Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

When has any politician put their religious views ahead of the Constitution?

You're joking right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

You're joking right?

You don't have be smug, give an example.

Preferably, an example where a politican actually succeeded in subverting the Constitution for religion. I'll be patient.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm ambivalently pro-choice at best, so it has nothing to do with the abortion issue.

Banning books is a serious concern IMO. So is the desire to ban birth control. Hiring discrimination and editing out scientific information that contradicts a religious viewpoint matter to me.

If you seriously believe that any books will be banned or birth control will be banned under any Republican administration or any Republican-lead Congress, then your much more of left-leaning whacko than I ever gave you credit for in the first place. There's no way that any of that happens in our country and any attempt to say otherwise is fear-mongering at best.

[molson]

I thought Republicans had the market cornered on fear-mongering, but it's nice to see Dems have become so adept at is as well.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Banning books is a serious concern IMO. So is the desire to ban birth control. Hiring discrimination and editing out scientific information that contradicts a religious viewpoint matter to me.

What possibly could a sitting president (or vice president in this case) do to cause birth control to be banned or burning books? Even supporting either (let alone convincing the congress to do some legislation on it) would be a quick ticket out of office.

These are scarecrow fears. Not only are they ridiculous (does anyone honestly think Palin would be favor of burning books as president?), but they are completely infeasible.

It would be like me saying I'm afraid that Obama would institute a Muslim wing of the government and hire an arab terrorist as Sec of Defense because he visited some Muslim countries and hung out with people of Muslim descent. Both claims are ridiculous and the left would pepper me (with good cause) if I stated that. Yet, acting as if Palin would be in favor of burning books is a "serious fear we need to be aware of".

[molson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I disagree - if anything, American religious ferver is growing, similar to that in Africa/India/Latin America as opposed to a more secular Europe. I'd guarantee that the next GOP president after McCain for example, will be far more religously motivated than a Gerald Ford or a Nixon before him.

Perhaps they've become emboldended by the liberals' attempts to squeeze them out of American life.

So much of our life involves the government in some way. "Seperation of church and state" has become "don't ask, don't tell". Or at the very least, that's a very strong perception.

My father's a Lutheran pastor (the least scary denomination possible), and he used to give a short, generic blessing at the high school graduation. One year they told him he couldn't do it anymore. No big deal, he'd rather be watching baseball anyway. But I can see how that stuff comes off to some people. They're not forcing anyone to believe anything. They're not punishing anyone who believes otherwise. You sit there, think about whatever, and then the blessing's over. Big deal. I personally don't care, but it's just out of control the lengths we go to to protect people from wayward religious ideas. It feels like something a government that wants to extinguish Christianity would do.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Perhaps they've become emboldended by the liberals' attempts to squeeze them out of American life.

So much of our life involves the government in some way. "Seperation of church and state" has become "don't ask, don't tell". Or at the very least, that's a very strong perception.

My father's a Luthern pastor (the least scary denomination possible), and he used to give a short, generic blessing at the high school graduation. One year they told him he couldn't do it anymore. No big deal, he'd rather be watching baseball anyway. But I can see how that stuff comes off to some people. They're not forcing anyone to believe anything. They're not punishing anyone who believes otherwise. You sit there, think about whatever, and then the blessing's over. Big deal. I personally don't care, but it's just out of control the lengths we go to to protect people from wayward religious ideas. It feels like something a government that wants to extinguish Christianity would do.

....or you can have a blessing for every religion and be there for 6 hours.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

....or you can have a blessing for every religion and be there for 6 hours.

My father's was non-denominational, it would would have fit for any religion, except maybe scientology.

Until the government banned it. The problem was that it implied that god exists. That's scary stuff, so they had to shut it down.

Perhaps the next step is banning religious books from government-funded libraries. If that hasn't happened already.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't have be smug, give an example.

Preferably, an example where a politican actually succeeded in subverting the Constitution for religion. I'll be patient.

Terry Schiavo

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

What possibly could a sitting president (or vice president in this case) do to cause birth control to be banned or burning books? Even supporting either (let alone convincing the congress to do some legislation on it) would be a quick ticket out of office.

These are scarecrow fears. Not only are they ridiculous (does anyone honestly think Palin would be favor of burning books as president?), but they are completely infeasible.

It would be like me saying I'm afraid that Obama would institute a Muslim wing of the government and hire an arab terrorist as Sec of Defense because he visited some Muslim countries and hung out with people of Muslim descent. Both claims are ridiculous and the left would pepper me (with good cause) if I stated that. Yet, acting as if Palin would be in favor of burning books is a "serious fear we need to be aware of".

