"I don't think he's a Christian"

[Tiger Al 0]

I didn't realize that hugging trees, opposing war or belonging to a political party were considered religions. I think you're fabricating here.

It's very simple, TM. I agree with Article VI of the US Constitution that says no person seeking public office should have to pass any religious tests. Don't you agree with Article VI?

I think you are trying to deflect here.

You know as well as anyone that the environmentalists view their agenda just as fervently as the Muslims and even more than the Baptists or the Catholics.

You do love to force square pegs into round holes, don't you? If "religion" is determined by how fervently one views his "agenda," then anything can be called a "religion." You seem to be pretty fervent about football. How does that square with your other religion's First Commandment? Are you fervent about your wife? Your kids? Your other family members? Your job? Your home? Your credit score? If so, then, by your strained definition, these become "religions."

So you are saying the founding fathers ONLY meant organized religion? They would be OK with the litmus test that the environmental religious nuts and the anti war religious nuts demand be placed on candidates?

I'm saying the constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I have to assume they knew the meaning of the word "religious." You seem to be forcing the word "religion" to cover any and every topic you want.

I think that we can both agree that Christianity is considered a religion and Dobson wants to make sure the candidate he endorses is a "Christian." That's his prerogative, I suppose. But, it's still un-American.

Don't you agree with Article VI of the Constitution?

I agree with Article VI, but it only states that the govt not require a religious test as a qualification. It says nothing about which voters use as qualifications. So don't try to throw your red herring out here and use a one way street to support a two way argument. You'd make a great bench legislator. You ever thought about running for a judge's position? You'd fit right in with current judges stretching the constitution to apply where it has no say.

So is any criteria un-american? Or is it only religion? Religion seems rather aribitrary in my opinion. Is selecting based on financial policy or social policy less arbitrary?

But, who's the government? Isn't it of, by and for the people? Doesn't it represent "We the People?" All the people? Wouldn't you find it un-American if an atheist leader had said, "I think he's a Christian and because of that I won't support him, nor will my X million followers?" I'd find that un-American because we're not supposed to make presidential candidates pass religious tests.

I don't know of any Constitutional stipulations about one's financial or social policies, but, if you find some point them out.

[Tiger Al 0]

And you to be limiting the word religion to mean only organized religion. Or is it only one denomination you want to limit? Now that is un-American.

I use the word in the context it was made. If someone says to you, "Hey, Tigermike, they're holding religious services in the park today," are you saying that you would mistake that to mean they were going to spike some trees in the name of the almighty oak?

I think it’s distinctly un-American for you to use such a narrow view in order to limit and restrict people from having an opinion. That is all Dobson has done is voice an opinion.

Are these things REALLY that hard for you? I never limited or restricted Dobson's opinion or his right to voice it. He's free to voice his un-American, un-Constitutional opinion from the mountaintops. It would appear that you'd be first in line for a ticket.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Show me where it says that an individual or a minister can’t have an opinion and base their vote on any criteria they wish to? Show me where that is un-American. Your environmental socialists, antiwar democrats have opinions and have distinct litmus test for voting. But that is OK isn’t it?

If the Constitution doesn't require a religious test then why should Dobson and his followers? Don't you agree with Article VI of the Constitution?

[Tigermike 3,036]

So you are strict constitutionalists? If that is what it says, that is what it means?

[Tiger Al 0]

So you are strict constitutionalists? If that is what it says, that is what it means?

There doesn't seem to be any gray area in Article VI. It says no religious test shall ever be required. To me, that means that no one will be excluded from public service, as outlined in Article VI, because of religious affiliation or non-affiliation. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I'm not sure what's more important to you, the Constitution of the United States, which was drafted to protect the rights of all Americans, or James Dobson.

I'll ask you again for the fourth time; Do you agree with Article VI of the US Constitution? As I see it, there are only four answers:

1. Yes

2. No

3. I don't know

4. I don't care

Pick one.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

So you are strict constitutionalists? If that is what it says, that is what it means?

Quit answering a question with a question, or you'll piss off TigerMike...uh, wait a minute...

[Tigermike 3,036]

So you are strict constitutionalists? If that is what it says, that is what it means?

