Friday, February 26, 2010

Why the Tea Party is making me nervous. Glenn Beck Finally Admitted His Great Desire

This speech actually scans better in German.

Glenn Beck Finally Admitted His Great Desire: To 'Eradicate' Progressives


Beck didn't understand Tom Paine, so there's no reason to imagine he understood Teddy Roosevelt either -- not any better than Hitler understood Nietzsche. -- not that this stops anyone.

hiho

23 comments:

John Jost said...

This is a conservative leitmotiv, nothing new. Remember Ann Coulter "reminding liberals that they, too, can be killed."

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I'm fairly sure he was talking about the bankrupt and unsustainable ideas of big government and the intellectual ideals the progressive movement advocates.

You constantly call for the erradication of Christianity in the public square...how is that any different than Beck's "illumination"?

Mpeterson said...

Um, because the Constitution actually supports my point of view?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

The constitution does not support your view.

The "separation of church and state doctrine" was created by the Supreme Court nearly 200 years after the adoption of the Constitution. Its turned into a questionable decision as far as how many people interpret that doctrine. (Its used as reason to erradicate religion, not separate it.)

The 1st amendment is a prohibition against the state establishing religion (where church and state is one in the same), it was not meant as a marching order to stomp out every last vestige of religious expression by citizens in the public square.

There is a distinct difference.

If it was meant as a marching order...what is religion needs to be stomped out of the public square? I'd like to start with the Global warming religion. That religion should be the first thing banned from public school and the public sphere, its dangerous to the U.S. constitution and the very sovereignty of this country.

Anonymous said...

Kevin,
Your knowledge of law is going to get your ass sued.

You state: "You constantly call for the e[]radication of Christianity in the public square"

So you get it through your nitwit skull what's wring with this statement, get a freakin book on laws addressing blogging and other communications and read the damn book. Maybe you will figure out (before you write something even stupider for the world to see) what not to communicate before the sheriff shows up with papers.

DUMBASS.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Anonymous,

While I appreciate your colorful "illumination", what exactly are you talking about?

Mark said in the 3rd post that the constitution does call for the erradication of religion in the public square. He's been very consistent on the issue. Religion in public is verboten.

What exactly will get me sued?

I appreciate the clarification.

I know Mark believes that. My problem is: What exactly is religion? Global warming meets the criteria of "religion" in nearly every aspect. Why don't we erradicate this crazy global warming superstition from the public sphere?

Mpeterson said...

Kevin,

Eradication, was more of your amusing equivocation. I don't believe the term appears in the Constitution and, unlike you, I'm afraid I can only agree with the Supreme and federal courts.

Anonymous said...

Kevin,
S-l-a-n-d-e-r will get one sued.
Read blogging law.

Free Lunch said...

Kevin,

There is no attempt to stamp religion out of the public square. That is a lie told by right-wing leaders to get their ignorant religious followers all riled up. It is completely bogus.

What is forbidden is to use the government to inflict religion on others. Prayer, led by teachers in public schools is one such way to use the government inflict a particular religion on others. Would you be happy if your local public schools played the Islamic call to prayer every day and had public Islamic prayer?

Anonymous said...

hey anonymouse,

you are a c**t and a t**t.

sincerely,
the constitution

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark, Free Lunch,

No attempt to erradicate religion from public square?

So a bible passage at the bottom of my public official email is OK?

Free speech, right?

Mpeterson said...

At this point I used to simply assume you knew you were equivocating on the meaning of the term "eradicate". But I'm not so sure any more.

So, two questions: did you misspell the word intentionally or just to be cleverly amusing, and do you know you're equivocating?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

Bible passage at the bottom of my public official email?

Acceptable or not?

Your answer will be a strong indicator whether you are really "separating" or "eradicating" religion out of the public square.

Then we need to check on which religions you are picking for the "separating" (or eradicating) treatment. The global warming religion seems to escape this harsh religious treatment in the public school curriculum. Why?

There is no conspiracy. I just don't always check my spelling.

Does the "freedom from religion foundation" equivocate?

Mpeterson said...

You have a Biblical passage on the bottom of your official, Village of Kewaskum email?

Send me an email and let me see!

try mcep11@msn.com

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I don't currently have a bible passage in my public official email, but I'm thinking about it. (Depending on how far you take your religious censorship viewpoint on it.)

You make this claim that "separation" is not thought police "eradication" of Christianity in the public square. I'm fascinated by this distinction. (vs. equivocation)

Especially when it comes to the WB Library Director using public email to call constituents "sanctamoneous sows", and you say that's OK.

I'm curious if putting in a tagline signature at bottom like:

"Be truly glad. There is wonderful joy ahead!"
- I Peter 1:6

would earn worse scorn and ridicule in my public official email than the WB library director's unprofessional comment...

1 Peter 1:6, Acceptable, or not?

What if I said it without indicating it was 1 Peter 1:6?

I'm curious just how far you take this religion censorship thing?

Mpeterson said...

Here's the easiest thing, then.

Why don't you put one up, we'll call the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, they'll take you court, and we'll see how the court rules.

That should give us an indication.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

So you are admitting there is a religious "thought police" body?

What you propose sounds very oppressive...and very free speech chilling...

Free Lunch said, "there is no attempt to stamp religion out of the public square. That is a lie told by right-wing leaders to get their ignorant religious followers all riled up. It is completely bogus."

So when Mark literally dares me to post a bible passage in my public official email, have my speech immediately "reviewed" by the left wing thought police, and maybe, just maybe, I could possibly "get off" after tremendous court expense and time, some oppressive left wing anti-speech group could still appeal my free speech victory....

I find it slightly nothing short of shocking that 1 Peter 1:6 would earn this much scorn, while "sanctamoneous sows" by the WB Library Director is praised and glorified by you when a public official insults their constituents in their public funded email....

You can't tell me that religion is not sensored, scorned, and ridiculed in the public square.

So will you admit your willingness to eradicate religious speech in the public square?

Be honest.

Mpeterson said...

Grin, so you think the Supreme Court is part of a left wing thought police?

Yep, of course you do.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I missed the part where the Supreme Court said it was acceptable to review and regulate "political" speech. (I'd like you to point to the ruling...I'm begging)

As you know, I'm always "political" whether in person, on the blog, or in my email.

What is shocking is: you are willing to review all political speech, and advocate an agency of government, sift the speech for a religious component, thus oppressing that speech and any speech that comes in contact with the government agency/court review!

This is contrary to the free speech crusader flag you tend to wrap yourself in.

I suggest a new blog name, "The Motely Cow", Crusading for speech censorship since 1989, but only the religions I dislike.

That chill wind is not the hoax of the global warming religion, its your anti-free speech position.

DanBack said...

Kevin,

Would you also be ok if elected officials quoted the Qur'an in their official emails?

Anonymous said...

"Global warming meets the criteria of "religion" in nearly every aspect."

This never fails to make me laugh. I realize Kevin is a troll here, but at least work on the poker face!

Mpeterson said...

Hey Kevin,

The information you're looking for can be found here.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Dan,

Would quoting the Qur'an be a problem?

What if I quoted the book of Al Gore?

I have not seen a list of favored vs. disfavored religions. If you could get me a list of which religions liberals favor, I would not carelessly run into the selective "gotcha" buzz saw of leftist religious speech oppression.

Mark,

U.S. Supreme Court page. Great. What case allows political speech to be "reviewed", "regulated" and "sifted" until its distilled into a Peterson approved non-religious form?

This would prohibit Al Gore from ever being mentioned again!