McClellan: Candidates’ call for prayer a clear plea for votes
Mike McClellan
Mike McClellan is a Gilbert resident and former English teacher at Dobson High School in Mesa.
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
50 comments:
Rules of Conduct
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
DonMey posted at 9:59 am on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Not sure which would be worse: He actually believes what he is saying, or he's just saying it to get votes.
wiscman posted at 9:59 am on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
OK...prayer. Now, let's see if this proposal is just a way to get CHRISTIAN prayer back... The prayers could rotate through the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, and other religious texts that may be presented.
That would truly be fair!!!
Engaged Voter posted at 10:11 am on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
"I wonder, I worry, if Mr. Colvin isn’t exploiting religion for his own ends."
There's an easy way to find out...propose a prayer to Inti, the Incan god of the sun.
The reaction will speak volumes. ;)
As far as his diatribe goes, is he aware that many people find praying to be “insulting, ridiculously shallow, and unnecessary"? And they're Americans too.
Bingo6 posted at 11:04 am on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
This isn't a prayer for whatever fairy you want o worship but a call to prayer for Mr. Colvin.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:28 am on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
It's like football teams praying before the game. As though god cares who wins a football game
If god hears one teams prayers and helps them win ... does that mean the other team is evil because god doesn't love them or he would have fixed it so they won?
What if god is mad at one member of one team because he and his girlfriend did the horizontal mambo?
Will he punish the rest of the team and make them lose because one guy isn't in good graces?
What if they pick the wrong religions prayer to say before the school board meeting?
Will god send them impulses to make the wrong decision because he is pouting?
VofReason posted at 12:44 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
As a Christian, I believe that people should be able to pray whenever they want to. As a citizen, I don't think anyone should be forced to pray prior to a meeting of any sort. I would question why this gentleman is making this an issue and election timing makes it seem even stranger. To one point above, we know that liberals always want tolerance for things like crusafix in pea and abortion. That is why it is so odd when they issue statements like "people find praying to be “insulting, ridiculously shallow, and unnecessary"? And they're Americans too". Guess you just chaulk it up to liberal logic. Guess it works in the echo chamber, just not in the rest of the world.
VofReason posted at 12:50 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Little inside baseball for Willie, football teams pray before games for everyone to finish the game without injury, not for a win. Though that communicates exactly what you know about Christian athletes.
downtownresident posted at 1:15 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Leon,
You're a real peice of work. Don't let the truth get in the way of an excuse to bash the "Liberals, the Atheists, the Socialist, the Marxists and the Communists". Oh, you forgot to blame Obama this time.
As for Daryl Colvin, he's just pandering for votes. Who would DC have us all pray to?
I wonder if they still pray before school board meetings in Short Creek?[beam]
Why can't the injured Mr. Colvin just pray silently during the moment of silence. Just think how impressed his God would be hearing his single voice coming from the large crowd of non-prayers in the house.
Engaged Voter posted at 1:54 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Oh, and VofReason? The phrase "insulting, ridiculously shallow, and unnecessary" was used by Mr. Colvin - I was simply echoing his sentiment.
So is Mr. Colvin a liberal too? LOL
Cerulean posted at 2:00 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
It seems clear that Colvin has an agenda.
I think Jesus is laughing at him.
http://youtu.be/8DDOYMh-ChA
Gilbert Watch posted at 2:59 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Mr. McClellan, you are wrong. I know Mr. Colvin very well, and this isn't a plea for votes. It is Mr Colvin's plea to reinstate a NON-DENOMINATIONAL Invocation/Prayer. It would be very similar to how the Gilbert Town Council opens its meetings. On the agenda it reads: "The invocation may be offered by a person of any religion, faith, belief or non-belief, as well as Councilmembers. A list of volunteers is maintained by the Town clerk and interested persons should contact the Clerk for further information."
It is indeed open to all faiths. I feel sorry for a Christian living in an Arab country, where their faith isn't tolerated at all. Who is safer? A Muslim in America? Or a Christian in Iraq? Afghanistan? Algeria? Bahrain? Chad? Egypt? Guinea? Iran? Libya? Sudan? Syria?
I do not understand why the Left cannot TOLERATE a simple Invocation. I have attended both school board meetings and town council meetings. The "warp speed moment of silence" is devoid of meaning. The Invocations at the Council meetings are reverent and respectful, and those attending tolerate each person's differing beliefs very well.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:13 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Gilbert Watch/Ms. Cristy,
I guess I'll ask you this question:
Why?
