I guess the software doesn't let me embed a Youtube video... ah, well.

Hmm. Reminds me of a paper from the previous semester on dominionism (see wikipedia for more on that):

For example, a soft dominionist would hold that freedom of religion applies to Christians, but not to Hindus or various Christian offshoots such as Mormonism or the Seventh Day Adventists (Clarkson, 1997; Goldberg, 2006). It is interesting to note that in a dissenting opinion on McCreary County v. ACLU (Scalia, Rehnquist, & Thomas, 2005), three United States Supreme Court justices held that government neutrality towards religion applied exclusively to monotheistic religions, explicitly excluding polytheist, deist and atheist beliefs from equal legal protection*:

The Court thinks it “surpris[ing]” and “truly remarkable” to believe that “the deity the Framers had in mind” (presumably in all the instances of invocation of the deity I have cited) “was the God of monotheism.” This reaction would be more comprehensible if the Court could suggest what other God (in the singular, and with a capital G) there is, other than “the God of monotheism.” This is not necessarily the Christian God (though if it were, one would expect Christ regularly to be invoked, which He is not); but it is inescapably the God of monotheism.

and further on:

One cannot say the word "God," or "the Almighty," one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.

* It is not known if the irony of excluding the Deist beliefs of Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson from constitutional protection was lost on these justices.

Clarkson, F. (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Goldberg, M. (2006). Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Scalia, J., Rehnquist, C. J., & Thomas, J. (2005). McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1693

He's going to be tough in the general.

Poor guy. He tries. He so tries to speak the language of the christianists but he just can't. He looks so uncomfortable talking about abortion, gays or God. Those flocks that showed up for Pastor Bush ain't going to show up this time.

Wooohhhhh whooo!

ROE V WADE is off the table as a reason not to support Mccain

Pro-Choice Democrats and John McCain

A Commentary By Froma Harrop
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Hillary Clinton's blessing notwithstanding, many of the New York senator's supporters will resist the handover to Barack Obama. The sexism that permeated the recent campaign still rankles, and John McCain is far from the standard-issue Republican they instinctively vote against.

A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain’s position on reproductive rights. Clinton's backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they’ll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably "no." While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/pro_choice_democrats_and_john_mccain