The Separation of Church and State is at least as important to the church as it is to the state.  This is not one-sided, as some may argue.  As some folks on BOTH sides may argue.  I'm a big fan of healthy debate and I hear a lot of misguided notions being tossed around.  Let's just make sure we all understand what the law says if any of us intend to speak on the subject: 


1. The U.S. Constitution says that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, based on the sovereign authority of God

in the First Amendment
in Section VI
in the Preamble
nowhere. Our nation was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, king, or dictator.

2. How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution?

0. The U.S. Constitution is a godless document.
1
3
6

3. How many times does the Declaration of Independence refer to Christianity or Jesus?

0. There is no mention of Jesus, Christ, Christianity, religious persecution, or religious freedom in the Declaration of Independence.
1
3
8

4. The US Constitution guarantees religious liberty for

Christians
all religions
atheists & agnostics
all of the above. Religious liberty is meaningless unless we all have it. Freedom From Religion Foundation president Anne Gaylor says, "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."

5. Where did the separation of church and state originate?

France
Soviet Union
United States of America. The U.S.A. was the first nation in history to separate church and state.
Nazi Germany

6. What does the First Amendment say about religion?

nothing
the US is founded upon Christian principles
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise. The First Amendment begins with these words:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ." The two clauses are referred to, respectively, as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
that there is no national religion, but each state may set up its own religious practices

7. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated with

the Soviet constitution
a dissenting opinion by former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson. President Thomas Jefferson coined this phrase in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802. It has since been widely picked up and invoked in major Supreme Court decisions.
a speech by President Ulysses S. Grant

8. Which early colonies practiced freedom of religion?

the Pilgrims and Puritans in Massachusetts
the colony in Virginia
Roger Williams' Providence settlement
Trick question! Roger Williams' Providence settlement founded in 1636 expressly guaranteed religious freedom. However, the Pilgrims originally were a tolerant people, when they founded Plymouth in 1620. By 1691, the Pilgrims had adopted the theocratic, intolerant Calvinism of the Puritans, who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628. The Puritans came to this land expressly to establish a bible commonwealth, and banished "heretics" and dissenters. In Virginia, heresy was a capital offense punishable by death by burning. Quakers were particularly persecuted. People who were not orthodox Christians were not legally protected, could be denied civil rights and jailed. The founders of the new nation of the United States of America, conversant with extreme religious intolerance and violence in the several colonies, were determined to put an end to it. That is why they established state/church separation.
all of them

9. The Puritans escaped religious persecution and, in their own colony, allowed religious freedom for

everyone
all Christians
Puritans only. Puritans (Congregational Calvinists) only were allowed. Even practicing Puritans were held to strict litmus tests. (The Puritans loved religious freedom so much that they kept it all to themselves.)
Puritans and Anglicans
10. ". . . the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; . . ."

Where does this phrase appear?

The U.S. Communist party platform
A speech by Abraham Lincoln
American Jewish Congress
U.S. treaty signed by President Adams. In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty was written under Washington's presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

11. By an Act of Congress, U.S. currency has carried the motto "In God We Trust" since

the very beginning
1862
1914
1957. In 1955, Congress passed a law requiring that "In God We Trust" appear on all U.S. coins and currency. The first paper currency with the motto appeared in 1957. This was right after the McCarthy era, during the early Cold War, when no congressperson would dare be seen voting against "God." "In God We Trust" did appear occasionally on a few coins, starting with a 2-cent piece in the 1860s, in an attempt (it is surmised) to put "God" on the side of the north during the Civil War. In 1956, an Act of Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as a national motto. The original motto, "E Pluribus Unum" ("out of many, [come] one,") celebrating plurality, still appears on the Presidential Seal and on some paper currency.

12. The Pledge of Allegiance, first published in 1892, has included the words "under God" since

1892
1914
1942
1954. As with "In God We Trust," "under God" is also a Johnny-come-lately. It was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy era. The original pledge was first published on September 8, 1892 in the magazine "Youth's Companion" with no reference to a deity.

13. Who made the following statement?

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people."

