Saturday, April 23, 2005


I awoke this morning and "YUK" ventured upon "LOOKING AT MEDIA NEWS" double "YUK"... What I heard, I couldn't believe... say it isn't so... Majority Leader Bill Frist is using religion to do away with Democracy all together... One finale sweep. Never in my lifetime (what I can remember of it anyway) do I recollect anything so absurd, it really is the epitome of the old worn out coined phrase, "BEYOND COMPREHENSION"! Are these people (so called religious conservatives) so obstinate and inane and without an ounce of intelligence, to believe they can fool ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME? I hope this tactic is a SUREFIRE, BACKFIRE because they will not always be in power... Somewhere down the road (and I hope it's not a long, long road) all members of the United State's masses will wake up from their religious republican induced trance, and see what the sneaks have done to our nation and to our social conscience, and perhaps will finally start voting their own interests. Let's hope it won't be too late.

Beam me up Scottie.

Thinking Blue.

Below is a letter the FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL sent out to all its members!
April 2005

Dear Friend:

A day of decision is upon us. Whether it was the legalization of abortion, the banning of school prayer, the expulsion of the 10 Commandments from public spaces, or the starvation of Terri Schiavo, decisions by the courts have not only changed our nation's course, but even led to the taking of human lives. As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism.For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms. Federal judges have systematically grabbed power, usurping the constitutional authority that resides in the other two branches of government and, ultimately, in the American people.

Read the rest of this "act of extreme viciousness" here.

Thinking Blue

Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith
Sincerely,Tony PerkinsPresidentFRC Action
Ideals of Jefferson, Madison are fading

WHAT role should religion play in the public square? Should it be one that holds the mirror reflecting our public consciousness? Or should religion join the cavalcade of special interest groups, conveniently making itself available to overtures of pandering by ambitious politicians? With their allegiance firmly secured within the Republican Party, a number of conservative Christians like to point out the phrase "separation between church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. While the phrase may not appear, the concept is hardly revisionist history recently adapted by a band of left-wing atheists. If the contributions of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison count for anything toward the creation of this nation, we might consider their thoughts on the subject. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote the following: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Adding, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Madison, who was the principal author of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in 1819: "The civil government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state." Could it be that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist finds that the heathenistic words of Jefferson and Madison are no longer applicable? By appearing on "Justice Sunday," a telecast hosted by Christian conservative organizations to promote his nuclear option to rid the Senate of the filibuster, Frist softens the wall between church and state. Siding with the GOP, organizers of "Justice Sunday" declare that the filibuster, as it is currently practiced by Democrats, is against "people of faith." In what is tantamount to Jesus aligning with Pilate to implement a series of social programs, Frist recklessly uses the prestige of his office by pandering to religious conservatives for cheap political gains. The Senate has approved 95 percent of Bush's judicial choices, which is a higher approval percentage than the nominees submitted by Bill Clinton. I have mixed emotions about the filibuster. It was the secret weapon instituted by southern segregationists to block civil rights legislation for nearly a century. Moreover, both parties have attempted to lessen its effectiveness while in the majority. The larger issue, however, is the current practice by the Republican Party and conservative Christians that is making a mockery of the beliefs of Jefferson and Madison. Jefferson, in his infinite wisdom, understood that one's privately held morality cannot be the sole basis for legislative action. As much as religious conservatives like to draw analogies between themselves and those of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, the comparison falls flat. King was indeed motivated by his private notion of morality to foster change, but it was his belief in the country's public values that ultimately led to the passage of civil rights legislation. It was King's understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that served as the bedrock for the movement. By reminding the country of its own values, King's ultimate service to the nation was to move it closer to the ideals of Jefferson and Madison. What the Republicans and conservative Christians are doing is the antithesis. Pandering is not exclusive to either party. All elected officials do pander; it is what they do. But I hold religion to a higher standard. If religion can only criticize one political party because it is beholden to another, then it has effectively lost its usefulness in the public square, making it just another special interest group. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at or leave a message at (510) 208-6417.

