 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
TaleWgnDg's Journal
 Did you know? The Salvation Army discriminates. It is a religious institution. As such, it believes that our first amendment's "religious freedom" allows it to discriminate selectively against people. For example, it discriminates against homosexuals in its hiring, promotion, and firing policies as well as in its benefits to employees, employees’ families, sub-contractors, and other agencies. Also, it discriminates selectively against those it serves, i.e., the weak, the poor, and the destitute. It is arguable whether a religion may do this u/ our federal constitution’s first amendment “freedom of religion” if other areas of the federal constitution are weighed particularly if federal and/or state law does not allow such discrimination, religious or otherwise. All that being said, discrimination reaches a higher bar when public (government) monies are granted to religious institutions such as to the Salvation Army. In the past few years, up to and including the present, federal taxpayer monies are granted to the Salvation Army under the guise of “faith-based initiatives.” These are public taxpayer (federal government) funds, not private funds. However, despite receiving public taxpayer money, the Salvation Army continues its selective discriminatory actions against (and prostelyzing its own religion upon) people as afore. And, it claims it can do so under the first amendment’s “freedom of religion.” Yes, the Salvation Army continues to discriminate against homosexuals and others (and proselytizing its own religion upon people) using federal taxpayer monies! The Salvation Army expressly states that it can continue to do so due to the Salvation Army's religious status under our constitution and its religious tenets that mandate it to discriminate and proselytize as such whether using government money or private money. In so doing, the Salvation Army inferentially indicates that there is no meaningful Separation of Church and State. In other words with that “wall of separation” gone, a church may meddle into state affairs (through its use of public taxpayer monies) and, in turn, the state may meddle into church affairs as to those public taxpayer monies. Keep in mind, too, that money is fungible. So how much "meddle” applies? Where does it stop? What a mess! Tis no wonder that James Madison's first amendment declared that our government not be in the business of “establishment of religion” as well as no prohibition on “free exercise of religion,” and that Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state should remain its definition today -- thereby keeping government out of religion, and keeping religion out of government.  U.S. Constitution, First Amendment: 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. .
A vote "yes" would place the same-sex marriage ban on the 2008 Massachusetts ballot. A vote "no" would kill the Massachusetts ballot question. In other words, a "yes" vote would allow the general public to vote on civil rights and place discrimination into the Massachusetts constitution; and a "no" vote would not allow such a vote. The legal bottom line? Same-sex marriage remains legal in Massachusetts. Until or unless some other out of state crazies (or religious group) try again to place their brand of "morals" and religion into our Massachusetts constitution. BTW, John Adams, who authored our Massachusetts constitution (which is the oldest written constitution in the world) is resting easy tonight -- Adams would have been adamantly against placing discrimination into his beloved constitution. The political bottom line? With this vote same-sex marriage is prevented from being used (again) as a political tool in a presidential election. This time in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. Those rightwingnuts can go slither beneath their rocks to mull over another ploy using another tool -- thereby removing the "gays" from their mantra of "gays, guns, and God." Roll Call Vote on the Proposed Gay Marriage Ban By The Associated Press | June 14, 2007 Here's how members of the Massachusetts Legislature (in a Massachusetts Constitutional Convention) voted Thursday (June 14, 2007) on a proposed 2008 ballot question that would ban gay marriage. The vote was 45-151. Fifty votes were needed to move it to a statewide ballot question in 2008. MASSACHUSETTS SENATE Robert A. Antonioni, D-Leominster - N Edward M. Augustus, D-Worcester - N Steven A. Baddour, D-Methuen - N Jarrett T. Barrios, D-Cambridge - N Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody - N Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre - N Scott P. Brown, R-Wrentham - Y Stephen J. Buoniconti, D-West