Pat Robertson
Abraham Lincoln
Adolf Hitler. April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.
Rev. Jerry Falwell

14. In 1890, bible reading was outlawed from Wisconsin schools. Who was responsible?

a Lutheran family
a Roman Catholic family. A Roman Catholic family objected to the exclusive use of the Protestant King James Version of the bible. The court barred all bible reading from Wisconsin public schools. [State ex rel. Weiss vs. District Board, 76 Wisc. 177 (1890)]. Catholicism was a small minority in 19th-century America. It is usually minority groups who need the protection of the Bill of Rights.
an atheist family
a Jewish family

15. The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. Who were the plaintiffs in that lawsuit?

Roman Catholic and Mormon families. The Texas lawsuit was taken by a Catholic family and a Mormon family who had children who were being harassed by the born-again majority in the public schools.
two Jewish families
a Unitarian (agnostic) family
an atheist organization

16. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must:

have a secular purpose
have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion
all of the above. The 3-pronged Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971, which dealt with public aid to private schools) has almost consistently been utilized by the Supreme Court since the early 1970s. ALL THREE prongs of the test must be satisfied.

17. All American Presidents have been practicing Christians

True

False. John Adams, John Q. Adams, Millard Fillmore and William H. Taft were Unitarians*. Jefferson was a Deist/Freethinker. Harrison, Johnson, Grant and Hayes were not members of a church. Lincoln was a Deist. Etc. (*Although some Unitarians of that time considered themselves "Christians," they rejected the Trinity and other doctrines that most Christians today consider essential.)

18. The U.S. Constitution says there shall be no religious test for public office

True. Article VI:
" . . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

False

19. John Adams declared Christmas to be a national holiday

True

False. Christmas was outlawed in some colonies. December 25 was approved as a federal holiday in June 1870. (See: clerkkids.house.gov/laws/inspectLaw/inspect_TextAll.html) Notice the wording designates the date as "the twenty-fifth day of December, commonly called Christmas day," so saying that "Christmas is a federal holiday" is not quite accurate as to intent. Even the name of the Act does not say the word "Christmas." According to From Christmas in America: A History by Penne L. Restad (pages 104 and 96), "Louisiana was the first to declare it an official holiday. In 1837, it designated December 25 along with January 1, January 8, February 22, July 4, Sundays, and Good Friday as 'Day[s] of public rest and days of grace.' . . . Arkansas passed a similar law . . . in 1838."

20. A president, being sworn in, is required to place a hand on the Holy Bible and say "so help me, God."

True

False. The oath of office does not mention a deity or the bible:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' " [U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1] This is the only oath given in the Constitution, and it is entirely secular.

21. Since the First Amendment deals with "Congress," states are free to advance religion if they wish.

True

False. The 14th Amendment makes the entire Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The first Supreme Court case to declare a state's religious practices illegal under the 14th Amendment was the McCollum case (1948) which removed religious instruction from the public schools.

The whole clip's great, but if you'll just watch the first two minutes, I'll be satisfied. Please and thank you.

Leigh seems unreachable. If you know her, please ask her to check in.

The wonderful author Frank McCourt has passed away. Sir, I hope that you find much of "the excitement" wherever you now reside. I'm guessing it's somewhere between your Catholic upbringing and my idea of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Thank you for your words and thanks to the wise people who had the good sense to publish them. To be certain, you will be missed.

I've just heard the prettiest little song in the background of a podcast. I liked it so well I paused the podcast, went to their home page and found much to my delight that just the song on its own is available for free download. Well, the whole podcast is, but I was very happy to learn that I could isolate the song. If you're interested in hearing something new for free, go here . Scroll most of the way down the page until you see "The Lord God Bird (2005)" If you want to know what the song's about, you can listen to the story. If not, just download the song. Happy listening!

EDIT: And just in case the title may have scared off my nonreligious friends who know that I sometimes miss hearing hymns, this ain't about that. In short, it's about a rumored sighting of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker which has long-been considered extinct. The title comes from the legend that folks used to see this bird and exclaim "Lord God, would you look at the size of that bird!"

Allie the cat is home. Thank you to everyone who expressed concern. I felt silly responding to you all individually, as I'd likely just be rewording the same response. But I really did appreciate each of you. Mike left the bedroom window open last night in the hopes that he'd hear her tags jingling if she came up the steps. It worked, though even if the tags hadn't woken him I'm pretty sure her indignant yowling would have. I think Rick had a point when he suggested she might just be pissed off at having been shut out. She returned at 2am covered in cobwebs. No idea where she'd been holed up. After this, I'm going to just stop worrying about her. She's a contrary beast and can do as she likes. Screw her for making me fret.