There doesn't seem to be any gray area in Article VI. It says no religious test shall ever be required. To me, that means that no one will be excluded from public service, as outlined in Article VI, because of religious affiliation or non-affiliation. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I'm not sure what's more important to you, the Constitution of the United States, which was drafted to protect the rights of all Americans, or James Dobson.

I'll ask you again for the fourth time; Do you agree with Article VI of the US Constitution? As I see it, there are only four answers:

1. Yes

2. No

3. I don't know

4. I don't care

Pick one.

You are being obtuse and you know it. Duhhhh, but that does not surprise me or anyone else.

Yes I agree with the constitution and there has never been a question about that. But do I don't think this situation (Dobson's comments) or this thread is a constitutional matter? No I don't. That is a fact you know. I also find it disingenuous, deceptive and wholly un-American for you or anyone to try and use the constitution in a way that would both limit and deny anyone's freedom of religion. Or anyone's right to keep and bear arms.

Working on your black list is hard work Al. Is that the new direction of your leftists democrats?

Sometime in the last couple of weeks you said you would like to ban all religion. How do you get that to jive with the Constitution?

So you are strict constitutionalists? If that is what it says, that is what it means?

Quit answering a question with a question, or you'll piss off TigerMike...uh, wait a minute...

In response to the peanut gallery, not pissed off now and was not pissed off last night.

[GalensGhost 0]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

Other than it being a wholly un-American opinion...nothing.

Un-American? You're so far off base you can't see the ballpark. Being an American means you have the right to say/think what you want no matter how stupid others might think it to be.

It's un-American to say that someone isn't a Christian because they don't meet the standards you set? Better tell that to my Church of Christ friends who tell me I'm going to hell because I don't go to their church. And to my Baptist friends who tell me I'm hell bound because I've been sprinkled instead of dunked. You better explain that to the Jehovah's Witnesses who tell me I've got a ticket to flames because I celebrate my birthday. You better explain that to my Catholic friends who don't think I make the cut because I don't converse with the Virgin Mary.

Dobson's opinion is 100% American. You don't have to agree with it.

[GalensGhost 0]

I didn't realize that hugging trees, opposing war or belonging to a political party were considered religions. I think you're fabricating here.

It's very simple, TM. I agree with Article VI of the US Constitution that says no person seeking public office should have to pass any religious tests. Don't you agree with Article VI?

I think you are trying to deflect here.

You know as well as anyone that the environmentalists view their agenda just as fervently as the Muslims and even more than the Baptists or the Catholics.

You do love to force square pegs into round holes, don't you? If "religion" is determined by how fervently one views his "agenda," then anything can be called a "religion." You seem to be pretty fervent about football. How does that square with your other religion's First Commandment? Are you fervent about your wife? Your kids? Your other family members? Your job? Your home? Your credit score? If so, then, by your strained definition, these become "religions."

So you are saying the founding fathers ONLY meant organized religion? They would be OK with the litmus test that the environmental religious nuts and the anti war religious nuts demand be placed on candidates?

I'm saying the constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I have to assume they knew the meaning of the word "religious." You seem to be forcing the word "religion" to cover any and every topic you want.

I think that we can both agree that Christianity is considered a religion and Dobson wants to make sure the candidate he endorses is a "Christian." That's his prerogative, I suppose. But, it's still un-American.

Don't you agree with Article VI of the Constitution?

This is the most idiotic argument I have ever heard expressed. No offense to you personally, but this is such a perversion of the intent of the Constitution that it deserves to be ridiculed.

The Constitution says that a religious test is not a qualification for office. There is no law that requires a candidate to be a Christian or even to believe in God. This being the case, the provisions of the Constitution have been met. The Constitution says nothing about individuals or groups deciding which candidate to support based on whether or not that candidate is a member of their religion. Churches and their representatives have every right to endorse and support candidates because the beliefs of that candidate are in line with what that particular church follows. You, the individual voter, have the right to accept or reject their advice.

That you would attempt to wrap yourself in the Constitution in an effort to deny a religious leader the right to express his opinion of and support for a candidate is an absolute mockery of the freedoms on which this country was founded. It's a disgraceful and deceitful effort but typical of those who wish to eliminate godliness from the public discourse.

