POST SCRIPTS

OV

Now we could argue about whether Obama is a communist or if he is a fascist

Sorry guy, but I have no problem calling him a Fascist. I read about this bill a month ago, but not until now did I know it restricted religious freedom of those who participate.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is a full blown Fascist. I checked out this site to brush up my knowledge of Hitler's youth.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitleryouth.html

Like Obama is doing now, Hitler just gained control of the youth groups already formed and changed their direction to worship him and the state.

How much more evidence do you liberals need to see the truth about Obama? Just as Jews overwhelmingly voted for the man who would eventually cook them in ovens, you idiots put this man in power. Will it take concentration camps of his enemies for you to see the light?

Cultural Marxism is the radical political philosophy that is transforming America. The primary tool used to leverage this philosophy is Political Correctness. The incubator of this philosophy and its associated tools was the Communist think-tank, the Frankfurt School.

The Frankfurt School was formed in Germany as the Institute of Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) at Frankfurt University in 1923 by a group of German intellectuals who shared a common belief in Karl Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism.

Influenced by the failure of working-class revolutions in Western Europe after World War I and by the rise of Nazism, these men set out to select the parts of Marx's thought that might apply to social conditions that Marx had never experienced. They then drew on other schools of thought, including Sigmund Freud, to fill in what they perceived to be Marx's omissions, resulting in the concept of the "Cultural Revolution," first postulated by the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci observed that the traditional concept of revolution and revolutionary strategy were dead. Marxists needed to wage a cultural revolution -- one directed toward the cultural establishment, including the morality of the existing society, with its goal being the complete disintegration of the system.

A modern utopia could then be constructed by idealistic intellectuals, the elites, who would turn Western civilization upside down. This utopia would be a product of their imagination and one not open to criticism.

During the Nazi era the Frankfurt School relocated to Switzerland in 1932. In 1935 the entire school was transferred to New York City. It's members migrating to major U.S. universities, such as, Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and U. C. Berkeley.

In 1941 the school moved again -- this time -- to Hollywood.

In America, the task of the Frankfurt School was to undermine its Judeo-Christian legacy through the Abolition of Culture (Aufhebung der Kultur), and to implement new cultural forms that would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a new barbarism.

After World War I and the rise of Hitler, the Frankfurt School reconciled Marxist theory with the reality of what the people and governments of the world were experiencing. Each member of the school adjusted Marx's theories with his personal changes and additions. They then used the fixed Marxist theory as a measure of what would work in a modern society. These ideas came to be known as Critical Theory.

Excellent way to exclude just enough information to make it seem bad.

Looking at the entire text of that section, up to and including your excerpt:

‘SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
‘(a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:

‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
‘(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.
‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to Federal office or the outcome of an election to a State or local public office.
‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.

Please, let me bold the applicable line:

An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities

What this means is that if you are an evangelical Christian and join this volunteer service, you can not use your position in the service to convert non-Christians. This also applies to Muslims and Pastafarians.

This restriction neither mentions nor infers any limitations on what you do during your non-volunteer time. If you volunteer from noon till 5, you've still got 19 hours a day to spend saving souls. Or, if you will look at 132A(a)(3), promoting or deterring union organizing.

This section is a way to prevent internal strife within the volunteer corp, plain and simple. If you can't leave partisan politics at home [132A(a)(6)], then don't volunteer.

----Matt Simmons----

you said;
( What this means is that if you are an evangelical Christian and join this volunteer service, you can not use your position in the service to convert non-Christians. )

Excuse me sir, but what part of sharing the word with your fellow worker do you not like? It is the exact thing Christians are called to do. As a Christian we do not check our faith at the door when we go to work, or when we Volunteer Our services to any group. That is religious persecution.

Have you ever read the book of Daniel in the Old Testament? Daniel, who was no less then the top adviser to Nebuchadnezzar himself, was thrown into the lions den for praying to God. As a government official he was under even more pressure to do what the most powerful ruler of the known world told him to.

Is Obama now more important then God, shall we all bow down and worship him and the government by leaving our faith at home just because we accepted money from the government to go to college? How about the young kids who just wanted to volunteer? You think it is OK that they lose their religious freedom just because they joined a youth group?

People like you scare me more then the politicians who passed this anti-God legislation.

