Pharyngula

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 21, 2010 2:31 PM

I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.

Posted by: Alan B | May 21, 2010 2:34 PM

I would be far more impressed if she had humbly asked for God's guidance. Only takes a few seconds. For one who actually believed in God it would be more more appropriate.

Try Matthew 6:7.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 2:36 PM

Dear heavenly father. I pray that all these people start to believe the history that I want them to believe and to ignore the actual documented history that they, and the rest of the reality based world accepts.

Thank you

Posted by: destlund | May 21, 2010 2:43 PM

Why shouldn't public meetings begin with a prayer? Because Texas SBOE meetings are a government function.

That may be true in spirit, but not in law. Texas AFAIK isn't obliged to be a secular state. A stroll across the capitol grounds will show you a cross, the ten commandments, and a memorial to our brave confederate soldiers who died in the war of northern aggression.

All that said, it's difficult for me not to get up out of my chair, walk a few blocks to the TSBOE meeting, and babyshake the living shit out of Cynthia Dunbar.

Posted by: Ben Goren | May 21, 2010 2:46 PM

I’m curious. Where in the Bible can one find any of the noble things she lists? Would it, perhaps, be the parts she pulled from her ass?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: MrFire | May 21, 2010 2:51 PM

Whether we look to the first charter of Virginia, or the charter of New England...the same objective is present — a Christian land governed by Christian principles.

Despicable, pre-Constitutional theocracies that culminated in horrors such as the Salem Witch Trials.

Great example, Dunbar.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 21, 2010 2:55 PM

I like to believe in unicorns and faster-than-light travel. What do you like to believe in?

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 2:56 PM

That may be true in spirit, but not in law. Texas AFAIK isn't obliged to be a secular state.

14th Amendment.

Posted by: RamblinDude | May 21, 2010 2:58 PM

The bible teaches "freedom of belief"? Where?

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 3:04 PM

Fat-free bacon that lowers your cholesterol, but tastes like real bacon. I have a feeling I'll see a faster-than-light unicorn first.

Fat-free, cholesterol-lowering, tastes-like-real bacon comes from faster-than-light unicorns. It works because, due to relativity, eating it makes your cholesterol higher yesterday.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/90YiMPoR0s6DJYBAw4ryeePG4vqJUxYZ#3421a | May 21, 2010 3:05 PM

@10: You beat me to it.
@3: Nor is reading the Bible a prerequisite of being Christian.

All-in-all a disgusting diplay. I would have walked out myself. ~wjs

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2010 3:06 PM

Fat-free, cholesterol-lowering, tastes-like-real bacon comes from faster-than-light unicorns. It works because, due to relativity, eating it makes your cholesterol higher yesterday.

/homer

Posted by: MrFire | May 21, 2010 3:08 PM

That may be true in spirit, but not in law. Texas AFAIK isn't obliged to be a secular state.

14th Amendment.

Yeah I think this is right, destlund; church-state separation is binding all the way down.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | May 21, 2010 3:12 PM

Blockquote fail. I meant to preview but hit the submit button out of habit.

Posted by: alboyjr | May 21, 2010 3:16 PM

What a steaming load of crap, but then, it IS Texas. I really am starting to feel sorry for these poor, misguided souls, but for the horrors they are wreaking upon their children. Note to Ms. Dunbar; the United States is categorically NOT a "Christian Nation." Please see the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding establishment of religion. In spite of your wishful thinking, Madam, the Constitution is the law of the land, not the Bible. Now just go away, and get the hell out of my government.

Posted by: Cyg | May 21, 2010 3:17 PM

As Brian Dalton observed (see video of Mr. Deity & Cast at the AAI 2009 Conference), Europeans risked their lives crossing the ocean to start a new life in this country to escape the consequences of founding "a Christian land governed by Chrisitan principles," which for Europe had been nothing but tyranny and oppression. Only by clipping Christianity's wings with Enlightenment principles did Americans finally put themselves on the path to liberty.

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 3:24 PM

The equal protections clause being used to enforce the establishment clause on a state government? Is there precedent for that?

It's the incorporation doctrine derived from the due process clause.

It would seem ironic, considering the federal government doesn't seem to care about the "wall of separation" anymore.

If we're talking about what is, then, yes, I agree. If we're talking about what it should be, however, the 14th Amendment says otherwise.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | May 21, 2010 3:28 PM

Her version of the bible too. It contradicts (condemns?) every one of her supposed "rights that the founding fathers brought into being".

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 21, 2010 3:29 PM

Further proof that these official prayers have absolutely nothing to do with asking for divine guidance in doing the best job of governing that one can do*, but rather using the power of religion to enforce conformity and chill dissent from a fascist party line.

* Which is pretty sad in and of itself, not only in the context of a pluralistic and secular governing body, but in the sort of grovelling to authority that I have no interest in seeing anyone in a position of governance doing.

Posted by: Alverant | May 21, 2010 3:33 PM

Naturally she doesn't list any "Christian principles" that governs this "Christian land".

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 3:39 PM

So, umm, why do we [Texans] still have the Ten Commandments on our Capitol lawn?

Not that I necessarily agree with it, but Van Orden v Perry is the recent case. Interestingly, that vote was 5 to 4 in favor, while a similar case handed down the same day was 5 to 4 against. The devil is in the details, which I haven't had the time to delve into.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 21, 2010 3:42 PM

@ destlund

Here I was, all ready to pounce on you as a potential libertarian troll and you go and say that you've learned something. That's no fun at all, even if it does restore my faith in the utility of SIWOTI syndrome.

The 10 commandments thing is silly - essentially some folks have convinced the courts that the 10 commandments, and more broadly, the idea of Moses and lawgiver, are important parts of Western legal tradition. Personally, I'd rather have Hammurabi on courthouses, or even Confucius, but I think we may be stuck with this misinterpretation. (grrr.)

Posted by: Teshi | May 21, 2010 3:51 PM

I think this mythologization of the origins of the USA is fascinating (albeit worrying). Recently I've heard that phrase "exceptionalism" which is basically "god's chosen people", and this is describing certain founders as prophetesque.

Posted by: tsg | May 21, 2010 4:01 PM

Re: my #42 (Texas Capitol Ten Commandments)

The difference between Van Orden v Perry and McCreary County v ACLU seems to be one of context. In Van Orden the monument had been there for 40 years before the challenge was brought and Justice Breyer indicated the context was more historical than religious. In McCreary, the display was new and intimated the foundational nature of the Ten Commandments on US law.

I'm still not sure I agree with the SCOTUS's decision in Van Orden.

Posted by: skeptifem | May 21, 2010 4:05 PM

She is kind of right (not about the christian nation, but about the principles and such). The founding fathers were a bunch of honky dudes who thought that the minority of the opulent (other honky dudes with property such as wives, slaves, and land) ought to be able to vote on shit to decide their own affairs. They were just a wee bit more progressive than the bible because of the whole voting part. Other than that, pretty chummy (before anyone mentions the jefferson bible just remember that he owned and raped slaves). The bible was used to try and stop every piece of civil rights legislation ever. All of this should lead to the idea that the principles of the bible are all fucked up, and that we are lucky that people decided to deviate from them so much. Not that she reads the bible or anything.

I wonder if she would like what it has to say about women and leading prayers like that, when so many men are available to do it for her.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | May 21, 2010 4:13 PM

Nothing fails like prayer.

------------

Just to irk right-wingers, I have rewritten these assertions:

I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Qur'an (Koran) and the spirit of the savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses.

Whether we look to the first charter of Virginia, or the charter of New England...the same objective is present — a Muslim land governed by Muslim principles.

I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Muslim religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.

Posted by: astrokid.nj | May 21, 2010 4:14 PM

Christian Land with its Christian principles.. Hmm.. Being born a Hindu, I guess I got to haul my Hindu ass out of here.
(which sucks big time.. I love being here, love contributing and giving back to society.. especially the disadvantaged across the world)
But where do I go.. cant go back to that nutcase Hindu world. When do we start colonizing Mars?

Posted by: Sixohm | May 21, 2010 4:17 PM

Sometimes we're confronted by ignorance so profound we're actually awed by it; a person's jaw just drops. Isn't it axiomatic that by this one-synapse logic it's only Christians who are capable of governing in America and therefore only Christians should be eligible for elected office?

Now, let's see: which part of the Constitution is it again that implies that?

Posted by: Sixohm | May 21, 2010 4:22 PM

Whoops! Sorry for the double post.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2010 4:22 PM

I can't believe this part:

The entire Bill of Rights came into being, because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible, and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law -- and the reservation of powers to the people.

WTF? Where? Where in the Bible are any of these found? Many of these are expressly forbidden in the Bible.

There is no "freedom of belief" -- instead, thou shalt have no other God before ME. There is the 'freedom' to worship the right God, not the freedom to follow your conscience.

Freedom of expression? In the Bible?? What about taking the Lord's name in vain?

And so forth. Perhaps the most laughable is this poor dear's vague conception that God's message to humanity as outlined in scripture is that power is reserved in the hands of the people. No, child. Power is reserved into the hands of God, and it is the duty of the people to submit to God, and those who speak for God, because He cannot speak for Himself, and needs rely on special revelations.

The Founding Fathers, for the most part, rejected the God of mystical revelation for the God of Nature: truth would be discernible through reason alone. The overriding message of the Bible is the exact opposite of "use your brains and come to a consensus based on rational argument and demonstration." The Constitution wasn't established on the authority of God. A clue to its authority and source can be found in the first 3 words.

Egads.

Posted by: destlund | May 21, 2010 4:24 PM

I love how they blur the roughly 140 years between the founding of the New England colonies and the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: ExpatFromHell | May 21, 2010 4:27 PM

Her 2008 book One Nation Under God advocates that the Christian religion should be in the public square more. She has been criticized for a section of the book that calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion" as well as saying that "The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even 'tyrannical'.

This from a graduate of Regent University, as well. (Pat Robertson's institute of "learning").

EFH

Posted by: Kamaka | May 21, 2010 4:36 PM

@ Sixohm

Isn't it axiomatic that by this one-synapse logic it's only Christians who are capable of governing in America and therefore only Christians should be eligible for elected office?

Yah, and they're called Dominionists.

Posted by: applescrapple | May 21, 2010 4:45 PM

Aren't there ANY organizations such as the ACLU or Americans for the Separation of Church and State that can legally challenge these ignorant lowlifes by eliminating any type of prayer before a government meeting?

Posted by: Moggie | May 21, 2010 5:14 PM

Why is someone who is steadfastly opposed to state schools (calling them unconstitutional) even allowed a position on a board of education? Foxes and hen houses, anyone? In a country which is big on oaths of allegiance, why not have board of education members swear to uphold the principle of government-supported secular education for all?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 21, 2010 5:45 PM

Just for the record, my homeschooled Daughter Spawn just watched the video clip and twitched violently at the "Christian nation" bit. Then I told her that this woman is a major homeschooling advocate, to which she replied, "No she's not, she's a major blithering idiot and if she thinks she speaks for me, I'm going to hit the f***ing roof."

There are a lot of such morons, and they seem fabulously able to convince US and European media that they represent American homeschoolers in general. They do not: many of us hate them and speak up loudly and often about how they don't represent us. No matter what your opinions of homeschooling are, this woman is not a representative sample on which to base your opinion, any more than Ken Ham might be an example on which to base your opinion of PZ because they are both interested in human origins. Also, Texas has one of the most lax homeschooling statutes in the country - no oversight requirements (not even peer oversight), no content standards, no nothing. Even many of us homeschoolers think this is stupid. (And for those of us whose homeschooling is overseen by the local board of education, we have a real desire to see quality people serve in these positions.)

This is not to derail the thread onto homeschooling (PLEASE!), just to say that this woman is a radical Christian Reconstructionist and that's where her antipathy towards secular education originates. One can criticize aspects of contemporary education and believe in homeschooling without believing we should abandon the entire enterprise of public education.

Posted by: Andrew T | May 21, 2010 5:58 PM

Politics is proof enough that prayer doesn't work.

Posted by: chrisward | May 21, 2010 6:00 PM

Ugh. I remember similar thoughts hearing some of the 'prayers' at the bi-annual Mormon 'General Conference' in my early Mormon days--it was like they didn't make the cut for actual talks, so they used their prayers to deliver theirs--complete with scriptural references.

Posted by: Louise | May 21, 2010 6:11 PM

As a believer I find that Dunbar’s prayer is unhelpful and can see why nonbelievers and those of other faiths would be upset that it was offered in a secular setting.
I just finished re-reading Philip Yancey’s provocative book “What’s So Amazing About Grace” and find that I agree with him that Christians can lose sight of where we have come from. Here is a quote from the book on page 235.

Early on, America teetered on the brink of becoming a strict theocracy along the lines of Calvin’s Geneva. The Code of Connecticut, for example, includes these laws: “No one shall run on the Sabbath Day, or walk in his garden, or elsewhere except reverently to and from meeting. No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave on the Sabbath. If any man shall kiss his wife, or wife her husband on the Lord’s Day, the party in fault shall be punished at the discretion of the court of magistrates.” Anglican forces who took over Maryland passed a rule requiring citizens to convert from Catholicism before sitting in the assembly. Parts of New England restricted eligible voters to godly people who could testify to a personal experience of salvation.
Eventually, however, the colonies agreed that there would be no nationally established church and that freedom of religion could be practiced throughout the nation. It was an unprecedented step in history and a gamble that appears to have paid off: as historian Garry Wills says, the first nation to separate Christianity from government produced perhaps the most religious nation on earth.

First, as should be clear by now, I believe that dispensing God’s grace is the Christian’s main contribution. As Gordon MacDonald said, the world can do anything the church can do except one thing: it cannot show grace. In my opinion, Christians are not doing a very good job of dispensing grace to the world, and we stumble especially in this field of faith and politics.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 6:19 PM

In my opinion, Christians are not doing a very good job of dispensing grace to the world

he's right about that, but probably not for the reasons I'm thinking of.

I'm thinking the reason is that there is no real definition of what that statement even means.

what "god's grace" means to one individual almost certainly means something different to the next.

hence, there is a good reason "christians" might be doing a poor job of dispensing it, from his viewpoint.

from my viewpoint, you're dispensing vaporware.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 6:25 PM

Why is someone who is steadfastly opposed to state schools (calling them unconstitutional) even allowed a position on a board of education?

because nobody with any sense volunteered for the job to oppose her.

this is not just a problem in Texas, it's a problem everywhere.

the best way to stop this nonsense?

get involved in your own local school board, and go from there.

at least sit in on the meetings once a month or so; make your voice heard. Participate directly if you can at all manage the time.

the more that happens, the less power these idiots will have.

Posted by: eNeMeE | May 21, 2010 6:34 PM

What do you like to believe in?

Free pudding (sugar and gluten free, and still tastes good) every other day! Also, hell for people who believe in it. And free bouncy balls on the days I don't get pudding!

Posted by: ktesibios | May 21, 2010 6:43 PM

I seem to recall a much-publicized Middle Eastern preacher from about 2000 years ago who had an interesting opinion about these slimy public displays of pious bathos...

Matthew 6:5

Posted by: TheGodlesspanther | May 21, 2010 6:51 PM

Thanks for the address, Givesgoodemail, I think I will decline due to the fact that I'm not capable of being polite to someone who is so undeserving of politeness.

Posted by: george.wiman | May 21, 2010 6:57 PM

That's "Preach-Praying"... a common mode of prayer down South, somewhat less common elsewhere.

Posted by: JustShowMeTheData | May 21, 2010 6:59 PM

I preferred the video earlier in the day of a Monkey meeting an old friend.

The monkey's emotions were more real than Cynthia Dunbar's self-serving speechifying.

Posted by: Zoot Capri | May 21, 2010 7:03 PM

What do I like to believe in?

That the banana split I eat tomorrow will taste yummy, and religiosios are freaks who can't live without their imaginary friends....

Posted by: Zoot Capri | May 21, 2010 7:06 PM

OOOOOHHHH I like what Laurent # 95 wrote! You said that so well!

Posted by: rsofaer | May 21, 2010 7:14 PM

In a sense, prayer before meetings of government could be useful. I don't know where to get the actual study, but http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html Just being reminded of morality makes us more moral. Starting meetings with moralistic formulas of some sort is probably good, just for self-manipulation.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 21, 2010 7:25 PM

Moggie:

Why is someone who is steadfastly opposed to state schools (calling them unconstitutional) even allowed a position on a board of education? Foxes and hen houses, anyone?

Was supposed to be blockquoted, obv. (I swear, I've only had one cocktail so far tonight!)

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 8:07 PM

“In sum, I would rather convey grace than explain it.”

that's my point.

something that is unexplainable is inherently not going to be something a group of people can convey with any consistency.

evidently, you yourself can't define it either.

*shrug*

I've had enough marketing of vaporware in the 90's to satisfy my curiousity.

Posted by: atomjack | May 21, 2010 8:42 PM

That believing sure stopped the attack on Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center, huh? Gack, what a god-fearing twit.

Posted by: Fortknox | May 21, 2010 9:23 PM

I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.

I like to believe I will live in a Star Wars universe after I die.

Is that so much to ask for?

Posted by: CherryBombSim | May 21, 2010 9:37 PM

What makes this even more sickening is that it is not even a religious statement at all; it is a political one. Try this experiment: Substitute "Republican" for Christian" wherever it appears in the prayer, and it starts to make sense. An ugly sort of sense, but sense. These are the same people who banned having the United States described as having a "democratic system of government" from the textbooks.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 21, 2010 10:06 PM

I'd like to believe that everything, including old lead paint, tastes like chocolate if you just chew on it enough.

I'd like to believe that each and every nuance of the the Law Of The Land was directly related to an ancient tome somehow different from other ancient tomes (despite their similarities, go figure).

I'd like to believe that if everyone in the whole world could just chug a Coke simultaneously that they would cease fighting and striving, attending instead to home and hearth and community.

I'd like to believe that each of us had the skillful and penetrating intellect to instantly divine the fundamental meaning of any comment uttered by anyone anywhere.

I'd also like to believe that by merely saying what I have just said that I will be rewarded with copious amounts of respect, admiration (aw shit, worship and regard on a deep, deep level), accolades from the humanitarian and prescient cohorts and lots of money and sex

What? NO?

Silly me. Letting my longings lead my nature.

*that's why you have a brain, numbskull!
what? I have a brain??*

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2010 10:22 PM

I like to believe I will live in a Star Wars universe after I die.

I keep envisioning Ewok orgies...

*shudder*

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | May 21, 2010 10:46 PM

@Icthyic

Furries?

Posted by: Betelgeuse | May 21, 2010 11:29 PM

because nobody with any sense volunteered for the job to oppose her.

But there seem to be PLENTY of people willing to talk sense. Not at the very least here. Why doesn't this sort of talk, that Actually belongs to this century, figure when people elect others to make some decisions?
Or maybe I answered my own question. Where I come from, it would make me ill to be up against such vacuous, thick headed, pretentious and obnoxious fools. And in that loathing lies the pity. That there isn't anybody with sense willing to take up cudgels.

In the meantime, *gives rubbish woman a tight slap*.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 21, 2010 11:48 PM

I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country."

And yet under the good christian W we had 9-11 go off without any major hithces, yet under our COmmie-Nazi atheist muslim Keynan we've had a terrorist car bomb fail to detonate.

Apparently God votes blue

Posted by: Robster | May 22, 2010 12:02 AM

At least gawd votes. It's his obligation to be heard, other than through coincidence or pure luck. On the other hand, since we were apparently made in his image (still can't figure how we're not invisible), and it apparently is invisible ('coz it doesn't actually exist) it would be difficult for gawd to vote. Can't imaging it using a drivers license picture, not much to see really. Perhaps a monty python hand from heaven would prove ID. Sadly, gawd has puppets everywhere. Pius political pricks!

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 22, 2010 1:07 AM

@ 121:
Well, I might could go for a universe that spawned Lazarus Long.

Ahh. That would be this one.

*I keep coming back here*

Posted by: truth machine, OM | May 22, 2010 2:02 AM

there is a real danger that they will hurt the cause of Christ by their wrongful or misguided actions

Do you really not realize how stupid that is? Your god is omnipotent and omniscient but there's a "real danger" that his "cause" can be hurt by Cynthia Dunbar? Hey, Satan ought to hire her.

As Gordon MacDonald said, the world can do anything the church can do except one thing: it cannot show grace.

What you show is that you're fucking arrogant retards, every last one of you.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | May 22, 2010 2:18 AM

P.S.

As Gordon MacDonald said, the world can do anything the church can do except one thing: it cannot show grace.

Apparently "grace" means buggering little boys in staggering numbers or, in Gordon MacDonald's case, committing adultery.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2010 2:57 AM

Apparently "grace" means buggering little boys in staggering numbers or, in Gordon MacDonald's case, committing adultery.

In 1987, while president of IVCF, he publicly admitted to an adulterous affair.

ouchie.

LOL

man, you sure don't have to scratch the surface very deeply any more to see the rot, eh?

Posted by: MadScientist | May 22, 2010 4:05 AM

Holy shit. And the creatards are also having their way with their revisionist history. Will Texas ever dig itself out of the holy shithole?

Posted by: Moggie | May 22, 2010 5:05 AM

#78:

as historian Garry Wills says, the first nation to separate Christianity from government produced perhaps the most religious nation on earth.

In what sense is (or was) the US "the most religious nation on earth"? Do you have figures to back that up?

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | May 22, 2010 6:52 AM

Posted by: Laurent Weppe

Well, religious extremism has always been about worshipping oneself. By following this set of ritual one becomes superior to all the humans being not following those rituals, by loudly proclaiming one's faith, one "demonstrate" their moral superiority and justify their desire to be the ruling class, and all of this because the omnipresent, omniopotent, omniscient, ineffable creator of the 93 billions light-years wide universe has a very very very very special interest in the ways one animal living on a spec of dust organize itself and is very eager to reward the religious extremist who loudly claim to deserve said reward.
Ironically, this kind of infuriating demonstration of dogmatism causes me to disagree with you when you say that religion is the cause of such behavior: for my point of view, hubris is the source of the evil here, and religion merely gives the hubristic social dominators the jargon and the posturing they use to make their self-centered attitude look principled.

That could probably be generalized to all forms of extremism.

I'd also suggest that a typical feature of extremism (of all types) is treating enforcing your ideology on other people as being more important than following it itself.

Posted by: atomjack

That believing sure stopped the attack on Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center

Obviously, aircraft are the modern equivilent of iron chariots.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | May 22, 2010 9:45 AM

they believe in Jebus, Ayn Rand and revisionist history they will not stop.

Somehow I doubt that the Right pay much heed too Ayn Rand, who was the founder of an evil Atheistic philosophy.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/KHFT1PAowIXXdtzjMn0ilRzex40S#9adc9 | May 22, 2010 11:13 AM

Please refer to the US Constitution Article VI
"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
These morons have no conception of history and cannot even read the founding document! I say we add Texas to the boycott list.
P.C.Chapman

Posted by: monado | May 23, 2010 5:32 PM

Jane Goodall likes to believe in yeti.