. It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion

Bull@!$%#.

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

And don't give me that 10th Amendment crap. That's negated by the 14th Amendment and incorporation.

If not .......

How are these people "pushing beliefs" on you? By merely expressing their opinion? The Constitution and our legal system protect your religious freedom. I haven't seen any "non religious" movement to take your freedoms away.

I don't agree with religious people brainwashing their children with beliefs that contradict the laws of nature. Why would a rational person teach their children that they must reject scientific evidence and natural law to believe in magical and impossible events, and that if they don't have "faith" in those impossible beliefs they will go to hell. I disagree with you, and I will always disagree with you, but I am promoting no law to require you to act on my beliefs. Maybe you could do us "non religious" people the same courtesy.

The reverse, however, is not true. Religious groups have threatened science curricula in several states by pushing for the anti-science creationism belief to be taught in public schools. Religious groups have used their political influence to deny or make difficult a woman's right to choose. Religious groups have tax exemptions that cause non religious people to pay more taxes and cause increased state and national debt.

Wrong, If not us, on many counts.

1. The First Amendment DOES guarantee both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. There's a reason why the separation of church and state exists.

2. No nonbeliever is pushing their beliefs on believers. For starters, because, by definition, a nonbeliever doesn't have any "beliefs." And don't create a false equivalence. Homosexual marriage does NOT infringe upon your freedom of religion. You're free to marry whomever your religion dictates you to marry, but that doesn't mean that when other people don't follow your religious definition of marriage, they're infringing upon your rights. That makes absolutely zero sense.

This is not a fundamentalist nation. This is not a nation whose lawmakers need (or are even allowed) religious guidance of any kind. If that's the kind of nation you want, then Saudi Arabia is the place for you. Here, though, there's this little thing called the Constitution standing between the Bible and the rights of the people.

Yes, the 'religion of love' is often interpreted as an excuse to hate people who are different or who think differently.

I'm glad you anti-religious people have this gentlemen (see picture above) as your champion.

Its makes me more convinced of my beliefs than ever before, have a nice day........

K>S>C>

What a ridiculous statement. All "anti-relious" people are not in agreement with one another any more than all religious people are in agreement. Following your convoluted "logic"religious folks should take responsibility for every action of the Westboro Baptist Church and Muslim terrorists. After all, those people are part of the religious flock.

@Ed

Certainly can't support this guy's actions, but the Family Research Council definitely is a hate group that is determined to legislate their intolerant religious beliefs on the rest of us.

So while you're not saying you're ok with it, you're okay with it? Please, what right does he have to commit a crime? I despise Westburo, but that doesn't give me the right to do bodily harm to any member of their church. That's not for me to decide.

And I'm sure you staunch defenders of the First Amendment feel just as strongly about the Second Amendment, right??

.

ItIs

Are you really that obtuse? Ed clearly said that he disagrees with both the shooter and the Family Research Council. So do I. Why don't you understand simple statements?

Um, anyone besides me have a concern that the shooter was charged with terrorism? Why terrorism? Because the government is working hard to take away rights of anyone they label a terrorist, maybe? Get enough guys like this and then they can make new laws further down the road of no due process?

. It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion

Bull@!$%#.

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

And don't give me that 10th Amendment crap. That's negated by the 14th Amendment and incorporation.

Blah....blah....blah....blah....blah -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- FRC is a non profit organization which ain't federally funded!

Corkins said, "I don't like your politics," as he opened fire.

Wow. This gun-toting, knuckle-dragging nut job is disgusting. And a liberal to boot, go figure. Did he legally obtain his firearm? And for all of your arguing religion, this slug didn't say anything about religion, he said POLITICS. It does strike me as extremely odd that this sack of fecal matter shot the guard, and pleads guilty of terrorism, while the shooting at Ft. Hood has been labelled as "work place violence". Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot??? Reminds me of a quote I heard just this morning:

“One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street… these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time.” - J. Cooper

@Don

Are you really that obtuse? Ed clearly said that he disagrees with both the shooter and the Family Research Council. So do I. Why don't you understand simple statements?

The word but cancels out anything prior to it.

@AndresTM

1. The First Amendment DOES guarantee both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. There's a reason why the separation of church and state exists.

Not specifically in the 1st ammendment.

