Video: O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly yell at each other some more over atheism
posted at 3:00 pm on December 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
If God does exist and I end up in hell, part of the punishment will be having to watch people try to explain the First Amendment to O’R for eternity. And maybe to me too, because I still can’t quite parse whether Kelly’s approaching this as a religion case or a free speech case. She’s using the lingo of the latter (e.g., “viewpoint discrimination”) but the state’s concern has more to do with the former, that they’ll be guilty of endorsing faith if they don’t let atheists have their little spite display in the lobby. Since favoring religion over nonbelief or one religion over another will always amount to viewpoint discrimination, which clause really applies here — Free Speech or Establishment?
Also, is it true that there’s no viewpoint discrimination going on? Kelly’s right that the state acted evenhandedly in closing off the display area to future submissions regardless of viewpoint, but why’d they make that move now? Hmmm:
The moratorium affects at least five pending requests for displays, and none will be allowed this year, Valandra said. But a previously approved request to display a menorah will be allowed to go up Dec. 21…
The decision came a day after a formal application from the controversial Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, which asked to include a message that included references to Santa, rape and “God’s hate.” Other requests that will be rejected under the moratorium is a Kansas group’s request for a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” display, which is meant as a parody of creationism; a Buddhist request for a display; and a Christian goodwill message to atheists.
Exit question: If it’s really all about logistics and running out of space, why not rotate out the exhibits that are already there and rotate these in?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Don’t you try any of your fancy logic on us Allah!
Almost forgot… /sarc
Geministorm on December 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I know that the whole “Church of FSM” thing is a jab at Christians, but somehow I just can’t get worked up into a lather over it. It’s funny.
Besides, wouldn’t a “Spaghetti Tree” display be worth it just for the laughs?
wearyman on December 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Listening to an economist try to shove some sense in his big head is 10 times worse.
BadgerHawk on December 17, 2008 at 3:05 PM
When the religious right starting winning cases before the Supreme Court, the winning strategy was based on framing the issue as a “free speech” issue, as opposed to an establishment clause issue. So, Megan is right to frame the issue as one of free speech because that is where those cases have been litigated.
RedSoxNation on December 17, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Bill has never been more wrong.
Baphomet on December 17, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Also, it would be great if Fox would just get it over with and replace O’Reily with Megan. She is great.
RedSoxNation on December 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM
And for the record, any group wanting to put up an offensive or insulting scene should not be allowed. If it’s positive and in keeping with the spirit of the season, let it ride.
BadgerHawk on December 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM
baaah.
DrunkReport beat you on this one by 24 hours Allah.
do we get a prize?…
Drunk Report on December 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM
“Touched by his noodly appendage”
Sugarbuzz on December 17, 2008 at 3:08 PM
While Bill O’R is being obtuse about this I actually don’t understand why the government can’t require the various faux religions to have signs/symbols/whatever that celebrate their religion/their holiday rather than just mock Christianity. Or is that all their “religion” is – ridiculing Chritianity?
katiejane on December 17, 2008 at 3:08 PM
But, is saying that NO religious are allowed actually endorsing non-religion?
The primary issue I had with the athieist display was its open attack on religion. Was this not government “endorsing” the attack?
I still wonder if the state would have allowed displays from Muslims attacking the beliefs of Jews, if it had placards from Protestants attacking the beliefs of Catholics, so on and so forth.
The government should not elevate one religious preference over another and it should have avoided assisting in denigrating all religion over none.
SouthernRoots on December 17, 2008 at 3:10 PM
O’Reilly is wrong. Atheism is indeed a theistic perspective–that the metaphysical proposition “God exists” is false. If you make claims about the veracity of metaphysical propositions, you’re fully invested in the field. You might disagree with other metaphysicians, but you’re still one of them.
Also, I’ve been around more than long enough to know that in any such argument it’s usually best to take the side of the hot chick.
Blacklake on December 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM
What part of: “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” is so hard to understand?
Vashta.Nerada on December 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I don’t ever really listen to Barbie’s legal arguments; I just like to look at her. She’s fun to look at.