Your example isn't remotely the same. We know that Palin did in fact ask the Wasilla librarian about banning books. Her actions in the past have been in favor of banning books. Is it not acceptable to at least learn from her the reasoning for that and her thoughts on book banning?

The other stuff doesn't necessarily apply to Palin, but those are views held by various Bush appointees. Are you saying we shouldn't care what people profess as their beliefs and goals? We should just assume that no matter what people say and no matter what people do that when they run for office or are appointed we should just pretend it never happened?

You also want to set the bar at legislation when that's not the only way to effect policy. The various executive agencies have a whole lot of authority to change policies on thousands of items. Often these changes have much broader effects than were at first realized. Look at what HHS was doing to try to classify contraception as a form of abortion and hence allow health care workers to refuse to dispense.

Look, believe what you want and draw your line where you will. For me when religion starts to effect policy decisions, not in the abstract, but to push a narrow agenda, that's too much. People who have made decisions or stated goals that are in contrast to what most Americans consider personal freedoms, at a minimum should at least be expected to clarify their positions.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Terry Schiavo

Roy Moore

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

My father's was non-denominational, it would would have fit for any religion, except maybe scientology.

Until the government banned it. The problem was that it implied that god exists. That's scary stuff, so they had to shut it down.

Perhaps the next step is banning religious books from government-funded libraries. If that hasn't happened already.

whoops, my bad you also have to do something for those who are atheists. I dont know what but there feelings need to be just as important as those who have religious faith.

Non-denominational doesnt cover any religion my friend and that is a very thin veil.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

whoops, my bad you also have to do something for those who are atheists. I dont know what but there feelings need to be just as important as those who have religious faith.

Non-denominational doesnt cover any religion my friend and that is a very thin veil.

So the compromise is to ONLY do something for atheists and nobody else?

Why do you have to do something for anyone? The Constitution doesn't require 6 hours of blessings or none.

[Flasch186]

eh, youre right, fuck 'em.

[Jas_lov]

helenair.com

Ron Paul will be on the ballot in Montana for some reason. Do you think this will have any effect on the outcome of the state or is it still solid McCain?

Is anyone else rooting for a 269-269 tie? I was playing around with rcp's create a map and it will happen if Obama wins all Kerry states except NH and he picks up CO, NM, and IA. Not that far fetched. It's only happened twice in history where the House of Reps. decided the Presidency.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

eh, youre right, fuck 'em.

No idea if you're sincere but.

The Constitution doesn't protect someone from being exposed to the expressions of other religions. That would contradict the 1st amendment anyway.

What if my sincerely held religious belief is that government is the root of all evil? How should I be protected? I'm exposed to that shit every day. Government makes me uncomfortable.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

So the compromise is to ONLY do something for atheists and nobody else?

Why do you have to do something for anyone? The Constitution doesn't require 6 hours of blessings or none.

Isn't that exactly in line with the current thinking on the separation of church and state...don't do anything for anyone?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Isn't that exactly in line with the current thinking on the separation of church and state...don't do anything for anyone?

That's definitely the current thinking, but it's a policy decision, it's not required by the constitution (and may actually violate the 1st ammendment).

[Flasch186]

public and private are where were going to find ourselves at issue. If I go to a sponsored church event I can expect to find a blessing in said vein....If I go to a public event sponsored by a government entity (think broadly, on government grounds, etc) than it shouldn't be favorable to any one religion or religion for that matter. Are there some things in our government that ceremonially have incorporated some religious overtone? certainly, like the swearing in but those events and moments have lost their religious weight almost to nil but when a prayer is said at a public high school graduation it become problematic....but not in your view and thats ok as long as your not a public official trying to push for your line of thinking on others.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

That's definitely the current thinking, but it's a policy decision, it's not required by the constitution (and may actually violate the 1st ammendment).

I hear cyndi lauper singing right now

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

public and private are where were going to find ourselves at issue. If I go to a sponsored church event I can expect to find a blessing in said vein....If I go to a public event sponsored by a government entity (think broadly, on government grounds, etc) than it shouldn't be favorable to any one religion or religion for that matter. Are there some things in our government that ceremonially have incorporated some religious overtone? certainly, like the swearing in but those events and moments have lost their religious weight almost to nil but when a prayer is said at a public high school graduation it become problematic....but not in your view and thats ok as long as your not a public official trying to push for your line of thinking on others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

We'd definitely managed to cram a lot of stuff over that over the years.

