers, judges, and law professors realize they have to deal with the precedents. Some of you are in a fantasyland where there have not been any cases.
Yes, there is an argument for saying the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states. It would require overturning many, many cases for the Court to go there, however, and there is doctrine about when cases are to be overruled.
I do seem to remember the Man With The Plan picking up a whip and chasing the infidels from the temple.
He wasn't a wuss.
Sooner or later, you have to take a stand. Sometimes, you walk away from the fight; other times, you meet it head on.
Ann is doing a great job as a Pharisee:
John 3:17. This follows the verse that is perhaps the most recited verse in the Bible. Jesus was still talking in plain and simple terms. "For God sent His Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." In his letter to the Romans, Paul carried forward with the same theme: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." Christianity does not carry a message of intolerance or condemnation, but a message of reconciliation and salvation.
Christ exercised tolerance in ways that amazed the people He encountered during His years of ministry. A woman "caught in the act" of adultery was brought to Him. It was all a ploy. Christ had said He came to fulfill the law. Jewish leaders thought they knew the law, so they decided to confront Jesus with a "simple" case. Under "the law," a woman "caught in the act" had to be killed. (Keep in mind that the people doing the "catching" took her to Christ. They didn't bother following their own interpretation of the law.) The trick was obvious. Romans occupied Jerusalem and applied Roman law. Roman laws allowed people to be executed, but only for reasons allowed under Roman laws. Capital offenses under Jewish law didn't count. If Christ followed "the law" (i.e., the Jewish law as interpreted by His antagonists), He would violate Roman law and could be executed for that offense. On the other hand, if Christ honored Roman law, He would fail to fulfill "the law," right?
WRONG! Christ demonstrated the message that God had shared since the days of the prophets. "He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Christ turned the tables on His antagonists. He made them consider their failures to act justly. To the woman he showed mercy. As she turned to walk away, He told her to go and sin no more. It is another way of saying "walk humbly with your God."
And, yes, Pogo is right about everything but one.
The Lefties haven't killed the idea of America. They'd like to, but anyone who's read Cedar's Sacred Parchment knows that's not happening.
The question is, what are we willing to do to take back the country and destroy the third world sinkhole we have now?
Rick Perry knows his base and plays it well. One can see that here. So this bill makes sense, from that perspective.
Althouse says: Anyway, actual lawyers, judges, and law professors realize they have to deal with the precedents. Some of you are in a fantasyland where there have not been any cases.
Laying down the smack. I like it.
Uh, yeah it does.
I hate all this politically correct bullshit and Multiculturalism is destroying our country. The balkanization of our country continues.
Yes, there is an argument for saying the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states. It would require overturning many, many cases for the Court to go there, however, and there is doctrine about when cases are to be overruled.
Just because a job that should be done seems arduous is no excuse to shirk duty.
Constitutional Law professors should be leading the charge on correcting precedent.
If precedent could not be overturned, we would never have ended slavery or institutional discrimination. (Don't try to bring up the Amendment process...Prop 8 in CA and affirmative action in MI have shown is that when evil people lead stupid people into a societal suicide pact, even a Constituitional Amendment can be declared unConstitutional)
m stone said...
Love your Muslim neighbor, Ann, I agree.
Loving your Moslem neighbor can be tough if he's just blown up the local Sbarro's with a lot of the people you know in it.
Hey, it's almost Summer Solstice. Naked orgy on the lawn of City Hall! Gotta honor the pagan faith.
Michelle battles the strawmen, and wins.
No, she just points out that you are a master of mucking up and mingling together different strands of paranoia into a single, woven fabric of fear.
It's like your own form of diversity: Paranoia diversity.
Which, after all, all paranoia is as it results from incoherent thinking.
A lawyer quoting Scripture for her own purpose as if it is part of a court decision. Always hilarious, especially when the lawyer holds such antipathy for scripture in other matters, such as gay marriage and abortion.
Crackin' me up.
And ditto Pogo.
Hey, Ann, the Supremes can be wrong too.
I know about precedent.
You're so 2008.
Like, you know, when a "fee" is a "tax."
But I don't have to have traveled far to be able to watch the news. The banlieus explode regularly and it makes great video...
Yes. Because if there's one source of information that conservatives trust to give them a pure, unadulterated version of events and the issues behind them in all their complexity, it's the news media.
Right.
I'm atheist, and I think Pogo has the right of it.
I love the fact that Ann admits that the Supremes have historically been, in effect, historically propagating a lie regarding the establishment clause insofar as the string of cases she claims would have to be overturned are certainly the functional equivalent of a full-blown lie (albeit one extended incrementally, serially, over time) insofar as the effect those cases have had on the Republic. Nice to know that the Supremes are politically expedient liars, Ann. Thanks for pointing that out..
