What's Wrong WithThis Picture?...

Rational Nation USA 
Purveyor of Truth

Well there you have it folks. The continuing efforts by the American religionist to force a Christian THEOCRACY on all by attempting to remove the brains of reason and seal the mouths of rational thinkers.

Their motto should be "Equality Not, Reason to the Winds, and Mysticism Forever".

Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Toc... the march to the American Christian Sharia.

Via: Memeorandum

Link Update:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans


  1. The implications are terrible:

    1. To dominate the outcome of a public policy debate by disenfranchising any/all opposition;
    2. Eliminating judges and ending court jurisdiction shreds the Constitution and fundamentally alters the workings of our government;
    3. Mischaracterizing and demonizing atheists, liberals, and secularists bears the signature traits of fascism.

  2. Exactly (O)CT(O)PUS. Yet these folks seem blind to the to this. They apparently lack the ability follow the thought to its natural end point. Or maby they know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.

    Frightening consequences for not only religious freedom but liberty in general.

  3. To even suggest that the supreme court is not politically biased is to ludicrous. Ginsberg has already made up her mind without hearing any argument.

    They need to take a stand on the division of church and state but they won't. This is clearly a religious issue not a legal issue and they should affirm the equal rights under the law.

  4. skid, religious factions suggesting liberal justices recuse themselves is the pinnacle of bias and their motivation is clear; try and silence opposition to their religious beliefs.

    The stand that needs to be taken is to remove religion and theocracy from political and governmental concerns period.

    Do you support the religion influencing our laws in a way that is discriminatory to individuals with different beliefs from theirs? A simple yes or no answer will do skud.

  5. Skud, certainly Ginsberg has her mind up. Is that bad? Do you think Scalia, or Thomas can be persuaded, or has he made his mind up already? Is there a difference between them? If so, how, or why. If not, please explain why you chose to only castigate the liberal side of the divide.

    The article says two justices should recuse themselves because they officiated at a gay wedding. Should any justices who have officiated at hetero marriages recuse themselves?

    Maybe you could help me understand why, or why they also should not have been called to step away.

    It is not just SCOTUS that is political.

  6. They know they've lost the argument on this subject. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize marriage equality. Massachusetts also has one of the lowest, if not THE lowest, divorce rate in the country. So it appears that when Adam and Steve got married, not only did it not affect hetero marriages, (there was not increase in divorces after marriage equality passed the Mass. state legislature), and as the years passed by, fewer divorces were entered into by everyone who was married.

    Of course I understand that correlation does not mean causation, but it is fascinating to see that everything the religious fundamentalists warned us about did not happen.

    BTW, do these religious fundamentalists not understand that not all Christians are with them on their crusade to keep gay people as second class citizens when it comes to marriage? Many Christian, Jewish, and other religions do not share their attitudes.

    I'm not sure what skud means when he says "This is clearly a religious issue not a legal issue..." We are a secular country, and we do not make laws based on one extremist sect of one religion's beliefs. Many, many, many Christians accept marriage equality. It is the extremist Christians who don't accept marriage equality, and it is they who are pissed off at the progress away from discrimination and toward acceptance. They are dangerous and, it appears, grossly ignorant on Constitutional law.

  7. Sorry Less but it does require more than a one word answer.
    The law should not interfere with religion and religion should not interfere with the law.
    If people believe it is a sin for gay marriage then don't. If you believe abortion is murder than don't.
    Can you legalize morality, no, should you, no. Who determines what is moral, you. There is that personal responsibility again.

    1. Note to you skud(runner), proper spelling of my name is Les. use it or stay out of the room.

      The law should not interfere with religion and religion should not interfere with the law.

      Precisely. which is exactly is exactly my point in posting this. The religionists need to stay the f**k out of secular law. Discrimination on religious grounds is still discrimination.

      If people believe it is a sin for gay marriage then don't. If you believe abortion is murder than don't.

      Huh? If you mean people who aren't gay won't become gay and certainly will not marry a person of their sex. Abortion? If you believe it is a sin fine, no one, certainly not the government is going to force anyone to anyone abortion.

      Can you legalize morality, no, should you, no. Who determines what is moral,...

      You are right you cannot legislate morality or ethics, You can enact secular (non religion based) non discriminatory laws laws that give society a framework (we are a nation of secular laws) and expect people to live within the framework of those laws.

      And skud(runner), I certainly do not unilaterally determine morality or any other damn issue. Nor do I want to. But one thing I do know for certain, I do not, will not, now or ever, abide by legalized discrimination based on some religious belief or dogma.

      Personal responsibility, yeah, right. Something I most definitely DO NOT need a lecture on from you.

  8. Is atheism synonymous with secularism? Not according to Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance and Senior Pastor of the Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe, Louisiana. For decades, he has been a respected voice on religious freedom. Should one denomination have the right to impose its teachings and taboos on the general population and compel other denominations to follow suit? Rev. Dr. Gaddy is also a leading advocate for protecting the wall of separation between Church and State.

    The anti-establishment clause enshrined in our Constitution is clearly a secular concept upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable,” wrote Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

    While the right to believe as you choose is absolute, the right to act on those beliefs is not absolute. In case after case, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of government to make laws that prohibit certain religious practices, such as bans on human sacrifice, polygamy, ritual suicide, slavery, and discrimination, as examples. In most states, a parent may not withhold urgent medical treatment for a child on religious grounds. Claims of religious freedom would make “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself” (Reynolds v. United States, 1878).

  9. Dave,
    She is the only one who has said she has made up her mind. Hopefully the remainder will at least hear an argument then uphold equality for all. Far to much money and time is being spent on trying to inflict ones morals onto others. It's a losing battle for everyone.

  10. You are correct Shaw, those that wish to continue discrimination in marriage laws are losing the battle, they know it, and they are getting desperate. We are witnessing first hand what the future of America would look like if these religious Christian extremists were ever to have their way. Fortunately they won't.

  11. What YOU hope for skud(runner) is that the Supremes rules against marriage equality and FORdiscrimination. Why don't you just come out and say it? Your thinly veiled preference isn't giving you cover. Even in spite of your lofty statements about equality .

  12. Here's something no one has ever been able to explain to me. Devout Christians sincerely believe the 10 Commandments are a moral framework handed down to humans from God himself. They are the commandments from God that must be obeyed.Period.

    There isn't anything in those commandments that refers to homosexuality, so perhaps it wasn't considered serious? But there is this in those 10 Commandments: Thou shalt keep holy the Lord's day. But I have seen thousands and thousands of Christians work, play sports, etc., on the Lord's day, and yet, never have I heard of a Christian with sincerely held beliefs refuse service or work on the Lord's day. Wouldn't a commandment handed down from God be more important to keep and obey than something that is mentioned a few times in the OT and the NT, but not a commandment? Is this all a matter of selectivity on what offends some Christians and what does not?


Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.

Top Posts

Recommended Reading, Thomas Piketty’s best-selling new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

Voltaire's Wisdom...

Mayor Bloomberg Standing Against Goosestepping Insanity...

Donald Trump, Suffering From Dementia of Is He Just a Pathological; Liar?...

The Fingers of God...

The Corrupt SCOTUS...