Your blindness to the problems of such language is reminiscent of the people of Germany. They ignored the trains loaded with Jews and other undesirables. Then they shook their heads in disbelief when they heard rumors of lamp shades being made from human skin. When interviewed after the war, they remarked that they never payed attention to the foul smell coming from the Nazi death camps.

How about the campaign finance reform bill? It was claimed by everyone to be unconstitutional on grounds it infringed upon the 1st amendments right to freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court still saw fit to rule it legal.

When we as a people do not expect our rulers to leave such inflammatory language, that can be interpreted in a vague sense, out of legislation, then we deserve to be in the concentration camps they will put the opposition in some day.

Matt your point lacks the perspective of one who has become acutely aware of the left's propensity for incremental "change". This legislation is highly suspect given the fact that prominent Democrats suggested mandatory service just last year:

“What Does the future Hold for Mandatory Public Service?” - Heritage

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/08/28/obama-biden-strongly-support-mandatory-public-service/

** Time magazine ran a story back in 2007 on “The Case for National Service.” The story described the positions of the candidates for president on expanding “public service” programs. Two of the Democrat candidates favored mandatory community service by all high school students. And two others — Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden — favored creation of a U.S. Public Service Academy for training civil servants. *** Another scary thought is that the belief in mandatory community service for high school students, or mandatory military service as Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has proposed, could combine with this call for a Public Service Academy. In fact, Rangel himself suggested that under his proposal, “Recruits not needed by the military in any given year would be required to perform some national civilian service.” He argued that mandatory service would close the economic gap, in which the poor are forced to serve disproportionately. **

Progressive Democrats measure their progress carefully, gauging public response as they go along and being careful not to take steps that would appear too extreme to the casual observer. This cunning strategy is evident in an article from February of 2009:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/2/18/rethinking-rahm-emanuels-mandatory-student-service.html

“Rethinking Rahm Emanuel's Mandatory Student Service,” by Nikki Schwab – US News & World Report

** In 2006, former Clinton staffers Bruce Reed and Rahm Emanuel penned the book The Plan: Big Ideas for America, which among other things proposed that 18-to-25-year-old Americans do three months of mandatory civilian service for their country. "We certainly caught a lot of grief from the left and the right on that idea," Reed says. "But luckily, nobody has ever won a name-calling contest with Rahm." Now with his pal Emanuel in the White House as chief of staff, Reed has pinpointed an area where some sort of mandated service might work—in exchange for student aid. **

The media that Democrats have always relied on is always helpful in promoting Democrat ideas and plans without questioning or generally offering anything but praise. This legislation represents the first wave but you can be certain it won’t be the last as long as the American people continue to value government over their own freedom and accomplishment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress shall make NO law…that is very specific. it was written that way on purpose. it doesn't say they shaould be careful they said "NO LAW".

Isn’t it time we held our lawmakers accountable for the oath they took to uphold the Constitution?

Matt Simmons, thank you for exposing the truth behind this inane article. I almost, for one second, believed OneVike and was about to get very angry at Obama for this. I should have known it was more out of context, overhyped, paranoid Hitler-invoking that conservatives have been spinning since Obama first became a contender for pres.

OneVike--clearly you don't have any clue what "religious persecution" actually is. It is not religious persecution to stop people from proselytizing during work hours. In fact, I'm pretty sure many workplaces have had this as a rule for a very long time. But of course, as we've all learned over the past few months, whenever Obama does something that's been done already for years, he is ushering in the Apocalypse. And they say liberals are the ones with delusions of grandeur about the man.

But of course, it's only religious persecution when it happens to you. When you're the one trying to force everyone to comply with your religious beliefs, as you did when you voted to eliminate the marriages of people you didn't like, it's fine and dandy. No, it's downright patriotic!

Your comparisons with Hitler are disgusting. Weren't you the one lecturing me about the use of the word "torture," saying it diminished the impact of "real" torture in the world? You are engaging in the same kind of language abuse and reducing of real tragedy that you accused me of.

This is just sickening. Rules against proselytizing in the workplace PROTECT religious freedom. You can still believe whatever you want, and share those beliefs with whomever you want. But there have to be places where people can go where they are not hounded and told they will go to Hell if they don't follow your belief system. People deserve to be protected by that when they are at school and work.

K...I appreciate you have a different perspective and different concerns but I'm wondering when you decided that the government had to protect you from "words"? Are you not adult enough to politely say, "Excuse me, I don't wish to offend, but I'd rather talk about something else."?