Jaibones on December 17, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I think I am agreeing with wearyman on the spaghetti “art work”, sort of interested in seeing that. As to O’Reilly, I suggest that you avoid any urge to let him give you tips on investing money also. Just mention Oil Companies (you don’t have to be specific) and stand by. All weather gear suggested.
Cindy Munford on December 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Leave it to an idiot governor to start all this crap in the first place. There is no legal requirement to allow anything in the capital that attacks anything/anyone/anywhatever.
This is what weak leadership and the threat of ACLU lawsuits get us.
BierManVA on December 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Christmas is a FEDERAL holiday. End of story. Not celebrating it would be tantamount to not celebrating MLK day, and requiring an atheist display would be equivalent to requiring a Robert Byrd display next to the MLK decorations.
jimmy the notable on December 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM
O/T but did anyone see Brit Hume’s segment on O’R yesterday? I caught it by accident (I don’t watch O’R as a rule).
Without even trying to Brit makes Bill look like an intellectual lightweight (which he is) as well as like a shallow tool. The latter was when, in response to Brit sharing that after next Tuesday (the last show) he’ll be focusing on the 3 G’s: grandkids, God, and golf, Bill O seemed really awkward about the bible study stuff and, rather than shut up, said kind of jokingly “will you pray for me?”
Has anyone heard who is replacing Brit or what will become of that show?
I miss Tony Snow and now Brit’s leaving. Really that only leaves Neil Cavuto as someone with some intellect and sense of decorum… although Neil does need to try to slow down a bit and interrupt less.
Y-not on December 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Yes.
Cindy Munford on December 17, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Because it’s a PITA. Season’s greetings to you!
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Cindy Munford on December 17, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Christmas is a secular holiday that we can all thank Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol for. All those trying to get the sanction of the state for their beliefs (or lack of same) should just chill and settle for Happy Holidays and Season’s Greetings in official space and celebrate it in their own way elsewhere.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Both. Really.
The government can’t endorse what the “the people” what to display on “Public Property” because of “Establishment”.
And the government can’t deny someone’s “right” to expression on public property because of “Free Speech”.
The problem is not that Atheists have a right to express their Atheism, but that that the government is endorsing this inappropriate Atheist attack on other belief systems. What this becomes is an “Establishment” problem in reverse.
The manger scene otherwise displayed is an obvious Christian theme but it does not attack anyone else’s belief system. The government isn’t endorsing Christianity by allowing the public to display this scene in the public square. The government is, however, endorsing Atheist citizen’s rights to attack other citizens in the public square.
This is little different from the government endorsing a nudist parade in public. One man’s freedom is another man’s offense.
Lawrence on December 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Do you think Christianity in America isn’t under attack?
This is total bullshit. Exactly the same as the attack on marriage. A very small vocal minority wants to stomp on Christian freedom of religion.
Go stomp on Islam you cowards!
kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM
If Christmas is a secular holiday then why do we have to settle for saying Happy Holidays and Season’s Greetings?
BadgerHawk on December 17, 2008 at 3:44 PM
That would be a significant improvement, even if their looks were reversed. Megan actually thinks, and does not worship Obama like BOR.
When AP is burning in hell, perhaps he will have to debate BOR on a range of topics.
Right_of_Attila on December 17, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I think the problem I have with the atheist display is it attacks Religion. A nativity scene does not attack other religions or non-religious beliefs.
saltydogg14 on December 17, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I love the faces she makes. Of course I like her face even when she isn’t contorting it.
- The Cat
MirCat on December 17, 2008 at 3:48 PM
That’s pretty sad.
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Bill is way out of his league here.
TheSitRep on December 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I was raised by Southern Baptist parents. However the church we attended suffered from one scandal after another, until I began to see everything colored in shades of hypocrisy in relation to the church.
Also, extremely devout people have always freaked me out. You know…the ones that kind of never look right at you when talking to you, they just stare past your right ear into the distance and somehow are ready to quote some obscure scripture at you for every situation.
Anyways, during my teen years I became a quiet atheist. “Quiet” meaning I did not feel a pressing need to force my “atheist-ness” on everyone around. During my 20’s/30’s, I became an agnostic. Now in my 40’s with a wife and child, I’m starting to swing back towards my Christian upbringing. I doubt I’ll ever be a holy roller, but I have always lived my life according to the Christian tenets I learned as a youth. And I probably will start going back to church.
