I got an email this afternoon that indicated political allies of mine were fielding heat over a two month old posting of mine.
Let it be known that I'd rather be loyal than right and I'd be happy (as anyone who spends any time surfing between blogs knows), defending myself. It is however another thing altogether when our extremely hard working party chair has to defend me too; and for that (and that alone) I apologize.
Three separate Holocaust survivors (all 3 are very old and somewhat frail) that I have been in contact with have expressed rabid dismay with the actions of the Litchfield Historical Commission - but not with any postings of ours.
Never mind that not one critic of my, or another bloggers posts on that subject, have ever addressed the fact that Litchfield is defying federal law. Quite the contrary -it's clear that those that wish to take this or Cool Justice to task have in fact another far more sinister agenda.
I am a youth pastor in an Evangelical church.
ReplyDeleteThe supreme court is ONE judge away from overturning Roe V. Wade.
**VERY IMPORTANT:
Huckabee probably cannot win in the general election. Romney has a very good shot at winning.
**IF ROMNEY IS ELECTED IT WILL BE OVERTURNED**
Romney will appoint a pro-lifer. Romney’s LDS values are identical to Evangelical values, differing theologies are irrelevant in the Oval Office.
I like Huckabee, really, but as Evangelicals it is our duty to make sure we nominate someone who can win.
BOTTOM LINE: A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Hillary or Obama. A vote against LIFE.
www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php
Yes..but but but
ReplyDeleteAbortion is not a Constitutional issue, while guns are!
Do we want to promote a specific religious point of view on a rather narrow issue, or do we want to protect the Constitution?
Do we want to promote a specific religious point of view on a rather narrow issue, or do we want to protect the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteWell, the answer to that is quite obvious - both w/r/t the guns v. abortion issue, and the religious display issue in Litchfield.
The vast majority of those demanding access to public land for their religious displays are doing so not from a devotion to the Constitution, but from an interest to advance their religion relative to others. As soon as the gates are opened, then the principled "freedom for all" position goes out the window, and "the will of the majority" steps in.
You can't possibly be genuinely surprised that allowing a town commission to decide which religions are valid for the purposes of display on publicly-owned land would in short order find Judaism excluded. It's entirely predictable, and it's why religious displays should be limited to private property – because government should not be in the business of regulating religious belief.
>>You can't possibly be genuinely surprised that allowing a town commission to decide which religions are valid for the purposes of display on publicly-owned land
ReplyDeleteUh...not keeping up here are we?
You might follow the story 1st prior to posting.
They own the site in question and there's nothing "public" about it.
As it regards your other remarks - when public property is used by the community at large for various civic functions of a secular nature it must also be made available to religious groups.
Otherwise no one can use it all.
That's not opinion, that's just how it is.
GO TO mortgagemaster.biz
ReplyDelete