Lunch with the in-laws today was great. I always love a trip to the Market and had lovely company today. I seem to forget this every time, but Mike's mom is basically Nibbler from Futurama. She's this tiny little lady who can and does consume massive amounts of food seemingly within seconds. And stays tiny. Oh, and she does this all day. Woman always either has a snack in hand or is announcing that she's going in search of one. Scientists should study her.

It's a wonderful time of year to walk through the outside displays. We're starting to see a small amount of produce coming in, but it's still mostly plants. Flowers, trees, veggie plants. For Mike's parents, this was a rare trip to the "big city." [Insert Charleston joke of your choosing here.] They stocked up on all kinds of green things and insisted on buying something for us. Mike wasn't drawn to anything in particular, so I spoke up and said I liked an already-thriving herb garden. (Pictures at the end of this post so I can cut all of them at once.) I started an indoor herb garden from seed over the winter, but it went nowhere even though I'm usually good with plants. Ok, second try. In one big planter we found dill, parsley, basil, rosemary and sage. Mike's mom bought some oregano and insisted on transplanting a little of it into my planter. I might go back for some thyme and mint at some point. We're already dreaming up recipes.

Now, Mike likes flowers more than he'd care to admit. Shhh. It's just part of him being a farm boy who grew up in the woods. If I want to confirm that I just saw an oriole, I run and get him because he knows birds better than I do. If he tells me he plans to stake our tomatoes with box elder branches because we have some in our yard and they're a nuisance tree anyway, I ask him to show me what the hell a box elder tree looks like because he knows trees better than I do. It just stands to reason that he'd know more about flowers as well. One caught his eye on the way out and he had to have it. It's called Dark Eyes Fuschia on the tag and it's beautiful. We bought an immature plant because we want to experience the joy of watching it bloom over the summer. I said it'd be perfect hanging from the hook on our porch. We got home and...no hook. I could swear Lynn used to have geraniums hanging there. Red ones. Did I completely fabricate that memory? No matter, we own a drill and live two minutes from Lowe's. A couple of eye-hooks, one extra hanging basket, five minutes' work and we're done. Easy-peasy home improvement project accomplished swiftly. Flowers AND herbs now adorn our porch. If birds attack the herbs too much, I'll have to come up with Plan B. For now, it looks very nice.

Once again, no potato chip tasting today. This time, we plain forgot. Tomorrow, I promise! Three flavors left. Builder's Breakfast, which intimidates me while also intriguing me. Fish & Chips, which I'm rather hoping taste like Prawn Cocktail. And Cajun Squirrel, which wins for best name so I wanna save it for last.

And now, a picture-heavy cut. This text alone has eaten enough of your page.
( Anybody_wanna_see_my_new_plants? )

I need a nerd userpic. Suggestions welcome. I like The Exploding Sandwich podcast very much. Check them out. Last week they had their 47th episode and said they'd been informed that 47 was the ultimate answer. I felt compelled to correct them. I mean, I couldn't let this stand. I told them how much I liked their show and politely corrected them. I swear I was nice. But we all know it's 42.

This week they apologized to me on air. I don't know these people and they corrected themselves while naming me. Y'all should really check them out on iTunes. Free podcast and all.

I got this before the music started, but don't think it was too easy. Tonight's show isn't archived yet, so I'll approximate the clue. The category was Gland Finale, which I thought was weird. They play around with categories often during the first two rounds, but it's rare to see them get cutesy with Final. Anyway...

Category: Gland Finale
My wager: Eh, I'm going for it. Big. I'm no expert, but I at least have a basic grasp of medical terminology and that's probably what this is going to come down to. And the scores were fairly close. All but $8 of my imaginary money.
Clue: This gland's name was derived from its resemblence to a certain herb.
My response: Thymus. Gotta be thymus. Immediate answer. For the next thirty seconds, I ran through other herbs, but came up with no contenders. 'Cause that's the way to approach this if you don't know it outright. Most people don't know the names of all our glands. I sure don't. But we probably do know the names of a bunch of herbs. So let's mentally go through our spice racks.
Correct response: thymus.

