Welcome back!

It sure has been nice though to visit this site the past few days without all the spams from BUSHYWUSHY and the mile long garbage from all the anon's. Hope you can keep it this way.

Bushywush was getting annoying.
I'm glad we can go back to bashing Ayatollah Ulbermani!

It is still so amazing that so many do not see what this site is all about. An MSNBC enabled nut that night after night bashes Bush and the entire Republican party on a supposedly reputable cable news channel.

Just the fact that there is never an opposing view is surprising enough, but that his attacks are almost always personal. Maybe Fox attacks the left, but it is usually fact-based, and not just merely to hurt someone personally.

There are so many reasons that Olby's show is a total joke. There is no other show like it that even comes close on the opposing side. Nor will there ever be.

Bushywush was getting annoying.
I'm glad we can go back to bashing Ayatollah Ulbermani!

I agree........I'm glad there will be no spam.

You people are all pathetic.

A bunch of racist pricks with nothing better to do than pick on a show you insist no one cares about.

Did you ever notice the map of the red and blue states goes something like this?:

Red states: Inbred hillbillies that think they are the country's moral police. No culture, no intelligence, just evangelical bull$hit.

Blue states: Places of higher learning and thought where most REAL moral change occurs. Having without a doubt the best schools, museums and hospitals.

I wonder where most of you ass-backward idiots are from?

"It sure has been nice though to visit this site the past few days without all the spams from BUSHYWUSHY and the mile long garbage from all the anon's. Hope you can keep it this way."

Yes, let's please keep any viewpoint other than the childish "orange man" or whatever you people say out of the picture.

Isn't that exactly why most of you people hate this show? No differing views?

Hypocrites, every last one of you LOSERS.

We all have plenty else to do. We probably spend less than 0.01% of our time on this site. And we are critical of Olby's show without the use of expletives, or other derisive remarks such as those you find necessary to express your views.

Try for once truth teller to defend Olbys' antics in a logical and meaningful way. Maybe we are all hypocrites. That still would not preclude you from rising above, and providing a rational and coherent defense of your hero: Keith Olbermann.

Jim

Here's a good exercise for you: Truth Teller. Count up all the personal attacks against Bill O'Reilly by Keith, and all the magazine and newspaper editorials lambasting Bill O and Fox over the past 5 years. Then count up all the newspaper editorials, etc. personally attacking Keith and MSNBC, and the number of times Bill O has personally attacked Keith ( by name ). Then give us a report on liberal bias in the media.

I hope you don't consider the spammers repeating the same line over and over in one post 600 times from some offshore site an alternative point of view.

Truth teller: Just try being civilized for just one post that is over a few lines long. Betcha can't!!

And the Emmy for lowest rated, orange hue, bottom feeder, goes to Krazy Keith!

Truth Teller writes:

"Blue states: Places of higher learning and thought where most REAL moral change occurs"

Oh, are you talking about states like New York, Mr. Teller, the home of the last place and mentally ill, Mr. Olbermann? You know, Mr. Olbermann, who fires off Nazi salutes, the recognized symbol of hatred towards Jews, in public, then tries to laugh it off by saying that he was waving "yo-hoo" to a friend. Then when his little joke bombs, he disingenuously tries to peddle his bogus story that the Nazi salute was justified because O'Reilly "defended Nazis", a filthy lie that has been discredited elsewhere on this site. The ADL has admonished this agent of so-called "REAL moral change", but, in true Olbermann style, he steadfastly refuses to apologize for or even ackknowledge his act of despicable insensitivity. Yes, some representative of "REAL moral change" your hero Olbermann is. "Moral change" that seeks to justify persecution against religious minorities rather than repenting and asking forgiveness for such dastardly acts.

Truth teller,
It's the Red Staers that defend this country and prevent the Jihadis from overruning this country.
If it was up the the Blue Stae Jihadi loving cowards We'd be an Islamic state and answering the call to prayer 5X a day!
Hey Blue Staters are so pusst that Blue State NY is where the Jihadis struck knocked down the towers and you cowards beg for peace.
The Blue Staes should just seceed from the Union and establih your little Jihadi paradise so we can Militarily crush you cowards!