[Tiger Al 0]

You are being obtuse and you know it. Duhhhh, but that does not surprise me or anyone else.

I'm not being obtuse at all. Dobson is suggesting that a candidate clarify his religious preference before he can endorse him. The constitution clearly says that a religious test isn't necessary. The constitution is the foundation that our country rests on and I simply commented that Dobson's opinion is un-American and un-Constitutional. I also pointed out, GalensGhost, that I'm not suggesting that Dobson be silenced. I said just the opposite. I'm also not suggesting that Dobson be jailed, beaten up, deported, gagged or killed. I like it when people like him and Roy Moore speak because it shows how extremist those who control the right are.

Yes I agree with the constitution and there has never been a question about that. But do I don't think this situation (Dobson's comments) or this thread is a constitutional matter? No I don't. That is a fact you know. I also find it disingenuous, deceptive and wholly un-American for you or anyone to try and use the constitution in a way that would both limit and deny anyone's freedom of religion.

I've not tried to limit anyone's freedom of religion. If you agree with Article VI, as you say you do, then how can you not agree that it is un-Constitutional to make someone prove their "Christian-ness" ? If it isn't in agreeance with the Constitution, but is actually in opposition to it, how can it not be un-Constitutional?

Or anyone's right to keep and bear arms.

Had George Soros questioned a candidates worth because he hadn't stated his/her position on banning all guns, I'm sure you would find that opinion un-American and un-Constitutional, as would I. Soros, like Dobson, would be free to express his opinion, however un-Constitutional it may be.

Working on your black list is hard work Al. Is that the new direction of your leftists democrats?

Sometime in the last couple of weeks you said you would like to ban all religion. How do you get that to jive with the Constitution?

I don't have to get it to jive with the Constitution since I never said I would like to ban all religion.

[AFTiger 282]

You are being obtuse and you know it. Duhhhh, but that does not surprise me or anyone else.

I'm not being obtuse at all. Dobson is suggesting that a candidate clarify his religious preference before he can endorse him. The constitution clearly says that a religious test isn't necessary. The constitution is the foundation that our country rests on and I simply commented that Dobson's opinion is un-American and un-Constitutional. I also pointed out, GalensGhost, that I'm not suggesting that Dobson be silenced. I said just the opposite. I'm also not suggesting that Dobson be jailed, beaten up, deported, gagged or killed. I like it when people like him and Roy Moore speak because it shows how extremist those who control the right are.

Yes I agree with the constitution and there has never been a question about that. But do I don't think this situation (Dobson's comments) or this thread is a constitutional matter? No I don't. That is a fact you know. I also find it disingenuous, deceptive and wholly un-American for you or anyone to try and use the constitution in a way that would both limit and deny anyone's freedom of religion.

I've not tried to limit anyone's freedom of religion. If you agree with Article VI, as you say you do, then how can you not agree that it is un-Constitutional to make someone prove their "Christian-ness" ? If it isn't in agreeance with the Constitution, but is actually in opposition to it, how can it not be un-Constitutional?

Or anyone's right to keep and bear arms.

Had George Soros questioned a candidates worth because he hadn't stated his/her position on banning all guns, I'm sure you would find that opinion un-American and un-Constitutional, as would I. Soros, like Dobson, would be free to express his opinion, however un-Constitutional it may be.

Working on your black list is hard work Al. Is that the new direction of your leftists democrats?

Sometime in the last couple of weeks you said you would like to ban all religion. How do you get that to jive with the Constitution?

I don't have to get it to jive with the Constitution since I never said I would like to ban all religion.

I didn't realize the constitution prescribed my criteria for voting for a candidate. I thought it only said that no religious test would be applied before a person could hold politcal office. Nowhere does it restrict a private citizen from applying any criteria. If Dobson were an elected official, it might be different.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Al,

I think GG is right on this one. As far as the government and its laws are concerned, it doesn't matter whether a candidate is religious or not. He/she cannot be excluded from running or qualifying for office.