How far are you willing go in your acceptance of government intrusion regarding free speech and free expression?

We all have as right to speak freely but we should also realize that the right to speak carries with it certain responsibilites...like maintaining a level of decency and respect for others.

I prefer a societal demand for mutual respect to government edicts about speech...especially when the Bill of Rights specifically mentions it.

Tina, in general I don't think the government should restrict what people say. But we all know that schools and workplaces are special cases, with their own rules of conduct that do not apply in other places. Do you not agree that this should be the case?

Anyway, you and OneVike are both backing off from the original point, which was this:

"All members of the Corp are not allowed to no attend church services of any kind and never are they to witness about their faith to others."

This has been proven to be a lie, and rather than changing the subject, you guys need to acknowledge this.

K
It does not surprise me in the least that you would come out and agree with Matt that this is nothing to worry about. After all, you also think that two men should be able to get married like normal heterosexuals. You obviously think it is OK to trash the Constitutional right of Christians to freely practice their religion.

I guess you think like Matt, that this bill which outlaws free religious expression even by people who VOLUNTEER is just fine and dandy. You, like Matt, obviously believe that none of the things we on the right worry about will happen. Then again you do not believe that there will be any adverse effects to normalizing perverted behavior that spreads diseases and ruins peoples lives.

Let's take a detour for a moment from OV's article K, and talk about your problem with God telling two men or two women they should never have perverted sex with people of the same gender. Particularly with your belief that there will be no persecution of Christians by the government over what Christians believe their religion says is wrong.

Around the country your perverted idea of same-sex marriage is gaining ground. All the while the First Amendment religious liberty and conscience rights are under increasing assault. Here are a few cases of Christians being persecuted, or constitutionally protected religious rights not being upheld by various government entities.

• A New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, refused to rent out its beachfront pavilion for a same-sex civil-union ceremony — and lost its right to tax exempt status on their property.

• A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s fees after she refused to photograph a same-sex wedding.

• A Christian student was kicked out of Eastern Michigan University’s counseling program because she would not affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.

• A psychologist in Georgia declined for religious reasons to counsel a woman about her lesbian relationship — and was fired.

• The Connecticut Legislature is expected to take action on S.B. 899, which would repeal laws against teaching same-sex lifestyles in schools and provides no religious liberty protection.

And that’s just a small sampling of the religious persecution that has begun in America. As you can see, the very thing you claim will not happen if this country moves towards normalizing the gay life style, is happening already.(No, I will not even bother with the links, because you have proven time and time again that evidence means nothing to you. You just want to spout off with your perverted slant on everything you read. If you want I gave you enough info to look them up yourself.)

Now back to OV's article.

Just as Christian's constitutional rights are not not being defended against the growing homosexual threat in America, neither will their rights be defended under this legislation signed by your Messiah, Obama. Like I said before, it does not surprise me that you would not believe it is Unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom in this country. Otherwise you would agree when you see the evidence of it in the making.

Let's say I had a head injury, and all of a sudden I agreed that sharing ones faith at work was wrong. OK, then tell me what law or judicial ruling made it illegal when a person volunteers for a program? Especially when that volunteerism could become mandatory as Obama wants it to be.

You really have a big problem K, and your big problem is other Americans constitutional rights. Be very careful what you ask for, because the very government officials you hold up as heroes will have no qualms at all with taking your rights away also when it suits their need for more control.

Matt, and anyone else who does not know the law

This section is a way to prevent internal strife within the volunteer corp, plain and simple. If you can't leave partisan politics at home [132A(a)(6)], then don't volunteer.

Matt, you fail to take in consideration the legal right of every citizen in the United States to freely practice their religious beliefs. I do agree that it cannot interfere with the duties they are assigned. But courts have upheld the rights for free religious expression even in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with anyone else ability to properly carry out their task.

Here is what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), say on religious freedom at the workplace. You will see that the language in the legislation that Obama signed into law is not only unconstitutional, but it goes against the very laws put forth by the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964
(“Title VII”)
prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:

* Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
* Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating – in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
* Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.3

Now you may say that proselytizing at work is still not allowed. Wrong, this is what the EEOC has to say about sharing ones faith.

What kind of guidance is available to deal with workplace proselytizing?