Why do we need a prayer at a civic event, one that might include Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists?
Why a vocal prayer when a quiet one will do, one that would come from the heart of the folks choosing to pray, instead of having a prayer foisted on them?
Isn't a private prayer in this context more meaningful?
And if Mr. Colvin had something other than politics on his mind, he's had 11 years to make his case -- why now? What's his justification for ignoring the issue for the11 previous years?
Engaged Voter posted at 4:53 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
"Why a vocal prayer when a quiet one will do"
Mike, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
Or, as the Jesus character in the Bible said,
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and churches and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
Matthew 6:5-6
Grant Hubbard posted at 4:54 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Again, Mr. McClellan reaches to the heart of a controversy an exposes it rationally and fairly.
While the First Amendment was not drafted by the Constitutional Convention, it was drafted by the principle draftsman of the Constitution. We cannot, of course, divine the intent of those who ratified the Bill of Rights. But we know that Madison opposed religion in government. Thirty years after shepherding the Bill of Rights through the House of Representatives Madison wrote:
“The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.” (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).
I like Mr. McClellan pray and I value that freedom. School board candidate Daryl Colvin enjoys the same freedom.
I believe that Freedom of Religion belongs to “We the People.” To each of us individually and as we voluntarily come together to worship. I believe that religious groups, churches, synagogues and mosques, have the right to choose their members. But, I do not believe any governmental group, meeting or agency should participate in are impose any religious rite or service on others. History has often demonstrated the awful evil of the merger of religious and political power. Each individual, of course, retains his or her right to pray and seek guidance.
I do not believe freedom of religion was ever intended to enable one individual or group, even a majority, to force other people to listen to their prayers, or anyone’s prayers, as the price of participating in government. That is coercion, not freedom. While many who promote prayer in government meetings do so in good faith, there are, I think, fewer and fewer who do so. Public piety is rarely intended to get God’s attention. More often, it is simply hypocrisy.
I assume that Mr. Colvin was acting in full good faith, but one must always wonder when a candidate makes a public display of his piety.
Grant Hubbard
geekette posted at 6:51 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Matthew 6:5.
Bluepoet posted at 8:35 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
Bokonon 1:1
This is just a blatant attempt to get votes from the sheep, er, flock.
Pharasees have been doing this, for a couple of thousand years...
It's sometimes effective, too, especially when combined with ranting about the decaying morals of a society.
"Little wheel spin and spin, big wheel go 'round...little wheel spin and spin..."--Buffy St. Marie
sockratties posted at 11:20 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.
There is no such thing as a non-denominational prayer. Just as with prayer in school, those who choose not to pray can be singled out for prejudicial attention. It's shameful that someone would attempt to use this as a political ploy.
The Constitution prohibits the government from making any law respecting the establishment of a religion. Requiring a prayer establishes existance of a religion with an entity that can receive and respond to a religious ritual. This is common practice in Islamic Republics such as Iran. We need to remain on guard against such constitutional erosion in this country.
jonathand59 posted at 4:52 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
@ Vofreason : A little more information is that 'God' is no more inclined to protect voluntary participants in a violent sport supernaturally than to predetermine the outcome of the game, sport. Same result for a futile gesture.
BlueAZDog posted at 7:49 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
Mike, you constantly criticize anyone who believes that moral character should be demonstrated and advocated in public and private life. Is it because you support secular immorality as the model for a more "enlightened" populace? If so, I suggest that you would be more comfortable in the atheistic Soviet Union or Communist China.
Daryl Colvin will receive a majority of strong Constitutional voters who believe, as our Founding Fathers believed, that advocating the recognition of our Creator is beneficial not only for the individual, but for society as a whole. Your headline that he is only advocating such a position in order to acquire votes is showing your prejudice, not his.
Thankfully you are a FORMER teacher. With the position you have taken on this issue, I am glad that you are not advancing such anti-American rhetoric in the classroom and warping their perspective on what is proper in conducting one's life.
BlueAZDog posted at 7:58 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
Grant,
Dig a little deeper and you find that the framers of our Constitution did not believe that God and morality should be excised from the political scene. Their only concern was that there should be the establishment of a national religion like was practiced in England and other European countries.
A miniscule amount of research would identify the fact that some of the states had established state religions and that was accepted without attack. It was the establishment of a national religion that would take away states rights that was feared. A prayer in a government meeting was not only accepted, it was preferred. We start every day in Congress with a prayer, every session of the Supreme Court is begun with a prayer as established by our Founding Fathers.
David Lucier posted at 8:48 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
Why is so difficult to understand that if you want to pray, go to church or pray to yourself in silence. If you want public policy, go to your town, city, etc council meetings or legislature.
Bringing any kind of theology into the public policy dialogue is inappropriate and unconstitutional.
sockratties posted at 10:36 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
Blue – I could make fun of your assertions, but I think you are serious so I won’t. Your terminology betrays your bigotry.
You equate morality with religion and refer to “secular immorality” as if it were fact. History and current events are strong arguments against your bigoted assumptions.
Religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. There is nothing in that definition that indicates morality. If you want to include the Christian Ten Commandments, some of them are about protecting the family unit, some are about protecting society and some are about protecting the church. Hardly a universal code for ethical living.
Secular relates to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred. There is nothing in that definition that indicates immorality. Our government should focus on those worldly things and keep its nose out of people’s lives.
Morality relates to rules of conduct. If you wish to include a list of rules in your belief system, that’s up to you. If you haven’t internalized a moral code and need to refer to rote performances and dogma, that’s up to you. If you wish to impose such dogma on others, you should be able to find something in your moral code that tells you that such imposition is wrong. If you can’t find it there, your moral value system is either incomplete or corrupt.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:17 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
Blue Dog, It's interesting that you equate public prayer with moral character. The first, as we know, doesn't necessarily lead to the second.
You know as well as I do of the number of very public religious figures, fixtures in the on TV and elsewhere, figures who who been very prominent in the public prayer, who've turned out to be charlatans, men who've practiced immorality in private while publicly extolling virtue through prayer.
And it's interesting that you paint with such a broad brush -- I applaud those who are as moral in private as they are in public. As you know, it how you behave behind closed doors that is at least as revealing as your public persona.
Simply praying in public is no test of morality. Nor is "If you don't like it here, leave" an argument.
samkat posted at 8:23 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
Blue Dog: Being religious does not necessarily equate to morality. There have been a number of public figures in religion, public office as well as the private sector who profess their religious beliefs who have fallen from grace when their transgressions were revealed. Religion does not necessarily equate to morality.
Our founders went to great lengths to keep our nation secular. Unfortunately, we have a number of religious zealots these days who try to misconstrue the constitution and are actively seeking to turn our government into a theocracy.
BlueAZDog posted at 8:48 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
I know that there has been a modern ploy to decouple morality and religion in order to eliminate religion from our society while maintaining the "moral" high ground. However here is the historical reality.
From the beginning of Western thought, religion and morality have been closely intertwined. This is true whether we go back within Greek philosophy or within Christianity and Judaism. In both, morality and religion have been inseparable.
Just as modern day want to change the meanings of words in other areas and want to redefine the Constitution or the Bible, this separation of morality and religion by a group is based on ulterior motives and does not change the fundamental connection.
BlueAZDog posted at 8:50 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
Acting religious does not create morality, however morality without a religious base is just as empty. In fact, integrity or ethics are usually used when there is no religious underpinning.
BlueAZDog posted at 8:53 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.
The point of my first post was that somehow Mike decided somewhere in his head that another person's belief that prayer would be beneficial to the product was done only for the reason to garner personal advantage. I think that is ethically wrong to assert that as fact when there is no basis to come to the conclusion except the bias of the writer.
sockratties posted at 5:28 am on Sat, Sep 22, 2012.
BlueAZ –
I agree with you that Western thought and ethics did evolve from early Greek philosophy.
Plato’s “Republic” had a good go at it. Aristotle was a major influence on Christian theology. Aristotle had to flee from Athens because he didn’t respect the “gods,” and Socrates’ execution for impious acts is an example of how religion destroys rational thought to ensure its own survival.
Please note that ethics, virtue and morality as defined by these early philosophers are still pertinent today but Greek religion is now Greek mythology. Come back in two or three thousand years and if the Abrahamic Religions haven’t destroyed mankind by then, you will most likely see references to Christian mythology, too. Some of us see them now.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:21 am on Sat, Sep 22, 2012.
BlueAz, If you'll reread the column, I don't state "as fact" that Mr. Colvin brings up the issue now because he's running for school board.
I write in the opening that it "seems" to be the case:
The fact supporting that assumption is this: The school district changed to a moment of silence almost 11 years ago. During that time, Mr. Colvin was noticeably silent about that change.
However, just a couple of months before an election, one where he's a candidate for the Board, he decides that now is the appropriate time to bring that issue up.
Now, maybe he's doing it solely because of his religious fervor. But maybe, just maybe, he's trying to gin up support for his candidacy.
The timing, BlueAZ, is suspect.
JMJ posted at 12:09 pm on Sat, Sep 22, 2012.
Those who pray aloud are like noisy gongs, attracting attention to their actions when a simple, quiet prayer would be more pleasing to God, as I understand Him.
Lord, save me from Your people.
The prayer at the beginning of MPS Governing Board meetings smacks exactly of that--and to which "Jesus" or "Father God" were we forced to LISTEN to that? My Jesus or the LDS Jesus? No thanks to the latter. Tee hee.
sdjtaz posted at 4:53 pm on Sat, Sep 22, 2012.
I will pose the same question here that I have posed to those advocating school prayer (which has not yet received an acceptable answer): Which has greater depth and meaning, gathering together with family or friends in private to say a prayer that it suited to your beliefs OR forcing everyone in a meeting (or at school) to recite a prayer that has been watered down and probably has little meaning to anyone (except to point out the one's that don't pray).
I have no problem with individuals choosing to pray. But when I attend a government function, I am truly troubled that all in attendance are forced into reciting or listening to a watered down version of a prayer that has no meaning to anyone.
If you wish to pray, join together in a private area with like minded people and do so. I will do nothing to stop you. Just don't force that prayer on the rest of us.
k33j88 posted at 3:07 am on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.
We are a nation of Judean/Christian beliefs/values. The Geneva bible was the foundation. The framers believed in the United STATES of America. Powers relegated to tthe States or the peoples thereof. If a local school board desides to,or not, it's a local issue, not a federal one. If a upcoming member of our society wants to deside the minutes of a meeting, then the electorate must engage to implement such an agenda. Mike, once again, your liberal, political correctness comes shining through.
k33j88 posted at 3:18 am on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.
For those of us so ashamed of our Lord Jesus Christ, live in a foreign land, pray 5 times a day, accept Muhammad as your prophet, and live by the Sharia. It is the duty of every practicing Muslim to perform jihad, either directly or otherwise.
BlueAZDog posted at 6:57 am on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.
Mike - Read the Headline - No such parsing there about what you are saying. "McClellan: Candidates’ call for prayer a clear plea for votes" Note that there is not even anquestion mark after that clear assertion.
I wonder, I worry. Are you an atheistic communist that has been hiding out in the closet for decades while you have been filling innocent children with anti-american propaganda? Now I am not saying you are doing that, I just wonder and I worry if that is happening because of your attacks on persons who believe in prayer. Remember, I am not making a statement, or even stating that it seems your are doing that, just posing the question.
As to your sophmoronic justification, I never saw an article from you eleven years ago when the position of the school board was changed. So is the real reason you speak to it now because you want to influence the election as opposed to simply supporting the current policy? Maybe, just maybe, you are just trying to gin up opposition to his candidacy.
Hmm, is that publicly taking a position in an election? Should you file a campaign finance report that shows the amount of money spent in printing and distributing your attempt to influence a campaign? Nope that would be almost as silly as your parsing explanation of your article.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:32 am on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.
BlueAz, beyond all of what you write above, why do YOU think that private citizen Colvin remained silent about the prayer issue for 11 years, but candidate Colvin brings the issue to the Board only weeks before the election?
sockratties posted at 8:56 am on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.
BlueAZ—The EVT writes the titles for letters submitted, not the authors.
K33—It is shameful you would support the exploitation of religious beliefs for political means. The “if you don’t like it, leave” argument is evasive. Why shouldn’t other Americans be able to express an opinion and still live here?
K33—The term Judeo-Christian was not even used until the 1820s when an attempt was made to broaden the base of supporters by joining the two related religions. Our country’s founders, fifty years prior, were mostly Deists, influenced by the Age of Enlightenment. History shows that they tended to believe in God as the Creator or Architect but would not have accepted your supernatural concepts.
BlueAZ and K33—Your rejection of discussions that are unappealing to you and your personalizing of your assault on the author indicates a narrow, churlish way of thinking. Does it also represent your church’s way of thinking? Is it you or your church that has closed doors to all but the choir?
mnjcpa posted at 4:07 pm on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.
Way to bring it BlueAZDog!
Agreed wholeheartedly - there needs to be more people like yourself.
Engaged Voter posted at 11:13 am on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.
Ironic that BlueAZDog uses the phrase "sophmoronic justification", as that appears to make up the majority of his faith-based, superstitious comments.
And even MORE ironic - ":I think that is ethically wrong to assert that as fact when there is no basis to come to the conclusion except the bias of the writer.'
So you think it is UNETHICAL to asset something as fact when there is no basis for it? Remember that the next time you opine about your god.
BlueAZDog posted at 11:42 am on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.
Mike, maybe for the same reason you did not comment on it before. It had not come to his attention at the level that he felt that he could do anything about it and he felt honor bound to let people on both sides of the issue what his position is. That is called integrity, in case you have not experienced it for awhile. You, on the other hand, have taken the opportunity to take a gratuitous shot and are now trying to parse your way out of it. Not very honorable.
SOCK.. Yes, the EVT writes the headline based on what they feel the author is saying. Also, the author has the ability to call the EVT headline writers and have the headline changed if he believes that the headline misrepresents what he is saying. I am not rejecting discussions, I am participating in them. If you think about it, that was a pretty silly statement to make. Your comment is not only churlish, it is simplistic, sophomoric and supercilious. Mike took a shot at a candidate.
mnjcpa posted at 12:04 pm on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.
Right on BlueAZDog.
Mike will try to weasel out an explanation that he really wasn't accusing the man of anything, it just `seemed` to be like that. My question to Mike would be why else would someone spend time drafting an article for something that `seemed` to be? Pretty lame excuse.
He's just another liberal assaulting Christian beliefs as if we're extreme, right wing freaks. Exactly the same thing that happened to the owner of ChickfilA, HobbyLobby, and the Catholic Church.
Thank you for so astutely cornering him for his actions. He's turning this in to a political issue when it's nothing more than someone acknowledging their beliefs and it's this type of thinking that prompted me to pull my kids from public schools years ago.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:21 pm on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.
Are you kidding, Blue? Daryl Colvin's been involved in Gilbert issues since the turn of the century. He's been involved in issues of morality for a long, long, time, and he's wired into Gilbert politics. So I'm not sure your rationale for his lack of involvement until now has much credibility.
As to mnjcpa, criticizing a candidate for his timing is not the same as "assaulting Christian beliefs." In fact, I'm a big advocate of Christian beliefs, believing that following the word of God is a good pathway to a good life.
Speaking of which, I notice that a few folks here are posting what the Bible says about public prayer. And I wonder if you, mnjcpa or BlueAz know what kind of prayer the Court ruled constitutional. No, a private meaningful prayer is superior to a generic "approved" prayer.
Engaged Voter posted at 3:21 pm on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.
"following the word of God is a good pathway to a good life."
I personally do not think that raping, torturing, and murdering those with whom you do not agree with is a good pathway to a good life...but hey, that's just my opinion.
(I am not starting an argument here, just showing that Mr. McClellan and I have very differing worldviews and can still agree on the issue of keeping religion out of taxpayer funded government)
I am not a liberal, nor have I ever assaulted anyone's beliefs.
In fact, if the people with whom I debate on these forums would keep their religious beliefs to themselves, I wouldn't have ONE WORD to say on the subject.
Keep that in mind. ;)
Engaged Voter posted at 3:29 pm on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.
"He's just another liberal assaulting Christian beliefs as if we're extreme, right wing freaks. Exactly the same thing that happened to the owner of ChickfilA, HobbyLobby, and the Catholic Church."
ChickFilA funded hate groups trying to enact foreign laws that called for the DEATH OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.
Hobby Lobby posts deceitful, hateful full page ads full of lies and slander.
The Catholic Church has tortured, murdered, and more recently, been caught covering up the rape of thousands of children.
mnjcpa - Those horrible examples (horrible from your side of the argument, great for me!) are all of right wing religious extremists who were exposed as hatemongering bigots.
And you are comparing yourself to them...wow. (You forgot the KKK)
sockratties posted at 6:26 am on Tue, Sep 25, 2012.
mnjcpa – it IS our business, and yours too, to be aware of what private citizens, businesses or organizations stand for. It’s not our business to interfere with them if they’re acting within the law, but once they enter into the public arena as those mentioned here have, we should all keep an eye on them.