I'm not strict texualist or anything, but I don't see how the pledge of alliegence or non-mandatory school prayer (and especially mere references to religion) are even in the ballpark.

Oh, and if it matters, I'm not remotely religious. Haven't been to church in maybe 10 years. But I'm not threatened by Christianity.

[Flasch186]

there are plenty of ways to have 'non-madatory' school prayer, AAMOF, at my school BASIC met every morning in an empty class room to pray. Good for them and it didnt take up one minute of the school day for others. The pledge falls under the 'nil' i mentioned above. Like I said, Cyndi is singing and we can see it too.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

That's definitely the current thinking, but it's a policy decision, it's not required by the constitution (and may actually violate the 1st ammendment).

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing. You ask, "Why do you have to do something for anyone?" -- it sounds like you're in favor of not doing anything for anyone. But you're in favor of bringing in a pastor to do a prayer, which is doing something for one group?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Your example isn't remotely the same. We know that Palin did in fact ask the Wasilla librarian about banning books. Her actions in the past have been in favor of banning books. Is it not acceptable to at least learn from her the reasoning for that and her thoughts on book banning?

And Obama has had close friends that were Muslim. Do you think it more likely that Palin would inquire as VP about banning books as it would be for Obama to name a close friend (that happens to be Muslim) to his cabinet? The point is neither will happen as they are political suicide and to worry about either shows a lack of common sense.

The other stuff doesn't necessarily apply to Palin, but those are views held by various Bush appointees.

If this is the slope we are taking, there's a ton of democrats who think having Muslims in a president's cabinet would be a good thing. If we are going to start knocking McCain/Palin for Bush appointees, we can start knocking Obama for the beliefs of some of the main big wigs in the democrat/move on circles. Again, I'm not sure what this gains (outside of fear mongering).

Are you saying we shouldn't care what people profess as their beliefs and goals? We should just assume that no matter what people say and no matter what people do that when they run for office or are appointed we should just pretend it never happened?

No, I think it's perfectly fine to scrutinize the belief system of candidates. I just don't think it needs to go to the level of fearing a ban of birth control and burning books. Palin is going to be much more christian conservative than a lot of people prefer, and those people won't vote for her. But to act as if her goal would be to institute massive book burning episodes or a ban of birth control to scare people is a little over the top. Heck, if she didn't do that in Alaska, how would she be able to do it as VP (or even president)?

You also want to set the bar at legislation when that's not the only way to effect policy. The various executive agencies have a whole lot of authority to change policies on thousands of items. Often these changes have much broader effects than were at first realized. Look at what HHS was doing to try to classify contraception as a form of abortion and hence allow health care workers to refuse to dispense.

If you don't like that process, tell your congressman/woman and/or vote for a different candidate for office. It's the beauty of our American political system.

Look, believe what you want and draw your line where you will. For me when religion starts to effect policy decisions, not in the abstract, but to push a narrow agenda, that's too much.

OK, then. Looks like you won't be voting for Obama or McCain. Obama has routinely stated that his Christian faith is a big factor in trying to setup a heath care system for all people and his religious beliefs help lead him to try to have compassion for those less fortunate (which is way the wealthy should pay more in taxes). McCain has stated that his religious background impacts his feelings on helping those less fortunate as well. Heck, I even think Bob Barr may be out. Perhaps there's an atheist somewhere running on the green platform you can vote for.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Pass

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing. You ask, "Why do you have to do something for anyone?" -- it sounds like you're in favor of not doing anything for anyone. But you're in favor of bringing in a pastor to do a prayer, which is doing something for one group?

but it's the 'right' group.

and Arles she tried.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing. You ask, "Why do you have to do something for anyone?" -- it sounds like you're in favor of not doing anything for anyone. But you're in favor of bringing in a pastor to do a prayer, which is doing something for one group?

I meant to say "why do you have to something for everyone", but rather than correct my typo, I left it as is, to make the point, "if you decide to do one thing, why do you then have to do something for everyone else?". In that hypothetical scenerio, the government is REQUIRING to you to make a specific religious message (for the people that are left out). You can't get any more unconstitutional than that.

I don't care remotely if there's a blessing at a graduation or not. But if a public school wants one, I think they should be able to do it. If students want it there, and the school's OK with it, they should be able to have it without government interference.

I'm just not a huge fan of the enviornment where mentioning "god" sets off red flags of suppression for everyone.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

I meant to say "why do you have to something for everyone", but rather than correct my typo, I left it as is, to make the point, "if you decide to do one thing, why do you then have to do something for everyone else?". In that hypothetical scenerio, the government is REQUIRING to you to make a specific religious message (for the people that are left out). You can't get any more unconstitutional than that.