Probably.
My point in that rambling diatribe is, at no time during my life (even during the atheist phase) have I felt that Christianity intruded into my life so badly that I had to protest it. The only reason I can fathom these people feel the need to do so is a) they are miserable little turds that want to spread their misery around, b) it’s fashionable to bash the religion that made this country great, c) they are too chickenshit to protest islam, or d)all of the preceding.
Sugarbuzz on December 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
But it makes them feel bad about themselves. Boo hoo.
katiejane on December 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I dont quite get any of this.
The Christmas Holiday, is by its name a Christian Holiday. What need is there for atheists to protest it with a thumb in the eye during Christmas?
Also, what other religions, other then Christian ones celebrate Christmas? Its not Jews. Its not Muslims.
So I guess I dont see the reasoning why other displays are needed during Christmas time, other then the Christian ones.
Am I missing something here? Am I wrong?
TheHat on December 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Nope, you can say “Merry Christmas!” to your heart’s delight. I like to say it myself. It’s when we start trying to involve offical places of government that “Season’s Greetings” is a sufficient recognition. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if “Merry Christmas” is o.k. to put up in the courthouse. Along with “Feliz Navidad”, of course!
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Every year around Christmas time we have to listen to a nightly dose of O’Reilly bullshit about the “war on Christmas”.
Hilts on December 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Nativity Scenes are positive. If the Atheists want to put up a POSITIVE message, let them. But not one attaching the beliefs, morals and actions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans or whatever.
It is that simple: positive – yes, negative – no.
History Chaser on December 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
The lawyer is right. Either allow all displays or none. Since the scene was getting out of hand, the governor made the right call to have zero displays.
Atheism is a religion for purposes of the law.
Xolom on December 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
I’ve got a better idea…how about we the majority force our holiday down the minorities throats, and don’t give a crap whether they like it or not?
Sugarbuzz on December 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
If Christmas is a secular holiday, that is not an issue.
Unless your point is that government is required to do everything half-@$$, then OK.
CDeb on December 17, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I’d say that’s just harshing the Christmas spirit right there, dude. It isn’t a holiday you celebrate by demanding space for the manger in the courthouse, because as I recall they didn’t let Joseph and Mary stay there for the night.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM
IMO, what’s half a donkey is the mania about having a revolving door of displays for the sake of quasi-official recognition of your religious beliefs.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 4:03 PM
If anyone thinks that the atheists shrine helped their cause, is as misguided as them.
They were laughed and ridiculed, the other shrines were mocking the Gov. and the atheists.
Us faithful love it when atheists make fools of themselves…it reminds me of the gay parades with the leather thonged guy whipping a man on all fours with a leather gag and a leash, that helps the gay crusade to “enter the mainstream” also.
In trying to defeat something that doesn’t exist, the atheists look like fools being whipped.
right2bright on December 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM
But then how would Bill be able to mention his book every five minutes? Bold fresh piece of won’t change his mind no matter what the facts are. He never admits he’s wrong, he just carefully and slowly “evolves” his position.
And yes, watching him argue with a mind like Cavuto is more agonizing. At least Megyn is easy on the eyes while they argue.
PastorJon on December 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Christmas is a FEDERAL holiday.
says it all. But for how long?
max1 on December 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
neither clause matters, because its the State of Washington and not the Federal Govt.
the Constitution and Founders were perfectly OK with State Govt. endorsing religion. Thats why many State Constitutions have jesus Christ named as Lord and Saviour in them.
This is a State issue, which flies over both their heads.
jp on December 17, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Thanksgiving is also a national holiday, and it was founded by the Founders themselves to be a Christian National Holiday
jp on December 17, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Dude, if the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are o.k. to show on national TV on Sundays, gays wearing leather in parades aren’t any more up front about their sexuality.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM
You said Christmas was a secular holiday. By your logic it’s not religous to use ‘Merry Christmas’ in any venue, since by your defenition the holiday isn’t religous.