When the streetsweepers come to clean up after the elephants, the parade is over.
Anyway, actual lawyers, judges, and law professors realize they have to deal with the precedents.
The argument isn't about the law but about what standing the law has.
It's made itself into something that opposes what created it.
I've got yer 6, POGO, press on..
Pogo, Æthelflæd,
Where are the strawmen? If I say that "white people" aren't necessarily to be identified with "Christians," and that no race or religion is to be identified with support for "the omnipotent state," how have I created strawmen?
To be clear, again, here's part of the comment I was responding to:
The aim of course is to destroy Western culture, and subjugate white people in general, to recognize their new master: the omnipotent state.
I would hope that Pogo, and for that matter everyone else, recognizes that race and religion and culture are all independent of one another. "Western culture" is independent of "race." "White people" are no more (and no less!) "subjugated" by the rise of the "omnipotent state" than is anyone else.
Injecting race into this discussion is pointless. Race is not religion. There are white Muslims and Black Christians (probably more of the latter than the former, but then Arabs -- for those who are into racial classifications -- are technically "Caucasians," so the gap isn't as large as those who lump all "swarthy" folk into the vast jumble labeled "other" might think).
Michelle, I didn't make any of the arguments you swatted down.
I don't disagree with what you wrote, and your assertions did not apply to my argument.
I'm disappointed in you Chef Mojo. An atheist? How can anyone partake of "Rhume Barbancourt" and not at least be agnostic as to the possibility of God's perfection? :)
I wasn't aware that you were making an argument, Pogo. But I am curious as to why you felt impelled to rally around the idea that white people are under "attack" in a post about religion.
RITMO@10:46/
If that's not intuitively obvious to you than your powers of observation are even more diminished than I had heretofore thought..
Pogo,
Michelle, I didn't make any of the arguments you swatted down.
You wrote:
The aim of course is to destroy Western culture, and subjugate white people in general, to recognize their new master: the omnipotent state.
What can the sentence mean, except as I interpreted it? Somebody wants to "destroy Western culture." "White people," "in general," are to be "subjugated." Then they will "recognize their new master: the omnipotent state."
Recall that the original post was about Christmas trees, "Merry Christmas," and the like -- the removal of Christianity from traditional Christian celebrations and symbols.
If there's a way to read that that doesn't involve conflating, in some degree, "white people" and Christianity and Western culture, I've yet to see it.
My argument centered on the issue at hand, in Texas in specific, but the US in general. I did not make any connection to all whites or all Christians across the world.
The Texans are all stupid cowboy jerks with no class at all. Feel better now?
But how about an analysis of the very real Freedom From Religion Laws that offends the stupid jerks in Texas.
Take one part Equality of the Gay Caste and one part Equality of the Female Caste and one part Muslim toleration mandates and shake well. What comes out is that all spoken Christianity becomes an illegal activity that must be driven out.
Christianity spoken in the presence of children ipso facto becomes child abuse.
Or should we just not care?
But it would be quite difficult to cleave Caucasians from Judeo-Christian tradition from Western civilization in US history.
My argument centered on the issue at hand, in Texas in specific, but the US in general. I did not make any connection to all whites or all Christians across the world.
True. Pogo keeps his depression and paranoia close to home. Extending it overseas would be even more exhausting!
I don't think that's exactly what you said, Pogo, but I can understand you wanting to gently, and in a rather removed and innocent way, wanting to walk that back. But the original comment, (which Michelle took issue with) is itself as odd, to me at least, as virgil xenophon's plea for me to feel all the intuitive power behind whatever it is that some here are now refusing to address explicitly.
You can't have a tree or Santa, without explaining the cultural origins of the practice, which means bring up religion. Really a public school teacher, even in elementary school can not educate her students, that Christmas is a holy day for Christians who celebrate the birth of Christ? A tree is an adoptive cultural practice, and Santa is based on Saint Nicholas.
That's the problem with multiculturalism, is that you learn little of culture and that everything is food and dance.
It's a disservice to students, especially as they get older into high school and college.
What does the role of causasians in Judeo-Christian tradition or U.S. history have to do with them being under supposed attack today?
Unless you were confusing history with the present or future...
I suppose only Wisconsin folks would see the outlawing of spoken Christianity as a white people issue.
Christianity is world wide (that's what catholic means.) There are more believing Christians in China today than in the EU and the USA put together.
God's Word being freely preached all over the earth is the issue. It always has been the issue.
A well known and controversial Jewish Prophet was once asked when the Messiah would return to rule the earth from Jerusalem, and His answer was, " This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations , and then the end shall come." Mat.24:14
Pogo,
My argument centered on the issue at hand, in Texas in specific, but the US in general. I did not make any connection to all whites or all Christians across the world.