I don't care remotely if there's a blessing at a graduation or not. But if a public school wants one, I think they should be able to do it. If Christian students want it there, they should be able to have it.

I'm just not a huge fan of the enviornment where mentioning "god" sets off red flags of suppression for everyone.

What public school do you know of that has ALL Christian students and just because theyre the majority or most vocal doesnt mean that the minority's feelings are of little or no concern. This is the crux of the problem and plain as day that you cannot see.

[larrymcg421]

The thing I don't understand is why does it have to be in the public sphere? There is so much energy and attention into trying to get religion in public and I think it could be better used for more productive things. I think there are many who want to force their beliefs on others and that is unfortunate. People like Pat Robertson, Roy Moore, etc. do more to harm Christianity than any athiest could ever dream.

[JPhillips]

Arles: If the very idea of having a Muslim on the cabinet is as offensive to you as banning books, we really have little to discuss.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and Arles she tried.

It's good to know that inquiring (while mayor) about the library in Wasilla's policies on removing books because some voters thought they had "inappropriate language" in them equates an attempt to ban books. Forget the fact that she never once asked for a ban or even a ban supported by someone else. Forget that it could have simply been a process of her investigating the city's option should it become a legislative attempt or ballot initiative.

No, because she asked a librarian on the policy of removing books because of citizen complaints, she wanted to ban books. Sound about right?

[larrymcg421]

Non-mandatory prayer in a school environment filled with peer pressure is anything but non-mandatory.

The big lie that gets told all the time is that prayer has been taken out of public schools. Not true. I prayed all the time at school, brought a bible on test days, and never had a problem. The problem is that for some reason people want the school to lead the prayer. Why is that necessary?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: If the very idea of having a Muslim on the cabinet is as offensive to you as banning books, we really have little to discuss.

That's what you got from what I wrote? My statement was for Obama to create Muslim wing of the government or name a Muslim as Secretary of Defense would be political suicide. I made no moral judgment about the process, which is why I stated even if you were afraid of such a thing - Obama doing so would involve little common sense. The point is not make judgments about where Muslims as sec of defense or certain books being burned is "right" or not, but to look at the politically reality that neither will happen. So, why even worry about it.

But, I guess faking outcry at a scarecrow argument is a quick way to avoid the real points of my reply. So, kudos for doing that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What public school do you know of that has ALL Christian students and just because theyre the majority or most vocal doesnt mean that the minority's feelings are of little or no concern. This is the crux of the problem and plain as day that you cannot see.

I just don't buy that a atheiest or non-Christian is that freaked out by mentions of god by Christians.

And no, I'm not that concerned about their feelings, especially if they keep them to themselves. The Consitution is supposed to protect feelings now?

I should clarify that if you're just arguging generally, from a policy perspective, that you don't want any prayer in school, fine, I don't care enough to disagree or argue. I just don't think its a Constitutional/government issue, and I don't think the government should involve itself in such matters unless someone's rights are being violated (beyond hurt feelings). And you simply don't have a right to be shielded from things you find offensive. And I idea of the government "establishing a religion" is in a different stratosphere from school prayer, etc.

[Kodos]

I'm a green Atheist. Perhaps I should run!

[JPhillips]

Arles: The one quote we have about the books incident is:

"She asked the library how she could go about banning books,"

Since Palin won't answer any questions, we don't have any other info. Your phrasing of "inquiring" about the "policies on removing books" puts quite a positive spin on things. I'll assume you haven't had a private discussion with either Palin or the librarian, so how did you come to such a conclusion?

Maybe there's nothing there, but we know she asked about getting rid of books and then threatened to fire the librarian for not supporting her enough. If Palin would answer some questions we'd know a lot more.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's good to know that inquiring (while mayor) about the library in Wasilla's policies on removing books because some voters thought they had "inappropriate language" in them equates an attempt to ban books. Forget the fact that she never once asked for a ban or even a ban supported by someone else. Forget that it could have simply been a process of her investigating the city's option should it become a legislative attempt or ballot initiative.

No, because she asked a librarian on the policy of removing books because of citizen complaints, she wanted to ban books. Sound about right?

That's not quite how the librarian has talked about the event. spin much?