But in terms of whether or not a person wants to vote for a candidate, they can vote for someone on any basis they choose to. If that basis happens to be whether or not the person is a Christian, that's their choice. I'm sure it happens in reverse as well...atheists or agnostics deciding to vote for a candidate's opponent because of that candidate's expressed faith.

[Tiger Al 0]

You are being obtuse and you know it. Duhhhh, but that does not surprise me or anyone else.

I'm not being obtuse at all. Dobson is suggesting that a candidate clarify his religious preference before he can endorse him. The constitution clearly says that a religious test isn't necessary. The constitution is the foundation that our country rests on and I simply commented that Dobson's opinion is un-American and un-Constitutional. I also pointed out, GalensGhost, that I'm not suggesting that Dobson be silenced. I said just the opposite. I'm also not suggesting that Dobson be jailed, beaten up, deported, gagged or killed. I like it when people like him and Roy Moore speak because it shows how extremist those who control the right are.

Yes I agree with the constitution and there has never been a question about that. But do I don't think this situation (Dobson's comments) or this thread is a constitutional matter? No I don't. That is a fact you know. I also find it disingenuous, deceptive and wholly un-American for you or anyone to try and use the constitution in a way that would both limit and deny anyone's freedom of religion.

I've not tried to limit anyone's freedom of religion. If you agree with Article VI, as you say you do, then how can you not agree that it is un-Constitutional to make someone prove their "Christian-ness" ? If it isn't in agreeance with the Constitution, but is actually in opposition to it, how can it not be un-Constitutional?

Or anyone's right to keep and bear arms.

Had George Soros questioned a candidates worth because he hadn't stated his/her position on banning all guns, I'm sure you would find that opinion un-American and un-Constitutional, as would I. Soros, like Dobson, would be free to express his opinion, however un-Constitutional it may be.

Working on your black list is hard work Al. Is that the new direction of your leftists democrats?

Sometime in the last couple of weeks you said you would like to ban all religion. How do you get that to jive with the Constitution?

I don't have to get it to jive with the Constitution since I never said I would like to ban all religion.

I didn't realize the constitution prescribed my criteria for voting for a candidate. I thought it only said that no religious test would be applied before a person could hold politcal office. Nowhere does it restrict a private citizen from applying any criteria. If Dobson were an elected official, it might be different.

I never said it restricted a private citizen from applying any criteria. Is his criteria in accordance with what the Constitution requires, though? No. Therefore, it is un-Constitutional. I never suggested he was breaking a law, did I? No. I simply pointed out that our founding fathers felt it unnecessary to apply a religious test toward those seeking office, so, why should Dobson?

[AFTiger 282]

Because he is a private citizen and the consitution allows him?

[GalensGhost 0]

I never said it restricted a private citizen from applying any criteria. Is his criteria in accordance with what the Constitution requires, though? No. Therefore, it is un-Constitutional. I never suggested he was breaking a law, did I? No. I simply pointed out that our founding fathers felt it unnecessary to apply a religious test toward those seeking office, so, why should Dobson?

It's only un-constitutional if Dobson were in a position of authority and attempting to deny Arthur Branch -- err, Fred Thompson -- the right to hold office.

Since Dobson is not in that position, your argument has zero merit and is a complete waste of time and space.

[Tiger Al 0]

I never said it restricted a private citizen from applying any criteria. Is his criteria in accordance with what the Constitution requires, though? No. Therefore, it is un-Constitutional. I never suggested he was breaking a law, did I? No. I simply pointed out that our founding fathers felt it unnecessary to apply a religious test toward those seeking office, so, why should Dobson?

It's only un-constitutional if Dobson were in a position of authority and attempting to deny Arthur Branch -- err, Fred Thompson -- the right to hold office.

Since Dobson is not in that position, your argument has zero merit and is a complete waste of time and space.

I have to disagree with you. It is un-constitutional because it is in opposition to what the constitution says. Because Dobson is a private citizen stating a personal opinion, it is not a legal matter. His opinion is still in opposition to the constitution and is, as a result, un-constitutional, but, not illegal.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing to you all. It is interesting how so many people have come to Dobson's defense when my initial remark was so obviously on target.