Truth teller,
It's the Red Staers that defend this country and prevent the Jihadis from overruning this country.
If it was up the the Blue Stae Jihadi loving cowards We'd be an Islamic state and answering the call to prayer 5X a day!
Hey Blue Staters are so pusst that Blue State NY is where the Jihadis struck knocked down the towers and you cowards beg for peace.
The Blue Staes should just seceed from the Union and establih your little Jihadi paradise so we can Militarily crush you cowards!

Hank:

A very well thought out, lucid dissertation regarding a myriad of opinions on the state of the cable news business today, in particular, Countdown. And, in addition, you were able to convey your thoughts without expletives, poor grammar, and, otherwise crude behavior. Thanks, and I hope this sets an example to all the future spammers, and offshore hacks.

"Moral change" that seeks to justify persecution against religious minorities rather than repenting and asking forgiveness for such dastardly acts.

You wanna talk about persecution? Let's talk about the Baptist church in Mississippi that threw a 12-year-old boy out of their congregation because he's biracial and the church didn't want his black relatives attending.

Or the Jewish family in Delaware who was forced to move because the school district where they lived promoted Christianity so heavily that the two children were effectively isolated and ridiculed.

Or the fact that the Federal Government will give you grant money for school if you are in any science program EXCEPT evolutionary biology.

Try to put your house in order first.

Your 3 anecdotal examples are surely representative of our world today. I am going to start on my house right now!!

The left-leaners on this board simply can't take rational argument, so they resort to calling us "red-staters" and "hillbillies" and so-forth.

"Or the fact that the Federal Government will give you grant money for school if you are in any science program EXCEPT evolutionary biology."

Typical. Tell me sir, when did it become the standard measure of discrimination whether you can get a grant or not? First off, I really don't think our government needs to be handing out grants for things that are essentially antithetical to our own founding. Like it or not, the founders of this country were overwhelmingly Christian and evolutionary speculation really has nothing to do with these beliefs and is perhaps even against them, depending on who you ask.

"Or the Jewish family in Delaware who was forced to move because the school district where they lived promoted Christianity so heavily that the two children were effectively isolated and ridiculed."

And? I don't really get your point? You want the government to pass laws that says white children can't make fun of Jews? I'm not saying I'd do it, that was rude. But again, this nation is predominantly white and predominantly christian, and has been since the founding. What is your point?

"You wanna talk about persecution? Let's talk about the Baptist church in Mississippi that threw a 12-year-old boy out of their congregation because he's biracial and the church didn't want his black relatives attending."

Again, a church is a private organization and it can do what it wants. Lots of people believe the races should not mix, and they are entitled to that belief. Again, I think most of the founders would have said racial mixing was an evil.

Can anybody tell me what it is to be a good American today? Here are some of the politically correct traits, as defined by our media, that constitutes a good American: acceptance of feminism, acceptance of abortion, acceptance of interracial mixing, hatred of Christianity, and acceptance of equality. Now given that, then Moslems would not make good Americans, but then too, neither are Christians or anybody of a religious faith that tends to restrict unrestrained hedonism. Only a Moslem can live in a Moslem society and nowhere else. The same for White Christians. Judaic control of a society is a society without God and a society without God tolerates no religions.

Ever notice how so many Blue Staters who vote liberal decide to essentially vote with their feet and move to Red states? Hey Blue Staters - you made your socialist bed so sleep in it!

"Judaic control of a society is a society without God"

I think you mean "liberal"

Just answer this for me: What is the one religion depicted in the liberal controlled media that shows it's teachers and followers as predators or buffoons? If you think this is a true representation of Christianity why would the liberal controlled media have this right and everything else about the whiteman wrong?

