Archive for the ‘Church State Separation’ category

Overdramatic Rand Paul Anti-Choice E-mail

January 16, 2012

While it can be fun and more that a little educational to get the occasional conservative newsletter, just to see how far out and paranoid they can get, I don’t remember exactly what I did to deserve this nutty anti-choice email from Rand Paul. Though, it is easy to see that the acorn doesn’t fall too far from the old tree.

“In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over. “

Geesh, over dramatic much? Who’s grovelling? It’s called the law. And, from what I Grok from the rest of the paranoid gibberish, Paul the Lesser seems to think that a “Life Begins at Conception” petition will magically make abortion just go away by means of the equal protection of ‘persons’ language of the 14th Amendment.

“A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”  “

Hey, isn’t that one of those pesky amendments that his dad doesn’t like? Aren’t the states supposed to regulate that?

Is it Fair to Ask Bachmann about Her Religion?

August 17, 2011

Recently, Byron York of the Washington Examiner asked Michelle Bachmann to elaborate on her previous claim that she was “submissive” to her husband, and if this would translate to her being submissive as President. Much offense was taken to York’s question, but,  is it fair to ask Michelle Bachmann about her beliefs? Well, I say if a candidate chooses to make official policy decisions based upon a belief in punishment by an invisible entity in a some particular concept of an afterlife, well then, yeah. I would not only think, but hope, that people would be interested. Especially when there’s so much disagreement even among believers as to what any of these beliefs actually mean, let alone how one should act if the adopt such beliefs.

And questioning politicians about submissiveness based on their religious beliefs is not new. During the 1960 presidential debates,  John F Kennedy was asked about his Roman Catholic faith, and whether or not he would just blindly follow anything the pope happened to mutter that day. He claimed he wouldn’t, though I suspect that John XXIII was the one that told JFK to “go ahead and hit that” when he saw Marilyn Monroe.

It’s pretty easy to see that the current gay marriage issue is being decided entirely on religious beliefs, whether politicians are willing to come clean about it or not. It would be naive to think that a politician’s world view does not affect their politics. I mean, once you accept that invisible creatures are running the earth and that you are their servant, only you don’t really know what they want, but rather must infer it based upon 2,000 year old writings and your own “gut feel” as to their interpretation … yeah, important to know.

Especially Michelle Bachmann is one of those that thinks god actually tells her what to do


Bachmann recounted how as a college student she decided to marry Marcus not because of a “romantic surge,” but because God had given her a vision that she was to marry him. God “began to create in us and to perfect for us what his plan was for us,” she added. Bachmann the college student didn’t want to go to law school, but nonetheless she said God led her to Oral Roberts University, the first “Christian” law school “where they taught law from a biblical worldview.” When Marcus told her she should get an additional degree in tax law, she exclaimed, “Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

Loving v Prop 8

June 15, 2011

Roy Zimmerman comments on the Loving v Virginia case and it’s similarities to Prop 8 in his usual funny yet poignant way. Great video, Roy!

The song is on this album which I absolutely love:

National Day of Reason 2011

May 2, 2011

If you’re in Minneapolis/St Paul, join some fellow freethinkers for the National Day of Reason at the MN State Capitol on Thursday (5/5/2011) in the Rotunda over the lunch hour.

Of, if there are any non-Christian religious individuals out there that willing to show up at the Day of Prayer on the capitol front lawn, you could round up as many Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Shintos, witch doctors, fire walkers, or snake handlers as possible to perform your own version of prayer right next to the Protestants who claim the Day or Prayer is for everybody.