I have nothing to say at this time. Am at work, and I don't want to say something really stupid about this that I can say after work with a little more thought and make it a statement of well written stupidity. Just putting it out for public notice.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Links courtesy of plastic.com, by the way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, as I've said before, you can never go wrong in this country by shamelessly pandering to the religious.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...let's see the list again...
Hell, Handbasket.
Yep, it's all there.
Later.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I would like to read some better articles on it (read: wait until the WSJ publishes something on it ) but as of this moment I'm appauled. Is the foundation of this amendment actually that the laws of the USA should be based on their religion?
Hobbes
[ February 25, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hobbes, it's a good thing you aren't named Paul then. (psst, it's appalled ).
Yeah, yeah, no one loves a spelling Nazi.
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
We our going to defend our religion by forcing it down you #$@#$ throats!
Next up, allowing a ruling tribunal of clerics to decide who can and cannot run for the legislature (as is the case with Iran now).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd advise taking anything you read on the editorial page of the WSJ with a healthy dose of salt. The rest is good, but the editorial page has been regularly filled with ideological rumor mongering.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, this really does leave one speechless. Yesterday I was criticizing the left for going too far.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And since this law deals with religion, it can not by its own decree, be subject to Judicial censor.
In high school, we played at being government. I tried to pass a law outlawing the Judicial branch. If you make it illegal, it can't overturn this law.
But then I was a smart mouthed freshman who thought he knew everything.
I didn't know I could have been a senator.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Anyone who thinks I can spell... is wrong.
[EDIT: And don't worry, Fugu, I bring a heavy dose of critical thinking with me when I visit the editorials of the WSJ. ]
Hobbes
[ February 25, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I didn't see any mention of which "god" we're talking about here. So...Allah is the basis for our governmental system! And Zeus! And Iluvatar!
Somehow, I suspect that's not what our friends from Alabama want.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
You know, it is not that big a step from this legislation to requiring an acknowledgement of a particular conception of God in order to be allowed to hold office.
They're trying to steal my country, and I don't like it one bit.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) but as of this moment I'm appauled. Is the foundation of this amendment actually that the laws of the USA should be based on their religion?![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)