The liberals control the media and present to us what they want us to believe. It's called brainwashing.
Christianity is attacked at all levels in liberal programming, as is the whiteman.
You do not need extensive studies in theology to recognize this attack on Christianity everytime you turn on the TV, radio, see a movie, or read a liberal media controlled publication. No other belief system is attacked in liberal controlled media.

For this reason one can reasonably suspect that the liberals have some complaint against Christianity and that they desire the truth of it be suppressed (per usual).

Since the attack on Christianity (and no other religion) by the liberals is so blatant why wouldn't non-believers support Christianity to overcome the liberals, rather than attack Christianity along with the liberals.

So if everybody gets together and prays enough, the liberals will just disappear? Please, tell me how much the liberals fear a religion they created.

Everything the liberal does is determined by self-interest. They are interested in only promoting themselves and making money and when something is no longer useful to them they cast it aside.

Their own creation, the Church, is now a liability to them but while they eat at its root they will also fall with it. Thus goes the story of the liberals parasiting on and destroying what supports them. As they turn their backs on Christianity, the very thing which propped up the Jew and lent him legitimacy will cease to exist.

exactly -- Christianity provides a philosophical reason for the liberals to be a protected class. Without Christianity the Liberal would not hold hypnotic power. they'd be nothing. And I don't need to be fed crap about "blood libel" and "passion of the christ" and junk. the whole "jesus was a liberal" thing has overpowered the minds of most christians, christian identity seems like such a stretch it isn't even funny, and even pre-vatican 2 christianity doesn't provide ENOUGH punch to beat the Liberal.

Well, that is just what got Olberman's panties in such a bunch when BO was saying that it is not a Christian principal to admit illegal aliens into this country. Sure Jesus would give food to the thirsty and drink to the hungry, etc... but that does not mean if Al qaeda is hungry and thristy, they're getting the goods.

What liberals like Olberman cannot understand is that you are doing injustice to others, to your own people, when you conduct this extreme kind of "charity." And it extends a lot further than that case.

I think you're missing the point on the so called attacks on christianity by the so called liberal media and liberals themselves. I personally don't have problems with ones religious views. Catholic, Christiab, Muslim whatever......a littel side note- I firmly believe your religous beliefs are more or less determined by where you grew up and who you were raised by.....but anyway, I think most of the "attacks" towards christianity is not an attack at the religion itself, it's more the high profile representatives such as Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson who make controversial statements, usually at the most inopportune times that draws the ire from most people who are of the nonchristian faith. Plus, most other religious groups do not try to muscle there views into politics like people of christian groups do, such as abortion, death penalty, border patrol, stem cell research, etc.........

As for Orions comment that liberals only have self interests about making money.....this couldn't be farther from the truth.......and if you're going to make that statement provide some examples........because when I think of politicians with special interests I think of Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, George Bush, etc, etc........

The idea after all is freedom of religion which I interpret as no religion shall make their views into law that is govered by the people, meaning this country is built on choice...we left the mother country hundred of years ago to get away from religous views becoming law.

And as for the comment made by another anon.....where liberal can't argue with any rational........look at some of the other comments that have viscious attacks mostly aimed at me.......and before everyone gets upset...I din take part in a lot of it, but I hope we can have discussions like this and not raise and fire the missiles at each other.

"I think you're missing the point on the so called attacks on christianity by the so called liberal media and liberals themselves. I personally don't have problems with ones religious views. Catholic, Christiab, Muslim whatever"

That is exactly the point. You don't see any difference between Catholics, Christiabs, Muslims,...you also don't see any difference between natives and aliens, between working and welfare, between whites and blacks, between abstinence and abortion, homos and regular people, sex and rape, men and women...you don't see any differences AT ALL. That's the problem. You are the modern multicultural liberal. You are the Olbermen, which is just a cruel ironic twist of Nietsche's Uberman.

Let me clear things up for you a bit. This country is predominantly Christian. It is predominantly straight. It is predominantly white. It is predominantly pro-life. It is predominantly peple who work...even if there are more and more leeches and immigrants every day.

"Plus, most other religious groups do not try to muscle there views into politics like people of christian groups do, such as abortion, death penalty, border patrol, stem cell research, etc........."

Really? Tell me why laws prohibiting abortion were overturned. Certainly not because a Christian group insisted on it.

As far as I know, no large Christian group is trying to get the death penalty overturned. Nope, that would be liberal groups.

Most of the debate on illegal immigration amnesty has come from the left, not the right.

So, who is it that's trying to muscle their way into politics here? Are you suggesting that Christians' views are inappropriate in the public realm? If so, better burn that nasty Constitution! Moreover, you might think about going down to the ghetto and telling them that Martin Luther King, Jr. was full of shit.

"you might think about going down to the ghetto and telling them that Martin Luther King, Jr. was full of shit."

That is as dead on a statement as I've seen here. You'd be tossed in a giant stew pot with a watermelon on your head. According to the liberal media, every view is allowed in this hallowed state of tolerance EXCEPT for the interests of regular christian whites. If two interracial lesbians want to marry, we're supposed to clap our hands and say hooray and hand over some nice white babies for them to raise. If we say, O.K., in return we want separate schools where our children don't have to see that kind of filth and they can pray and celebrate their european heritage WOW! You won't believe the screetchy reaction.

Regular Christian Whites will shut up when all you pathetic mongrel liberals do the same and keep your filth out of our lives.

Dave, et al

For what has got to be the tenth or twelfth time, THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." - Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, Ratified in 1797 by unanimous consent.

The founders were DEISTS - they believed in a higher power, but that higher power was NOT NECESSARILY THE CHRISTIAN FORM OF GOD. In fact, the word "God" never appears in the Constitution of the United States. The Constituion itself is a wholly secular document.

The Declaration of Independence refers to a "Creator", but only in a very general sense and it is not a "legal" document in that it has no force of law (it was an expression of discontent with the policies of the British crown).

Read the essays by Jefferson and Madison on the subject. Or Rev. Issac Backus' "An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty" from 1773.

I've read your points and I think you(Orion & Matticus Fitch) are missing my point....

First off orion- you say-
That is exactly the point. You don't see any difference between Catholics, Christiabs, Muslims,...you also don't see any difference between natives and aliens, between working and welfare, between whites and blacks, between abstinence and abortion, homos and regular people, sex and rape, men and women...you don't see any differences AT ALL. That's the problem. You are the modern multicultural liberal. You are the Olbermen, which is just a cruel ironic twist of Nietsche's Uberman.

This statement is ridiculous...yes I do know the difference between these things, claiming that conservatives, christians, and republicans, or should I say non-liberals are the only ones who understand the difference is an amazingingly ignorant statement. The fact is I, as well as other liberals, know the difference.

Before I argue my point why don't you tell me what the differences are, I would like to see where your ideas come from.

The next statement-
Let me clear things up for you a bit. This country is predominantly Christian. It is predominantly straight. It is predominantly white. It is predominantly pro-life. It is predominantly peple who work...even if there are more and more leeches and immigrants every day.

This is 100% correct except for two points. ! the nation is predominantly pro-life......this is untrue, look at polls across this country and they will tell you, even in the red states that people do not want the courts to overturn roe v wade. Finally your last statement is not worth commenting on before you define what a leech is?

Matticus-
as for your statments-

Really? Tell me why laws prohibiting abortion were overturned. Certainly not because a Christian group insisted on it.
Okay tell what group and who financially backed the process of having a law against late term abortions......

As far as I know, no large Christian group is trying to get the death penalty overturned. Nope, that would be liberal groups.
No,certainly good christian groups would never fight to overturn a ban on the death penalty that kills people in an inhumane way and relies on an unreliable sytem that has been proven to kill innocent people, that of course would be unchristian like?

Most of the debate on illegal immigration amnesty has come from the left, not the right.
Thank god for liberal...I would like to know why your against illegal immigration before I continue the arguement.

Are you suggesting that Christians' views are inappropriate in the public realm? If so, better burn that nasty Constitution! Moreover, you might think about going down to the ghetto and telling them that Martin Luther King, Jr. was full of shit.
No I would never burn the constitution, I try to live by it everyday, freedom of choice, freddom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms.......I think liberels are the only ones who are trying to preserve this.......and as far as telling people in the ghetto MLK is full of shit....why would we do that...thank the LORD ALMIGHTY for him..........

..and back to orion-

You'd be tossed in a giant stew pot with a watermelon on your head.......

okay this is not very christian like is it...

I believe some of the statements you make are filled with hate and are reason for concern..

*********************************************************************************************************
COUNTDOWN CONSPIRACY ALERT COUNTDOWN CONSPIRACY ALERT COUNTDOWN CONSPIRACY ALERT
*********************************************************************************************************

Dear Countdown fans,

John Mark Karr was RELEASED today with no DNA match. Now, WHAT IS THE CONSPIRACY! We NEED TO KNOW! Did Cheney use Karr to cover up a Halliburton situation? Did Bush use Karr to cover up the anniversary of Katrina? Of course, the administration was using this story as a smoke screen for Iraq as well.

Dear friends, we need the clarity of Countdown now more than ever. Please watch!

Love and kisses

The Olbermann Fan Club

Hey Orion you idiot, Whites got Christianity from the Romans who were Latin and Greek. Christianity is a Judiac religion based on the belief that Jesus(Yeshua) was the Jewish Messiah. It spraed because it wasn't a belief system just for Jews, but for Gentiles also. It was a religion that united Jews and Gentiles. Jesus was a jew from the Middle East. If you want to celebrate a White Heritagen religion, Worship Odin you ignorant scum!

BUSHYWUSHY,
Screw you too. You're a Jihadis supporting Leftists. Islam is the only religion that the left tolerates and many Christians and Real Jews are getting tired of your Jihadis loving ilk!

Mr. Cox,

Welcome back. I believe you have some work to do re: Brian Stelter of TVNewser. There's a new article slobbering all over him today at http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B54FB200D-2164-4678-AAA1-C1F1E38721E9%7D&keyword=

And he's been up to his usual tricks, promoting MSNBC to death and towing the company line. Olbermann had two of his all-time worst ratings nights (including a fifth-place finish in Stelter's coveted demo) and he ignored it, and in fact intentionally omitted CNBC ratings that day until an uproar over at ICN forced his hand.

Then, as usual, he edited the post and took out his prior B.S. explanation that he "didn't receive the CNBC numbers." That was a curious explanation since he had CNBC's total day numbers posted all day, but omitted the hourlies since it was so embarrassing to Olbermann.

Go get 'em! :-)

I need screen grabs for that - do you have them?

I wish I did.

This is the post I'm talking about: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_tuesday_august_22_42604.asp#

At first, it had no CNBC numbers except total day. Then, he added an update somewhere around 11:00 a.m. saying he didn't have the numbers. Then, he took off the update and posted the numbers without explanation some time late in the afternoon.

This ICN thread alerted me to another case of TVNewser hiding bad news for MSNBC until he got called out on it. It even has comments from Stelter himself. Notice how the ICN guy immediately comes to his defense and makes new rules for the site.

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/08/21/petition-started-to-keep-msnbc-on-xm/

I update this post - the hosting company for that site has removed that site for violating their user agreement.

That is funny! I guess that guy wasn't as "invincible" as he thought!

"You people are all pathetic.

A bunch of racist pricks with nothing better to do than pick on a show you insist no one cares about.

Did you ever notice the map of the red and blue states goes something like this?:

Red states: Inbred hillbillies that think they are the country's moral police. No culture, no intelligence, just evangelical bull$hit.

Blue states: Places of higher learning and thought where most REAL moral change occurs. Having without a doubt the best schools, museums and hospitals.

I wonder where most of you ass-backward idiots are from?

Posted by: Truth teller at August 27, 2006 07:52 PM"

Racist like Robert "KKK" Byrd or like Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson? You enlightened type also have most of the rapists,drug dealer/gangs,killers,welfare recipients, abortions, schools no one wants to teach in, schools no one wants to attend living in your areas. Moral courage like abortion? And could you give even 1 example of some redstater trying to be the "moral police". Should be easy big mouth. Places of higher learning have become a joke, pretty much like your narrow minded, stereotypical, intolerant rant. Ward Churchill sit down!

Are You that punk A** gothic retard
talkin through your butt again

You people need to get jobs. Seriously, get a job and stop worrying about "liberals."

"No I would never burn the constitution, I try to live by it everyday, freedom of choice, freddom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms.......I think liberels are the only ones who are trying to preserve this.......and as far as telling people in the ghetto MLK is full of shit....why would we do that...thank the LORD ALMIGHTY for him.........."

So you just have a problem with Christians with whom you disagree. Pretty tolerant of you! Your truth is clear: the marketplace of ideas is for everyone except for conservative Christians. If a Christian movement gathers steam within our political system, it's a danger. Unless it's MLK. Or the Unitarians.

Oh, and please don't tell me that the liberals are leading the charge to protect an American's right to bear arms.

"...I would like to know why your against illegal immigration before I continue the arguement."

Ummm. Because it's illegal.

"Your truth is clear: the marketplace of ideas is for everyone except for conservative Christians. "

I think you are to charitable to the liberals. There is no place for christianity, true. There is also no place for racial pride for regualr whites. We are guilty by birth, and are supposed to spend all our time apologizing for our higher position. As for the idea that this nation was founded as a "deist" country, that too is ridiculous the way you interpret it. The founders were CHRISTIAN, except perhaps for Thomas Jefferson, fountainhead of the long line of mullatto Jeffersons and basic degenerate. The language may have been "inclusive," but that is only because they never could have conceived that this would ever become an issue. I'm not saying they did not intend tolerance for other religions, but the idea that Christians can not pray in schools is not what they had in mind.

Rights in this country are for everyone EXCEPT whites and Christians. MLK proves the point that if you are black and Christian, then you can bring that to politics, but if whites do it, look out.

As for the idea that this nation was founded as a "deist" country, that too is ridiculous the way you interpret it

I didn't say that it was. I said that the nation's founding document (The Constitution) is a SECULAR document, which does not recognize any one religion as the dominant religion.

Washington, jefferson, Franklin and Paine were all deist.

As was James madison

As was James madison

John Adams: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."

Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

"But if whites do it, look out."

Unless, of course, you're gay. Then it's okay to inject religion into politics.

I have to part ways with you on the 'mulatto' comments you make. However, I would be hypocritical to chastise you for your beliefs. My belief is that we're all God's children, regardless of color, and he loves us equally. I do, however, agree that 'majority guilt' is something that has gone on for far too long. If we happen to disagree with a liberal, we're fascists. If we happen to disagree with a black liberal, we're racists. If we happen to disagree with a homosexual liberal, we're homophobes. If we happen to disagree with abortion, we're anti-woman.

From the treaty of Tripoli

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

disagree with a liberal, we're fascists. If we happen to disagree with a black liberal, we're racists. If we happen to disagree with a homosexual liberal, we're homophobes.

If a liberal disagrees on the millitary he is pro-terroist, if he wants some govermnet intervention on anyhting he is a communist. This goes both ways. the problem of course is basically grouping the entire spectrum of conservative and liberla thought in two and only two categories.

Right, anon. I agree with you. I can't stand it when conservatives (and liberals) resort to such tactics. Look, conservatives like me have our ideas. Liberals have their ideas. The problem arises when one movement's ideas are the majority. Because, like it or not, majority rules; that's democracy. That's why we have a majority in the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Luckily, our nation has allowed for the free exchange of ideas via free speech.