2. No nonbeliever is pushing their beliefs on believers. For starters, because, by definition, a nonbeliever doesn't have any "beliefs."

You may not have a pro or con believe, but it's impossible not any belief at all. Either you believe or you don't.

Homosexual marriage does NOT infringe upon your freedom of religion.

Homosexual activist sometimes do.

You're free to marry whomever your religion dictates you to marry, but that doesn't mean that when other people don't follow your religious definition of marriage, they're infringing upon your rights. That makes absolutely zero sense.

Neither does the marital equality argument when no one can marry somoene of the same sex, regardless of gender identity.

This is not a fundamentalist nation. This is not a nation whose lawmakers need (or are even allowed) religious guidance of any kind. If that's the kind of nation you want, then Saudi Arabia is the place for you.Here, though, there's this little thing called the Constitution standing between the Bible and the rights of the people.

How so? One of the principal reasons this nation was founded was freedom of religion. Just because Congress can't abridge religion doesn't mean that the constitution is standing between the bible and people's rights.

ItIs

Question answered ..... you really are that obtuse.

And I'm sure you staunch defenders of the First Amendment feel just as strongly about the Second Amendment, right??

Well, since no one has ever proposed to do away with the Second Amendment, I don't see how this is relevant. Keeping criminals and the mentally unstable unarmed is not something the Second Amendment prohibits. The idea that Obama wants to take the guns of law-abiding citizens is nothing but a stupid straw-man scare tactic created by the extreme right. As for assault rifles, the Second Amendment does not say that you can own ALL kinds of guns. You couldn't own a tank or a jet fighter during the Reagan era, either. Do Reagan and his supporters hate the Second Amendment? I didn't think so.

Now, as to whether I personally stand for or against the Second Amendment, well, let's just say I'll come out as being against the Second Amendment (which I'm not) the moment you intolerant, fundamentalist religious zealots come out as being against the First Amendment, which very clearly says that the Bible has no say in the lawmaking process. Zero say. Let's see who looks worse, then, the guy against the Second Amendment or the guy against the First Amendment. There's a reason why they call it the First Amendment.

The defenders of the Second Amendment are too often folks who believe in only part of the Second Amendment. They believe that their rights to gun ownership "shall not be infringed" but choose to ignore the "well regulated" part of the amendment.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I also believe that we get to decide through the democratic process defined by the Constitution on the way we regulate Second Amendment responsibilities.

Why is this article titled "Family Research Council gunman" when it should be titled " Gay Activist Gunman who tried to kill Family Research Council members"? Why is the gay lobby group that he worked for not named? The "coalition" of DC LGBT groups may have denied they foster hate but posters here from Ed Burke on call the Family Research Council a "hate group" or infer that it is. This reporting sure looks biased. And Sarah, you sure have a one-sided agenda. And Don you have a twisted sense of logic. The gay activist gunman from a non-religious group tried to kill the members of the "religious" Family Research Council and thus take away their freedom to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Blah, blah, blah, I was responding to the ignorant post about freedom FROM religion being non-existent. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept.

Steve,

I don't think people are advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. At least I'm not. It's about better regulation of the 2nd Amendment in the context of modern society. Just like the 1st Amendment is regulated.

Pandora,

And Sarah, you sure have a one-sided agenda

Yeah, you should probably grasp now that I'll never be on the side of those who promote discrimination and hate. Of which I'm thankful. You bet your sweet ass it's a one sided agenda.

Not specifically in the 1st ammendment.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment reads--

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

SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment as establishing Freedom of AND from Religion. If you don't like it —as I said above— then you can't honestly say you are in agreement with the Constitution in its entirety. Which is fine, I mean, one can disagree with a part of the Constitution without being a traitor. It's your full, inalienable right to disagree with something that's in the Constitution. But let's call a spade a spade.

You may not have a pro or con believe, but it's impossible not any belief at all. Either you believe or you don't.

Exactly. If you don't believe, then, by definition, you don't have a belief. "Atheism" (if, at this point in the conversation, we're assuming atheism is what's behind homosexual marriage, etc.) isn't the belief that God exists -- it's the lack of belief that God exists. They're two very different things. Secularism is just the absence of a system of beliefs, not a system of beliefs on itself.

