Nobody questions the right of Congressman-elect Keith Ellison to practice any religion he likes, or none at all. The issue at hand is the rejection of the Bible during the swearing-in ceremony. Certainly, the republic will survive if Ellison follows through on his plans to reject the Bible. That is not the point. The reason for the Bible is simply to acknowledge that our rights as Americans and our Constitution are derived from Judeo-Christian values, whether you choose to practice them or not.

[But Mr. DePalma, the swearing-in ceremony is not intended to acknowledge that.  There is no connection between being qualified to serve in the House, and being sworn in to so serve, and a need to acknowledge  what you view as the derivation of our rights as Americans. So what exactly is the complaint from you and Mr. Prager?  Not to mention the inconsistency between your acknowledgment that Mr. Ellison is free to "practice any religion he likes, or none at all," and insisting that he acknowledge that American rights are derived from Judeo-Christian values.  AND, if you want an acknowledgment that our rights are derived from JUDEO-Christian values, I assume Mr. Ellis could satisfy you by carrying the Torah to his ceremonial photo-op?]

As any GOPer worth his trident and devil's tail knows, you can't really be a Repub unless you can say "frivolous lawsuits" in at least three languages.  Frivolous, frivolous, frivolous.  Just about any lawsuit by a little person against one of the gigantic GOP supporters (like an insurance company,  or, say, an energy corporation) must be frivolous.  Got to get rid of the right to sue, it's killing the economy, the nation's morals, etceterant.

Turns out the Repubs don't see litigation as the enemy when it's GOP versus GOP, though.

There are many constants in this universe in which we live, as there are constants to living down South as I do, among such is one called "The local theatres don't dare show such things, I end up waiting on the DVD"......

The right wing commentators can harp on the supposedly pure motives of our efforts in Iraq, and they may even be successful in convincing Americans, or some of them, of their sincerity.  But nothing good will come out of Iraq if the Iraqis don't buy it.

You know that "war on Christmas" that Shill O'Reilly and religious right is defending to its death?  Turns out (surprise) they may well be defending it to their profit as well.

As long ago as at least late 2003 mainstream media were reporting on the problems being caused by the US's action in disbanding Saddam Hussein's army.

Less attention has been paid to recent actions by the Iraqi government to draw officers of the disbanded army back to the Iraqi military.

The modern day attacks on separation of church and state flow from many sources, and illustrate a tremendous range of understanding of the doctrine itself and of the role of religion in our nation's "moral underpinnings."

Not to make undue fun of a single person, but take a look at the claims and reasoning in the following letter to a small town newspaper.

In fact, the wheels of commerce have nearly rusted shut for working people. They've found it harder and harder to afford a middle-class life, while leaders in Washington, D.C., looked the other way and attended to the needs of big business.

Right or wrong is debatable given the nature of the man and how you feel about capital punishment.  What I don't think is debatable is:

One more example of the personal corruption below the surface of so many outwardly pious moralizers.

Read Older Articles