It’s such ########. Why is radio the only media the dems want to control? They have a monopoly in tv, newspapers, and magazines. They just want to control radio, so they have full control over everything. They want to silence the opposition. That’s not fair at all. Add that on top of the filibuster proof congress they’re attempting to get by stealing the senate seats in Minnesota, Georgia, and Alaska, and checks and balances will be history.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Umm, anti-god BIGOTRY? Newdow may be controversial, but bigoted he is clearly not.

You want to talk about bigotry? You can hear more than your fair share by tuning in to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck (I don’t know who Glenn BACK is, but If he’s anything like the others, he’s most surely an anti-intellectual bigot too).

Reply to this: comment | thread

If you look in your dictionary, you will find that bigotry is defined as intolerant of others’ beliefs. If you don’t think Newdow is intolerant of religious views other than his secularism, there’s something wrong with your so-called “intellectual” thinking. He wants to do away with all references to God in this society. So what, maybe I wrote Glenn Back instead of Beck, but you know what I meant (you’re so brilliant and perfect). And since when do you have to be an atheist or radical left-wing to be considered “intellectual”? I guess you liberals think it’s o.k. to be intolerant of only conservative Christianity.

Reply to this: comment | thread

No, my dictionary defines it like this: “A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.”

It says nothing about beliefs.

Interestingly, though, any one of your three conservative talk show hosts could be accurately described as “a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his own.”

And I’m not a liberal, so your prejudicial use of “you liberals” demonstrates perfectly that you are also “a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices.”

But to the topic, Newdow doesn’t want “to do away with all references to God in this society,” as you misunderstand, he simply wants government neutrality as written in the Constitution. He doesn’t believe in God, and every morning his little girl is made to stand up in her classroom and say that her father is wrong. How would you like it if every morning, your small son or daughter was made to stand up in the classroom and say “there is no God.”? Neurality is what it’s all about. Fairness for all.

Why are you against playing fair?

Oh, and bigotry? It stems from an old Middle French word dealing with “religious hypocrites.” You know, like people who claim to follow the Ten Commandments and then bear false witness in blog postings. Hmmm.

Reply to this: comment | thread

First off, my dictionary defines “bigot” as “A person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” The word “religion” means “belief,” so I think I used the word in the proper context.

Second, Michael Newdow was never even MARRIED to his “daughter’s” mother. So he never has had legal custody of her. Seems like he just wants to get even with the girl and her mother because they are Christians. He wants to dictate to his “daughter” even though he doesn’t want to assume the legal obligations of parenthood. Why does he want “In God We Trust” removed from money? Because he doesn’t want it to offend his “daughter”?  I don’t have any children, so that’s a moot question. But come to think of it, I had to endure the preaching of “evolution” in science class. And secularism (a beliefe) is disguised as “science”.

What about the Constitutional idea (paraphrased) that states the government should not “prohibit the free exercise of” religion? And apparently the writers of the Declaration of Independence didn’t agree with your definition of “fairness”, as they often referred to “Providence” or a Supreme Being.

If you despise the conservative talk show hosts and claim you’re not a liberal, then what are you? Probably more radical—like a Marxist who would feel more at home in a country where God is out of the government and the citizens are afraid to even practice their religion.

By the way, what’s NEURALITY?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Sorry, I mistyped “belief” as “beliefe”. Thought I’d get to that before some wise guy caught it.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Gosh Cynthia, you sure are an angry person.

In my opinion, Michael Newdow is brash and intolerant, but I see his point. I certainly wouldn’t want the government forcing my kids to think I was wrong about my spirituality, so I can see how he feels about his belief in no spirtuality. I wouldn’t call him a bigot. though.

But evolution is backed by facts and science. You lost this argument as soon as you railed about “enduring ”  the “preaching” of it. Did you also “endure the preaching” of algebra because you were brought up to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, and your education was “masquerading” its own numbers as science?

I support your right to free speech, but it’s sad to see you use it to spread lies about our secular Founding Fathers. Ever read the Treaty of Tripoli?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Angry person? Have you ever seen the look in Newdow’s eyes? He’s filled with hatred toward God, whom he refuses to acknowledge exists. Why are people atheists? I believe they don’t want to live up to moral standards, so they refuse to admit there might be something other than only the material world.

Evolution (macro-evolution, if you know what that means), is a THEORY. There is no way possible to PROVE it to be factual. The scientists who test the hypothesis would have to have been there millions of years ago to witness it. Impossible. No one disputes micro-evolution (changes within the species.) You analogy to algebra simply is not accurate.

Who spreads lies about the Founding Fathers? Read the Declaration of Independence.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Sorry, I should have said YOUR analogy to algebra. Picky readers around here.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Conservative talk-show-devotees have nothing to fear.  Democrats are not about to invoke the “Fairness Doctrine” any time soon, if at all.  What with the economic catastrophe facing the nation, conservative talk shows are the least of their worries. Considering how the all-out efforts of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly, Imus, Boortz and others had such little sway in the ‘06 and, even less, in the ‘08 elections, Democrats no longer regard them a threat.  Quite the contrary.  Most welcome them, for it’s the strident, biased commentary of those self-appointed pundits, though very entertaining, turns off the majority of critical-thinking Americans. 

Conservatives at this juncture would be best advised to hang back for a while, hope that the Democrats regime will self-destruct (Obama might already have started on that course by choosing Clinton as Secretary of State) and in the meantime come up with fresher, more credible voices. 

Carlos Navarro

Reply to this: comment | thread

Thank you. Good article. By <a href=“http://bedavaligtvtr.blogspot.com”>bedava ligtv izle</a>

Reply to this: comment | thread