Sulu Is An IDIOT!

Here is the story:

Gay ‘Star Trek’ Actor Omits ‘Under God’ From Pledge of Allegiance

Here is his colossally stupid statement (or deliberate lie):

“Well, they have to understand that there is a strict demarcation between the separation of church and state,”

There is NO “separation” of Church and State ANYWHERE in the Declaration OR the Constitution.  If you doubt that, then go read them, then come back and quote the section that says this separation exists.  In fact, this idiot and all those making this same argument are practicing the 180 degree rule because they have this back-azwards.  What’s more, foreigners even understood this from the beginning of the union:

The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.

–Alexis de Tocqueville

But then, those who have actually bothered to read what the FOUNDERS said about the relationship between Church and State know that the FOUNDERS said – in America – it is not the State which must support religion, but religion which must support the State.

This is what happens when people are indoctrinated rather than educated: they fail to understand that, without religion, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS — only ‘privileges.’  Without religion you live in Hobbes’ world, not our founders’.

34 thoughts on “Sulu Is An IDIOT!

    • NOT the point — as usual. Why can’t people who disagree with an argument stick to the point of the argument? Why do they always have to run to something they think they can win and do so in a way designed to give the impression they HAVE disproven the argument?

      Well, in this case, the argument stands — because no one has shown us the words “separation church and State” anywhere in the Constitution, Declaration or even the definition as assumed in the words of our founders. The truth is, these words are found in one of Jefferson’;s letters — AND HE USED THEM TO MAKE MY POINT!

  1. I am always amazed, and amused that so many people see the “separation clause” (which isn’t there) and miss the free exercise clause ( which is there). Then take everything to the next level, and presume that a 16 year old girl, giving an invocation at a high school event , is the equivalent of an act of congress establishing a state religion: and yet they cannot see that a state agency preventing her from said prayer IS the equivalent of law usurping her right to the free exercise of her religious belief.
    One is the act of a free individual, the other is the act of an agent or agency of government.

    • They will encourage the girl,
      sex the earlier the better;
      Masturbation ,
      oral sex
      Mutiple partners
      Gay is normal and just another choice,

      And finally; family planning in the form of abortion w/out notification of the parents even though a Tylenol cannot be dispensed without a parents and doctors signature.

  2. Joe,
    Am with you on the “Church and State” issue! I have yet to find the word “CHURCH” in my copy of The Constitution of The United States, Copyright: 2002, by Fall River Press. Do I have the correct copy of the U.S. Constitution?

  3. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    What’s more, that very foreigner you found so perceptive noticed both the separation of church and state and its beneficial effects during the early days of our nation: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

    • Doug,

      When you find it, then let us know. But as long as you have to keep going to a letter, turning Jefferson words 180 degrees on their head, and then forcing them into the Constitution, YOUR FULL OF BS!

      An HONEST reading of the 1st Amendment find that Congress has NO control over religion: neither to force inclusion or exclusion. But then, there’s the rub,m isn’t it: and HONEST reading.

    • This kinda goes hand-in hand with SBJ moanin and groanin about that article which was attributed to the Newsweek rather than the Conservative Thinker. Oh, veh!

      Sweet Doug, can you explain the infringement upon this administration’s bias towards Christianity? Please don’t feed me BS, or I will have my way with you over a Chik-Fil-A sandwich in the Hobby Lobby………..after I get my third-trimester abortion paid for by you.

      • Kells,

        Typically happy and honored to be asked to explain anything, I can’t offer anything in this case since I haven’t been hovering around here much lately so I don’t know what you have in mind when you speak of “moanin and groanin about that article” or “the infringement upon this administration’s bias towards Christianity.”

        • Well, to catch you up; Sweet Baby James was upset that an article was attributed to an author named Anderson who writes for Newsweek, but had written the article in Conservative Thinker at a different time. The article in Newsweek was from Ferguson, another Newsweek writer. They both pretty much stated the same thing, but I do find it ironic that people will jump to pooh-pooh anything given the wrong source, even though it is what the person wrote. This leads my mind to church and state. I understand that we don’t want canon law, just as we don’t want sharia law. It’s just that this separation of church and state seems to favour one side; my example being Chick-Fil-A and the Hobby Lobby. Also, the Catholic hospitals that will be forced by Obamacare to close their doors as they refuse to practice abortion. It seems to be a double standard.

          Am I making any sense, Doug? I tell you, you must learn to play the guitar!

          • I see. Thanks for catching me up. Having had lots of practice with a shovel, I’m pretty handy with it; but my musical aptitude suggests little promise I’d ever manage to do anything with a guitar that wouldn’t just hurt all within earshot.

            I’m not up on all the details about Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby and Catholic Hospitals, but have given some thought generally to how the health care law affects employers. I don’t see bias as you suggest.

            First, it is useful to understand the general legal framework. Confronted by questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith, the courts have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (E.g.,

            When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), provide exemptions or otherwise accommodate conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer objectors a free pass. It may require them to pay or do something instead. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.

            Second, within that framework, how does the health care law measure up? Does it specifically aim to interfere with a particular religion? As the law broadly covers the vast field of health care, I think one would be hard put to show that its real aim is to mess with a particular religion. Rather, the law plainly is one generally applicable to everyone or broad classes of people regarding the availability of health care and insurance. As such, the First Amendment does not preclude the government from requiring everyone, including those who object for religious reasons, to abide by it.

            Third, the next question is whether the government nonetheless should offer exemptions to conscientious objectors. The law already exempts churches and the like, so the question really is whether any other types of employers should be exempt as well. Critical to this inquiry is understanding whether the law would require employers to act contrary to their consciences. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not, it appears to me, force employers to act contrary to their consciences. Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans (which may include provisions not to an employer’s liking) or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans). Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.

            Some nonetheless have lobbied for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral?

            In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that employers having religious objections would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.

            Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers or employees pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar (by paying an employee or an insurer) and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.

            So, no, I don’t see that those complaining have made a case for the exemption they seek. Their real aim, it appears to me, is not protecting religious liberty for themselves (they already have that), but rather gaining power over their employees through an exemption that allows employers to limit their employees’ insurance choices to those conforming to the employers’ religious beliefs. Sounds like the opposite of liberty to me.

            • See, Kells, when you use the law to exercise your wishes over others, it gets all twisted up into little bitty knots — like Doug here just demonstrated. Truth be told, none of what he just said is anywhere near being in agreement with the spirit of the Declaration and Constitution — as ratified.

            • This is what I do not believe to be constitutional, Doug. (Um, the penalty fees.) Religious organisations and private businesses must abide by the law, I understand, but to monetarily penalize a business or religious organisation is basically a form of bullying to get your way. Think of this: Everyone is up in arms about folks enrolled in entitlement programs having to get drug-tested. Is it constitutional? No. Is your paying for their groceries constitutional? No. As you can see, I’m not a lawyer, but I think there is a definite double standard afoot.

                • It’s not my goal to “best” anyone, I’m just trying to figure out how we can get back to having the people in charge of the govt. as was the intent of the Constitution.

                  • Well, if you do not want to “best” anyone, then the people who have seized power will continue to seize more because the only way to get what you want is to defeat those folks.

              • Kells,

                I understand your intuitive aversion to what you perceive as bullying and unequal treatment. I think, though, that a closer examination may lead to different, or at least complicating, ideas.

                If employers must abide by the law, as you accept, why would you suppose that monetarily penalizing an employer who acts contrary to the law is wrong? Law is inherently coercive. Call it “bullying” if you will, but the coercive aspect is just part of law. Monetary penalties are just one way to induce someone to comply with a law. All sorts of carrots and sticks could be employed, but the general idea is the same: comply with the law or else . . . .

                With respect to the health law, the coercive aspect is present, but the context is somewhat different. The monetary assessments (or penalties, if you prefer) are not fines to be paid if one violates the law in the sense of acting unlawfully. Rather, the law provides two alternatives; those choosing one alternative are every bit in compliance with the law as those who choose the other. Employers may choose to comply with the law in one way–i.e., paying assessments–rather than another–i.e., providing qualifying health plans–or vice versa.

                Certainly, depending on the costs of one alternative versus the other, the law may as a practical matter encourage people to choose one over the other. Laws commonly do that sort of thing. Ironically, the health law currently sets the monetary assessments so low that it may effectively encourage employers to choose that alternative rather than providing employees with qualifying health plans.

                As for drug testing those in entitlement programs and the constitutionality of such programs, I’m not understanding what connection you would make between those and the health care law.

                • “Employers may choose to comply with the law in one way–i.e., paying assessments–rather than another–i.e., providing qualifying health plans–or vice versa.”

                  You missed one component. Those that are close to the lawmakers who crafted this law, are granted a “waver” from falling under the law.

                  Additionally, now we have a law, which now the very lawmakers who made have decided not to enforce it … likely for political gain, and likely because they physically not lift this law and get it in practice … not that it is going to be applied to all equally under the law in the first place.

                  So yes, Kells has a point. When entities such as bundlers (i.e., unions) for the politicians who crafted that law can get a waver and not live under the law, where-as other entities who are deemed “oppositional” in political or religious ideology are not granted the same waver from the law … then yes, that sir, is bullying.

                  • augger,

                    I have not heard of the “waiver” you mention. Can you clarify–perhaps with a reference or link?

                    • Really? You need to stop watching the govt. propaganda mill known as the LIBERAL MEDIA and start getting some REAL news. Those waivers have been all over the Drudge Page for MONTHS!

                    • When I get home Doug or you can simply google “Obamacare Waver”, add “unions”, “south Florida”, etc, etc, etc. Shouldn’t be much of a challenge for an attorney.

                • “If employers must abide by the law, as you accept, why would you suppose that monetarily penalizing an employer who acts contrary to the law is wrong? ”

                  Because the law is unconstitutional. The three branches have gone rogue. Obamacare was deemed a tax by SCOTUS (poo-pee-dee-do, right? Well, if a Congress doesn’t act upon this, they have gone and did go rogue.) A tax must originate in the House.