I don't think that this was all that obvious if you've never studied medicine of some sort, so it's good in my book for Final. Also, only one contestant got it right. The other two made wild guesses including "endocrine" and "lymph." Since neither of those two are technically the names of glands, nor do they bear a resemblance to names of herbs, I say they were dumb guesses. But if you've made it to Final, you've gotta guess something. I don't fault those people for guessing. I do take credit for responding correctly and am still searching for the slot on my TV where the money comes out. Trebek seriously owes me. I'm willing to settle out of court if it includes a trip to the Galapagos Islands. I'm open.

Mike and I have approximately $6 to our collective names right now. We're both waiting on checks to clear, but this reality shocks me back into college. Back then, the ATMs near campus dispensed cash in $5 increments. I remember being pissed that I had $4 in my account and couldn't get at it. For a long time I saved a bank statement that said I haid 29 cents in my account. In college, that was a laughing point. We were all poor and that statement was almost like a badge of honor. Well, I'm officially college-broke again. Which is not supposed to happen, ya know? But sometimes all the bills come due at once and we like running water.

This has forced us to get creative about food, which is how I'll try and spin this positively. We have examined our entire kitchen, taking inventory. I told Mike yesterday that if he could find enough spare change in his car seats to buy an onion today, I could manage red beans and rice for dinner. While he was at work, I took a second inventory and thought up a new dish that I can prepare without purchasing a thing. We have one frozen chicken breast which can be chunked, plenty of couscous, green olives, sun-dried tomatoes, frozen spinach and garlic. Also, he did manage to bring home a huge onion today so I only used half. We can add the other half to the new mix. In a perfect world, I'd ask for a lemon, parsley and maybe mint, but I think this could be really good! I could sell it to Mike as a Meditteranean stir-fry with couscous instead of rice. Usually new dishes require some convincing, but fuck it. If he's hungry and this is what we have, he'll eat it and not grumble.

Anyone watching NBC's new show Southland? Tonight a character was introduced and I just know I've seen him somewhere. I didn't catch his name, but he's the cop who was a big fan of Tom Sizemore's character and ended up handcuffed to a bed at a party sans pants. I'm wondering if he's Dwight Schultz, aka Murdock from The A-team. I checked the Southland site and his character isn't listed in the cast bios. I checked Schultz's wiki page and Southland is not mentioned. It's also not mentioned on his (official?) fan site. So maybe it isn't Murdock. But I know I've seen the guy before. On the wiki page, the only photo I found showed him wearing a large hat and was kinda ambiguous. I'm hoping someone else watched this and can tell me who the actor is.

By the way, how is it that reruns of crappy shows like Family Matters and Full House are on all the time, yet The A-Team never resurfaces? Programmers everywhere need to reexamine their priorities.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Rush Limbaugh Leaves New York
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Perfect delivery.

As I've said, I generally think that if all three contestants and myself get a Final Jeopardy question correct, it didn't deserve to be in Final Jeopardy. Tonight's was an example of this:

Category: TV Characters
My wager: A good bit. I watch too much TV.
Clue: She was born February 22, 10,000 BC and weighed 6 pounds, 12 ounces.
My guess: Who is Pebbles Flintstone?
Correct response: Who is Pebbles Flintstone?
My reaction: Well, there really weren't a lot to choose from. It pretty much had to be Pebbles, didn't it?

Now, a clue from last week has challenged my philosophy and I want to get your take on it. I got it right, all the contestants got it right, but I kinda still feel that it was a valid Final Jeopardy clue. Maybe.

Category: 16th Century Thinkers
My wager: Next to nothing. Not my area.
Clue: In 1517 he wrote, "The treasures of indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the wealth of men."
My guess: Who was Martin Luther?
Correct response: Who was Martin Luther?
My reaction: I didn't get it for a few seconds because I initially didn't remember that "indulgence" has not always meant what it currently means. When that fact surfaced, I thought "If it's not Martin Luther, I have no idea who the hell it might have been. It certainly seems like something he might have said. Who else was railing about this at the time? Let's guess Martin Luther."

