All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!


Quick Thought

Who is to say that the laws that are being proposed today to protect Christians form gay activist terrorism won't be used tomorrow to persecute Christians by Islamic terrorists?

One of the foundational principles of the United States was individual freedom.  When we start creating special classes of individuals, and special laws to promote or prevent some behavior that is currently en vogue or opprobrious, we set in motion precedent for the future.  Who is to say where this precedent will take us?

The principle is what is at stake in such matters.  If a legislature can pass a law requiring Christians to help homosexuals celebrate their preferred lifestyle; then what is to stop them from passing a law to require gays to do the same for those they may disagree with?  If special legal conditions exist for Christians, then what is to stop Sharia law from being enforced by the nations courts?

I believe outright discrimination practiced openly, publicly and proudly is preferable to the foreseeable consequences of creating special classes of legal entitlement. 

Yes I am arguing for discrimination, any sane person would and should.

If the government is able to enforce laws against Christians over making Gays a cake then they are able to enforce laws against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Straights or Gays etc that other groups may prefer.  Under Sharia law anyone not professing and preforming according to the particularities of the en vogue Islamic denomination can be beheaded.  This includes EVERYBODY. 

Which is a better outcome: being able to sue someone for their deeply held religious belief that you don't like because it makes you feel bad, or having someone chop your head off because you don't share theirs?

How are you going to eat your rainbow colored, wiener shaped, butt sex pride wedding cake with no head?

How about this instead?  If someone doesn't want to do business with you, for whatever reason, do business with someone else.  Instead of agitating for more ridiculous laws that limit freedom, spend your time and money on something more useful like, not bothering other people over your choices.  Is there such a shortage of gay wedding planners that your must have a Christian provide you with their products and services?

America doesn't need more laws.

America needs more respect for individual freedom, and a good healthy dose of "grow the F#¢k! up already".

Note to Christians, quit trying to get the government to protect your "specialness" too.  America hasn't been a Christian nation for over 40 years.  Yes it was once.  Yes our laws were once based on biblical principles.  It's not anymore.  Time to focus either on spiritual revival and personal evangelism or a legal strategy based on getting the courts to enforce the principles and protections already on the books.  Inventing new "faith based" laws won't do anyone any good after the Muslim population hits about 24% of the total population.  They are willing to riot, rape and kill to get what they want.  Do you really want to establish a legal precedent for the United States Government to openly and deliberately persecute Christians?


  1. WaterBoy7:22 PM

    "Note to Christians, quit trying to get the government to protect your "specialness" too."

    Constitution prohibits the government from preventing anyone from practicing their religion however they wish. (And I add this caveat: as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.) But it is incumbent on the government to protect those rights -- just not that "specialness".

    That goes for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists, or any other belief system, also. Ergo, no beheadings, stonings, or other faith-based actions which violate those rights.

    Note that this does not allow somebody to force a non-public servant to bake them a cake if that other person does not wish to. Or serve them in a restaurant. Or officiate at their wedding. Etc, etc, etc. Nobody has a right to any of those things from another person not in a government position.

  2. There you have hit on the head of "civil rights". The government can not distinguish between those citizens who it will provide services to. The government must serve all citizens equally. The government must.....not everyone who might be around, not everyone that I want to have do something for me.

    Say I owned a flower shop, do I have a right, if I get enough congress critters to vote for it, to MAKE all homosexuals buy flowers from me? I don't mean just for a wedding either, how about for dates, Valentines Day, Birthdays or any event I decide they need to give flowers as gifts? OF course not, but the same logic would apply.

  3. Susan3:17 PM

    We have come to a point in society where the feds have allowed the left to ignore some of the basic tenets of the Amendments and the Constitution as a whole. I have no problem with reminding the left that they need to follow the law even though they disagree with it.

    If the feds start to try other stuff that is Unconstitutional, then we need to firmly yank that chain again. A lot of what is going on right now would probably not be if people would realize that there is a concept called the right of association in the Constitution. Much activity in the market place would fall beneath that particular umbrella.

    As to not putting a law in place because somebody might abuse it in the future, that is why elections are important, along with trying to choose candidates who actually have character. A Congressional spine would have prevented 90% of the crap we have had to deal with the past 6 years.

    Have you been keeping up with the epic entertainment over at Vox's place? This week has been more entertaining than we have had in quite awhile.

  4. I've caught some of Vox's geek crusade. I'm one of the ilk that doesn't care about the sci-fi crowd or who is getting what award. I used to buy Vox's books but quit after he made it clear he wasn't interested in finishing the trilogy he started with Rebel Moon. If the guy is going to start a series and not finish it, there is no point in investing in his work.

  5. WaterBoy4:56 PM

    Res Ipsa: "If the guy is going to start a series and not finish it, there is no point in investing in his work."

    To be fair, it could also have been an IP rights issue that might have prevented him from following it up even if he had wanted to.

  6. Susan9:05 AM

    WaterBoy, I think that is exactly what it was combined with something else that I can't quite remember.

    But Res is right in one respect, and it is why I lost interest years ago in Anne Rice and her works. She wrote a great novel called Ramses the Damned and never followed through with the other 1/2 of the tale, just left it hanging in the wind. So screw her and the horse she rode in on.

  7. Lord I hate computers sometimes. I had a nice reply typed out, hit reply as google identity, and it disappeared. Anyway, I agree with you. Are so many supposed 'christians' faith so weak, that they're afraid to stand? Too many are milquetoasts who forgot that Jesus promised trials, that the world would hate us because it hated HIM first. Stand and be true, or be luke warm and spewed out. You cannot be compelled to sin. You choose to obey laws against Gods Law. If every Christian stood, much of this would fade away. Quit backing down! Jesus never said to be a door mat!

  8. Stryker7:52 PM

    I guess you have to decide - is "incorporation" legit? If it is, than you're right, we need to fight if they try to make any more moves. In all reality, I don't think incorporation is legit... if it isn't, aught we not support a state in making a duly chosen legal case. Remember, for the first 35 years of the constitution, some states had state religions. Quick google search told me Tenn and PA still have constitutions prohibiting atheists and polytheists (and any not believing in afterlife) from holding office.