Disco Stu wrote:

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

“This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God,” Davis said. “Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

Apparently it’s still open season on some views of God.

Outside of Change of Subject, where I posted a transcript and the audio, Davis’ repellent, un-American outburst received no attention whatsoever. (h/t Michael)

Morons to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. Ok, not true, they are all on the right of me.

TenuredVulture wrote:Your tax dollars at work. And people wonder why I don't carry one of those things.

Woody wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Your tax dollars at work. And people wonder why I don't carry one of those things.

Jesus, if they do that, they'd better think it through long and hard. Imagine what kind of insane panic you could cause by simultaneously sending a hundred million people a text message about a terror warning.

"OMFG terror warng get to safe plce asap, srsly not ajoke. --the gov't"

“History is after all only a pack of tricks we play on the dead,” Voltaire once quipped. The Founding Fathers had their own pack of tricks: they turned their backs on the past. If they had meekly inherited the faith of their fathers, they would have written a constitution establishing Christianity as the national religion. They did not. Nearly every American colony was settled with an established religion; Connecticut’s 1639 founding document explained that the whole purpose of government was “to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus.” In the century and a half between that charter and the 1787 meeting of the Constitutional Convention lies an entire revolution, not just a political revolution but also a religious revolution, as Frank Lambert, a historian at Purdue, argued in his 2003 study, “The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.” Far from establishing a religion, the Constitution doesn’t even mention God. At a time when all but two states required religious tests for office, the Constitution prohibited them. At a time when most states still had an official religion, the Bill of Rights forbade the federal government from establishing one.

swishnicholson wrote:This seems relevant to a number of topics being discussed. I enjoyed this article from the New Yorker by Jill Lepore on the question of the Founding Fathers' intentions toward religion, explored through a survey of modern works on the subject as well as some older texts, including Royall Tyler's The Algerine Captive, a work with which I was not previously familiar.

“History is after all only a pack of tricks we play on the dead,” Voltaire once quipped. The Founding Fathers had their own pack of tricks: they turned their backs on the past. If they had meekly inherited the faith of their fathers, they would have written a constitution establishing Christianity as the national religion. They did not. Nearly every American colony was settled with an established religion; Connecticut’s 1639 founding document explained that the whole purpose of government was “to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus.” In the century and a half between that charter and the 1787 meeting of the Constitutional Convention lies an entire revolution, not just a political revolution but also a religious revolution, as Frank Lambert, a historian at Purdue, argued in his 2003 study, “The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.” Far from establishing a religion, the Constitution doesn’t even mention God. At a time when all but two states required religious tests for office, the Constitution prohibited them. At a time when most states still had an official religion, the Bill of Rights forbade the federal government from establishing one.

TenuredVulture wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:This seems relevant to a number of topics being discussed. I enjoyed this article from the New Yorker by Jill Lepore on the question of the Founding Fathers' intentions toward religion, explored through a survey of modern works on the subject as well as some older texts, including Royall Tyler's The Algerine Captive, a work with which I was not previously familiar.

“History is after all only a pack of tricks we play on the dead,” Voltaire once quipped. The Founding Fathers had their own pack of tricks: they turned their backs on the past. If they had meekly inherited the faith of their fathers, they would have written a constitution establishing Christianity as the national religion. They did not. Nearly every American colony was settled with an established religion; Connecticut’s 1639 founding document explained that the whole purpose of government was “to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus.” In the century and a half between that charter and the 1787 meeting of the Constitutional Convention lies an entire revolution, not just a political revolution but also a religious revolution, as Frank Lambert, a historian at Purdue, argued in his 2003 study, “The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.” Far from establishing a religion, the Constitution doesn’t even mention God. At a time when all but two states required religious tests for office, the Constitution prohibited them. At a time when most states still had an official religion, the Bill of Rights forbade the federal government from establishing one.

The other historical blind point of those who proclaim this a Christian nation is that a typical 18th c. American establishment type would not have considered Baptists or Catholics Christians--they were clearly heretics.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:This seems relevant to a number of topics being discussed. I enjoyed this article from the New Yorker by Jill Lepore on the question of the Founding Fathers' intentions toward religion, explored through a survey of modern works on the subject as well as some older texts, including Royall Tyler's The Algerine Captive, a work with which I was not previously familiar.

“History is after all only a pack of tricks we play on the dead,” Voltaire once quipped. The Founding Fathers had their own pack of tricks: they turned their backs on the past. If they had meekly inherited the faith of their fathers, they would have written a constitution establishing Christianity as the national religion. They did not. Nearly every American colony was settled with an established religion; Connecticut’s 1639 founding document explained that the whole purpose of government was “to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus.” In the century and a half between that charter and the 1787 meeting of the Constitutional Convention lies an entire revolution, not just a political revolution but also a religious revolution, as Frank Lambert, a historian at Purdue, argued in his 2003 study, “The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.” Far from establishing a religion, the Constitution doesn’t even mention God. At a time when all but two states required religious tests for office, the Constitution prohibited them. At a time when most states still had an official religion, the Bill of Rights forbade the federal government from establishing one.

The other historical blind point of those who proclaim this a Christian nation is that a typical 18th c. American establishment type would not have considered Baptists or Catholics Christians--they were clearly heretics.

There are still Christian denominations that view Catholics as pagans.

An error in a new law that allows Arkansans of any age -- even toddlers -- to marry with parental consent must be fixed by lawmakers, not an independent commission authorized to correct typos, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The law, which took effect July 31, was intended to establish 18 as the minimum age to marry, while also allowing pregnant minors to marry with parental consent.

An extraneous "not" in the bill, however, allows anyone who is not pregnant to marry at any age if the parents allow it.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Here ya go, Paul...

Arkansas law allows babies to marry

An error in a new law that allows Arkansans of any age -- even toddlers -- to marry with parental consent must be fixed by lawmakers, not an independent commission authorized to correct typos, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The law, which took effect July 31, was intended to establish 18 as the minimum age to marry, while also allowing pregnant minors to marry with parental consent.

An extraneous "not" in the bill, however, allows anyone who is not pregnant to marry at any age if the parents allow it.

TenuredVulture wrote:The Republicans can't find anyone to run against incumbent Democrats, but the Green Party is fielding a full slate of candidates.

While I normally don't believe that voting 3rd parties does any good, under the circumstances, I just might cast a little protest vote against our farm subsidizing DINOs.