Now, I understand that many of you gentle readers are educated people and would have gotten this right. Yes, Rick. We all know you did. But I barely did. History was not emphasized in my education. In both the seventh and twelfth grades I was reprimanded for correcting history teachers simply because I'd read the chapter and they clearly hadn't. (Actually, in the seventh grade it was because I could read a map and my teacher couldn't.) And I earned a four-year degree without being required to take a single history class. Anything I might know about history can be credited to a love of reading and PBS. Though I suppose now I have to give a shout out to the History Channel for airing Band of Brothers. Anyway, I think I learned this on my own. I don't remember a teacher ever telling me about indulgences. My public school knowledge of Martin Luther consists of "Didn't like the Catholic Church. Nailed a list of complaints to the door (I like his style.) Protestantism followed. That's where the Lutheran Church got its name."

So no, I don't think that this was an obvious question for the general public. I doubt many of my classmates from high school would have gotten it. Was it an obvious question for people who make it onto Jeopardy? That's what I'm trying to decide. Jeopardy fans, aside from whether you knew the answer or not, do you think it makes the cut for Final?

By the way, I would make these kinds of posts WAY more often if the official Jeopardy site didn't hide the clues so thoroughly. I think that a third party archives them. While the show/studio links to it (eventually), they make the archive darn tough to find. www.jeopardy.com Go ahead - YOU try and find them.

Abe Simpson once said his nursing home didn't allow newspapers in because "they angry up the blood." I should pay attention to this. No surprise: I don't. Sigh.

I'm a big fan of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and I enjoy listening to their podcasts. They've recently put up some billboards in the US and bus signs in the UK, which I've liked. They're currently asking people to vote on a slogan for new US bus signs. At first glance, this seems like something I'd enjoy. Then I read the submissions. Here are three out of the top six ideas:

- Science flies you to the moon
Religion flies you into buildings

- Religion flies planes into buildings
Science flies humans to the moon

- 9/11 was a faith-based initiative

Do I want more science? Yes! Do I want government-sponsored faith-based initiatives? No! And I think it's obvious that I don't want to see planes fly into buildings. So I should be down with this campaign, no? Absolutely not. This is wrong-headed and potentially dangerous. I usually love these guys, but this time I think they've taken a very wrong turn. So, you know me, I had to write to them.

Annie Laurie & Dan,

I didn't want to simply vote on the new bus sign. I think you have the chance to take a horrible misstep here and I'd like to voice my concern. Personally, I was raised Presbyterian and got over that in my late teens. I'm an agnostic in my thirties now and love your organization. I listen to the podcast and receive your print newsletter. I'm a rabid advocate of the separation of State and Church. All of this is meant to say: I'm on your side. That said, I'm afraid of your potential use of "planes into buildings" rhetoric in your new signs. More than one slogan employs it and it seems like a very bad idea to me. Islam did not cause 9/11. Crazy people using Islam as an excuse did. Islam is a religion of peace. I don't subscribe to it, nor do I agree with its view of women as subservient beings. But reading the Koran and conversing with observant Muslims here in the US has taught me that Muslim terrorists are, well, terrorists. Please watch the Rachel Maddow show of 3/25/09 at msnbc.com for an example. (It's free.) Al-Qaeda recruiters are instructed to NOT target faithful Muslims because those people will refuse to participate in violence. Jihad doesn't mean what the terrorists claim. The word has been perverted in much the same way as those people who bomb abortion clinics pervert the Bible and claim to be Christians. The Jesus of the New Testament would never have condoned that, as Mohammed would never condone terrorist attacks. Both of these groups are violent whackos (sorry, can't think of anything more scholarly at the moment) who use religion as an excuse while violating the basic tenets of their so-called faith. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda, not to mention our own country's "religious right," do not show respect for their professed religions, nor are they good examples. So I don't think Islam should be your new target.