Springfield - N Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham - N Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester - N Robert S. Creedon Jr., D-Brockton - Y Cynthia Stone Creem, D-Newton - N Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield - N Susan C. Fargo, D-Lincoln - N John A. Hart, D-Boston - N Robert A. Havern, D-Arlington - N Robert L. Hedlund, R-Weymouth - Y Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville - N Brian A. Joyce, D-Milton - N Michael R. Knapik, R-Westfield - N Thomas M. McGee, D-Lynn - N Joan M. Menard, D-Fall River - N Mark C. Montigny, D-New Bedford - N Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge - Y Michael W. Morrissey, D-Quincy - N Therese Murray, D-Plymouth - N Robert D. O'Leary, D-Barnstable - N Marc R. Pacheco, D-Taunton - N Steven C. Panagiotakos, D-Lowell - Y Pamela P. Resor, D-Acton - N Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst - N Karen E. Spilka, D-Ashland - N Bruce E. Tarr, R-Gloucester - N James E. Timilty, D-Walpole - N Richard R. Tisei, R-Wakefield - N Steven A. Tolman, D-Boston - N Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover - N Marian Walsh, D-West Roxbury - N Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston - N MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE: Geraldo Alicea, D-Charlton - N Willie Mae Allen, D-Boston - N Cory Atkins, D-Concord - N Demetrius J. Atsalis, D-Hyannis - X Bruce J. Ayers, D-Quincy - Y Ruth B. Balser, D-Newton - N Fred Barrows, R-Mansfield - Y John J. Binienda, D-Worcester - Y Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams - N Garrett J. Bradley, D-Hingham - N William N. Brownsberger, D-Belmont - N Antonio F. D. Cabral, D-New Bedford - N Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton - N Thomas Calter, D-Kingston - N Linda Dean Campbell, D-Methuen - Y Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton - N Stephen R. Canessa, D-New Bedford - N Paul C. Casey, D-Winchester - Y Cheryl A. Coakley-Rivera, D-Springfield - N Thomas F. Conroy, D-Wayland - N Robert Correia, D-Fall River - Y Michael A. Costello, D-Newburyport - N Geraldine Creedon, D-Brockton - Y Sean Curran, D-Springfield - Y Steven J. D'Amico, D-Seekonk - N Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop - N Viriato Manuel deMacedo, R-Plymouth - Y Brian S. Dempsey, D-Haverhill - N Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston - N Stephen DiNatale, D-Fitchburg - N Paul J. Donato, D-Medford - Y Christopher J. Donelan, D-Orange - N Joseph R. Driscoll Jr., D-Braintree - N James B. Eldridge, D-Acton - N Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden - Y James H. Fagan, D-Taunton - Y Christopher G. Fallon, D-Malden - N Mark V. Falzone, D-Saugus - N Robert F. Fennell, D-Lynn - N John V. Fernandes, D-Milford - N Michael E. Festa, D-Melrose - N Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover - N Jennifer Flanagan, D-Leominster - N David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater - Y Linda Dorcena Forry, D-Boston - N Gloria L. Fox, D-Boston - N John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester - Y Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn - Y William C. Galvin, D-Canton - N Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut - Y Susan W. Gifford, R-Wareham - Y Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer - N Thomas A. Golden Jr., D-Lowell - N Mary E. Grant, D-Beverly - N William G. Greene Jr., D-Billerica - Y Denis Guyer, D-Dalton - N Patricia A. Haddad, D-Somerset - N Geoffrey D. Hall, D-Westford - N Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton - Y Lida E. Harkins, D-Needham - N Bradford Hill, R-Ipswich - N Kevin G. Honan, D-Boston - N Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield - Y Frank M. Hynes, D-Marshfield - Y Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading - N Louis L. Kafka, D-Stoughton - N Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke - Y Rachel Kaprielian, D-Watertown - N Jay R. Kaufman, D-Lexington - N John D. Keenan, D-Salem - N Thomas P. Kennedy, D-Brockton - N Kay Khan, D-Newton - N Peter V. Kocot, D-Northampton - N Robert M. Koczera, D-New Bedford - N Peter J. Koutoujian, D-Waltham - N Paul Kujawski, D-Webster - N Stephen Kulik, D-Worthington - N William Lantigua, D-Lawrence - Y Stephen P. LeDuc, D-Marlborough - N John A. Lepper, R-Attleboro - Y David P. Linsky, D-Natick - N Barbara A. L'Italien, D-Andover - N Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston - N Elizabeth A. Malia, D-Boston - N Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy - N James J. Marzilli Jr., D-Arlington - N Allen J. McCarthy, D-East Bridgewater - N Paul McMurtry, D-Dedham - N James R. Miceli, D-Wilmington - Y Michael Moran, D-Boston - N Charles A. Murphy, D-Burlington - N James M. Murphy, D-Weymouth - Y Kevin M. Murphy, D-Lowell - N David M. Nangle, D-Lowell - Y Patrick Natale, D-Woburn - N Harold P. Naughton Jr., D-Clinton - N Robert J. Nyman, D-Hanover - N James O'Day, D-West Boylston - N Eugene L. O'Flaherty, D-Chelsea - N Matthew C. Patrick, D-Falmouth - N Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown - N Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester - N Alice H. Peisch, D-Wellesley - N Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich - Y Douglas W. Petersen, D-Marblehead - N George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton - Y Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow - Y Anthony W. Petruccelli, D-Boston - N William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox - N Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-North Attleboro - Y Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury - Y Denise Provost, D-Somerville - N Angelo Puppolo, D-Wilbraham - N John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth - N Kathi-Anne Reinstein, D-Revere - N Robert Rice Jr., D-Gardner - N Pam Richardson, D-Framingham - N Michael J. Rodrigues, D-Westport - N Mary S. Rogeness, R-Longmeadow - Y John H. Rogers, D-Norwood - N Richard J. Ross, R-Wrentham - N Michael F. Rush, D-Boston - Y Byron Rushing, D-Boston - N Jeffrey Sanchez, D-Boston - N Rosemary Sandlin, D-Agawam - N Tom Sannicandro, D-Ashland - N Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Boston - Y John W. Scibak, D-South Hadley - N Carl M. Sciortino Jr., D-Somerville - N Stephen Smith, D-Everett - N Frank I. Smizik, D-Brookline - N Todd M. Smola, R-Palmer - Y Theodore C. Speliotis, D-Danvers - N Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester - N Christopher N. Speranzo - D-Pittsfield - N Joyce A. Spiliotis, D-Peabody - Y Marie P. St. Fleur, D-Boston - X Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury - N Thomas M. Stanley, D-Waltham - N Ellen Story, D-Amherst - N William M. Straus, D-Mattapoisett - N David B. Sullivan, D-Fall River - N Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield - N Walter F. Timilty, D-Milton - Y A. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy - Y Timothy J. Toomey Jr., D-Cambridge - N David M. Torrisi, D-North Andover - N Eric Turkington, D-Falmouth - N Cleon H. Turner, D-Dennis - N James E. Vallee, D-Franklin - N Anthony J. Verga, D-Gloucester - X Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee - N Brian P. Wallace, D-Boston - N Patricia A. Walrath, D-Stow - N Martin J. Walsh, D-Boston - N Steven M. Walsh, D-Lynn - N Martha M. Walz, D-Boston - N Daniel K. Webster, R-Hanson - Y James T. Welch, D-West Springfield - N Alice K. Wolf, D-Cambridge - N ------ N no Y yes X not voting P present . . . more at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus... (boldfaced type added by TaleWgnDg)  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist... (Loving v. VA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967))  Con-Con Convention, March 2004, Massachusetts Statehouse .  Front page of Boston Herald, Boston's daily tabloid newspaper, Thursday, March 30, 2006  Front page of Boston Herald, Boston's daily tabloid newspaper, Friday, March 31, 2006 This "bad boy Nino" saga in Boston has been on-going since Sunday's "Red Mass" which Scalia attended and received Holy Communion then was caught in this act while still inside the Holy Cross Cathedral, Boston, Massachusetts. Word has it that Boston's Roman Catholics, particularly Italian-Americans, are quite displeased w/ Scalia's lack of decorum inside a church as well as that of a sitting SCOTUS justice. BTW, anybody know of the history of the "Red Mass?" Check out that imbedded hyperlink if curious. Church fires photographer over Scalia picture: Freelancer pays for ‘right thing’by Jessica Heslam, Boston Herald, Boston, Massachusetts Friday, March 31, 2006 - Updated: 01:24 PM EST A freelance photographer has been fired by the Archdiocese of Boston’s newspaper for releasing a picture of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia making a controversial gesture in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday.  