[Tiger Al 0]

Because he is a private citizen and the consitution allows him?

Those are reasons that he can't be legally stopped. Why would it matter to Dobson, you or me what any candidates religious affiliation is? As Dobson said, "Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for." So, if Thompson is anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage, etc., etc., on down the line of what the fundamentalist Christians believe in, what difference does it make what religion he freely chooses to practice? If Thompson said he was an atheist, but, was anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc., why is he not supportable over a Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani?

[DKW 86 7,426]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

Tearing down another beleiver in front of the lost is against scripture, therefore Dobson is actually acting anti-Christian.

[GalensGhost 0]

I never said it restricted a private citizen from applying any criteria. Is his criteria in accordance with what the Constitution requires, though? No. Therefore, it is un-Constitutional. I never suggested he was breaking a law, did I? No. I simply pointed out that our founding fathers felt it unnecessary to apply a religious test toward those seeking office, so, why should Dobson?

It's only un-constitutional if Dobson were in a position of authority and attempting to deny Arthur Branch -- err, Fred Thompson -- the right to hold office.

Since Dobson is not in that position, your argument has zero merit and is a complete waste of time and space.

I have to disagree with you. It is un-constitutional because it is in opposition to what the constitution says. Because Dobson is a private citizen stating a personal opinion, it is not a legal matter. His opinion is still in opposition to the constitution and is, as a result, un-constitutional, but, not illegal.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing to you all. It is interesting how so many people have come to Dobson's defense when my initial remark was so obviously on target.

Seriously, how can you be this fouled up in your ability to comprehend what should be a simple concept. It's NOT unconstitutional in any way shape or form.

You're going to disregard Amendment I in your attempt to apply a narrow and misguided interpretation of Article VI?

You can't pluck one segment of the Constitution out and misuse it to attempt to justify your point, when you've clearly missed the entire spirit of the document.

You also do realize that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly taking the "separation of Church and State" position, don't you? The framers of the document would be absolutely mortified to see how far away from their intent we've pushed this government. It was never the intent of the founders of this country that religion be removed from the public square, their only goal was to assure that a "church state" which would create a mandatory national religion would not spring forth. What we've done since is a complete perversion of their intent.

[Tiger Al 0]

Seriously, how can you be this fouled up in your ability to comprehend what should be a simple concept. It's NOT unconstitutional in any way shape or form.

You're going to disregard Amendment I in your attempt to apply a narrow and misguided interpretation of Article VI?

You can't pluck one segment of the Constitution out and misuse it to attempt to justify your point, when you've clearly missed the entire spirit of the document.

You also do realize that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly taking the "separation of Church and State" position, don't you? The framers of the document would be absolutely mortified to see how far away from their intent we've pushed this government. It was never the intent of the founders of this country that religion be removed from the public square, their only goal was to assure that a "church state" which would create a mandatory national religion would not spring forth. What we've done since is a complete perversion of their intent.

GG, it's really very simple. I'm not arguing that Dobson should be held legally liable or legally punished for his opinion. I simply said that his position that Thompson should have to publicly prove his "Christian-ness" goes against what the constitution says is required and that that makes it an un-constitutional opinion/principle.

I guarantee you that if I went through and started deleting posts without cause that someone would say that I'm infringing on their First Amendment right to free speech. I would be. BUT, the US Constitution doesn't guarantee their First Amendment rights on AUNation. If we allow people to post their opinions (within reason) it's only because we think freedom of speech is a pretty good idea and we allow it to happen. So, if I DID delete those posts without cause then, sadly, I AM engaging in un-constitutional behavior, but one that has no enforceability or legal consequences.

As for your interpretation of the framers intent or how they would feel today, do a little googling on the subject and I think you might be surprised. Here's a few things to get you started:

Thomas Jefferson

"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."

"The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. "

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

James Madison

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"

"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."

"If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense."

Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

Treaty of Tripoli 10 June 1797

Article 11 "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."

[AFTiger 282]

Is liberalsim/socialism a religion?

[sogaaufan 27]

I don't think Mr. Dobson violated the Constitution and I believe he has every right to say whatever he wants. However, I find this no different than the "liberal Hollywood elite" using a bully pulpit to talk about issues that they are totally ignorant on.

