Are They Truly That Stupid?

This is a response to a post in the Sedalia Democrat Online Edition by Nance Kirby. I Chose to post it here because some of the language is mild but explicit, and is necessary to the argument.

nancye wrote:

NK: ”We simply cannot allow the Supreme Court to rule that no one can have access to contraception, or even sex education.“

I can recall no one, no where, no how who has ever suggested this except the liberals in their “slippery slope” defense of Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, all that would happen is that a woman’s so called “right” to an abortion would be turned back over to the states to decide, which is where it belongs in the first place.

NK: “We cannot let them rule that we have to teach Intelligent Design in our schools as an alternative to actual science.”

I am quite certain that what the fundamentalists are trying to introduce is Intelligent Design as an alternative “theory”. The reason that the origins of the universe are debated at all is because no one knows for certain. There is no “actual science” because if there were, then there would be no argument. In that context our students deserve to be taught all relevant theories so that they can make up their own minds. Failure to do so is the equivalent of Muslim fundamentalists teaching their students that USA is the great satan. They will not have the opportunity to know any different therefore they will grow up to believe it, and they will act accordingly. What you advocate is nothing less than censorship, because you only want the students to know the side of the story that you believe.

NK: “We cannot allow them to stigmitize homosexuals as being sinners who are not moral enough to have equal rights.”

Follow up:

Once again you are assuming activist judges will rule based on their own conscience, rather than on the constitutionality of a case or a law that is brought before them. IMHO I believe there have been far more activist judges rule for the liberals than for the conservatives. I may be wrong but I’d like to see specific cases to point one way or the other.

NK: “We cannot allow them to control the bodies of all women.”

(see response #1)

NK: ”And, most of all we cannot allow our presidency to become an official office for one particular brand of religion. We are a moral God loving country who has always respected the religious beliefs of everyone, that is the very hallmark of this nation.”

Assuming that Palin were ever to ascend to the oval office (and granted there is that chance) there is a HUGE difference between having a religious person in the oval office and allowing the office of the Presidency to become an office for one particular religion. Did you make this same argument when Jimmy Carter courted the fundamentalist vote by proclaining his Christian values?

We have enough safeguards in place such as Congress, the Supreme Court and the ACLU that any attempt by a President or anyone else to enforce a religious belief on the country without an act of Congress would be soundly defeated, and Congress would never attempt to pass such a law because of public backlash. Remember that at the end of the day, our elected officials can be removed in the same manner in which they got there.

NK: ”McCain used terribly poor judgement when he selected a person of extremely strong religious conviction who believes that what SHE believes would be God’s will for everyone…,

Nancy, out of respect for your age and experience I’m going to stop short of calling you a hypocrite here, but what I will do is call BULLSHIT! (that’s a game, for those of you that may not be aware). All of your statements are about what “we simply cannot allow”. Isn’t the very statement “WE CANNOT ALLOW”, presumed to apply to everyone? So doesn’t that mean you are forcing your will on everyone? Only in a totalitarian society does “I don’t want…” become “WE CANNOT ALLOW…”.

If McCain/Pailn gets elected it will be by the will of the majority, and if at some point down the road Palin gets to the White House it will be by the will of the majority. So if the majority says through the legislature “we can allow…” then what will you do? Bomb the Capitol building? Oh, wait, that was Obama’s buddy! (ok I apologize for that. It was a cheap shot)

NK: “…just as she has said that she believes Iraq is God’s will.”

Fact check–Palin never said the war in Iraq is God’s will. She said: “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s will.” Again a problem with our media. Every report I’ve seen everywhere (with the exception of Fox news) picks that quote up at “that our leaders, our national leaders…” Even the Youtube video starts there. If you start at the beginning, any reasonable person would have to conclude that she is asking for prayer that what we are doing is from God, not making a statement that it is from God. Yes, it is an open attempt to mislead the public, so on this point I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You were duped.

All of your statements about what “we cannot allow” implies that our world will collapse if John McCain and Sarah Palin are elected. SHAME ON YOU! That’s the same BS spouted by the left in 2004, when ads and billboards appeared in St. Louis, aimed at the black voters, proclaiming that if Republicans are elected, black churches will burn. You are spewing the same kind of baseless, fearmongering venom, aimed instead predominantly at women, and have commented on what you think might happen, posing it as a definite will happen, based on the headlines you read in a biased media.

Can anyone name one black church that has been burned since 2004 because the Republicans were elected?

The BlacKnight