Homosexual activist sometimes do.

How so? Has a homosexual ever forced you to commit homosexual acts, to annul your heterosexual marriage, or to separate from your heterosexual spouse? If not, then I don't see how homosexual activists are infringing upon your rights.

And if they do, well, they're criminals and they don't represent the larger pro-homosexual-rights community.

Neither does the marital equality argument when no one can marry somoene of the same sex, regardless of gender identity.

I don't think you understand. You're free to go about marrying or not marrying someone in whichever fashion you please. THAT is what your rights grant you. Your rights don't grant you the freedom to tell OTHER PEOPLE how to go about marrying or not marrying someone in whichever fashion they please. Your religious rights grant you the freedom to seek marriage in the Christian tradition, but it doesn't grant you the freedom to say that other people can't marry because your religion disapproves of the way they want to marry. What if I founded a religion which preaches that heterosexual marriage is bad? You say I have freedom of religion, so that means I can use this freedom of religion to impose my beliefs upon other people and I can tell them not to marry a person of the other sex because my religion prohibits it? How's that different from what Christians are doing today, telling homosexuals they can't marry?

How so? One of the principal reasons this nation was founded was freedom of religion. Just because Congress can't abridge religion doesn't mean that the constitution is standing between the bible and people's rights.

I don't think you realize that freedom of religion implicates freedom from religion. The former necessitates the latter. See example above.

For clarity, let's just say the following: if you have the freedom of being Jewish, then, necessarily, you also must enjoy the freedom from being oppressed (or coerced) by Christians, Muslims, Taoists, etc.

If this country was founded to establish freedom of religion, then, necessarily, it was also established to give religious people freedom from other religions. And that includes nonbelievers, who must also be free from religions. The Constitution does stand between the Bible and people's rights because if the Bible could dictate which rights Jews and Muslims should have, then, by definition, they wouldn't have freedom of religion.

Sorry if I'm not articulating that concept clearly. I'm trying my best :p

If the shooter is considered a terrorist can he be shot down by a drone?

I think you're all missing the fact that this is the family RESEARCH council. They're not pushing anything on anyone that can't be supported through empirical evidence. Don't like their conclusions? Too bad. That's how science works. If you could find research supporting the opposite of their findings, that's one thing but your feelings about what they do don't matter because you haven't spent any time doing research to refute it and they have.

The defenders of the Second Amendment are too often folks who believe in only part of the Second Amendment. They believe that their rights to gun ownership "shall not be infringed" but choose to ignore the "well regulated" part of the amendment.

Your ignorance of the term 'well regulated' notwithstanding:

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

Well Sarah it appears to me that you are the discriminator and have lots of hate. You just rationalize your hate. A wolf in sheep's clothing?

Mindya,

If what they engaged in was CREDIBLE science, you'd have a point. When a college sophomore can rip apart your "studies" and "statistics" through basic knowledge of research methods and bias, you've lost all credibility.

And some sources discrediting them...

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/06/14/family-research-council-quietly-reposts-discredited-anti-gay-science/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/16/is-it-fair-to-call-the-family-research-council-a-hate-group/

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/5-attention-members-of-the-media-heres-why-frc-is-labeled-a-hate-group/politics/2012/08/16/46700

http://mediamatters.org/tags/family-research-council

http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A149035

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200910020001

Pandora,

You're absolutely right. I discriminate against those who discriminate. You got me. And anyone with a basic understanding of the English language knows that's a GOOD thing.

Sheep's clothing? Not at all. Hell yeah, I'm your wolf. I'd be a @!$%#ty person if I didn't attack the hell out of the tripe some of you post.

mindya

just 'cause it says "research" doesn't mean it's science. Just like Socialist in National Socialist doesn't mean it's socialist. But are you one of those who can't see the difference.

Anyway, to get on topic. The guy gets what he deserves, and he deserves to go to jail for a very very long time, regardless of his politics. And once again, easy access to guns produces more damage to society.

mindyabusiness

I think you're all missing the fact that this is the family RESEARCH council. They're not pushing anything on anyone that can't be supported through empirical evidence. Don't like their conclusions? Too bad.

You are completely wrong about that. Their agenda concerning gays and lesbians is completely contrary to the "empirical evidence." Their opposition to human causation of global climate change is also contrary to scientific evidence.

Steven

From your argument then you must agree that the statement refers to a militia, not individual possession? Or the alternate meaning that there must be regulations to make it legal and protect society. Good sense, I agree.

Sarah

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" William Shakespeare

Pandora,

Protest what??? I agreed with you. Now you're just not making any sense. Not that you were making a plethora of it before.

Classic left-wing violence. The ends justifies the means.

I think we are agreed, no matter what his motivations, his actions were WRONG!

Can't we at least agree to that?

All this other stuff is just obscuring the issue.

peanutGalleryTheater

Way to be divisive. Classic left-wing violence??????? How about the "left-wing" abortion doctor murders? Oops ..... I guess I meant right wing.

This violence is wrong whether it comes from the right or left, and you are wrong in your analysis of the situation.

@ Andres:

Does this help:

We all disbelieve in a lot of gods. I just disbelieve in one more than [you/they] do.

Did anyone catch the irony of the 15 Chik-Fil-A sandwiches in his backpack?

NPCDan

“One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street… these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time.” - J. Cooper

The Colonel lives on.

Peanut Gallery

You must be kidding. What's so classic about eft wing violence. It's so notable here because it's so rare.

People who want marriage equality are not forcing those against it to marry someone of the same sex.

People who do not want marriage equality are preventing people of the sex from marrying who they love.

THAT is how the two are different and that is how one group is preventing equality and directly affecting the lives of people while allowing marriage equality will not effect the lives of those who do not want to marry someone of the same sex.

I will also add that this man's actions are inexcusable at every level, there is no excuse nor is there any reason to justify shooting at another human being regardless of who they worship or who they love.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

Well, then. That's an even better argument for regulating/restricting gun rights. Only those who are well trained and disciplined can own guns, per your interpretation of the phrase, "well regulated." That's very consistent with the gun-control argument.

I love how you think that by pointing out that "well regulated" used to mean "well trained," you're somehow proving that the Second Amendment does give every uneducated loony and madman out there unrestricted access to guns.

And yes, RonB, that absolutely helps ;)

Krestov,

I will also add that this man's actions are inexcusable at every level, there is no excuse nor is there any reason to justify shooting at another human being regardless of who they worship or who they love.

For sure! He did the antithesis of what the LGBT movement needs right now and I hope they throw the book at him.

From your argument then you must agree that the statement refers to a militia, not individual possession?

Absolutely.

I am member of the militia as described in 10USC311

   TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
    Subtitle A - General Military Law
    PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
    CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
    Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
    Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

Sarah, re: 2.2

Admit it, you're getting class credit for these brief posts.

Myown,

Admit it, you're getting class credit for these brief posts.

Or, I'm just one hell of a nerd that finds this @!$%# fun. By the way, my Franzia tonight is delicious! :)

Welch's and grain alcohol ?

Welch's and grain alcohol ?

No, no, no, I save that for special occasions and company only. It's the wine that comes in a box with a tap. I've paired it with a nice frozen fish stick and I got a little crazy and added some bacon bits to the mac'n'cheese tonight.

Sarah,

When you become a soul less baby punching bender of the law, will they allow you to become a (wine) bottle lawyer. If so, consider Cal. besides all those real wines, you can even get (eewww) boxed wine in the skid row areas. Plus the fish is fresh caught. The only real problem is CA got first choice, CA got the bums and NY had to take the Lawyers.

Myown,

Don't be silly, you know I belong with all the other soul less, baby punching law benders. DC.

Sarah,

Giv'em hell, they do deserve it.

Hope you get your desired billet.

Sarah

"Blah, blah, blah." Have some more wine. "You bet your sweet ass" what you promote is discrimination and hate. You declare views you personally disagree with as discriminatory and hateful and then attack them with your own brand of hate and discrimination. Sounds like you need therapy for anger management. The article is about a gay activist gunman who went into the offices of an organization with which he disagreed with the intent to shoot the people inside. This has nothing to do with esoteric and self-serving arguments over US Constitutional amendments. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept with the tripe that you post. Too much to expect you to understand Shakespeare, I guess. Having fun yet? Or maybe you can ask to always be on point in patrols of the Korengal Valley.

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare." Edmund Burke

don97524, when the evangelicals began involvement in politics starting back in the Reagan years and matured in the Dubya years they began pushing the religious agenda down the throats of every citizen of this nation. The White House was proliferated with Bob Jones grads, scientific papers were edited by these same evangelical Jones students and then Dubya started the Faith Based grant program, which of course gave an opening to the evangelicals to spew their rhetoric to those who sought assistance.

Now I know you will say that it was illegal for these receivers of Faith Based grants to preach to the people who were served by these grants but a lot of illegal activities occurred under Dubya's reign of terror that many political appointees and politicians went to prison over. A blind eye was turned to these receivers of Faith Based grants not to mention influencing new assaults on Pro-choice, influencing executive orders and elevating the importance of including the evangelicals in policy making. So yes, they did and are still trying to influence the laws of this land. While sad this young man sought this vehicle to get his point across and I do not support his actions this evangelical think tank crossed the line too by stepping into the political arena. Get out of my life and go back to your churches.

Pandora,

Tsk, tsk, so defensive. Good use of the word "esoteric" though, too bad that was posted, not about the gun man, but about the idiot statement that we're not free FROM religion. And again, yes, I discriminate against discrimination. Do you know what a double negative in the English language makes??? Think about it for a minute. You may get it, just don't hurt yourself.

I must have really gotten under your skin, huh buddy? I especially loved when you suggested anger management classes in the middle of the rant. That's priceless.

Sarah

You just don't get it. Not that I expected you to. Bigots like you, just like alcoholics, have a lot of trouble admiting their problem. You see something you disagree with, then label it discriminatory so you can self-righteously, justify discriminating against and hating it. The ranting parts in my last post were quotes from your prior posts. Think about it. Maybe you don't understand quotation marks as part of the English language. You criticize "the idiot statement that we're not free from religion". Would you also criticize "the idiot statement that we're not free from atheism"? The question posed in prior posts was: Why are you extensively posting about freedom from religion in response to an article about a gay activist gunman who tried to kill the members of a religious group? It makes you look like someone who thinks assassination is a justifiable way to resolve your anger at groups you disagree with. When you find a therapist who's willing to work with you on your anger management, you can ask them to explain the phenomenon of "projection" to you. Maybe this will help. Good luck.

. You see something you disagree with, then label it discriminatory so you can self-righteously, justify discriminating against and hating it.

Okay, so NOT affording people legal protection under the law isn't discriminatory and calling people abominations for how they have sex isn't hateful. Telling people who support unequal treatment under the law they're discriminating, is discriminatory and telling people who call people names for how they sex that they're hateful, is hateful.

Yeah, I'm still comfortable with that. I'm sorry that you aren't smart enough to keep up with conversations about the Constitution, but really you should really just not join in then and let the grown ups talk.

. Would you also criticize "the idiot statement that we're not free from atheism"?

Yes, because you are free from Atheism, hence it would be an idiot statement. The government is neutral. What does the government being neutral look like? Like nothing, and nothing doesn't equal something. If it did, we'd have to write disclaimers on anything the government had a single dime or single iota of standing in, saying "The lack of religious content doesn't constitute a government sanctioning of Atheism".

The question posed in prior posts was: Why are you extensively posting about freedom from religion in response to an article about a gay activist gunman who tried to kill the members of a religious group?

Uh yeah, I posted once in regards to where the second poster was taking this conversation, namely down a FALSE lane. I've also condemned the shooter, go read #2.41.

YOU however, have now posted at least FOUR times about nothing but ME. While I do appreciate the attention and love to talk about myself, I'm not the topic of the article.

Well Sarah it appears to me that you are the discriminator and have lots of hate. You just rationalize your hate. A wolf in sheep's clothing?

#2.24 -\

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" William Shakespeare

#2.29

"Blah, blah, blah." Have some more wine. "You bet your sweet ass" what you promote is discrimination and hate. You declare views you personally disagree with as discriminatory and hateful and then attack them with your own brand of hate and discrimination. Sounds like you need therapy for anger management. The article is about a gay activist gunman who went into the offices of an organization with which he disagreed with the intent to shoot the people inside. This has nothing to do with esoteric and self-serving arguments over US Constitutional amendments. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept with the tripe that you post. Too much to expect you to understand Shakespeare, I guess. Having fun yet? Or maybe you can ask to always be on point in patrols of the Korengal Valley.

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare." Edmund Burke

#2.50

You just don't get it. Not that I expected you to. Bigots like you, just like alcoholics, have a lot of trouble admiting their problem. You see something you disagree with, then label it discriminatory so you can self-righteously, justify discriminating against and hating it. The ranting parts in my last post were quotes from your prior posts. Think about it. Maybe you don't understand quotation marks as part of the English language. You criticize "the idiot statement that we're not free from religion". Would you also criticize "the idiot statement that we're not free from atheism"? The question posed in prior posts was: Why are you extensively posting about freedom from religion in response to an article about a gay activist gunman who tried to kill the members of a religious group? It makes you look like someone who thinks assassination is a justifiable way to resolve your anger at groups you disagree with. When you find a therapist who's willing to work with you on your anger management, you can ask them to explain the phenomenon of "projection" to you. Maybe this will help. Good luck.

#2.53

There you go being hypocritical again. I guess I've hurt your feelings again. But really, I'm not THAT important, just powerful enough to get your panties in a wad, huh? I'm guessing I've threatened your ignorant, anti-gay agenda at some point and not you want a "tag back". Or did you just want some attention???

So much hate in this world!

Janstince

How about Bash Back, Act Up, OutRage!, STAR, The Lesbian Avengers, the Gay Liberation Front, the Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action, the Gay Mafia, LGBT, etc.? They seem to have plenty of hate to go around too. From your post and the pejoratives you use, it seems like you have an anger problem.

Pandora6 -

So, those groups are tying up children and torturing them repeatedly? News to me. Why don't you go ahead and provide some backup for that? A real news article would be fine, as long as the journalist did their homework.

As for calling those groups hate groups, you know, I was going to go into the social dynamics whereby ingroups pressure outgroups, create tribalism, then bitch, moan, and whine about how unfair it is they can't oppress the outgroups when the outgroups actually get justice. But @!$%# it, I don't care.

I don't care about you and your false equivalencies. I don't care about your bigotry and stupidity. I don't even have the heart to care that you're a fascist jackass. I just don't care right now. Sod off.

Homosexuality is a mental illness.

Homophobia is a mental illness.

Vern

I'm guessing you are an old, old guy because that belief was dispelled long, long ago.

I'm guessing you are an old, old guy because that belief was dispelled long, long ago.

Plus, his name is Vern.

Vern-1642229, what do you base your assertion that homosexuality is a mental illness? I have never read in any scientific journals where being homosexual is a mental illness but rather a genetic make-up. I have read being homophobic is based on ignorance and can lead to mental illness when consumed by it. Please do some research as it is evident you have access to the Internet. For instance: HTTP://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation Wikipedia is always a good place to begin since it provides links to cited literature to provide more information. Have a good day.

@Sarah

KnowWhutIMean? :p

The prison term may not be hard to swallow, but lets hope his cell mate is.......

I lol'ed at that. I thought if you were for gays and lesbians, you weren't supposed to buy Chick-Fil-A...

Fifty chic-fil-a sandwiches? That's a lot for one person to eat, consume, or carry around.

They didn't mention that he had a fully-automatic AR-76 (also known as "The Chickenator") in his possession. And you call yourselves a "news" organization...

The chick-fil-a thing is REAL ironic. Or its just part of this guys "confusion."

He was advancing his political beliefs by trying to instill fear into his political opponents - the fear of being shot. That IS terrorism.

yeah

Just like the religious nuts who shoot abortion doctors. That also is terrorism.

yeah

Just like the religious nuts who shoot abortion doctors. That also is terrorism.

How was he "advancing his political beliefs"?

If the fear of being shot constitutes terrorism, a bunch of Americans just became terrorists.

The USA now using the term terrorism in instances such as this should be quite scary to everyone.

@ Sleep - Glad I'm not the only one that thought that was a bit crazy. I wonder if - being part of a plea - it carried a lessor penalty to attempted murder or something else?

Terrorism is any unlawful action that attempts to change people's behavior through violence. Muslims aren't the only terrorists out there. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Lynch mobs were a form of terrorism. We are free to express opinions, but not free to kill people who don't agree with us. This man did an enormous disservice to the LGBT community (not to mention what he did to the guard and congregation) and deserves to be severely punished. It would be no different if someone from the FRC shot at marchers in a gay pride parade. There's no excuse for violence on either side of the aisle.

I understand that - but was he trying to change their behavior or just killing people? Did he go in there and say - you guys have to change what you think or I'm going to kill you? Same thing with the gay pride parade example. I guess I just don't know where the line is between crazy, psycho murderer and terrorist - is it simply, one person thinks differently than the other person on one belief and if that belief is involved, it's terrorism?

Look, if someone pulls a gun on anyone, that could be considered terrorizing someone, correct? Would you feel terror if someone pulled a gun on you at your job or in a bar, as I probably would feel some - so would they be terrorizing?

To me, it's just a slippery slope, especially with all the drone stuff being talked about.

Where did I say there's an excuse for violence anywhere?

It's not just a violent attack on the individual but also on the larger concepts of how they live their lives.

Like if you go into a bar and someone comes up and says they are going to shoot you, that can be terrifying. But if someone comes up to you in that bar and says they are going to kill you if they ever see you in a su-shi bar for the benefit of all the fish in the sea, that is terrorism.

Corkins had a double agenda. Force the gay lifestyle down the throats of people who disagree with it and show how bad guns are.

Heli.,

I would consider a charge of terrorism for a lynch mob at sweet gift. They should be considered/are murderers.

Cayeres-Your Ignorance is only surpassed by Your Sarcasm.

Actaully he was illegally possessing the gun in D.C., so he was infact not a law abiding gun owner at the time. He also shot someone, which is also against the law, and against every safety class given on firearms. Once he crossed into D.C. with his handgun and was not licensed to do so he became a felon.

@Cayeres - Don't be so quick. I think he's on your side, politically. Not to say I agree with him. I think there should be no laws against gay marriage.

Great suggestions- but buying Chik-fil-A sandwiches would support hate as well. How about condom water balloons? Or a flash mob of transvestites? That would get their panties in a twist!

Have you considered, that by name calling FRC and the people within, YOU are giving the less sane approval to treat them not as human beings, but something to be killed.

How can one advocate for being treated properly, while not advocating for that to be universal.

I do not remember MLK-jr, Gandhi saying go abuse other human beings.

This incident demonstrates the very real human cost of denying homosexuals appropriate mental health care by taking homosexuality out of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Maddog-1194107 - The WBC and FRC have no relationship and do not have the same ideological views.

Actually both hate groups are run by Southern Baptists. They have exactly the same ideology but the FRC is really worse since they have far greater resources and harm far more people. In contrast, even most homophobes don't want to be associated with the nuts at the WBC, even if they fully agree with them.

The debate over gay rights is no different than the debate over guns, abortion, or the speed limit. Each side is entitled to their view and either you change your view or you don't.

No, the debate is more like whether blacks should be allowed to use the same drinking fountains as whites, whether it's OK to lynch black people, and whether mixed-race couples should be allowed to marry. The debate is whether all Americans deserve the same legal rights and the FRC doesn't think they do. Even worse, they've been peddling their hate overseas and have spent at least $25,000 lobbying Congress in support of Uganda's "kill the gays" bill.

No surprise given that Tony Perkins has close ties to white supremacist groups and has not only given speeches to the CCC group, but even bought a mailing list from KKK grand wizard David Duke.

Skrekk, you try and put racial equality on the same grounds as sexual choice equality and they are not the same. An old argument. The FRC is no different than the democratic national party or the actor's guild union. Each pushes thier own view. You make some wild claims with no back up information. Why wouldn't the FRC buy a mailing list so they can send out love letters to KKK members? Do you know of what you claim? You just throw out whatever you want to make your viewpoint seem as the correct version and so you fall into the same trap as the group you try and disparage. Like I said gay rights groups condemn, hate, call names, boycott, protest, spend money lobbying, and in this case killed people by the act of this man who plead guilty and you claim some kind of higher ground? You want civil debate start giving it.

We really shouldn't be surprised that a Southern Baptist based group like the FRC is a hate group. After all, not only did the Southern Baptists literally found their cult on slavery and white supremacy and also support the KKK for many decades, but the FRC today even opposes the 1st Amendment rights of Muslims.