Mr. Dobson is an expert in the field of parenting. I have read most of his books and try to apply as many of the concepts as possible with my own children. If I needed help in that area, he would probably be the person I would most like to consult with. However, that doesn't make him any more of an expert on politics than any of us. It certainly doesn't give him insight into the heart of a person he has probably never met. To go on the air and make assumptions about Thompson's faith is appalling.

I remember the first time I listened to Focus on the Family. I was thinking I was about to hear a program about child raising, that being Mr. Dobson's field. I was able to stomach about fifteen minutes of his program and the subject of children never came up. I found it very disappointing that this man that I respected so much came off sounding like a Christian Al Franken.

The way I see it, the musicians need to stick to making music, the actors need to stick to acting, and the child psycologists need to stick to children. They apparently don't realize how ignorant they sound when they get out of their specialty.

[Tigermike 3,036]

Working on your black list is hard work Al. Is that the new direction of your leftists

democrats?

Sometime in the last couple of weeks you said you would like to ban all religion. How do you get

that to jive with the Constitution?

I don't have to get it to jive with the Constitution since I never said I would like to ban all

religion.

You didn't? If you didn't say it, please explain exactly what you did mean.

Well, actually that was Louis Farakhan, but he still said this.

Very good. Keep going.

Are you that set in your denial?

What do you refuse to believe?

The video clips of them actually saying these things, or the news articles that report everything

you say never happened, did in fact happen?

Are you being a stickler for the exact wording? Because these people's comments were far closer

to drewau02's paraphrasing than saying that Anne Coulter called John Edwards a f@ggot.

Sorry, AUChizad, but, yes, words matter. They mean things.

drewau02 said O'Donnell said, "that Christianity is as much of a threat to the world as radical

Islam." That's not what she said and one word changes the entire meaning. What she actually said

was, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like

America where we have a separation of church and state. We're a democracy here." Unless you think

she meant ALL Christians are radical there's a big difference.

drewau02 said Elton John said, "that Christianity should be abolished worldwide." What he

actually said was, "I just find it more human. We should all be together. I've got this really

naive idea of what life should be like - it's an idealistic idea but it's completely integrated.

We can't keep thinking of gay people as being ostracised; we can't keep thinking of Muslim people

as being [ostracised] because of the fundamentalism that occurs in Islam. Muslim people have to

do something about speaking up about it. We can't judge a book by its cover.

From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some

wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful

stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put

them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people

into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." Oddly enough, this is the same

sentiment many Christians profess themselves when asked about their religious preference. They

say religion is of man and they prefer to 'walk with Jesus.'

drewau02 said John Kerry "calls our troops idiots." What he actually said was, "Education, if you

make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you

can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." He says it was a botched joke and

should've said "you get US stuck in Iraq" and was a knock on Bush. I believe him and most here

don't. We don't need to re-debate that as it's been done ad nauseum already. drewau02 further

says that nothing happened as a result of what he said. I'd say dropping out of contention for

the 2008 presidential election because of it IS something.

drewau02 said Dick Durbin "called out troops at Gitmo Nazis." What Durbin actually said was, "If

I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had

done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by

Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern

for human beings," Durbin said. "Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in

the treatment of their prisoners." That statement was in reply to an FBI account of how

Guantanamo prisoners had been chained to their cells in extreme temperatures and deprived of food

and water. I wouldn't have believed it was Americans, either.

Link where Tiger Al actually said he would like to ban all religion.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

John McCain told me it was safe to stroll down some streets in Aunation. He was wearing a flak jacket at the time, and had three Blackhawks keeping an eye out for Raptor, AFTiger and CCTAU.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Mike, Tiger Al was quoting a two paragraph bit from Elton John. The first " is above the break and the second " is after the second paragraph.

[Tiger Al 0]

Mike, Tiger Al was quoting a two paragraph bit from Elton John. The first " is above the break and the second " is after the second paragraph.

He knew that. After all, Tigermike's reading comprehension skills are so superior that he routinely urges others to brush up on theirs.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK