According to this,there was no need for a convoluted donation,it wouls have been legal to donate direct.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011832.php

If you act like an uncivil smart ass AND then call out other people for the same behavior, I’ll call ‘em like I see ‘em. If you don’t like it, either be civil, or quit stretching your arm out its socket patting yourself on your back for you own civility. (Me, I don’t make any strong claim to civility.)

Or not, since obviously I have no control over you–nor would want it, despite your claims. Meanwhile, in this free country of ours, I’ll strangely enough feel free to call a spade a spade.

“Why can’t you show enough decency and self-respect to take your beliefs into your own schools, as the Catholics and jews do? ”

I’m thrilled to hear that you will be supporting vouchers or some other such way to enable smaller, relatively unorganized religious people (as well as poor people everywhere, regardless of religion or lack thereof) to abandon the travesty that is the public schools, in the same way that Catholics have been forced to do through top-down means. Especially since said people pay a great deal of taxes for those public schools, and get less and less actual education out of them.

“And do please quit whining about your hurt feelings. Yours is not the state religion. Criticism of it is not lese majeste”.

In order to criticize it in a way that would hurt my feelings, you would first have to know something about it beyond the superficial.

Why can’t you show enough decency and self respect to just admit that you dislike anything greater than a patina of religion having any say in how people live their public lives? Does that mischaracterize your position a bit? Not anywhere near as much as you do mine and others. I share a lot of your political aims. I don’t like religion in science class (or pretty much anywhere in school, short of studied as part of philosophy). Read that last sentence again, since you seem to have missed all the other ways I’ve said exactly the same thing many times. Would you like me to clarify even futher?

If you really think that other people learning what a Baptist or Pentacostal believes will inevitably lead down a slippery slope to a theocracy, just say so. You’ll look like an idiot, but at least you’ll be honest. Or you can draw the line somewhere “moderate” short of that, but then will have to put up with religious allies from time to time.

I wish you luck in putting together this third party.

Are you trying to make yourself look ridiculous, or do you actually believe these fevered visions?

Do you seriously expect deference from those who disagree with your singular views, even when these include insisting– uniquely of all the nation’s major religious denominations– on injecting your own particular understanding of God into science instruction in the secular public schools?

We fought this battle in 1925, and again and again thirty or so years ago, and the courts’ stand was unequivocal. What entitles you to not only wage this crusade but also cry for yourselves that you’re somehow being persecuted? Neither the Catholics nor the jews nor the mainline protestant denominations insist that the public schools degrade science instruction with religious notions. Every major religious community in this nation, including the Catholic Church whose schools I attended for 12 years, recognizes that, as Krauthammer put it, to mix faith and science is to do harm to both faith and science.

And these are private religious schools! What on earth is wrong with you people that makes you think that, of all this nation’s dozens of religious denominations, you alone are entitled to inject your particular interpretation of God and nature into the secular public schools? Why can’t you show enough decency and self-respect to take your beliefs into your own schools, as the Catholics and jews do?

And do please quit whining about your hurt feelings. Yours is not the state religion. Criticism of it is not lese majeste.

“For that matter, I don’t recall trashing Christians of any sort.”

No, I doubt you do recall it. You seem to have a problem understanding what “trashing” would entail. Plus, you are totally clueless about the religous, and social conservatives (many of whom are yellow dog Democrats) in particular. Just from the latter part of this thread:

“I suppose a cheap and cynical way to do so would be to urge equal time for creationism in the public schools–that is, for the southern baptist not the Ratzinger version”

Teach metaphysics as part of philosophy, so that people like you will not have an excuse to escape high school without some clue about what people believe, instead of what your fevered imagination supplies, and science will be perfectly safe. But you don’t want that, because that would mean showing some respect to religion.

“There’s no room in the Party of Christ for anyone not enamored of religion.”