Although the law is developing in this area, some guidance is available. An employee has a right to engage in religious conduct to the extent that it is not an undue hardship on the employer. Harassing another employee is likely to be an undue hardship. Recall, however, that harassment is a fairly high - but not impossible - standard.
So, while the line between permissible proselytizing and workplace harassment is blurry, important factors that bear on the analysis include

* the pervasiveness of the proselytizing
* its impact on coworkers (e.g., harassing them) and work performance (including profitability)and
* the capacity and willingness of the employer to take steps to accommodate the aggrieved parties, such as by moving the proselytizing employee and the offended employee to different work stations.

The Supreme Court, and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace. It is very clear that this legislation is unconstitutional in the way it is written.

We will just have to wait and see if they continue to follow the precedent set or rule otherwise. Regardless, I can see this going to the Supreme court.

I must say, this was good work OneVike. You have quite the knack for finding and revealing the liberals weaknesses.

K

"But we all know that schools and workplaces are special cases, with their own rules of conduct that do not apply in other places. Do you not agree that this should be the case?"

No I do not agree when it comes to government run and funded programs. First of all I think government should remain neutral socially. The government is supposed to be representative of all of the people; it certainly doesn't mind using money taken from Christians in taxes to fund this program.

Looking at the entire portion of this bill that also restricts union participation and political participation I can follow the reasoning but that doesn't change the fact that door has been opened for possible harassment toward Christians who might pray quietly before eating lunch. The language discourages Christians from participating in a program that should be open to everyone in the age group.

Unfortunately it is impossible for government to remain neutral because activism has made a parent of our government. I have a problem with the entire addition of this program to our governments already too big too intrusive power structure. They ahve too much say over personal choices and lives. I think we would all be better off if we started to reverse this neverending movement toward central planning...which is the underlying theme at the heart of this specific consideration.

I don't believe being curious and asking you a question constitutes a cagey change in subject but as long as you think it does I will address your accusation. Lets bring the exact wording in for clarity:

”Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization. “

This portion of the bill outlines specifics about volunterism in terms of religious participation or speech. This language pointedly prohibits volunteering at a Christian summer camp or a religiously sponsored fund raising event. It prohibits volunteering to build a facility where prayer might be part of an overall program, say a drug rehab associated with the Salvation Army. There is in our society a determined effort to keep all religious sentiment and expression out and so this language raises concerns. I wouldn't be surprised to find down the road that young people could be harrassed for having a bible in a backpack or for wearing a cross around their necks. Both of these things have happened already as a result of anti-Chritian zealotry. Examples:

A child reading a Bible quietly to herself was removed from a school bus..."seperation of church and state".

A woman was asked to not wear her cross to work because the sight of it "offended" a co-worker.

I hope you will not tell me that you think these are reasonable demands. And I hope you can begin to understand why you are seeing some angry blow back.

I have watched our country become a totally different place over the course of my life. We were once a country that honored and respected the rights of others with social rules of behavior that kept everyone in line with only a few exceptions. Now every grievance has become a platform for power hungry politicians, a cause celebre for talking heads and personalities, and a religion for self indulging agitators to demand rules, regulations, litigation, reparation, and control. People refuse to live and let live and instead demand that the entire world dance to their specific tune. Is it any wonder we have spawned this terrible division in America with Americans in verbal combat with each other, refusing to just be responsible for their own lives and their own happiness. And the payoff? Government that has power over you and your choices. Governemnt deciding which groups shall benefit and which shall be excluded. Citizens vying for their "fair" share of that BIG Government pot o gold. I think it's abhorent and loathsome.

this program is another example of terrible moves that will eventually be the downfall of this great country and yes I think it will lead to dictatorship. We don't need nuke bombs or planes flying into buildings. Our own refusal to be responsible for our choices and preferences and let others do the same will be sufficient to murder the American dream.

Dr Beckner thank you for the clarity on the law.

I only have time to respond to a couple things right now, but I will try to get back to the rest soon.

"• A New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, refused to rent out its beachfront pavilion for a same-sex civil-union ceremony — and lost its right to tax exempt status on their property."--Fred Jake

This was PUBLIC PROPERTY. It was owned by a religious group, but it was not a religious place. By choosing to discriminate, they broke their contract. That's not persecution. They chose to take the risk of owning property that could be used to violate their religious beliefs. They did not have to take that risk, but they did. And they lost. Sorry, but that's life, not persecution. They were not "punished," as the deliberately deceptive NOM ad says. They simply lost a privilege that they showed they were not able to handle responsibly.

That's not at all comparable to you forcing your religious beliefs on others by depriving people from marrying the person they love. THAT is persecution.

The same goes for your other examples. If people can't do their jobs, then they need to seek new ones. And many things are taught in schools that religious people don't agree with. Again, that's just life.

Now, Tina's examples are a lot more convincing. Obviously those incidents never should have happened. A girl reading the Bible at school or wearing a cross to work is not harming anybody, and punishing that totally innocent behavior is clearly religious persecution. I do not support that at all.

But proselytizing is a completely different matter. That is obtrusive, and I don't have any problem with schools and workplaces (yes, even ones in which people volunteer) forbidding this during hours in which people are supposed to be doing their jobs or learning the approved curriculum.

And OneVike's original quote, which he felt confident enough to put in bold letters, is still a lie. That still has not been accounted for, and it is making this site look bad.

"The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights." - Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Proselyte: one who has been converted from one belief, attitude, or party to another. You don't have to be a christian to proselytize. Al Gore, with his Southern baptist ministers voice does it all the time. It's also called influence but that word doesn't carry the same weight.

Birds do it, bees do it, even gays and greens and POC's do it...

But only Christians (and white republican men) are being targeted by government for silencing and exclusion. The rest of you have government advocating for you.

K

You are correct in what you pointed out. However, the probable intent of the law is to limit the volunteer services to completely secular endeavors - in keeping with the constitutional requirement of religious neutrality.

Unfortunately that is not the way this legislation is worded. In a court of law, the exact words become very important as they often trump the original intent of the legislation.

The effect of the law can be (if the law is so applied) to discriminate against people of faith. Naturally, such an interpretation would be tested in Federal Court and so the circus would begin. The bill should have been sent back to committee and rewritten with the intent stated clearly.

What we are seeing is the over-reaching of an administration that wants to get it all done in the first 3 months, so we end up with an 86 page, shoddily written document that leaves way too much open for interpretation.

So no, I do not retract my statement.

"Proselyte: one who has been converted from one belief, attitude, or party to another. You don't have to be a christian to proselytize. Al Gore, with his Southern baptist ministers voice does it all the time. It's also called influence but that word doesn't carry the same weight.

Birds do it, bees do it, even gays and greens and POC's do it..."

But only Christians (and white republican men) are being targeted by government for silencing and exclusion. The rest of you have government advocating for you. "

Really, Tina? Then why does the legislation expressly forbid using the position for ANY KIND of political advocacy, no matter for what cause? Where does it say "This only applies to Christian white Republican men, everyone else: preach away!" Why does it specifically forbid using the position to advocate unionizing, which would "persecute," under OneVike's definition of the word, mostly liberals?

The notion that Christian white Republican men are being targeted and persecuted is a fantasy. It must be fun playing persecution when you've never actually been oppressed. Or maybe from the top of the food chain, any minor inconvenience to your ability to sail through life is seen as the grossest violation of civil rights, somehow. I don't know. But I do know that when things like this are being compared to concentration camps and lions' dens, it's obvious that you guys have no rational perspective whatsoever at all on this matter. You simply don't know what persecution is like.

OneVike, the legislation is VERY clearly worded.

"An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities."

It specifically says that it's forbidding the use of this position for religious and political purposed. I just don't know where you are getting the idea that this could mean people can't go to church or proselytize in their non-service hours. That does not logically follow at all, as any court would easily see. You simply made this idea up, because you will use any opportunity, no matter how bizarre or illogical, to compare Obama to Adolf Hitler.

When I said, "But only Christians (and white republican men) are being targeted by government for silencing and exclusion." I was speaking in general terms. In genreal government advocates for other groups and comes down on the side against WM and Cristians.

"Then why does the legislation expressly forbid using the position for ANY KIND of political advocacy, no matter for what cause?"

I honestly believe that they were included only because they couldn't just exclude religion. The bill would never have passed with a "religion" clause. I can also assure you that once passed the law will be ignored in many instances regarding those other things and Christians will be watched like hawks by the ACLU.

"The notion that Christian white Republican men are being targeted and persecuted is a fantasy."

I didn't put the two together, I said Christians and white men. It is not a fantasy. Chritians are being targeted because they don't toe the PC line...they must be isolated, ridiculed and destroyed. White men don't belong to any PC special group...not the right color, not the right gender, not the right sexual orientation and supposedly authoratarian imperialists even though we have spent the last sixty years giving advantages to special interest groups.