                  ” Employers may choose to comply with the law in one way–i.e., paying assessments–rather than another–i.e., providing qualifying health plans–or vice versa.”

                  I find these rates to be exorbitant and I believe this administration feels the same, which is why they are exempt until after the mid-term elections. Individuals with under 50 employees are not exempt. Constitutional? Nope. (Silly B. actually wrote a great post on this…)

                  “Ironically, the health law currently sets the monetary assessments so low that it may effectively encourage employers to choose that alternative rather than providing employees with qualifying health plans.”

                  Doug, that is their intent. Think about it. By removing competitors, you control the market as well as people’s lives as well as deaths. This is not only plausible it is happening. We have just witnessed a case with a child needing a lung transplant: “Last week, a US judge took the unusual step of ordering that the child should be placed on an adult waiting list, after Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius declined to intervene and the family filed a lawsuit, alleging that current US standards discriminated against children.” Uh-huh. The old and the young will be deemed the expendables.

                  “As for drug testing those in entitlement programs and the constitutionality of such programs, I’m not understanding what connection you would make between those and the health care law.”

                  In my mind and on paper, they both appear to be unconstitutional. That was my connection. It is also the backing of my claim that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches have gone rogue…………and have been going there for some time. Sweet M. has a great post on some history in that regard.

                  I really wish I could recall links from here because the one that I’m thinking on is very good. This is the problem with being a silly girl; I flit around and recall some, but not all of what I have read. I am a little sponge because I’m terribly jealous of all of you boys! (In more ways than I care to go into….) Then again; I have boobs. 😆

                  • Kells,

                    I have trouble following the thread. I earlier understood you to say that employers must comply with the law (which suggested to me that you thought it was constitutional), but you objected to the monetary penalty as bullying. I responded that coercion of that or some sort is an inherent aspect of law. Now, you say you object to the penalties because the law is unconstitutional and the three branches have gone rogue.

                    I feel like I walked in on a conversation that has been going on for awhile so I’ve missed a lot (like those links and such you mentioned reading earlier). As I noted above, the employer mandate (which has yet to be reviewed by the Supreme Court) appears to be constitutional under the Court’s precedents on the First Amendment since it is not aimed at a specific religion, but rather is generally applicable to everyone or broad classes of people. I gather from your stated conclusions that you think otherwise, but I don’t know just what or why. That you consider the government to have “gone rogue” suggests the breadth and intensity of your view, but otherwise doesn’t give me much to go on.

                    I’m not sure about your thinking about the assessments. You dub them “exorbitant,” yet seem also to agree or accept that they are set so low that they may encourage employers to pay them rather than offer more expensive qualifying health plans. The constitutionality of the law, in any event, does not hinge on the amount of the penalties.

                    While we appear to view things quite differently, I hope for both our sakes at least to avoid a judgment of feeding you BS, since I’d need a few months to scrape up enough to pay for your third-trimester abortion.

          • As I have clearly explained — and you have failed to refute — there were no substentative “errors” in that post. the point Dusty was making would stand no matter when the article was published, or by who.

            once again, you demonstrate you have absolutely no concept of logic, reason, or honesty, for that matter.

            • As was clear from the beginning — and can be plainly seen by anyone who goes to the post — the facts of the piece were wrong, period. A piece attributed to one writer was written by another, while a piece that supposedly appeared in Newsweek actually appeared on a right-wing blog.

              Once again, you demonstrate you have no concept of integrity. But you’re doing a dandy job of “ignoring” me, puppet boy. I assume you’re working on your next post about me?

  4. “I’m not up on all the details about Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby and Catholic Hospitals”

    ::: shakes head :::

    For once, can any liberal/progressive/lawyer ever make an opening statement rooted with a modicum of honesty? These were highly prolific events, and you are going to claim to be the only person on the planet with your head buried in the sand? Really?

    • Aug ger,

      The moment they do that, they have to admit they do see and recognize objective reality, and the moment they do that, they have lost to those of us who always have and their entire fantasy world crashes down around them.

      So, no…they can’t 😦

    • Interesting tack, augger. Rather than address anything substantive that I said, you choose merely to label me and question my honesty, and about an insignificant detail as well. To the extent it matters, I meant only that I was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of those specific cases, “prolific” as you suppose them to be, to get into their particulars. If you reread my comment, you’ll see that I did not say or suggest that I hadn’t heard of them or knew nothing at all about them. But anyway, isn’t it boring to fuss over such inconsequential matters? How about the meat of my comment?

      • Can there be anything substantial after a false opening syllogism?

        Addendum: So I went ahead and read the rest of the post as you requested, and I am pretty certain that our other contributing lawyer commenter might have a different opinion than the opinion you gave.

        Personally, I am no lawyer, but your post was insightful as to how predatory lawyers with an agenda can bastardize any document to suit their own agenda, which renders my initial commentary as on topic. As to the legality, I will defer to Tex to play the legal game with you.

        But at least I did read it. 🙂

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.