Frist is taking the Senate down a path he will regret

Sen. Frist ignoring the Constitution

Senate Majority Leader Frist, a former HMO executive, is producing a video for nationwide distribution to religious congregations "friendly" to the Republican administration. The video's message is that the Republican Party is the follower of Christ and that the Democratic Party is against Christ.
It is hard to imagine an official party policy that is more prideful, unfair, or unconstitutional. Worse yet, this policy is part of a pattern devised by Karl Rove to stir up the passions of religiously-enthused masses, and to run roughshod over our freedoms of individual conscience and inner light from our Creator.
A little brief about James Dobson

If you really want to rub salt into the wound, you invite the most disgusting example of Xtian extremism who has managed to glom onto the "mainstream" media, say, someone like that sanctimonious champion of beating children, "Dr." James Dobson.And Dobson, a man who has been described by at least one Christian writer as an outright fascist, was precisely whom ABC offered up as its contribution to the political discourse this Sunday.Naturally, Dobson praised Dear Leader Bush, saying "He makes the right choices." (Translation: he's going to cut and run with the extreme Taliban-Xtian agenda -- abolishing the right to choose, fetishizing embryos that will never be implanted in mothers, criminalizing gays and lesbians for being gays and lesbians, taking science out of schools and replacing it with superstition.)

A little brief about Tony Perkins.

FRC's Perkins: Fed courts bastion of anti-American philosophy
Mike Doughney

Sat Apr 16th, 2005 at 15:41:39 PDT

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins recently appeared on the "Praise the Lord" program on the Christian television network, TBN, with Ohio pastor/televangelist Rod Parsley. They spent almost 20 minutes laying out the agenda which Bill Frist and other leaders have signed onto by agreeing to appear on FRC's upcoming telecast.
Perkins and Parsley began with the inflammatory claim that children aren't "going to know about the Lord" because judges are "taking away ... the right of the church to tell our children."
Perkins then insisted that the "founders" created the judiciary "as the lesser of the three branches of government," and that the lower Federal courts are "greater" than the courts since they were created by the legislature. He complained about Marbury v. Madison, that judicial review was "never envisioned by the founders" and that Federal judges threw out his Louisiana anti-abortion legislation.
There's more, including Perkins' insistence that a Senatorial "radical minority" is working to preserve an "anti-Christian, anti-American philosophy in the courts" by filibustering judicial nominees.


If the above isn't enough to make you out of control FURIOUS! Ponder the following: Thinking Blue
Bush indicates, he thought John Ashcroft should either be a Supreme Court Justice or his Vice-Presidential candidate. From the

Maybe we haven't seen the last of this NUT...

Can you imagine Ashcroft, as a Supreme Court Justice???? Thinking Blue

Washington, DC (posted February 6, 2002).

There has been quite a lot of concern among our supporters over the recent "aesthetic intervention" in the Department of Justice: the two giant statues of the Spirit of Justice and the Majesty of Justice, present in the Great Hall of the department since the 1930s, were permanently covered in blue drapes. The department claims they are making a formal aesthetic decision: blue just looks good on camera. This explanation is not taken seriously by anybody. It is quite clear that Attorney General John Ashcroft was simply not comfortable being repeatedly photographed in front of the female statue of the Majesty of Justice, one of whose breasts is exposed.Just last year the Russell Senate Office Building censored an exhibit of work by artists with disabilities because it featured nudity. This was a surprising decision given the presence of nudity in public art in Washington, D.C., as well as in other American cities. Now we see that the oversight is to be corrected and public spaces might, with some luck, all be telegenically blue one day.Don't let this happen without having your opinion heard!Surely, there are more pressing concerns—the loss of civil rights and the government's involvement in Enron's collapse. Yet, if the Justice Department is prepared to spend money and energy on draping statues, we have no choice but to express our disagreement.Letters to the Department of Justice, including to the Attorney General, may be sent to:U.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530-0001E-Mail: your mailing address in the event that the Department replies via United States Postal Service.)