[Kodos]

Would you like to have a Muslim prayer (and only a Muslim prayer) happen every day at your child's public school?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's what you got from what I wrote? My statement was for Obama to create Muslim wing of the government or name a Muslim as Secretary of Defense would be political suicide. I made no moral judgment about the process, which is why I stated even if you were afraid of such a thing - Obama doing so would involve little common sense. The point is not make judgments about where Muslims as sec of defense or certain books being burned is "right" or not, but to look at the politically reality that neither will happen. So, why even worry about it.

But, I guess faking outcry at a scarecrow argument is a quick way to avoid the real points of my reply. So, kudos for doing that.

Again, Obama does not have a history of appointing Muslims nor has he ever stated he would appoint a Muslim as SecDef. Even if he would the mere fact that someone is a Muslim is inconsequential. If that person had a history of vitriolic statements or jihadist tendencies that would be a concern That's why your example doesn't have merit.

Palin has a history of trying to ban books and refuses to discuss it. It's not about political consequences, it's about a desire to wield authority to impose religious views on those who have different beliefs.

[molson]

Do we know what kinds of books she wanted to "ban" (or in reality, just remove from the government-funded library?)

There's lots of books that your neighborhood government library wouldn't think to carry. That doesn't amount to a "ban". Somehow, these libararies have to decide which books to carry and which ones not to. You're probably not going to find a lot of good porn down there. The ones that don't make the cut, for whatever reason, aren't "banned".

The government is allowed to show preferences for viewpoints in some ways ("sin taxes", etc).

If it's a private libarary, we'll talking a whole different kettle of fish.

And I'm not in favor of "book banning", but if that's your primary concern, Palin will have much less oportunity to regulate government libaries as VP than she would in Alaska politics.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't have be smug, give an example.

Preferably, an example where a politican actually succeeded in subverting the Constitution for religion. I'll be patient.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


Congress shall have the power to...declare war...

"Earlier in 2005, President Bush claimed he was on a mission from God when he started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." The US president told a Palestinian delegation in Sharm el-Sheikh."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510203

[ISiddiqui]

Are you serious? You think that Bush declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq because of his religion?! Tell that to the PNAC guys.

[larrymcg421]

Palin pressured Wasilla librarian: Gov. Sarah Palin | adn.com

Highlights:

Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go.

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


Congress shall have the power to...declare war...

"Earlier in 2005, President Bush claimed he was on a mission from God when he started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." The US president told a Palestinian delegation in Sharm el-Sheikh."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510203

He already had a few examples that weren't a stretch to respond to and chose not to respond to either of them. I am sure he will jump all over this one, but I would love to hear his response to Terry Schiavo or the 10 commandments judge.

[ISiddiqui]

Obama appears to be getting scared:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...gn_flashes.php

After saying he wasn't going to support 527's, he appears to want to call them in.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Obama appears to be getting scared:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...gn_flashes.php

After saying he wasn't going to support 527's, he appears to want to call them in.

The evidence in that blog is unconvincing.

An Obama adviser privy to the campaign's internal thinking on the matter

And my uncle's brother's sister's ex-husband's cousin twice removed says that McCain and Palin have a secret affair and he chose her as VP to keep it quiet.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Palin has a history of trying to ban books and refuses to discuss it. It's not about political consequences, it's about a desire to wield authority to impose religious views on those who have different beliefs.

If you can point to one executive order, piece of legislation or even ballot initiative she just supported as mayor, governor or while on the commission in Alaska, then I would agree she has a history of it. As it stands now, that does not exist.

Still, I have no problem with people asking her about it. I just don't think it's a fair fear for people to have about her being in office.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd imagine an Obama adviser would be far more privy to the campaigns internal thinking than your uncle's brother's sister's ex-husband's cousin twice removed who has no ties to the McCain campaign.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are you serious? You think that Bush declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq because of his religion?! Tell that to the PNAC guys.

I gotta agree with ISiddiqui here. Bush may have cloaked it as a "mission from god" to try to appease certain segments of his voter-base and drive up enlistment #'s in the rust belt and the heartland (traditionally religious areas), but it was much more PNAC-driven. To an absurd degree.

Then again, saying he cloaked it that way on purpose for a reason is really giving him too much credit - it must have been an advisor. I honestly don't believe the guy could think his way out of a paper bag (exaggeration, but you get my drift).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Obama appears to be getting scared:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...gn_flashes.php

After saying he wasn't going to support 527's, he appears to want to call them in.

It's about fucking time. Rarely do you win a fight by keeping your weapons locked up.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by panerd

He already had a few examples that weren't a stretch to respond to and chose not to respond to either of them. I am sure he will jump all over this one, but I would love to hear his response to Terry Schiavo or the 10 commandments judge.

Agreed, those are obviously much clearer examples.