Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
So this is another example of Democrats’ bipartisanship I suppose.
The hatred drips off them like acidic alien blood eating through the fabric of society.
Which part of “no religious test” does this knucklehead not have a grip on?
So does this mean New Hampshire has decided to go for the “or Die” option?
To anyone still on the fence, you have just now seen into the not so distant future. Vote accordingly.
The Left’s Bill of Rights:
Freedom of speech? Nope. Only speech they agree with.
Freedom of assembly? No again. Only if you are protesting free speech or the police.
Free exercise of religion? What a hoot!!! Of course not. Maybe if you are Wiccan.
Right to bear arms? Please be serious. Only the police … And they had better not use them!
Right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures ? Not a chance. They’ve probably read this already … Or at least captured and archived it … Just because they can.
The Founders would be horrified.
It is hard to believe that New England has gone so far from its long-standing devotion to religious tolerance.
The Dems are the party that boo’d God. They are the party without Christian values (gay marriage, abortion, etc). They are the party of the atheists. This doesn’t surprise me, though New Hampshire I would have thought wouldn’t be so hard left. I guess i was wrong.
It’s the Massachusetts transplants I reckon.
Just another example of those tolerant, inclusive leftists showing that they have absolutely no understanding of the terminology they constantly misuse.
They will defend to your death your right to agree with them on absolutely every issue as long as you are diligent to keep up with their constantly changing standards.
These people are dangerous to your Life, Liberty and Property.
Do you know why liberals don’t do this to Muslim nominees? Because they may end up in a back alley somewhere with their head sawed off . . .
Maybe Christians should start organizing and harrassing these people in their homes like the left does. I wonder what Mr. Volinsky would do with several dozen protestors in his front yard screaming “God loves you even though you’re a dirtbag!”
That is absolutely crazy. Unsurprising, but still crazy.
It is also infuriating.
Too Westboro Baptist.
I think he reads it as the “no religion test”.
I reject that comparison. The Westboro Baptist people were a certifiable fringe group that called themselves “Christian”, but exhibited none of the characteristics of a people that forgive sin. You’ve fallen for the MSM protrayal of them as representative of mainstream Christians. Those Westboro folks are, were, and will probably be forever dirtbags.
If you think about my suggestion, you will hopefully find that “God loves you even though you’re a dirtbag” is (IMHO) a far cry from “You soldiers will burn in Hell because you are fighting for homosexuals.” Maybe not an exact quote from the Westboro fanatics, but close enough IIRC . . .
My bottom line is that Christians should get “Loveingly militant.” Another way to put it might be “Kill them with kindness”, because (to me) there is nothing un-Christian about fighting back, especially for survival.
Unfortunately, that ship sailed a while ago.
Yeah, but NH was always a bit more independent minded than the rest of New England. Now, however . . . well see comment #4
“Lovingly militant” is good, but standing outside his house calling him a dirtbag is creepy. A candlelit prayer vigil, maybe, but no chanting, no shouting.
These instances always lead me to the words of Hillaire Belloc. As a Catholic in Britain he was asked such things and replied
“If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative.”
I agree.
Let us know if he ever gets that apology, Max. Right.
Max L., thanks for posting this.
Max,
One more reason why the Supreme Court nominee is of supreme importance.
Regards,
Jim
Max,
I think this subject deserves a longer look. First, I stand by my above comment. Everyone should make sure to let anybody even close to power know that you like the President’s pick for Supreme Court 100%. However, it is the very title of your piece that stimulates me also to the longer look.
When Anne Marie Banfield calls this an Inquisition this means much more to me than you might think. Jews during the middle ages were often forced by the Inquisition to debate Christians. There were opinions given by leading Jewish authorities that studying certain philosophical ideas would be appropriate for these circumstances as the Inquisition would be using these as a pretext. However, by the time of the Enlightenment, Jewish authorities explicitly felt that the time of the Inquisition was over. They no longer felt that kind of a threat from the Christian community. Thus, they ceased to authorize the study of the philosophical ideas by Jews.
I have argued that both Marxism and Fascism constituted a Secular Inquisition. The Holocaust itself could be far better understood in light of this. I have made the case that the study of certain philosophical ideas are necessary for even an Orthodox Jew because of this threat. Imagine if you would that instead of Mr. Edelblut sitting in that chair it was an Orthodox Jew. There would be plenty of ammunition for the inquisitor. If this can be done to Mr. Edelblut, a member of a very large percentage religious group, what could be done to those who are members of a tiny minority?
The wisdom of the first enumerated right in the Bill of Rights is very great. Not only may Congress not establish a state religion, it may not use the state to prevent people’s free exercise of religion. The 20th Century provided gruesome examples of ignoring the free exercise clause. The mistake should not be made again.
Regards,
Jim
I would have responded, “You seem to be suggesting that my faith disqualifies me. Can you outline how you think it does so?”
Huh? When was New England noted for its religious toleration? The Pilgrims went there to get away from Holland’s religious tolerance.
Haters gonna hate; Puritans gonna Puritan. They’ve just switched gods.
Probably so.
Of course, if you are in a blue state, your state supreme court can establish a religion, and the U.S. Supreme Court will permit this.
Edelblut was confirmed 3-2 today along party lines:
http://www.unionleader.com/Frank_Edelblut_confirmed_as_NH_education_commissioner
Max,
Alls well that ends well.
Reminds me of the basic script for most of the Jewish Holidays. They tried to kill us, they couldn’t, so let’s eat. Mazel Tov for Mr. Edelblut’s confirmation.
Thanks for the heads up Max.
Regards,
Jim