I didn't take my position based on nonservice hours.

"you will use any opportunity, no matter how bizarre or illogical, to compare Obama to Adolf Hitler."

I didn't make the comparison, I weighed in on a specifio part of the article. However, I will say that a comparison of the two in terms of ideology would provbably surprise even you. We might have to do that...just a side by side comparison of these men in their rise to power.

I will give you the point that the article is written in such a way so as to spark interest and debate. That is an art and is a valuable tool in creating interest in current events and politics. Prior to the use of this art form people were bored and disinterested...imagine that.

"I was speaking in general terms. In genreal government advocates for other groups and comes down on the side against WM and Cristians."

Yes, that's why same-sex marriage is still illegal in 47 states and we still spend billions of dollars funding abstinence-only education. The Christian lobby is HUGE in this country, and the second biggest political party in our country devotes plenty of time trying to appease that lobby.

"I didn't put the two together, I said Christians and white men. It is not a fantasy. Chritians are being targeted because they don't toe the PC line...they must be isolated, ridiculed and destroyed."

If by "PC line," you mean supporting equality, and by "isolated, ridiculed and destroyed," you mean we do not let them make the rules for everybody else.

"White men don't belong to any PC special group...not the right color, not the right gender, not the right sexual orientation and supposedly authoratarian imperialists even though we have spent the last sixty years giving advantages to special interest groups."

Yes, white men and Christians are just so underrepresented in our government. When will we have a white President? A male president? It's long past time. And wait, you're saying some of the white people in the government actually do nice things for people who aren't white men? Why, cookies for everyone, then!

"I didn't make the comparison, I weighed in on a specifio part of the article."

That's why I specifically addressed OneVike by name, not you. Why does everyone here read so fast? It seems like every thread I see someone misquoted in some way because the editors skimmed. It's a waste of time.

"However, I will say that a comparison of the two in terms of ideology would provbably surprise even you. We might have to do that...just a side by side comparison of these men in their rise to power."

I've seen this done before. It is ridiculously easy to refute.

"I will give you the point that the article is written in such a way so as to spark interest and debate. That is an art and is a valuable tool in creating interest in current events and politics. Prior to the use of this art form people were bored and disinterested...imagine that."

Sorry, but it just doesn't take a lot of skill to piss people off by saying ridiculous things. Political spin can be an art, I guess, but the spin OV promotes here isn't nearly convincing enough to artful. It's just an obvious lie.

Good Lord, if the contents of this thread aren't grounds for surveillance, I like to know what is. This being America, you have every right to your paranoid delusions ...

... but must be watched for signs you intend to act on them. Timothy's fertilizer purchase raised no flags, because we weren't paying attention, but we are now ... to fertilizer purchases and other things ... so you deluded paranoids just watch yerselves!

To everyone who has a problem with my statement that all religious activity is barred under this legislation

I'll begin by admitting my error the way I worded my claim. I offer no excuse accept to say I should have used the phrase, "Could be interpreted by a court that non volunteer religious related activities are banned".

In my preparation for writing the article, I looked at the probable intent of the law, which is meant to limit the volunteer services to completely secular endeavors - in keeping with the authors understanding of the constitutional requirement for religious neutrality. Remember Courts are constantly ruling upon "original Intent" when they interpret a law.

I also should have pointed out the original language before it was changed to give the reader an understanding of the authors original intent, which was to exclude all religious activity regardless of when it was done. In court, a judge will look at original intent of the legislation like Justice Black claimed he did in his landmark case. In this case the original intent was to ban all religious activity regardless of when it took place. The original text of 125 contained the phrase, "A participant in", which was dropped from the later text.

Now, in looking to original intent, Justice Black claimed that while it was not written in the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson's letter proves what the intent originally was. That is how we got the "Separation of Church and State" clause we are bound by. The activist courts have gone out of their way to find any reason to claim the intent of a law is what they want it to be.

These activist judges have shown time and time again that they will use non Constitutional literature to base their opinions on such intent, as Black did. We only have to look at the current members of the Supreme Court who admit they look to foreign laws to base their opinions upon. Where in the Constitution does it say we should look to foreign laws to interpret what the founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution?

