Saturday, March 19, 2005

A Response to the February Portal-2005

I write for a small newsletter which is primarily Democratic and Liberal. After I wrote an article in January 4 people tried to criticize things I said. I could not publish my response due to a decision to keep politics out the mainstream...but no one says that I can't publish it here.

Based on February’s Portal I have to ask a question. How many Liberals does it take to try and refute one Conservative? The normal answer is 1, the Wogian answer is 4. I had other plans for my subject this month, but some of the liberal views which were promoted in response to my Conservative Viewpoint in January were so outrageous and contrary to history that I could not but respond.
First, know that the article in January was to demonstrate that Liberals would prefer Conservatives when they are silent, while liberals can speak their mind, anywhere, anytime. Those who know me, know that the original article in November was a presentation of “another viewpoint” which had never found its way into the Portal. I listened to 17 years of left-wing viewpoints in this newsletter which I and many others totally disagreed with, but kept silent. So here with some encouragement from our own colleagues, I agreed to write an article from a Conservative standpoint, not aiming my comments at those colleagues I felt were wrong, but merely offering my opinion. I wrote one article and found someone who could not read it without telling me how wrong I was, then the second article comes out and there are four “rebuttals” to my article on, oh what was the topic again…. “free speech.”
Let’s examine their words and talk about the framers for a minute. Some of my colleagues are trying to convince themselves that the framers were not part of organized religion and rejected their Christian beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth! Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted for themselves. These facts do not come from what religion they were raised, or what others believed about them. They were asked to identify what their religious affiliation was at the time of the Convention. Contrary to myth, only 3 of 55 (5%) of the framers classified themselves as Deists (who still believe in God, by the way). There were 7 Congregationalists, 24 Episcopalians, 2 Dutch Reformed, 11 Presbyterians, 3 Deists, 3 Quakers, 2 Roman Catholics, 2 Methodists and 1 Lutheran. Therefore, the contention that Deism was a very popular way of thinking for the framers is contrary to history. Attendance at church was considered the norm during these times and most people were raised on stories from the Bible. The liberal view on this matter is called revisionist history. Liberals would like to think that their view was held by the framers so they can promote their anti-religion agenda, so when evidence comes to the contrary, they merely attempt to change history. These people would have us then think that the framers came up with a document for the good of the country whose tenets are contrary to their religiously based morality, values and principles. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" --Benjamin Franklin
Keep in mind also that both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were adopted by the framers to promote freedom of religion, not suppress it. The framers put in the Establishment Clause to prevent the federal government from creating one particular religion that would otherwise inhibit our religious freedoms. It was in no way intended to keep religion out of the public arena.
Yes, Jefferson did have the words “separation of church and state” in his letters and so did many others. What the writer fails to acknowledge is that it is the spirit of the words and how they are enacted in society that is the problem today and what I was referencing. The misinterpretation of separation of church and state began with Justice Hugo Black’s opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Jefferson would be appalled at its interpretation in our world since the reason for writing the clause was opposite to its modern interpretation.
It is very important that when you criticize anothers words, you quote accurately. I don’t mind having an honest debate about something I said, but I don’t like to be misquoted, and I’m sure the framers would feel the same way. I never said that this country was founded on the Christian religion and neither did they. My words were that “this country was founded on values in the Judeo-Christian traditions.” I stand by that, because it’s true.
Another person accuses me of ranting and making unsupported claims. Which ones are unsupported? My colleague doesn’t say. Could it be that she is guilty of what she accuses me of? The writer had not heard the comments and seen the cartoons by some Liberals calling Condoleezza Rice, Aunt Jemima and assumes that because she has not seen these horrible writings that they simply do not exist. Yet, I went back into normal search engines on the internet, plugged in the two words, Rice and Jemima and got 117,000 hits. Apparently my colleague could not find the original racial slurs but managed to find two Democrats who denounced them. Wow! Two Democrats who found racial slurs a bad thing (one wasn’t Howard Dean). She further says that the radio DJ did offer to apologize, but admitted it wasn’t to Dr. Rice. Apparently this is fine with my colleague? Here’s a question for you. If I go up to someone and while laughing at them point at their face and tell them that they look like Porky Pig, and then I suddenly feel remorse and “apologize” by saying, “Sorry…….Porky,” do you honestly believe that this counts as an apology to the person I’ve actually offended? Not acceptable. As far as the political cartoons, I have not seen or heard as yet any retraction or apology of this blatant racism (this was what I was talking about in the article, by the way, not the DJ). This same person rants about inaccuracy and insults made by Rush Limbaugh. Like? Can you offer an example? Apparently not. Maybe they can’t find any, but just don’t like Rush. Talk about unsupported claims!
In another article, the author cannot figure out what a public forum means. No comment on that one, especially since I give many examples. When I said that “our country has been hijacked by the liberal left,” I am referring to the fact that well over 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas and yet we are unable to have a nativity in a school, or perform A Christmas Carol in public? When the majority view is put down and squashed by a small vocal minority, a valid term is “highjacked.” This writer asks that since we have a Republican Senate, Congress, Executive…..etc., “what exactly has been hijacked? Cognitive skills?” No sir….heart skills, tolerance skills, Constitutional skills. I was not speaking of the government, obviously! I am speaking of the media, the ACLU and all those “tolerant people” out there who deny the freedom of speech rights of the Constitution to religion.
Now, how about Louisiana. If you read my article, I never say that I thought the ACLU was wrong on legal grounds. I would have hoped that just one time, the ACLU would demonstrate that they are more interested in the welfare of children then they are in misinterpreting the Constitution. Isn’t it interesting that my colleague first points out that pregnancy and abortion are a big problem in Louisiana, so you would hope that people with any moral sense would back the state in their attempt to curb this. I have already demonstrated what the Establishment Clause means, so what religion is established by Louisiana’s programs? Nada, Bupkiss, Zero….None. Has the ACLU come up with a plan of their own to combat teen pregnancy, or was their aim just to frustrate the plans of Louisiana to try? "The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government." --Daniel Webster
How about this on the separation of church and state. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." I guess there was no ACLU back then.
The name of Thomas Jefferson was also thrown about quite a bit in last month’s Portal with quotes out of context that supposedly demonstrate Jefferson’s denial of his religious Orthodox beliefs . Yet, he himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” My colleague who claimed that Jefferson rejected his religious beliefs, please let me know where you found this hard to believe statement, and did you as most liberal s do, take things out of context. She goes on to state that the ACLU accused the State of Louisiana because they promoted "virgin birth." I realize that many people are not religious, but that statement is beyond ridiculous for anyone who know what that means. Which religion by the way did it promote. Why can't anyone tell me. To close, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist observed in 1985 that "the wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." To this I totally agree! Do I hear an Amen?
God Bless America

21 Comments:

Blogger Purple Haze said...

Why do I feel in some way like Dr. Frankenstein who has created a monster beyond his control? All kidding aside...this looks great and I wish you much fun and success and I hope more people appreciate your views the way I do.
Sincerely,
The editor-in-chief of The Portal,
the so called "liberal rag."

1:28 PM, March 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former teacher in the Comsewogue School District and a former cartoonist for the PJSTA Portal I read the January edition column addressing the church vs. state issue.

The author asks, “ What part of the Constitution tells us that there must be a separation of church and state…”.
The answer is the First Amendment.
In full, it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof “.
In the United States one can believe and practice the religion of one’s choice or no religion at all. The author states that, “We don’t see much religious freedom and tolerance as of late in the public forum.”
Just what does he mean by the public forum? If he means in churches, homes, clubs, and other non-publicly supported places, I question and challenge his assertion. The Constitution protects him from any law which would prohibit his free exercise of his religion. He can pray and worship all day long.
If, however, he wants his public forum to include publicly supported schools, motor vehicle offices, town halls, police stations, and other institutions paid for by tax dollars, he is demanding that our government starts respecting the establishment of religion. Shall I assume he would like that to be his religion? Would that be Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, the Sun? Would it be majority rule?
Since we live in a country where we exercise freedom of, or from religion, we have a pluralistic society where dozens of different religions are practiced. Anyone can believe anything or nothing. But when we step onto public ground supported by taxpayer’s money, --- the intersection of our national Venn diagram, --- one’s personal beliefs must stay personal.
Presently, all Americans are welcome on our common grounds such as our schools. . The moment a religion is exercised however, people are immediately excluded. The question is why? Why is it so important for some to have their religious beliefs expressed in public quarters? Missionary zeal, perhaps?

NOTE:
The author states that, “…our country has been hijacked by the liberal left.” He goes on to say, “...I believe that most Americans are conservative…” Strange math, no?
Since we have A Republican Senate, a Republican Congress, and a Republican Executive, what exactly has been hijacked? Cognitive skills?

11:54 AM, March 14, 2005  
Blogger Doctorpece said...

Bruce
The media and the ACLU are very powerful....math isn't strange....
liberals are!

2:34 PM, March 14, 2005  
Blogger Doctorpece said...

Bruce, that is known in some circles as humor, sorry you missed it. I'll be more sensitive around you in the future. No metaphors or puns etc.

8:35 PM, March 15, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

NOPE...HUMOR IS FINE...MAYBE EVEN HELPFUL. THE CLARIFICATION IS...WELL, CLEAR. ANYWAY, IT SURE BEATS ITS REPLACEMENT..........SARCASAM.
SO WE AGREE...HUMOR, METAPHORS, PUNS... ALL COVERED BY 'OUR' PERSONAL FIRST AMENDMENT.I'LL SIGN THAT DOCUMENT !

1:26 PM, March 16, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

REHNQUIST? UNBIASED SOURCE EH?

5:52 PM, March 31, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

LAWRENCE CUDWELL? YOU MEAN LARRY THE COKE SNORTER?

5:53 PM, March 31, 2005  
Blogger Doctorpece said...

Look at the above comments. What he is really saying is that he has nothing of particular importance to say. Nobody can speak the truth except someone who is not biased? Name somebody? I look at what people say and do and try not to judge what they are. What Rehnquist says is true. Same thing with Lawrence Kudlow (notice his misspelling above. Probably too angry to even copy correctly) And of course I don't know if this gentleman snorts coke or not....but for some reason if he does he cannot say anything intelligent according to quicksand. Read the quote by Kudlow...nothing weird about what he wrote. It is very well written and accurate unlike the comments above which only further prove to me that most liberals are out of control.

6:28 PM, March 31, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

ARE WE NOW THE SPELLING POLICE? I DIDN'T KNOW HOW LARRY( LAWRENCE )KUDLOW SPELLED HIS NAME.
I WASN'T EVEN ANGRY. ALTHOUGH THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU SUGGESTED THAT I'M ANGRY.
AND JUST FOR THE ( POLICE ) RECORD, MR. KUDLOW WAS ARRESTED FOR COKING...LOOK IT UP. DO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT? NOPE. MR. KUDLOW IS A BRIGHT, ACCOMPLISHED MAN. I KNOW SEVERAL FOLKS WHO USE COKE. BUT THEY TEND NOT TO BE ROYAL MORALIZERS.
NOW LET'S GET REAL, AND MAYBE EVEN HONEST. IF I QUOTED SOME 'OUT OF CONTROL' LIBERAL IN MY BLOG, WOULD THE FINE DR. HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? C'MON, BE HONEST NOW. HONESTY IS A NICE TRAIT. IF I QUOTED MICHAEL MOORE, OR TED KENNEDY, OR CHARLIE RANGLE, WOULD YOU QUESTION, NOT THEIR INTELLIGENCE BUT THEIR OBJECTIVITY? IF NOT, YOU ARE TRULY AN OPEN MINDED PERSON AND YOU CAN CONTINUE CASTING FIRST STONES.

7:00 PM, April 02, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

FOR YOUR SCRAPBOOK:


Lawrence Kudlow ... In the 1980s he served as undersecretary of US Office of Management and Budget. In 1994 The New York Times published a full-page article, "A Wall Street Star's Agonizing Confession," about Kudlow's life and addiction to cocaine. He resigns from his $1-million-a-year job as chief economist at the Wall Street firm of Bear Stearns and later says, "As I hit bottom, I lost jobs, lost all income, lost friends, and very nearly lost my wife. I was willing to surrender and take it on faith that I had to change my life." I started searching for God." Then, "All of a sudden it clicked, that . . . Jesus died for me, too." Kudlow is now chief economist for CNBC...

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER COKE SNORTER WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE FOUND GOD AND SUCCESS.

7:20 PM, April 02, 2005  
Blogger Doctorpece said...

Are you envious that he perhaps did find God and success? He admitted hitting bottom, would you have liked to kick him while he was there? All you have done, as usual is to attack the person. All I did was read a quote that made sense...Tell me what is wrong in these sentences;
"Religion has always been central to our national identity. Religious references do not violate the First Amendment, which was never intended to bar all religious expression or discussion from national discourse. James Madison himself, the author of the First Amendment, was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible. So was George Washington, and, I believe, every president since. The Ten Commandments provide the very foundation of our nation's legal code. They also make up the basis of the moral values that thankfully guide us in our everyday lives." --Lawrence Kudlow

10:15 AM, April 03, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

YES...I AM ENVIOUS THAT HE FOUND GOD AND I DIDN'T. MAYBE I'LL LOOK FOR GOD AMOUNG THE DEAD BODIES IN IRAQ. OH, DID YOU FORGET ABOUT MY IRAQ CHALLENGE TO YOU...OR ARE YOU STILL CONCENTRATING ON MY SPELLING?

10:55 AM, April 03, 2005  
Blogger Doctorpece said...

I can do both at the same time. That would be a good place to look for God, because he is there with the dead bodies in Iraq....and He is also in those garbage cans in abortion clinics that are filled with dead babies. Don't be envious of Kudlow (hope that's spelled correctly)...God is available to everyone.

2:14 PM, April 03, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

YOU SAY YOU CAN DO BOTH. GOOD, ONE DOWN ONE TO GO.
I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE.....
NAME ONE CASE OF AN IRAQI DOING HARM TO AN AMERICAN. REMEMBER YOUR PREMISE FOR KILLING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FULLY-DEVELOPED FETUSES, BETTER KNOWN AS PEOPLE.
I'M A LITTLE SLOW, EXPLAIN WHY WE KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE AND WHY YOU SUPPORT THE MONSTER IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR DOING SO. C'MON, YOU CAN DO IT...WHY DID WE KILL IRAQIS? WHY DO WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF DEAD AMERICANS? TALK TO ME DOCTOR.
I AWAIT YOUR CHANGE OFF SUBJECT.

THE POPE DIED. HE WAS AGAINST ABORTION AND THE WAR IN IRAQ.
HE WAS 2 FOR 2. YOU SEEM TO BE 1 FOR 2.

5:24 PM, April 04, 2005  
Blogger Doctorpece said...

What's the difference? If you really believe that there is no God, who cares how many died? If there is nothing on the other side then there will be no retribution for misdeeds, so what the hell. It's only man made laws that tell me that I can't kill someone and what do they know? All of mankind is filled with hatred and bloodshed, the whole world a slaughter house of dead people.I feel that I have answered you. If you read my other pieces I think I was rather plain about it. It is not as simple as saying...gee, you hurt me so I will hurt you back. There are 2 levels to this. First, Sadaam is a madman who killed over 1.3 million of his people. If you have a little extra money I would suggest buying a DVD off the internet done by the Iraqi Truth Project. It chronicles all the wondrous deeds of Sadaam. He was a monster who should have been taken out a long time ago. On the second level, if you remember there were lot's of innocent people killed on 9/11....Remember???? Who did it? Islamic Fundamentalists. Where do these people live...In the Sudan, in Iraq, in Arabia, in Iran....all over the world!!! President Bush said that he would not be passive like Mr. Oral sex is not real sex President, but would actively go after those who fund, who support and who harbor these fundamentalists. Well guess what, Iraq is on that list. Add to this that he was killing his own people on a daily basis and then add to that that everyone since the Clinton years...Russia...Britain...The CIA...etc. thought that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. Which by the way, I believe he did have. Thanks to Clinton not being more forceful for the inspectors gave Sadaam 12 years to hide or move them. I am sure that one day this will come to light. Bush was brilliant in this, because we needed another stabilizing force in the Middle East. Based on the above he chose Iraq first. Maybe he should have picked North Korea or Iran. I grant you that. But he picked Iraq. No more children in prisons...voting...have you ever read anything about how happy the people are now as compared to before? Probably not. I can tell that all you listen to is leftwing crap with no balance. Tell me if I'm wrong! I'll bet I'm not! Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. We have dead Americans because we're at war. Everyone wishes we could have a nice lovely world where everyone smokes dope and sings Kumbaya. We have Al Quaida on the run...yes it's bloody...yes I wish there was another way...but the alternative is to sit back and wait for another 9/11.

6:15 PM, April 04, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

YOU'RE GETTING WARMER..."there were lot's of innocent people killed on 9/11....Remember???? Who did it? Islamic Fundamentalists. Where do these people live...In the Sudan, in Iraq, in Arabia, in Iran....all over the world!!

I REMMEMBER 9/11. 19 PEOPLE DID IT. 15 SAUDIS, ( BUSH FAMILY IS PALS WITH SAUDIS ) I RECALL. NO IRAQIS. STILL FUZZY! SHOULD WE KILL ALL ISLAMIC FUNDAMTALISTS?
IRAQ WAS THE MOST SECULAR OF ALL MOSLEM NATIONS.
YOU ALSO SAY, " we needed another stabilizing force in the Middle East."
HHMMMM...SO YOU THINK THAT THERE'S ALREADY A STABILIZING FORCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. HHHMMMM....I WONDER WHO THAT MIGHT BE?
YES, YOU'RE GETTIG CLOSER...SADAAM IS EVIL...HE KILLS PEOPLE FOR HIS OWN REASONS. JUST LIKE BUSH! THEY'RE BROTHERS FUNDAMENTALLY!
WRONG ABOUT ME LISTENING TO LEFT WING CRAP. I DON'T LIKE CRAP.
HECK, I EVEN READ THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REGULARLY. ALL SOURCES I CAN GET MY HANDS ON.


P.S. NO GOD. BUT I STILL THINK MURDER IS WRONG. FAIRLY ETHICAL, ACTUALLY.

6:57 PM, April 04, 2005  
Blogger Doctorpece said...

Yes to your first question. Bush is politically pals with the Saudi's...what do you want to piss everyone off??? I explained why we went after Sadaam many times now. You need to open your mind further. Iraq housed, financed and supported Islamic Fundamentalists. If you can't see that???? Holy Moley!! Yes there was another stabilizing force in the Middle East....Israel. Bush and Sadaam sitting in a tree...K-I-S-S-I-N-G. Bruce...time to grow through the fuzzy glasses you have on and not see everything through your left-wing lenses. If you don't listen to only left-wing crap then name a conservative radio show or column you read on a regular basis. You listne to left-wing crap....and when you're in crap for all these years...it don't smell so bad! Ethics my friend comes from morality and reason...reason and morality claim a difference between right and wrong....and is based on God. You can't give me a non-religious reason for thinking that murder is wrong....go ahead...try! You say it's wrong....based on what?? Good try with the Wall Street Journal..and while they have some conservative stuff in it...it is still primarily left-wing.

7:34 PM, April 04, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

YOU’RE THE RED ( STANDARD ) AND I’M THE BLUE.( CAPS )


Yes to your first question. Bush is politically pals with the Saudi's...what do you want to piss everyone off??? NO. I WISH WE DIDN’T PISS EVERYBODY OFF. DO YOU THINK MOST COUNTRIES ARE PISSED OFF AT US? I DO.
I explained why we went after Sadaam many times now. BUSH’S FIRST CABINET MEETING…LONG BEFORE 9/11 FOCUSED ON GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ You need to open your mind further. DR. PECE…YOU ARE AMAZING….I SHOULD OPEN MY MIND? YOU WITH THE ‘LOCKBOX’ BRAIN. CUTE. Iraq housed, financed and supported Islamic Fundamentalists. ACTUALLY, THE SAUDIS DO THIS MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY. WE HAVE OUR OWN FUNDAMENTALIST ISSUES HERE IN THE U.S. THEY SCARE ME. THEY’RE CREEPY . If you can't see that???? Holy Moley!! Yes there was another stabilizing force in the Middle East....Israel. STABILIZED WHAT? Bush and Sadaam sitting in a tree...K-I-S-S-I-N-G. BILL AND MONICA SITTING IN A TREE. MONICA S-U-C-K-I…AW…NEVER MIND. Bruce...time to grow through the fuzzy glasses you have on …I DON’T WEAR GLASSES and not see everything through your left-wing lenses MY ONLY LENS IS THE PURSUIT OF FACTS AND REALITY . If you don't listen to only left-wing crap then name a conservative radio show or column IS THIS A TEST? AM I A REAL PERSON? you read on a regular basis. DON’T LIKE CRAP FROM THE RIGHT OR LEFT. You listne OH MY GOD…THE SPELL-KING MISSPELLED A WORD!!! SHAME SHAME! to left-wing crap....and when you're in crap for all these years...it don't smell so bad! ACTUALLY, CRAP STINKS. Ethics my friend comes from morality and reason..REASON…REASON…WHAT’S THE REASON SO MANY LITTLE BOYS GOT IT IN THE OL’ BUTT-HOLE FROM MEN OF THE CLOTH?.reason and morality claim a difference between right and wrong.AGREED...and is based on God.BULLTURDS…YOU MAY ACTUALLY BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE TRUTH….HHMMMM…SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THEM FUN-DE-MENTAL-ISTS FOLKS TO ME. You can't give me a non-religious reason for thinking that murder is wrong....go ahead...try! ER…IT HURTS REAL BAD? You say it's wrong....based on what? MY PAGAN PARENTS TAUGHT ME THAT Good try with the Wall Street Journal..and while they have some conservative stuff in it...it is still primarily left-wing DO THOSE COMMIE BED WETTERS REALIZE THAT THEY’RE LEFTIES? THAT MAY BE THE SINGLE MOST TELLING THING I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT YOU. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IS LEFT-WING!!! I AM TRULY DOOMED!

10:47 AM, April 05, 2005  
Blogger Purple Haze said...

Wow--Dr. Pece and Quicksand--you sure have a lot to say. It's hard to believe that The Portal started it all. Keep up the dialogue (or is it mostly monologue). Aren't blogs awesome?

6:43 PM, April 08, 2005  
Blogger quicksand said...

MAYBE IT'S A ..........BLOGOLOGUE !

5:37 PM, April 09, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hi all aconservativeview.blogspot.com blogger discovered your site via search engine but it was hard to find and I see you could have more visitors because there are not so many comments yet. I have found website which offer to dramatically increase traffic to your website http://mass-backlinks.com they claim they managed to get close to 4000 visitors/day using their services you could also get lot more targeted traffic from search engines as you have now. I used their services and got significantly more visitors to my blog. Hope this helps :) They offer best services to increase website traffic at this website http://mass-backlinks.com

12:59 AM, February 12, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home