I hope that Glenn can now realize that there isn’t a way to join forces with the opposition even on things that we both agree on. Example: the two leftists that were on the panel were totally fine with the idea of sticking it to “The Man”, businesses, over costumes that they sell, but were in total opposition when it came to critizing fellow Feminists who run commercials with little girls using the Fword. That shows us that they have an agenda that they will stick to through thick or thin while protecting their own as they’ve always done.
May 2, 2013 at 9:33am
Remember bottom up, top down? Why are terrorists being allowed into the country and then given $100,000 or more in financial aid? Why do our borders remain wide open for all? Why the anarchy and violent marches by radical leftists, all over the country? This administration along with the democrat party have tried on numerous occasions to cause bottom up, top down to no avail, by using pin head liberals to do their bidding. Now they have resorted to paying terrorists to come in and get the job done. The administration NEEDS chaos from the bottom in order to usher in marshal law from the top down. This is the ultimate goal for the completed transformation of America. They must cause chaos for an excuse to take away our right to bear arms and then the declaration of marshal law to rule over us with an iron fist. It’s as simple as that! Learn the history of the democrat party, from the original breakaway from Britain to present and you will understand the truth of what is going on, today.
May 2, 2013 at 9:14am
Paul Ryan proves that Progressives slowly infiltrate everything. Who is next to be outed?
Please continue with your purity tests, we need people like you to drop out of the voting process.
April 13, 2013 at 4:38pm
This is a perfect example of why Glenn Beck is wasting his time trying to come to an agreement with Penn. Atheists are the biggest hypocrites. They say that each individual is just a chemical being, nobody is good, nobody is bad, to each his own, on his own. However, they then turn around and try to force everyone to join in their belief that there is no God. They are no better than the progressives, socialists and communists who want to control all the people’s thoughts and beliefs. I hope Glenn realizes this before he loses his audience.
Contrary to your claims, atheists very much believe there are good people and bad people.
And atheists are not forcing you to believe there is no god. Government neutrality on religion is not the same as government endorsement of atheism. Government neutrality respects and protects ALL beliefs.
And how is government neutrality on religion an attempt at controlling other's thoughts?
If the removal of endorsements of religious doctrines is an attempt at thought-control, then you have to admit that the endorsement of religious doctrine is the same. As such, despite your worries about thought-control, you have no problems with it, as long as people are thinking what you want them to.
April 13, 2013 at 4:27pm
The Constitution does not mention public agencies. It says that the federal government cannot establish a single religion that everyone in the nation must worship. It does not refer to the local city governments which belong under State jurisdiction. A school is NOT a federal government agency therefore the Constitution protects the rights of local jurisdictions to practice whatever beliefs they so choose. The federal government SHALL NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion by anyone, anywhere, anytime which would include the Ten Commandments in schools, displays on city property, or displays on State property which are the peoples jurisdiction. The only thing the federal government can prohibit is the forcing of others to read or believe it. Just because it is displayed does not mean that an atheist has to read it. He can choose to close his eyes and move on.
That which in the Constitution binds the federal government binds government on all levels, including state and local jurisdictions. This is ensured in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bruce Dumbass, So tell me, what Church was founded by posting the Ten Commandments? Hell, if a public school decided to put the Quran on display, so as long as no students were forced to abide by the creeds therein, who the hell cares. We in this nation have something called local governments accountable to their residents. Last time I checked, education was not a power delegated to the federal Government. It should make no difference to any branch in the federal Government if a school puts up a holy Bible or Quran or Buddhist texts. It has no power to decide such things.
VALIANT -- those restrictions placed one the government by the Constitution apply to all levels of government, be it federal, state or local.
While the Ten Commandments do not themselves constitute a religion, they are a foundation of religious doctrine in at least two religion, held in particular esteem by Christianity. As such, their placement in the classroom or a public building constitutes an endorsement of that religion.
April 3, 2013 at 3:51pm
The GOP is toast. Too many years of cowering to democrats, wimping out, fear of backlash and chasing those who wouldn’t vote for them even if they handed out hundred dollar bills, on election day. The Party has ignored its own constituency and its conservative values so that they could be liked by the left, which has left us, the voter, dumbfounded. We need to revamp the party by letting go of the party and designing a new party; The American Conservative Party. Our platform: Maximum freedom- An action taken on one’s own property that neither picks my pocket nor physically harm my person shall be deemed legal and unregulated. Coupled with Maximum Responsibility- The result of one’s actions as, once it has left your property then harms yours or another’s person, it becomes your sole responsibility. We stand for the most limited form of government, the Constitution as written, the Fetus as a living human person protected by the Bill of Rights, Marriage as a religious institution joining one man and one woman, Civil Unions as a government institution enjoying the same benefits as married couples, without infringing on the institution of marriage and Education as a local concern not to be regulated by the federal government. We believe that the federal government’s sole responsibility is to protect our nation from foreign enemies, to protect our borders, and to pass only “limited reach” laws that punish the criminal, while still protecting State Rights and our liber
April 3, 2013 at 3:15pm
If marriage “benefits” is what homosexuals are truly seeking, then I believe that a federal Civil Union law would solve this whole argument. The act of Marriage is a States Rights issue, which should always be decided at the state level by the majority of those that it affects, and forcing immoral values on a majority of citizens opposed to them is a violation of our religious beliefs as well as our civil rights. As states decide upon which side they are on, people will naturally congregate to that state that shares in their belief. However a Civil Union law would neither infringe upon the religious beliefs of others nor redefine the Institution of Marriage, And it could be instituted nation wide as government protected contract that doesn’t infringe upon the 1st Amendment of the Constitution because it would not be looked upon as a religious act but as a guarantee of equal protection. Thus, a Civil Union would guarantee partners the same rights that married couples enjoy.