BadgerHawk on December 17, 2008 at 4:22 PM
The best answer is to not put up these displays for any group. It’ll save some money and we won’t have to go through this annual exercise of groups fighting each other over who can be less tolerant. That will make for a Happy Hanukkah an Xciting Xmas and a Kwazy Kwanza.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Well space cadet, I’d wager many more people want to look at the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders (without the f’ing Dallas Cowboys, of course) than homosexual leather fantasies writ large on a floatilla.
Maybe if the Pastafarians had a legit symbol and an actual value system for their “religion,” I might take them seriously. A parody has no place in a celebratory displau.
BKennedy on December 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Just plain stupid.
Although MK rips O for not being a lawyer, me thinks she has never studied constitutional law outside of one or two classes at law school in Albany. Additionally, my guess is that she was not practicing constitutional law at Jones Day in their litigation department before she decided to jump into the fourth estate…
sayabule1 on December 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM
How does that benefit the nation?
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Whatever floats yer boat, they say. They also say to each their own, which applies to gays too. As long as they don’t scare the horses, I don’t mind.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Hinduism has room for atheists, Jesus, etc. Very clever people.
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Hinduism has room for all of it , Demonology, atheism, other false religions..
Just as long as someone doesn’t believe that Christ is the Incarnate God and second part of the Holy Trinity…
BTW JD, Here is an underreported fact…Radical Hindus in india are martyring Christians in india by the thousands annually.
SaintOlaf on December 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM
*Twas the month before Christmas*
*When all through our land,*
*Not a Christian was praying*
*Nor taking a stand.*
*See the PC Police had taken away ,*
*The reason for Christmas – no one could say.*
*The children were told by their schools not to sing,*
*About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.*
*It might hurt people’s feelings, the teachers would say*
* December 25th is just a ‘ Holiday ‘.*
*Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit*
*Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!*
*CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod*
*Something was changing, something quite odd! *
*Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa*
*In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.*
*As Targets were hanging their trees upside down*
* At Lowe’s the word Christmas – was no where to be found.*
*At K-Mart and Staples and Penny’s and Sears*
*You won’t hear the word Christmas; it won’t touch your ears.*
*Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty*
*Are words that were used to intimidate me.*
*Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen*
*On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !*
*At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter*
*To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.*
*And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith*
* Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace*
*The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded*
*The reason for the season, stopped before it started.*
*So as you celebrate ‘Winter Break’ under your ‘Dream Tree’*
*Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.*
*Choose your words carefully, choose what you say*
*Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS ,
not Happy Holiday !*
tru2tx on December 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I personally see no problem with the atheist sign. However…
…I can never disagree with this statement. Seriously, show some real balls if you’re going to get in religion’s face. I have yet to see the Freedom From Religion Foundation make any real splashes against fundamentalist Islam.
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Like Megyn said, it’s amazing that a non-lawyer like Bill O can think he’s so right about the law.
asc85 on December 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM
God Bless you!
Rovin on December 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Christianity is a cultural norm in the U.S. When I resided in Thailand, I didn’t run around asking for equal representation of my faith alongside Buddhist and Hindu shrines. I saw government buildings there that were adorned with Buddhist holiday. I recognized the decorum as something important to the Thai people. Any efforts on my part to ask for removal of Buddhist holiday decorum would have been disrespectful on my part.
The fact of the matter is, if I desired to gain attention for myself, I guess I could have chosen to be offended by what I saw, rather than just accept that Buddhist festivities are part of the cultural norm in that country.
Do the atheists really need equality in such displays? Of course not. Their motives are for getting attention. They need to find something better to do with their time than run around trying to stamp out something this dear to the hearts of many Americans. Christian belief is properly basic (read Prof. Plantinga’s treatise on the “properly basic” concept).
jediwebdude on December 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I haven’t viewed it yet.. is this another version of Megyn telling Bill how the world works and Bill saying “No no no”?
DaveC on December 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Two different perspectives: Destroy your enemy by ‘killing’ them or destroy your enemy be making them your friend. Why would anyone seriously chose the first approach rather than the second? Christianity is centered around the latter so why would any non-Christian object? Friendly evangelism and potlucks are much preferred over suicide bombers and chopping off heads.
jerseyman on December 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM
and yes.. it was of Megyn Telling Bill how the world worked..
DaveC on December 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Isn’t Megyn Kelly the same one who chewed out the pledge of allegiance guy? Must be nice to get paid to be cute when you’re mad.
RightOFLeft on December 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Generally speaking, Kelly’s legal knowledge leaves O’Reilly looking flat footed (though in most cases, it’s not a debate, he’s just looking for her opinion, and it usually agrees with his), but in this case, as I’ve seen it evolve on the Factor, I have to say, O’Reilly has a point about “decorum”. The atheist display wasn’t a “we don’t believe in a higher power and we’re awesome”, it was an direct attack on believers. It attacked and mocked any believer in a higher power. This is why I tend to lean a little toward Bill O on this one, because “decorum” is an issue, when it comes to whether or not the item can be displayed.
RightWinged on December 17, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Singapore officially recognizes holidays for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. During the course of a year, each group celebrates its own holiday. There are signs and posters (even postage stamps) commemorating the different holidays. Each one is celebrated very publicly. No one is offended, no one complains, and everyone learns a little bit more about the other cultures and the meaning of the various holidays. This is the real meaning of tolerance, not fear or being offended by someone else’s beliefs to the point of shouting down or destroying them.
jerseyman on December 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM
I hate to answer a question with a question but how does the current way of doing things benefit the nation? Plus, is it the responsibility of whoever decorates state capitols to use props, such as a manger, as a benefit to anyone? Who cares if they are there or not? I don’t see the benefit of government making decisions based on who is in office at the moment as to what stays and what goes.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
What’s up with Megan? You’re wrong! You’re wrong! You’re wrong!
She sounds like someone who has a burr in her saddle over something personal on this issue. Usually O’Reilly is the shouter in these things.
Chill, Megan, it’s Christmas! Have a Merry Christmas!
Joe Pyne on December 17, 2008 at 5:45 PM
The root of the problem is NOT that the atheists are being given equal treatment under the law, but rather, they are being giving preferential treatment in this case. Christmas is a religious observance that is SEASONAL. It arrives on the 25th of December each year. Christians are thus restricted to placing their nativity scenes on government property ONLY during the Christmas season. The atheists are NOT being restricted in the same way, but they SHOULD be.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 17, 2008 at 5:55 PM
If you don’t think God exists, your hell is probably here on earth.
mike_NC9 on December 17, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Didn’t know that, but found stuff about that easily by searching.
WND FAITH UNDER FIRE
Christians demand help against Hindu violence
‘It is clear local, state officials are unable to protect minority’
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2008 at 6:06 PM
The majority of this nation believes in the Christian morals that have successfully guided this nation 231 years even if they don’t worship in the Christian faith.
Just like celery and peanut butter or death and taxes, you don’t get much certainty without getting some kit along with the caboodle.
The main issue here is outrage, not substance.
You can’t be offended unless you take it of your own accord.
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM
A correct interpretation of the Constitution would restrict application of the First Amendment to the federal government alone. Question solved.
medguy on December 17, 2008 at 6:24 PM
BTW.
The blonde is right when she says atheism is a religion, as courts have found. Many of us have been saying that for, oh, over 100 years, courts or no.
So why do I see so many atheists say atheism is NOT a religion?
splink on December 17, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Actually, I should correct myself. A correct interpretation of the Constitution would restrict application of the First Amendment to Congress alone. Problem solved.
medguy on December 17, 2008 at 6:27 PM
What does God have to do with religion?
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 6:39 PM
All I have to say is…
***Merry Christmas***
mindhacker on December 17, 2008 at 6:42 PM
And A very merry Christmas to you and everyone!!!
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Nothing, which is the point of case law as well as common sense. Any system that tries to explain life, the universe and everything is a religion, whether it has deities, the supernatural or not.
So again, why do so many atheists fly off the handle when atheism is called what it is: just another religion?
splink on December 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Where is “viewpoint discrimination” in the Constitution? I search in vain. Is it like the “right” not to be offended?
But hey, maybe we conservatives could use this concept to counteract the global warming alarmists, cap & trade tax hikers, nanny staters, and all others whose viewpoints discriminate against us.