Radicals and extremists may act out within their chosen venues without harm to society but many push beyond harmless rhetoric and posturing if they are not kept in check. We must question such motives, like Mike is doing, as precaution, and to let such businesses, organizations and citizens know they can’t run roughshod over our rights and privileges.
To paraphrase what BlueAZdog said: We wonder and we worry.
mnjcpa posted at 7:09 am on Tue, Sep 25, 2012.
You're right sock - we can't run roughshod over our rights and privileges. Such as how we choose to worship both of which have been violated with a radical presidential administration bent on shoving policies down the perverbial throat of those businesses and organizations that are attacks on their faith and no one calls him on that hypocrisy.And left those private business and organizations with no choice but to incur extraordinary costs to overturn those directives.
BlueAZDog has already sufficiently silenced your arguments and you're still at it. There shouldn't have to be a check on someone's Christians beliefs or values in a Judeo-Christian society any more than a radical Hollywood star can stand up in front of millions and influence the uninformed.
I wonder if maybe you should look in to moving to another country that doesn't have Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. Libya might be a good choice.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:26 am on Tue, Sep 25, 2012.
mnjcpa, you and k33 apparently are on the same wavelength --
"I wonder if maybe you should look in to moving to another country that doesn't have Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. Libya might be a good choice."
Preceded by k33: "For those of us so ashamed of our Lord Jesus Christ, live in a foreign land, pray 5 times a day, accept Muhammad as your prophet, and live by the Sharia."
Maybe both of you forgot why many folks came to this land centuries ago: To escape religious oppression, to worship as they pleased.
You two, on the other hand, seem to say, "If you don't like it, leave."
Maybe that's what some in England said to American immigrants centuries ago.
At least we know where you stand . . . and with whom you stand.
mnjcpa posted at 2:07 pm on Tue, Sep 25, 2012.
There you go again like BlueAZDog so astutely observed about your need to take a gratuitous shot and are now trying to parse your way out of it. Apparently that went right over you.
You're right Mike, I do know where I stand. I have a substantial problem with liberal policies being forced upon businesses that conflict with there faith and their only way out of it is to either turn their back on their faith or incur substantial legal costs to defend their position.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:25 pm on Tue, Sep 25, 2012.
A. Your comment above has nothing to do with the column
B. Gratuitous shot ? I QUOTED YOU. If it's gratuitous, it's self-inflicted.
Engaged Voter posted at 1:59 pm on Wed, Oct 3, 2012.
"I have a substantial problem with liberal policies being forced upon businesses that conflict with there faith and their only way out of it is to either turn their back on their faith or incur substantial legal costs to defend their position."
Still waiting (2 weeks now) for support of this specious claim.
I wonder, do you also have a problem with laws saying we cannot beat/torture our children, or sell them to a neighbor? Because your faith (your holy book) says those things are okay. OOPS!
wangly posted at 11:37 pm on Tue, Nov 6, 2012.
person's face. When those muscles move, they may reveal underlying underlying replica designer handbags underlying emotions like happiness, sadness, anger, and confusion.The computer's readings,
still have to be interpreted and may not be as as cheap jordans for sale as infallible as they are on the crime show "Lie
Me" where a cop expert in body language reads reads fake designer handbags reads suspects' faces to determine who is lying.Former FBI agent
body language expert Joe Navarro said that facial expressions only only jordan concord only tell about 10 percent of the story of a
emotion."It's never been proven scientifically that looking at facial expression expression jordan 11 expression is the only way to determine what is really
on in the mind," Navarro said, adding that a person person cheap moncler jackets person uses the whole body to express emotions.Hands, for example,
a big role in this debate, he said."The hands are are jordan concord are useful for illustrating, they're useful for getting attention," Navarro
"But they also communicate emphasis, which is something we saw saw jordan 11 saw with Romney.Romney won style points from both Democrats and
after the debate for appearing aggressive.Romney, the widely acknowledged winner winner jordan concord winner of the first debate, mostly registered negative emotions, Kowal
But that's not necessarily a bad thing."What Romney was able able cheap replica designer handbags able to do was really show anger, contempt, scorn and
Those are the emotions that his voters in his base base jordan concord base feel," said Kowal, an assistant professor at Purdue University