Details: The Department of Justice recently spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues in the Great Hall. According to spokesman Shane Hix, for aesthetic reasons, he said, the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging. The drapes provide a nice background for television cameras, Hix said.Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, Ashcroft has been photographed several times in front of the female statue that represents the Spirit of Justice. The statue has its arms raised and a toga draped over its body, but a single breast is completely exposed. The other statue, of a man with a cloth covering his midsection, is called the Majesty of Law. Both statues were installed in the 1930s when the building was finished. ABC News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them. Hix said the Justice Department bought the drapes to avoid having to rent them every time the agency had a formal event. The drapes cost about $2,000 to rent. He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.In the past, snagging a photo of the attorney general in front of the statues has been something of a sport for photographers. When former Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornography in the 1980s, photographers dived to the floor to capture the image of him raising the report in the air, with the partially nude female statue behind him.Based on an article by Christopher Newton, Associated Press Writer

Unintelligent Design
by Jim Holt

Spring 2005
The following is excerpted from an essay in the Magazine Section of The New
York Times, 2/20/05.

Recently a school district in rural Pennsylvania officially recognized a supposed alternative to Darwinism. ...ninth-grade biology students were told that evolution was not a fact and were encouraged to explore a different explanation of life called intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Its proponents maintain that living creatures are just too intricate to have arisen by evolution. Throughout the natural world, they say, there is evidence of deliberate design. Is it not reasonable, then, to infer the existence of an intelligent designer? To evade the charge that intelligent design is a religious theory—creationism dressed up as science—its advocates make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be...

From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test.... Intelligent design...leaves the purposes of the designer wholly mysterious...

But if we can’t infer anything about the design from the designer...What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock’s tail or the human male’s nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up
the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.

Such disregard for economy can be found throughout the natural order. Perhaps 99 percent of the species that have existed have died out. Darwinism has no problem with this, because random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals. But what sort of designer would have fashioned creatures so out of sync with their environments that they were doomed to

The gravest imperfections in nature, though, are moral ones. Consider how humans and other animals are intermittently tortured by pain throughout their lives, especially near the end. Our pain mechanism may have been designed to serve as a warning signal to protect our bodies from damage, but in the majority of diseases...the signal comes too late to do much good, and the
horrible suffering that ensues is completely useless.

And why should the human reproductive system be so shoddily designed? Fewer than one-third of conceptions culminate in live births... Nature appears to be an avid abortionist, which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception. Souls bearing the stain of original sin, we are
told, do not merit salvation. That is why, according to traditional theology, unbaptized babies have to languish in limbo for all eternity. Owing to faulty reproductive design, it would seem that the population of limbo must be at least twice that of heaven and hell combined.

One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As the arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” But Darwinism permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why Pope John Paul II was
comfortable declaring that evolution has been “proven true” and that “truth cannot contradict truth.” If God created the universe wholesale rather than retail—endowing it from the start with an evolutionary algorithm that progressively teased complexity out of chaos—then imperfections in nature would be a necessary part of a beautiful process.

Of course proponents of intelligent design are careful not to use the G-word, because, as they claim, theirs is not a religiously based theory. So biology students can be forgiven for wondering whether the mysterious designer they’re told about might not be the biblical God after all, but rather some very advanced yet mischievous or blundering intelligence—extraterrestrial scientists, say. The important thing, as the Pennsylvania school administrator reminded them, is “to keep an open mind.”

To read this page on the National Coalition Against Censorship Page Click here

"When church weds state - Hell pays for the reception - for the child of this marriage is death." from Open Letter To Bush


Click Here For this page to music

Tears fall for the loss of our constitution and the separation of state and religion.

this is a Proud Liberal Site
Vote for me in


Blogger mynym said...

"Nonetheless, some parents, aided by the ACLU, have challenged the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools in Dover, PA."

The ACLU, the
public policy arm of a proto-Nazi oligarchy?

"Some 19 states, including Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, and South Carolina are in the process of reevaluating public school science curricula."

Here is an open opportunity for people such as yourself to write a narrative of Naturalism based on "science." It is getting difficult to find people who believe in all the mythological narratives of Naturalism these days.

Interesting to note,
"Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of Darwin....
Though it took decades before the courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings ofthe natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application to man could not be delayed any more."
(Hitler's Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
Germany's Crimes Against the Jewish People
By Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)

The socialist's type of separation of Church and State lacks the Founder's religious rationale for itself.


(Nazis and Church Groping for Issue
The New York Times, Feb. 14, 1934, pg. 4
By Otto D. Tolischus)

8:23 PM  
Blogger happy-people said...

Powerful blog. The site was incredible and will be
back again! Web surfing helps to find good blogs like
this one.
I hope you had a chance to check out my cash advance now blog.

5:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home