Antonin Scalia gestures inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston, Massachusetts after the "Red Mass" that he attended (Boston Herald exclusive photo by Peter A. Smith) Peter Smith, who had freelanced for The Pilot newspaper for a decade, lost the job yesterday after the Herald ran his photo on its front page yesterday, Thursday, March 31, 2006). Smith said he has no regrets about releasing it. “I did the right thing. I did the ethical thing,” said Smith, 51, an assistant photojournalism professor at Boston University. Smith snapped the photo of Scalia flicking his hand under his chin after a Herald reporter asked the conservative jurist his response to people who question his impartiality on matters of church and state. . . . snip . . . The weekly Catholic newspaper made a “journalistic decision” not to run or release the photo, said Archdiocese spokesman Terry Donilon. “Because he breached that trust with the editor, we will no longer engage his services as a freelance photographer,” Donilon said. “It’s nothing personal,” added Pilot editor Antonio Enrique. “I need to try and find people I can trust.” While news outlets from across the country sought Smith’s photo yesterday, the archdiocese said there’s no proof that Scalia uttered an obsenity(sic) in the church. Smith said Scalia said, “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” while making the gesture. That’s Italian for (expletive) you. “It was pretty clear,” Smith said yesterday. A Herald reporter who was nearby did not hear that utterance. . . . snip . . . . . . more at . . . http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional... (bold-faced type emphasis and hyperlinks added by TaleWgnDg) Caveat: The Pilot cannot "fire" a free-lance reporter since the photographer/reporter isn't an employee. Just to set the record straight. It simply may not choose to use the photographer/reporter's "free lance" services any longer if it so wishes which evidently is the case here. 1.) For more on this "bad boy" on-going Boston saga of our SCOTUS associate justice including Justice Scalia's letter to the editor (LTTE) that he FAX'd to the Boston Herald, please see this DU LBT thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...  Scalia allegedly stated, “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” while making the gesture! 2.) For Scalia's "bad boy" tactics in Switzerland earlier this month, please go to this DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... (which includes an hyperlink to a video stream of his lecture, his following Q&A, and his brief interview . . . tis a rather lengthly stream but worth every patient effort particularly the Q&A where Scalia *dumps* for all the world to see) Scalia's one-hour lecture entitled "Does the U.S. legal system work?" given at his alma mater, the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, March 8, 2006, was followed by a Q&A session w/ the attending audience from which Scalia's off-the-wall, arrogant, and pontificating quotations were derived, as well as a subsequent so-called "short" interview.
The sole place where the entire video/audio recording is available is: http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv (MSFT .wmv video format, bafweb.com, Scalia at Fribourg University, video of the entire "Does the U.S. legal system work?" lecture, a follow-up Q&A, and a short interview, May 8, 2006; this is a lengthly download). Are there any other websites? Here's a sampling from the recording (ascertained from various sources): "Question comes up: Is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question." - Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, during Q&A following a lecture entitled "Does the U.S. legal system work?" given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, when queried by a member of the audience, March 8, 2006. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid2... "Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American constitution. . . (and that) nobody has ever thought otherwise!" - Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Q&A following a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, when queried about the constitutional rights of Guantanamo detainees, March 8, 2006. "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son. And I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." - Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Q&A following a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, cutting-off a questioner and getting into his own personal life when queried as a justice about Guantanamo detainees receiving a civil court trial instead of facing military tribunals, March 8, 2006. "I am astounded at the, the, the, I would say, hypocritical reaction in Europe, as though the Europeans always gave trials to people that they capture on the battlefield. I mean, give me a break!" - Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Q&A following a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, bluntly chastising Europeans about their supposed reactions to Guantanamo detainees, March 8, 2006. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It's a crazy idea to me!" - Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, cutting-off a questioner during a Q&A subsequent to a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, March 8, 2006. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/... / http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt... / http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/arch... http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp... http://www.unifr.ch/main/news/detailD.php?... (University of Fribourg, Switzerland, in German) http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv (MSFT .wmv video format, bafweb.com, Scalia at Fribourg University, video of the entire "Does the U.S. legal system work?" lecture, a follow-up Q&A, and a short interview, May 8, 2006; this is a lengthly download) "Scalia Remarks Draw Criticism Before Guantanamo Case," All Things Considered, Monday, March 27, 2006, RealAudio(R) 4:09 minutes, Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, NPR news http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC... (snippets from Scalia's Q&A following his lecture at Fribourg University) bio at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme... bio at: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour... For another recent Scalia "bad boy" saga, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... . . . wherein Scalia allegedly gives the Sicilian hand-under-the-chin FU gesture: Justice fires back(LTTE) by Antonin Scalia(, Associate Justice SCOTUS) (Boston Herald,) Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - Updated: 12:39 AM EST To the Editor: It has come to my attention that your newspaper published a story on Monday(, March 27, 2006) stating that I made an obscene gesture - inside Holy Cross Cathedral(, Boston, Massachusetts), no less. The story is false, and I ask that you publish this letter in full to set the record straight. Your reporter, an up-and-coming “gotcha” star named Laurel J. Sweet, asked me (o-so-sweetly) what I said to those people who objected to my taking part in such public religious ceremonies as the Red Mass I had just attended. I responded, jocularly, with a gesture that consisted of fanning the fingers of my right hand under my chin. Seeing that she did not understand, I said “That’s Sicilian,” and explained its meaning - which was that I could not care less. That this is in fact the import of the gesture was nicely explained and exemplified in a book that was very popular some years ago, Luigi Barzini’s The Italians:
How could your reporter leap to the conclusion (contrary to my explanation) that the gesture was obscene? Alas, the explanation is evident in the following line from her article: “ ‘That’s Sicilian,’ the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the ‘Sopranos’ challenged.” From watching too many episodes of the Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene - especially when made by an “Italian jurist.” (I am, by the way, an American jurist.) . . . snip . . . Antonin Scalia . . . more at . . . http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional... (hyperlinks added in Scalia's letter to the editor (LTTE) by TaleWgnDg) This on-going Scalia saga in Boston about Scalia apparently giving an obscene Italian hand gesture to a news reporter in a Roman Catholic Church environs would be very funny, indeed, if were not so serious. Serious, that is, because of its source. This is not TV's The Sopranos! Instead, this is about the mannerisms and demeanor of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court associate justice! Indeed. As a member of the bar, I am appalled that Justice Scalia cannot seem to control himself in public -- from his arrogant off-the-cuff responses to the general public including the press media to recipients of his post-lecture Q&A sessions whether in the States or abroad in Switzerland at his alma mater (.pdf format), University of Fribourg, to lawyers appearing before the SCOTUS bench. This justice is a detriment to the bar, the bench, and to America, and all Americans. What a horrific role model is he! He should be removed upon "bad behavior" as our constitution authorizes. Scalia's newest faux pas, i.e., poor impulse control of a sitting SCOTUS justice . . . this time, in Boston . . . 1.) http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional... (Laurel J. Sweet's BosHerald article, Monday, March 27, 2006) 2.) http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional... (Laurel J. Sweet's BosHerald article, Tuesday, March 28, 2006) 3.) Scalia's written letter to the editor (here) in response . . .  Pope Scalia, SCOTUS associate justice, can never be wrong! Never. The theocracy of George Walker Bush . . . its legacy . . .
"As surely as Franklin Roosevelt is remembered most for his leadership during World War II and Lyndon Johnson for Vietnam, presidential scholars and some of Bush's own advisers predict that history will judge Bush by his decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003, and by the long-term consequences of America's first war of the 21st century." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20... ("Conflict will define Bush's role in history," by Susan Page, USAToday online, 3/14/06, as visited March 22, 2006. Bold-faced type emphasis added by TaleWgnDg.) However, despite Bush's followers and some of his detractors wish to place Bush's legacy with Harry S Truman's administration which was unpopular as well during the last few years of his administration, there's no doubt that Truman never recited God as often and as openly advocating Christianity than does George Walker Bush. Nor did Truman wish to place his own religion into our laws. History will not be favorable to George Walker Bush as it has been to Truman over the years. That's due, in part, because a dark and expansive part of George Walker Bush's legacy will be Bush as the unwavering, rigid leader of the ultra-conservative Christian religion-into-law zealots. And most importantly, Bush's view that God talks directly to him and through him. Thus, Bush will most likely be one of our least favorable presidents. No doubt about it. Bush may also be remembered as the president who led us into an unnecessary, bloody, long, protracted, and costly war because of his messianic complex: God talks to George Walker Bush! God talks through George Walker Bush! God (read: GWBush) can do no wrong! Scary stuff that George Walker Bush.  George Walker Bush, The Christian  George Walker Bush, The Divine ______________________________________________________ "I believe that God wants me to be president." — Richard Land, a Director of the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, quoting GWBush on "the day (GWBush) was inaugurated for his second term as governor (of TX) in 1999." "I could not be governor (of Texas) if I did not believe in a divine plan that supersedes all human plans." - George Walker Bush "I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge . . . all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed." — GWBush, as Governor of TX, officially proclaiming June 10, 2000, as "JESUS DAY in TEXAS." "And the religious people (GWBush) was connected with in Texas aren't anything like the mainstream — even the mainstream in Texas." — Molly Ivins, political pundit, on GWBush as Governor of Texas. "I always laugh when people say that George W. Bush is saying this or that to appease the religious right. He is the religious right." -- GWBush first cousin John Ellis "After all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism." — GWBush, reported in George Magazine, September, 2000 "Government cannot make people love one another . . . (; instead,) love comes from a higher calling, a higher authority; the great strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of citizens who've heard that call, not in the halls of government." — GWBush, campaigning for president in the 2000 election explaining his "faith-based initiatives" vs. government run programs w/o regard for the Separation of Church and State. "Together, we have a charge to keep," — GWBush authored in his presidential campaign book which was not too subtly entitled "A Charge to Keep" (which is a quote from an Evangelical hymn "associated with a Bible verse, 1 Corinthians 4:2: 'Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.')," page 45. "(G)overnment should welcome (and grant federal monies to) the active involvement of people who are following a religious imperative to love their neighbors through after-school programs, child care, drug treatment, maternity group homes, and a range of other services. Supporting these men and women is the next bold step of welfare reform." — GWBush's presidential campaign book, co-authored by Karen Hughes, entitled, “A Charge to Keep”, p. 232. "I called on Congress to join me in passing laws that would allow the — open up the federal treasury to faith-based programs, and (Congress) balked," Bush said. "So I signed an executive order instructing all federal agencies not to discriminate against religious groups." — GWBush, January 15, 2004, explaining to a black New Orleans church audience why he signed the "faith-based programs" bribery contained in several Executive Orders over-riding congress' refusal to pass federal laws. "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It’s important for our government to understand that. (F)aith-based programs only conform to one set of rules, and it’s bigger than government rules. The inspiration is not from (government) bureaucracy, and that’s what’s important for government policymakers to understand." — GWBush on the campaign trail, 2004, putting a new twist on the 1st amendment's Separation of Church and State, and the Establishment Clause. "I believe that it points up the fact that we need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." — GWBush, June 27, 2002, explaining his litmus test for federal judicial nominees upon hearing that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (which was heavily lobbied by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus and inserted by a zealous anti-communist U.S. congress in the 1950s) was being challenged in the federal courts as unconstitutional by an Atheist. "(Hanging in my office is) a beautiful oil painting by W.H.D. Koerner entitled A Charge to Keep. The painting, inspired by the hymn, (pictures) a horseman determinedly charging up what appears to be a steep & rough trail. This is us. (The painting and) hymn have been an inspiration for me and for members of my staff. 'A Charge to Keep calls us to our highest and best. It speaks of purpose and direction. In many hymnals, it is associated with a Bible verse, 1 Corinthians 4:2: 'Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.' " — GWBush's presidential campaign book, co-authored by Karen Hughes, entitled, “A Charge to Keep”, p. 45. "This crusade . . . is going to take a while." — GWBush, speaking 5 days after 9-11 about retaliatory issues, Washington, DC, September 16, 2001 "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." — Timothy Goeglein of the White House Office of Public Liaison told World magazine, a Christian weekly. "There is a human condition that we must worry about in times of war. There is a value system that cannot be compromised — God-given values. These aren't United States-created values." — GWBush, as quoted by Bob Woodward, in his book "Bush at War. " "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." — GWBush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job." -- GWBush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, July 16, 2004, during a private meeting with an Amish group. "I'm the commander, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation . . ." — GWBush, asserting what seems to be a messianic complex. "Where there is tyranny, oppression and gathering danger to mankind, America works and sacrifices for peace and freedom. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to all humanity." -- GWBush, as photographs and videos of U.S. military, U.S. intelligence, and U.S. private contractors abuse of Iraqi prisoners are filling the headlines around the world, May 14, 2004, in a speech before an evangelical Lutheran college commencement in Wisconsin, a state that GWBush lost by by 5,709 votes of nearly 2.5 million cast in the 2000 presidential election. ______________________________________________________ In light of http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?r... as to San Francisco Catholic Charities, gay adoptions, and the Roman Catholic Church . . . the turn of events will be similar to those as in Boston's Catholic Charities.
