Friday, February 09, 2007

Re Marcotte & McEwan: What Edwards SHOULD Have Said

Anyone who has been following the Marcotte-McEwan hoo-ha, has probably read John Edwards’s namby-pamby response to the cat-lick fascists who are concerned about his bloggoddesses.

If he had any real political courage, he might have written:

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that everyone in this country is entitled to believe in his or her own chosen religion—or not to believe in any religion whatsoever.

The Amendment also specifically states that the government “may make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” For many of us, those words clearly mean that the government cannot be involved in any way with religion. As Justice Hugo Black said: no law means no law.

I believe, therefore, that the government must be completely neutral about religion. The United States may neither favor nor disfavor any individual’s religious beliefs, nor may it favor or disfavor a general belief in religion or any religious entities.

Religious persons who strive to enforce a sectarian worldview through federal or state action, therefore, should be met with the strongest opposition possible. Although such opposition may appear to the offender as being “anti-Catholic,” “anti-Protestant,” “anti-Jewish,” “anti-Muslim,” or “anti-religious,” it most definitely is not. Instead, it is the religious zealot who is viciously anti-American.

Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan will remain involved with my campaign. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that they will continue to combat those unpatriotic voices who seek to use our government as an instrument of religious propaganda.

We can dream, can't we?

5 comments:

Minor Ripper said...

Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Well, I'll give you credit: you're consistent. Your one-sided stupidity reigns throughout all of your posts.

Let's consider what a response to your legal argument could look like.

Take the Potter Stewart dissent from Abington v. Schempp as a starting point:

"After considering the absolute ban on the mixing of Church and State, I have decided today to dismiss my blogmisstresses for being too religious; that is to say, too secular and atheistic. After all, if the State is to be free of religion, then it certainly must abhor secularism and atheism as well, and for good reason too, as those who support such causes seem to do nothing more than to write paranoid blogs, taking withering shots at established religion for being 'threatened' by blasphemy challenges, while simultaneously mocking the possibility of one being an intellectual and a Christian at the same time (Francis Collins anyone?). If such a childish and pathetic belief system exists, one which has nothing better to do than hide behind computer screens and mock other religions that is, then certainly the state should do all in its power to move far away from such a thing. So should everyone else as well, but then again, some people are too stupid to know how stupid they really sound. Thank you, and goodnight."

Yeah, I think that sounds about right. Better luck next time, bud.

The Exterminator said...

anonymous writes:... some people are too stupid to know how stupid they really sound.

I couldn't agree more.

Anonymous said...

Exterminator:

Flummoxed much? A person as incessantly wordy as you can't come up with anything better than "I couldn't agree more"? Please, your site was always comic relief, but you're hitting new heights nowadays. WOOHOO!

angelsdepart said...

Hey anonymous

Is that you Ted Haggard? I thought so. Go ahead and post under your name.