Buy Danish on December 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM
This is what happens when God is taken out of the equation and man decides truth for himself. How do you decide right from wrong? What’s wrong to you, may be right to me. Does Government decide right from wrong? Should Jeffry Dahmer decide right from wrong? Should Hitler decide right from wrong? Or maybe you should decide right and wrong for you, and I will decide it for me. In which case, what happens if somebody decides it is okay to steal from you? No wonder watching people argue First Amendment rights is frustrating. It should be!! It’s no different than watching a dog chase it’s tail round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round.
apacalyps on December 17, 2008 at 7:02 PM
But, as has been said before Allah, the atheists weren’t promoting their religion so much as denigrating another. If they were giving props to the Solstice or something like that, I would understand that argument. But that isn’t what they are doing. They were just attacking another religion. Something that Christians or Jews would likely be taken to task on. If instead of depicting a nativity scene, the Christians posted a sign saying that Jews were all condemned or something like that, it would be an outrage, and rightfully so. Celebrate how you want to celebrate this season, but I don’t consider it celebrating to just bash another religion.
XWing5 on December 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM
When someone’s heart sinks, they start to feel sad or worried, just like I felt when I read this.
apacalyps on December 17, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Wow. That really is an awesome post and one I fully agree with and believe to be true. Well done, sir,
apacalyps on December 17, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Symbolism.
Very simplistic. Doesn’t even account for all of one versus none of the other or the difference in belief versus when and now, just lumps all belief together good, bad, ugly.
Case law has foundations, its not benign. That’s why the ACLU is wrong, community standards are the grassroots up national consensus law of the land and that’s our originists intent, not the top down bulling approach civil rights groups impale us with.
Try equating human nature with the law our Founders gave us and a little deeper: what does God have to do with religion equation.
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 7:43 PM
The Free Speech clause and the Establishment cause are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Don’t go squishing them together, just because they’re both in the First Amendment.
Today’s anti-religious rant against government is based in the insupportable notion of “separation of Church and State”. What that leads us to is entirely different from the free speech elements of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. To the extent that the “speech” at issue is religious, it TOO is subject to those restrictions, the establishment clause (or that “separation” nonesense) notwithstanding. What can’t be regulated is content. (Mostly)
If you disgard (as we should) the idiotic notion of the “Separation”… then what’s really in the First Amendment could require allowing religious displays in the town square, while permitting the restriction of athiestic hate-mongering.
seanrobins on December 17, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Yet accurate.
Truth often appears simplistic to those who don’t yet see it, or who do but would prefer it not be true.
splink on December 17, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Religion is the vehicle by which Man communicates, communes and bonds with God.
If you think that that has nothing to do with God, keep on thinking.
seanrobins on December 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM
I didn’t denigrate you or your opinion.
Your outrage indicates religiosity.
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Then pinning the term Religion by people of faith on those for whom faith isn’t enough, shouldn’t be of such great importance except as a vehicle to support their own belief in God.
Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Ladies and gentlemen:
The crux of this argument comes down to one simple thing: what does the Constitution say? It says, “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.”
Now, from this very clear text we learn several things. First, we learn that the First Amendment, by its own terms, is limited only to Congress. Second, we learn that it only limits what Congress may pass as a law. So, not only does the first amendment not bar the state of Washington from displaying one sect’s religious display while excluding any and all others (because the amendment only applies to Congress), it also does not bar such specific displays from being placed in any federal building, including Congress (because Congress need not pass a law in order to set up a display within its walls).
Any discussion about the Constitution should always begin with the text of the provision in question. As I have shown, when that text is central in the discussion, the discussion actually disappears. Perhaps that is why such participants in such discussions (say between Kelly and O’Reilly), haven’t bothered to discuss the actual text; for if they did, it would become clear that there is absolutely nothing wrong with placing one sect’s religious display in a public building, while at the same time refusing to also place any and all other sect’s religious displays in the same public building.
medguy on December 17, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I didn’t actually direct that last comment at you; it was more of a general observation.
Your sensitivity to it indicates religiosity.
splink on December 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I’d start a pointless argument with Megyn just to watch her argue. Few people look that gorgeous when they’re fighting. :)
And O’Reilly got his ass handed to him by her time and again. He needs to retire, he’s a has-been.
thinkagain on December 23, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Comment pages: