This is the son of the man made famous for perpetrating the most outrageous example of post hoc reasoning in the history of religion, John Hagee's assertion that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath. God "destroyed New Orleans because they welcome homosexuals there." His son, Matthew, here explains that the public meetings prayer decision just handed down by the Supreme Court left much to be desired: instead of an 8 to 1 vote, it should have been unanimous; instead, we should "get rid of the liberal" remaining on the court. The list of fuzzily thought, ideologically based opinions handed down since the New Majority was seated prior to the Bush v. Gore fiasco has increased exponentially, with the swing justice (Kennedy) becoming less predictably moderate. When Kennedy votes right on religious matters, one must wonder if he has not allowed his Catholicism to get the better of him. Justice, however, is supposed to be blind. Not just to color, but to religion. As Blavatsky observed, "There is no religion higher than the truth."
Someone referred to this jerk-weed from one of Seth Andrews' Thinking Atheist podcasts. His skewed view of what the United States is and how its constitution is structured is one reason why I keep a weather eye on him and idiots like him. Granted that the average christian may not be a problem, even in congregations like Hagee's, but I have no doubt but that there is a Scott Roeder in there somewhere, and likely more than one, who will treat statements like Hagee's as marching orders.
And the more christian influence fades from the scene, the more likely I see such an incident becoming.
Those in their last days of rule over the life or thought of a people fight hardest to stay relevant.
Are they fighting for relevancy or to maintain their influence? Either way, they're losing!
I'm sitting here wondering if New Orleans is the only place that welcomes homosixyearolds? (sp) Maybe god could have had more fun tearing up more cities and not just this one alone.
You can often tell how ignorant a homophobe is when they have trouble spelling "homosexual." My own father confused the word with "homo sapien." (He seemed oddly naive where sexual matters were concerned.) I once interviewed the great Russian dancer Nureyev. It went badly and, in a snit, I wrote a magazine cover story about him, making sure that the photo used was unflattering. A reader wrote a letter to the editor, which was published saying that I was a "honosheksual."
their is no value in any kind of violence. sometimes violence is the only way though. but saying a certain kind of violence is more "moral" is completely idiotic.
an atheist will kill if they had to. a religious person does too but also will kill in the name of their fake god.
However, the vote on the prayer decision was not 8 to 1, but 5 to 4, as he notes several times without understanding that it was a decision about prayer in a government meeting, not prayer in general. He seems to be advocating "spiritual violence"—a disturbing thought.
I was afraid I might convey that inaccuracy. Junior did start off by saying it was 5-4 and pointed out that Kennedy was the swing. The way they did the background, you can see that the next step probably is showing the justices with targets over the four who dissented.
I suppose it's too much to expect that the justices would just consider the law and leave their personal judgments to one side, but it seems that a conservative bent has taken hold on the court that does not augur well for the future.
I think it was bad enough when Bush II was elected crowned. Alan Dershowitz, for all his faults (he is a right wing Zionist) wrote an excoriating book about the Court's decision in "Bush v. Gore," showing how they swept aside all precedent to arrive at a decision rivaling the reviled "Dred Scott" for pig-headed wrong thinking. Then the other sometimes swing vote, O'Connor, left, followed quickly by the liberal Souter. And then the Bushes began putting the really right wing ideologues on, including Alito (some wags call him "Scalito"), Roberts, and Thomas. And it appears we are going to be looking at this court for a long time.