Let's see if TVNewser says anything about Olbermann finishing 4th in total viewers and this "demo" Stelter is always talking about. He made a big deal out of it when Olbermann finished second in the select demo, and it's virtually guaranteed that the kid will be silent this time around.

There is nothing to be gained from reading this sycophantic drivel. The most pathetic element of this entire site is in it's shear stupidity.

There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic.

I would hate to think that any of you believe yourselves to be Christians or upstanding representatives of the Christian community. Jesus, were he not emphatically dead, would have nothing to do with you, your non-causes, or your tactics. All you do is call people names. Your only impetus is immature and empty.

You are pathetically consumed by hatred. You dislike something, so you have nothing better to do with your time than to obsess over it and make pithy comments about it? How stupid. How irresponsible. How lazy.

Try doing Jesus a favor, can you handle that? Go do something productive and humanitarian with your time. Try some altruism.

Sarah- I agree 100%

MUSHYWUSHY, go heed her advice, then.

BTW, so much of her post described Olby so perfectly, it is, well, in her words: Pathetic.

"The most pathetic element of this entire site is in it's shear stupidity."

"Shear" stupidity? Hahahahaha!

"the nation's founding document (The Constitution) is a SECULAR document, which does not recognize any one religion as the dominant religion"

I might agree that The Constitution is a "secular" document if I were clear on what you mean by "secular" document. I might dispute the premise of your point - that the nation's founding document is The Constitution - because it leaves out the Declaration of Independence which articulates the premise on which the founders felt it was necessary to "dissolve the political bands" with England. I believe you can only understand the latter in the context of the former -- the rights described in the Bill of Rights do not exist BECAUSE of the Constitution but are designed to protect rights that are truths that are self-evident; that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

It is true that the Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Convention was basically a set of by-laws under which the various mechanisms of government were described. Yet the Constitution that was ultimately ratified by the states included the Bill of Rights. While you might be able to argue that the original draft was "secular" what was eventually ratified would not fit that description because the "Rights" enumerated are based on a conception of human rights described in the Declaration. Regardless, that the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) as ratified by the states does not recognize any particular religion does not mean it is devoid of religious content or, somehow, is atheist or endorses atheism or agnosticism.

In fact, the supposed "deism" of the founding fathers actually UNDERMINES the argument of whoever is tossing that out to support whatever argument it is people are attempting to make here. The reason? That a handful of founding fathers were "deist" suggests that the rest were not. If the religious beliefs of the founding fathers somehow informs the debate then the preponderance of denominational Christians involved in the creation of the United States of America suggests that the deists were a significant minority and that most of the "framers" were, in fact, religious/Christians.

It is also worth noting that Jefferson was in France during the entire "framing" period and had no direct input into the crafting of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The nature of his religious beliefs are irrelevant here with regard to the Constitution. That he commented, after the fact, in a letter (a letter oft-cited by "judicial activists") is besides the point.

All this aside, I wonder if folks here realize how absurd it is to debate whether the laws of the land today precisely reflect the views of the founding fathers. Many of the founding fathers could not stand each other and violently disagreed with each other on most aspects of the document they eventually ratified. The final product was the result of argument, negotiation, factionalism and compromise. In the months after the Constitution was passed at the Constitutional Convention, the state legislatures weighed in and the debate became even uglier and prolonged with many states initially refusing to ratify the Constitution. It is worth noting that what many feel are the most precious rights protected by the Constitution - freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc - are not contained in the Constitution proper but were added later in the Bill of Rights.

That the most oft-cited parts of the Constitution were not actually part of the original draft submitted to the states for ratification ought to say something about the flexible nature of the original document. This, in turn, ought to suggest that a discussion about framers original intent is a red herring and begs the question "which framers?" on "which issue?"

That said, it is to fail to read the actual document to claim that the Constitution as ratified (i.e., with the Bill of Rights attached) is "secular" if by that one means "atheist" or devoid of theological precepts.