Yeah, that’s why Guiliani is a libertarian now. Not. That’s why this Republican, social conservative, southern Baptist considers him my first pick right now. Unlike some of his supporters, it occurs to Guiliani not to trash his potential voters. Keep it up, and you might eventually talk me out of supporting Guiliani, despite his best efforts.

“Today’s Republican Party is more like a cynical pseudo-cult than anything else.”

It’s called a coalition, big tent, whatever you want to call it. There is no possible governing coalition in America that will not have some fring elements in it. (Hint, political moderates is a wide open term that includes some people with pretty crazy ideas, many of them involving Rockwell.)

“The right hates science for its irreligiosity”

No, the religious dislike some scienctism true believers for their smug self-righteousness, intolerance, and hypocrisy. Especially when they ignorantly and indiscriminately project their own failings onto the religious while screaming about how ignorant the religious are.

Do you want me to google old posts for you?

PS. I noticed this a long time ago, but was willing to let it slide until you started lecturing other people about civility. I suppose a better Christian would turn the other cheek, but I never claimed to be infallible.

I did not read it directly but I heard that McCain made some vague gesture towards creationism in certain situations and I doubt that he has any inclination towards that policy but he is already starting to make his run

If it hasn’t happened yet, it will of course happen soon. Support for creationism is a logical outcome of our national politics of crap posturing on “moral” non-issues, and will become de rigeur among not only Republicans but also Democrats in the next election. I’d not be surprised to see Edwards and Hillary and Obama presenting their support for creationism/ID as a principled stand for social equality against the closet racism of the darwinists (hat tip: Steven Pinker http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072079&entry=2072402 http://www.math.tohoku.ac.jp/~kuroki/Pinker/.

The right hates science for its irreligiosity, the left hates science for its refusal to genuflect before blank slate and other theories of social malleability and equality. Why not replace the politics of division with a national unity crusade against Darwin?

You’re far from alone. Certainly about one-quarter of registered Dems are sufficiently appalled by their leadership, along with Kos’n'Cindy’n'Cynthia, to consider talking a walk. Bush increased his vote total by about 100,000 in Manhattan from 2000 to 2004, and it’s likely that most of these were national security Dems like Roger and myself. I believe that nationally we totaled somewhere between 1-1.5 million last November.

Unfortunately that’s not much of a solution. There’s no room in the Party of Christ for anyone not enamored of religion. I myself was thinking of checking out the Texas Republican Party, perhaps going to a meeting and getting to know some folks in my adopted town, until I read that DeLay’s party now begins its convocations with a prayer session. This is Lincoln’s party? Surely the Almighty has his own purposes; the nation doesn’t need Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney to interpret them.

Today’s Republican Party is more like a cynical pseudo-cult than anything else. Hardcore pork-barrel legislative politics and corporate capitalism covered over with a symbolist politics of greasy fundamentalism whose main effect is to waste huge amounts of everyone’s attention and time on pointless stunts like l’affaire Schiavo. Somehow, were one of their teenage daughters to become pregnant, I seriously doubt that many of this party’s leadership would not furnish the troubled girl with the number of a discreet, experienced abortionist.

Luther,

Security is indeed the linchpin for a sensible party platform.

1) National security

2) security of access to catastrophic medical insurance, regardless of one’s employer

3) security of pensions

4) national economic security via fiscal responsibility

The Dems are clueless on #1, the Repubs are clueless on #4, and neither party’s gazillionaires give a flying hoot about #2 or #3. Who cares about a million corporate retirees screwed out of their pensions and health care when there’s money to be made at Global Crossing or HCA or Goldman Sachs?

That is my only non-negotiable. My social idea’s are radically different then our host but if it was between Roger and a isolationist Republican like Buchanon I would pull Roger’s lever.All the other issues can be changed or modified later but Los Angeles or Tel Aviv are hard to replace, well at least until the radiation fades away after a few generations.

Kevin Peters

Without a secure Country, all else is contingent.