User Profile: rpg1958

Member Since: February 09, 2012


  • June 14, 2012 at 1:39pm

    We are indeed a Republic – a democratic republic. We elect people to represent our views and to protect our rights – therefore when a majority of the City Council vote to uphold the Zoning Restrictions the are protecting our rights as a democratic republic and representing the will of the people as was the intent of our Founding Fathers. There is no need for a DOJ investigation of this matter. It doesn’t matter if the people speaking (as is their right) at a public hearing don’t want Muslim’s in their town – what matters is that the Mosque was asking for an exemption of the Zoning and it was denied on that basis.

  • June 13, 2012 at 3:59pm

    He can be in Congress if he became a citizen of the US. He just could not be President or Vice-President or in the line of succession to the office of the President.

  • June 11, 2012 at 3:39pm

    Jilly, please tell me what specific religion is being endorsed by the phrase “under God”? Not Christianity for it does not say under Jesus, not Judaism because it doesn’t call upon Yahweh, not Islam – nope no reference to Mohummad, not Buddaha, not Kali, not Zeus…hmmm I cannot imagine what religion is being endorsed.

    It is a simple phrase whose meaning is derived by the people who say it, don’t believe, don’t say it. In any situation in which the Pledge is being said by a group, no one will be able to tell if you choose to leave it out.

    Personally, my favorite rendition of the Pledge can be found here:

    Responses (1) +
  • June 11, 2012 at 3:02pm

    @Jilly33. Please point out the Article or Section of the Constitution stating the separation of Church and State. If you would take the time to read and/or study or Constitution you will find that nowhere does it state anything about a separation of Chuch and State. The Constitution does prohibit the government from establishing a State religion, it also prohibits the use of a religious test as a qualification to hold office, but no where does it separate Church and State. That is because our Founders intended for all religions to be welcome in the “public square”.

    The so-called separation that you refer to was a single phrase written in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist minister who was concerned about what the government could do to his congregation. Please remember that the prohibition of the establishment of religion right was placed to prtect the people from the government, not to remove God from our country.

    Responses (4) +
  • June 11, 2012 at 2:46pm

    Okay, they got my attention by the act of vandalism. Unfortunately for them, it has turned me off of them and any message they have. If they were to behave in a civilized manner, I would listen to them, due to their act of vandalism I will oppose anything they stand for.

  • June 11, 2012 at 2:05pm

    Out of curiousity I just looked up and read the Preamble and the first few articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, as suspected, the are plenty of references to God (by whatever words they choose to use, the concept of a Supreme Being was included). Once again we have a fine example of the “tolerant” left attempting to inflict their beliefs upon others.

    At on time I proclaimed myself an atheist. Granted I was in high school – a Lutheran school – and saw it as a way to rebel and stand out, I may have argued agaist the existence of God, but I never attempted to force my beliefs upon anyone. As a believer, I still make no attempt to force my beliefs upon anyone, I just hope and pray that they come to their senses.

  • February 9, 2012 at 12:35pm

    Many of the comments have focused on the sanctity of confession as well they should, trying to say that if it was a Muslim we wouldn’t object is far off base, as the violation here is a First amendment violation so the what religion is involved doesn’t matter. However, while those on the left are trying to break the First amendment, they are forgetting that the First amendment also covers the press and speech, how would they react of the court were trying to get a journalist to reveal his source? There is the comparison they would understand. After all, the left places journalists who have gone to jail to protect their sources on pedestals and award them accolades for their “strength” of character. There is the hypocrisy in their arguments.