When push comes to shove, it will be a sad turn of events. Because San Francisco Catholic Charities will be forced to comport w/ The Holy See's edict about homosexuals, period. That is, SF Catholic Charities will be compelled to divest itself from services re gay parents who adopt children as did Boston's Catholic Charities. However, what happens to those gays who are serving the administration of SF Catholic Charities? Well. I don't believe The Holy See requires their resignation u/ its hypocritical and unworkable "inclusiveness" tenet, i.e., include and love the homosexual but condemn the behavior! (How "workable" is THAT?) Instead, I believe gays will resign in disgust. Who could blame them? After all, if the Roman Catholic Church mandates that it discriminate against gays, then what gay will serve and enforce discriminatory policies against gays? For those unfamiliar w/ The Holy See's egregious edicts and writings about homosexuals wherein the Vatican uses the strongest of Canon Law wording against homosexuals, such as "violence against children," "immoral," I strongly urge you read some of these documents: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega... (wherein the Vatican rails against homosexual unions/marriage and their parenting, as last visited Thursday, March 16, 2006) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega... (wherein the Vatican rails against Roman Catholic voters and politicians who do not vote within the Roman Catholic religious tenets, as last visited August 4, 2004) http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?r... (an unofficial English from Italian translation of The Holy See's Congregation for Catholic Education - Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders, wherein Rome prohibits homosexuals from entering their religious training for the priesthood but does not restrict homosexuals presently w/i the Church, all of which is allegedly a "curative measure" against priest pedophilia, as last visited Wednesday, November 30, 2005)  Gay Unions/Marriage legally grant the parties the right to parent, which is u/ attack by the ultra-conservative Christian rightwing; therefore, the ultra-conservative Christian rightwing have chosen to attack the other legal avenue of "gay parenting," so-called "gay adoptions." . .
What did U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes say in his famous Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919) dissent? Oh, yes, tis far better to have more information published than it is to have information suppressed/censored. Indeed. Justice Holmes opined that our first amendment's freedom of speech infers it is far better to have a "marketplace of ideas" thus a free flow of ideas, information, publications than it is to censor the minds of the public. With that in mind, has anyone wondered what the hell all this extremist Islamic behavior is in reaction of? And, most importantly, why have "news media" suppressed what's at issue about all the vitriol? all the riots? all the killings? In other words, have you seen these editorial cartoons that are at issue across the globe?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Post... (as last visited, Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 3:00 AM EST) See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_t... (as last visited, Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 3:30 AM EST) "This is the time line of the 2006 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The cartoons were first published by Jyllands-Posten in late September 2005; approximately two weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in Copenhagen. In November, several European newspapers re-published the images, triggering more protests. Labour strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and several organizations criticized the Danish government. More protests occurred in January 2006, and later that month a boycott of Danish goods began. Several countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and widespread protests, some of them violent, began. The protests continued in February. In Damascus, Syria, both the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish, and Chilean embassies were stormed and set afire by protesters. The Danish General Consulate in Beirut was burned down by more than 10,000 protesters." (further list of violent acts are being updated by wikipedia writers as they occur) For further overview about all the violence, boycotts, and the editorial cartoons at issue, please see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/ja... (mp3, streaming video/audio, transcript is available) Justice Holms' dissent wherein he opined about "a marketplace of ideas" can be read at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi... . .
Massachusetts -- the ONLY state in the country -- that grants marriage to same-sex couples, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. And, Massachusetts is a no-fault divorce state too. The highest divorce rates in the entire county -- fault or no-fault divorces -- occur in the bible-belt! The highest domestic violence occurs in the bible belt. The highest out-of-wedlock teenage births occur in the bible-belt. Shall I continue, because there's much, much more . . . as for same-sex marriage, why should THAT change the stats?  .