Truly, they hate anyone who isn't a straight white male SBC member.

So, "Southern Baptists literally found their cult on slavery and white supremacy and also support the KKK"

and supported the Democratic party for more than a century.

So they are all equally EVIL, yes, I see, OK... Mr. Spock finds that LOGICAL, oh, yes. lol

myownthoughts56 - and supported the Democratic party for more than a century.

Until they switched roles on civil rights completely between the New Deal and Civil Rights Act, a reversal that was sealed with Nixon's Southern Strategy.

That's the reason the bigoted south is all Republican today, and why blacks vote well over 80% for Democrats.

And note, the Southern Baptist cult was indeed founded to support slavery and white supremacy. They even admit that fact on their web site.

Yes it will.

One side will be at peace with the Lord, the other...maybe not ...who knowa, we'll all find out someday.

Shreek likes comparing the struggles of blacks with the gay lifestyle choice...

The gay movement is more like the Nazi's, starting out small and slowly destroying the morals of a society...that's a better comparison

Shrekk,

So, as I understand your post-13.5,

First, DEMS=KKK=SBC and all were evil for century, ~1860s-1960s

Second, the DEMS threw off all evilness

Third, the REPUBS absorbed all that cast off evil, that use to belong to DEMS.

Basically, saying all the Southerners(white) are an evil toxin.

All I can say if this is what you believe is WOW, and 'Bless your heart' with exactly the meaning used in the South.

myownthoughts56 - Basically, saying all the Southerners(white) are an evil toxin.

Not all southerners, just that if you're a racist today the odds are very high that you're a southern Republican, thanks to Nixon's very successful "Southern Strategy".

Really, it's no surprise that a Republican Southern Baptist like Tony Perkins of the FRC hates Muslims and gays, and has ties to the KKK and other white supremacist groups.

'Bless your heart'

skrekk, the events of the Freedom Riders in MS and the civil authority refusing to cooperate and investigate the murders of three young men, the marches in the south during MLK's days which evolved into the police beatings, the Arkansas racial problem at Little Rock High and Ole Miss admissions disallowing Blacks to attend are indelible in the minds of those who are alive today not to mention these atrocities are taught in every history text at least in the north keeps this in the minds of our youth. It will take a century to live down these events and therefore being stigmatized as being racist in general.

I also want to mention the assassinations of MLK and Medgar Evers that of course happened in the South. Medgar's murderer was never indicted by a court of law and went unscathed until the DOJ charged and successfully won on the basis of denying Mr. Evers civil rights. It seems the South is not capable of rendering justice in the cases involving racism. When the South demonstrates zero tolerance for hate crimes then maybe this country will devoid the stigmatize of wide spread racism.

Your opinion...nothing they say is hate...trying to save souls is not hateful...get a life.

Since when is killing someone termed trying to save souls?

RP.. that is a truly scary view you just expressed there. The list of people I put up were actual all murderers or attempted murderers of family planning doctors and staff. I think you pretty much just try tried to justify murder and terrorism in the saving of souls.. which makes you exactly the same as your typical card-carrying member of Al Qaeda.

Sorry, my comment was mis-placed on the vine. Having trouble with my post button

I'll do better.

Ha Ha

A GLAAD Taliban member, no less.

Hey Vern, GET A LIFE!

Vern,

I was trying to come back at you with a thoughtful answer, but then I realized there is no point in that. You are a complete moron and that explains it all.

You're having a long discussion with yourself. Maybe you should think about getting some help yourself, sir.

Shreek, this is a story about a bible-BURNING hate group which commits ACTUAL violence against hetrosexuals and church members.

Which "bible-BURNING hate group" would that be, Vern?

The story mentions only one mentally ill guy who committed violence against a well known bible-thumping hate group. I wonder if they're surprised that the hate they foment bit them in the ass?

Any gay activists group shreek...You guys with the gay agenda are fomenting hate on this vine.

Maybe all your hate should be taken down to stop the possibility of violence...

Then maybe the intelligent can debate back and forth without being called names by shreek, gordy, sarah, erin and their ilk.

The Taliban attacks the United States for the same reason this terrorist did- because the intended victims are followers of Christ.

It all comes down to people's idea that they have the right to force their ideas on others. Have a nice day-- far away from me.