I also want to direct everyone's attention to the information offered on the EEOC. That post clearly shows that this bill, as written, is already unconstitutional on grounds of a person's religious right to free expression at the work place.

As the poster properly pointed out, the Supreme Court and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace.

As I said in an earlier comment to K

What this Bill represents is the over-reaching of an administration that wants to get it all done in the first 3 months, so we end up with an 86 page, shoddily written document that leaves way too much open for interpretation.

Another thing to take into consideration, is that Obama only needs one extra judge on the Supreme Court to tip the balance of the court in his favor. So like I said I did error in my assertion about the extent of this Bill's control, but it is already unconstitutional the way it is written, and only one bad ruling away from being what I warned about.

I realize that people will jump upon my error, but all I can say is "Oh Well"! Remember to think about what my "original intent" was, and you can find that by reading the second paragraph of this comment.

Again I apologize for my error in the wording of my statement.

OneVike

Good job OV;

I was worried for you, but as usual you cleaned up something that needed to be corrected. I like you reasoning and your ability to accept the fact that like everyone, you make mistakes sometimes.

Now if we can get the Main Stream Media to be as honest in their reporting when they error.

"... and to implement new cultural forms that would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a new barbarism."

Ah Hah! The philosophic origins of the Fox News Network! Who'd a thunk?

Dr. Beckner, you caught my attention when you mentioned the EEOC.

Years ago, I attended numerous courses put on by Specter and Hames, the writers of the EEOC laws. One statement they made that caught my attention was they were conducting these courses because the laws they helped write, were actually being used against companies. They were attempting to educate managers in companies as to how to protect themselves. Interesting courses that saved my company a lot of headaches and money through the years.

Good article, I am glad the author clarified his stance on the controversial statement he made.

"Good article, I am glad the author clarified his stance on the controversial statement he made."

Since the entire post was based on an inaccurate and sensational misrepresentation of the statute, I fail to see how it could be a "good article." He didn't "clarify" his controversial statement ... he was obliged to take it back.

Our conservative brethern have jumped the rails bigtime.

Libby given Dr. Beckners comment I'd say it is the progressives who put this together fast so they could do it in the first 100 days that have jumped the rails...before they're done they will be crashing to the bottom of the canyon as well.

"Yes, that's why same-sex marriage is still illegal in 47 states and we still spend billions of dollars funding abstinence-only education. The Christian lobby is HUGE in this country, and the second biggest political party in our country devotes plenty of time trying to appease that lobby."

The Christian lobby is not being "appeased"...they are acting defensively, and who can blame them? I don't think they are obliged to roll over every time some decides life isn't fair or when that group wants the world to change to accomodate them about their personal life choices and circumstances.

"If by "PC line," you mean supporting equality, and by "isolated, ridiculed and destroyed," you mean we do not let them make the rules for everybody else."

That was not my meaning. Your comment does reveal your biases and ego, however.

Equality is not making everyone jump at the suggestion of a minority group. It does not mean changing the definition of a word. It isn't about you say jump and I say how high. It definitely isn't about special rights.

When I said "isolated, ridiculed, and destroyed" I was talking about white men being turned down for jobs when they are more qualified in order to force "equality", I meant they are unfairly targeted by femninists (like those trying to get all male private institutions or clubs changed to include females), I meant the government advertising for jobs that might as well say...white men need not apply! I was talking about the hateful message about what a patriarch is...a totally false image. There is a difference between white people being in the majority and white people oppressing minority groups...the line between the two has been blurred.

"it just doesn't take a lot of skill to piss people off by saying ridiculous things. Political spin can be an art, I guess, but the spin OV promotes here isn't nearly convincing enough to artful. It's just an obvious lie."

Is it? You haven't been convincing in your arguments. In fact you often sound like a disgruntled child whining cause the world won't bend over backwards to make you happy.

(editors note: for those of you who read "DO NOT POST" at the top of this article please be advised, I had to leave for a little league game before I had completed my comments. My apologies for any confusion)

I hope your little league game was better than the one I had to go to. Some kid pitched an almost perfect game against my boy and he lost 3 to 0. Always next week.

Oops!, I forgot to leave my comment on Obama's youth corp.

My great-grandmother died in the holocaust, and she loved Hitler when he first came onto the political scene. So don't tell me Obama isn't scary. You people do not know what you have wrought.

Tom...I feel your pain...it's like that in Little League, come to think of it, it's like that in the big leagues too...LOL!