Folks are confused about marriage. Its definition. In other words, what is marriage? Most folks cannot define it, or when they try, it tumbles about confused. As a long time family law attorney, this hits directly in my professional field. I strongly urge you and others to read the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Massachusetts highest court) Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) opinion. Seriously! Why do I recommend this? Because it acknowledges the origins of marriage, it defines marriage, it educates and fully informs what marriage really is . . . then it interprets the definition of marriage as to state laws and the Massachusetts constitution. Once thoroughly read and analyzed, I am sure that you will have a better understanding of the "Institution of Marriage" (legal words, btw). So, take some time, pull up a comfy chair; the SJC's opinion is here (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003). I will leave you with a few additional words. Marriage in America is a construct of law, not of religion. Our (state) governments, through our state legislative bodies, pass laws authorizing who has the power to marry couples, who may be married, under what circumstances marriage occurs, and other terms and conditions of marriage. No religion has that authority (power), unless a state, through its laws, grants a religion such authority, i.e., says that priests or rabbis or whomever may perform the marriage ceremony. It has NEVER been the reverse in America. NEVER. Similarly, only states through their legislative bodies have the authority to dissolve marriage. No religion has that authority (power) to do so, and never has had that authority in America. In short, marriage is wholly a state legal entity, period. A couple may choose to be married u/ the state laws in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. Either marriage ceremony becomes legal and binding marriage contract ONLY if it complies with the state laws of that state in which the couple were married, period. When you read Goodridge it will give you a deep and clear understanding of "what is marriage." And, you will have an understanding that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court analyzed legislative-made laws to the Massachusetts constitution, thus ruling that same-sex couples had to be included in marriage, not a lesser defined entity such as "civil unions." Of course, the Court's opinion cannot (and did not) force marriage ceremonies upon the religious clergy that have been granted the authority to perform marriages u/ Massachusetts laws. Instead, religions may refuse to perform such ceremonies due to the state (and federal) freedom of religion protections. One last word, as you are reading Goodridge, note that courts interpret laws including the constitution. And, that our constitutions (both state and federal) are written to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.  ______________ edited to include graphic .
  VATICAN BANS HOMOSEXUALS, November 29, 2005
(a written transcript of this NewsHour program follows  KWAME HOLMAN (NewsHour introduction): The Vatican's latest move to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood came in a long-awaited eight-page document. The Catholic Church's new policy paper was published today after weeks of leaks and rumors. Under the new instruction, the Church said it cannot admit to the seminary and to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called "gay culture." But the Church also said men may be ordained if they clearly overcome their transitory gay tendencies for three years before becoming a deacon, the last step before priesthood. The document which reinforced previous statements by the Vatican made no reference to men already in the priesthood. It did say that the Vatican considers deep-seated homosexual tendencies a disorder. It was the first major ruling of Pope Benedict XVI's tenure. Work on the document began under John Paul II's papacy. Reaction among Catholics in Rome was mixed. PHILLIPE (Translated): A priest must be psychologically balanced. And it is the reason why in my opinion this document had to be released. FATHER KEITH PECKLERS: There's a certain implication in the document that homosexuals, gays and lesbians, are not capable of living affectively mature -- emotionally mature lives. And, of course, we know from modern psychology and just from the lives of gay men and lesbians that many do indeed live very faithful, generous lives. KWAME HOLMAN: Release of the ruling follows revelations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in parishes from Boston to Los Angeles, which first came to light in 2002. Many of the claims involved the abuse of adolescent boys by priests. In today's publication, the Vatican said the question of homosexuality and the priesthood was, quote, made more urgent by the present situation. Priests discuss the Vatican directiveMARGARET WARNER (NewsHour interviewer): For more now on the significance and implications of the new Vatican directive, we turn to Father Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, and editor-in-chief of Ignatius Press, a Catholic publishing house. He is also a close friend and former theology student of Pope Benedict. And Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author of "In Good Company: The Fast Track from the Corporate World to Poverty, Chastity and Obedience." He also writes for America Magazine, a Catholic weekly. Welcome to you both. . . . snip (interview pursues) at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/ju... . . . . . |
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