Yes. That's presumably why your second sentence refers to the UK and Canada.
Pogo,
But it would be quite difficult to cleave Caucasians from Judeo-Christian tradition from Western civilization in US history.
Oh, very difficult. Then again, for much of American history, that "Judeo-" wouldn't have been there, you know. Nor would Jews have been acknowledged as "Caucasian." Or, you know, "white."
I see. I was referencing what happened there to show what has happened to Xians there already.
And both belong to Western culture and whites and Christianity, historically, but no more. You brought up the rest.
I don't think others found it unclear, or forced conflation.
Now you're just yes-butting.
Pogo,
I see. I was referencing what happened there to show what has happened to Xians there already.
And both belong to Western culture and whites and Christianity, historically, but no more. You brought up the rest.
Look, Pogo, I am a Christian. I am a product of Western culture, and am steeped in it up to my eyebrows. I can talk to you about Joseph Haydn's string quartets for as long as it would take to listen to them all, end to end -- which is saying something, as there are 83 of them.
Why my skin color is relevant to anything, I should like you to explain. Would what I write be any more or less interesting if my name were Thanh Nguyen, or Mkrika Almuhammad, or Iris Jiminez?
Pogo is of course 100% right.
But even if you feel that religious speech and devotion must be suppressed in the public square, you might have the decency to not insist that the government not enforce political correctness on various faiths which would force them to violate their essential doctrines and beliefs. It is not enough to silence them in public. Now they want to reach into the temples and churches to dictate religious practices.
Religion and religious people are under attack every day. The government works to force religious organization to provide abortion and birth control. The drive to demand that temples, churches and mosques recognize and perform the sacrament of marriage for SSM couples is the next move in the drive to destroy religion and religious devotion. If you don't think that is the case then you are fooling yourself.
Freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion. There is no distinction. The problem with state religion isn't that is become so pervasive as to squelch all other opinions. It also creates an entanglement which will have unintended consequences for both sides. Religions make a grave mistake when they ask government to be their sponsor.
yes-butting
The "butting" is important for those who like to avoid conflation. Or apparently for some, would like to appear to avoid doing so.
I would of course laugh at the devil quoting scripture.
I will put my faith in God to protect us.
I would not put any faith in lawyers.
They play for the other team.
By the way, saying "Merry Christmas" is not creating a state religion.
"Why my skin color is relevant to anything, I should like you to explain"
Under Obama? You serious?
"Under Obama? You serious?"
When broadcasting my image from my residential Always-On State Cam to Dear Leader Obama this morning, he said that he was ok with my not-so-dark complexion.
michelle thompson dulak - "I would hope that Pogo, and for that matter everyone else, recognizes that race and religion and culture are all independent of one another. "Western culture" is independent of "race."
================
There are racial characteristics. Those characteristics drive the origin of differences in arising laws and norms, the civilization, the culture and religion.
Man, being adapatable, can have members of other races enjoying and even embracing the religion and culture of the race that came up with it all.
To argue otherwise would take one into the view if the preposterous..that there is no such thing as "black culture" in the US, or why with rare exceptions, blacks prefer to worship with their own, separate from the churches attended by whites/Asians/hispanics.
Or say that there is no such thing as Australian aborigine culture and religion because some white liberals are infatuated with it's "pure spiritualism and primitive simplicity" and consider themselves "fellow Aussie Abs".
As I said in another thread, Pogo is a great guy but his comments here are ridiculous.
But great to know that, as a gay person, I'm personally responsible for the destruction of America and the subjugation of white people.
I probably helped crucify Christ in a past life or something too. I'm that evil.
Next time watch where you swing that thing, Palladian.
Take no comfort in law. Law does not enforce itself.
Created as the first priesthood, complete with its own language and brotherhood. And always subversive. Remember the serpent questioned God's word: Did God really say...?
And the law, the one that does not enforce itself? It means merely what a bare majority of the black-robed priests say it means. Subject to change, of course.
People of faith too often feel they can't express their faith publicly.
What a pussy.
"Loving your Moslem neighbor can be tough if he's just blown up the local Sbarro's with a lot of the people you know in it."
I hadn't heard of any rash of Muslim bombings of neighborhood Sbarro's franchises. Is this a problem where you live?
As for the colloquy between Pogo and Michelle Dulak Thomson, Pogo is completely incoherent while Ms. Thomson is clear, cogent, and correct. Pogo, the stumblebum, refuses to acknowledge he's licked and he continues staggering about, flailing at empty air.
Contra Ricky Perry's statement, "Freedom of religion" certainly does ALSO mean "Freedom FROM religion."
Post a Comment