Also, I think we've had a chance to learn something over the past few years. Oprah would call this a "teachable moment." More than a few Arab Muslims have taken up the fight against America only after being maligned and mistreated by our government. These were peaceful people before we detained them illegally and tortured them. The FFRF is surely far from being governmental, but I fail to see how adding to this dialogue of disrespect and insult could possibly help our nation's position at this point. My brother is a sergeant in the US Army, due to deploy to the Middle East this summer. I can't prevent that, but I sure as hell don't want to see any addition to our world culture that potentially makes MORE people want to shoot at him. We're pretty safe over here, aren't we? Safe as houses, as they say. And we celebrate our freedom of speech. I sure do. I can make as many bumper stickers and bus signs as I like. Saying whatever I want, provided I have the money to do so. Hey, freedom of speech. With that freedom comes responsibility. I think that if you go with anti-Islam rhetoric, especially in such a flippant way, your choice will be reckless and irresponsible. If you make that choice, please expect photos of my brother's flag-draped coffin in your inbox. Overly dramatic? Possibly. But then, it's not your brother, is it?

I love the UK bus signs. I love your billboards and wish I could afford to put one up in my own hometown. We seriously need one. I love the fact that you take on seemingly unwinnable court battles and occasionally succeed. I wish I could do more to protect the sanctity of State without Church. But please, make a smart decision here. This time it's about more than a cute sign. Thank you for listening to me.


Courtney Dowell

I've actually received a personal response from them before, so we'll see how this goes. If I get one this time, I promise to share. What do you think?

Why hasn't this story been on the front page of every newspaper and on the lips of every sentient being? Please share this with anyone who questions the separation of State and Church.

I made a call to one of my favorite podcasts a while back and today my call finally made it on the air! It's just a small thing, but I think it's cool. I've pointed you good people towards Lazy Radio before, but now I'm on it! It's recorded in IN and one of the hosts, rumours78, has family in WV. I found it interesting that she noted that I sound nothing like her WV family members. She said I sounded "normal." I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I like that I don't remind her of the most idiotic bumpkins that our local news usually manages to ferret out and trot in front of the camera. On the other hand, I like the Appalachian accent. I don't have a very strong one myself, but the undertones are there and I'm fine with that. One of my favorite people finds of the last five years is a lawyer named Eric. Brilliant guy. And he has a full-on Boone County accent. For the non-locals, you know how the country makes fun of WV? That's how the rest of WV makes fun of Boone County. Everybody needs a scapegoat. And Boone County is ours. Lovely place, really. I've spent a serious amount of time there enjoying the landscape, folks and dive bars. Love it. Anyway, I really liked Eric because he was a handsome, well-to-do, professional smart guy with a serious accent. I felt like showing him off. "See? Hillbillies ain't so dumb!" I'm also a little tired of going to job interviews and the prospective employers asking me where I grew up. It's a fine question, but they're always surprised when I say "right here." I think that one reason I've put so much emphasis on grammar and spelling is that I'm dissatisfied with an Appalachian accent being equated with a poor grasp of the English language. To a large extent, I think we Appalachians have done this to ourselves. I'm here to say CUT IT OUT. BETTER YOURSELVES. I'm a product of WV public schools in a non-wealthy area and I come from a lower-middle-class household whose first claim to a four-year degree is my own, so I have little sympathy for peers who contend that they never had a chance. Read a fucking book, ok? You can keep your accent, but I implore you to learn English. Not the Queen's English, but simple American English. If the rest of the country continues to make fun of the way we speak, it just might be our fault.

Whew, I didn't even feel that rant coming on. Sometimes these things overtake me. To Melissa, thanks for having me on your show. You may have stoked the coals, but this issue is ever-present in my head. It's not your fault. And you didn't really cut off my call, even though you apologized for it. It's been a while, but from what I remember the rest of it was just a snide joke about Stone that didn't really need to be broadcast anyway. One thing I'd like for you to relay to him: I would sincerely appreciate it if he never said "Appalaychia" again. That third "a" is a soft one. I'm not mad and I know that it's a very common mistake. I think most dictionaries allow for both pronunciations, even. But those of us who live here would prefer the soft "a." Thanks for giving me something to write about and triple thanks for putting me on the podcast!

Everyone, go listen to Lazy Radio!

This is verbatim a post from ogrevi. I would love to write it as my own, but I don't think I can improve upon this. I'll say that I find this horrifying and tremendously scary. A few of you have seen it, but I want to increase the number of readers. THIS IS NOT OKAY. Please share.


The Supreme Court, which has been responsible for many truly terrible decisions, has just handed down one of its worst, and stupidest, in the case of Pleasant Grove v. Summum.
It all started with the Summum, a Gnostic Christian sect which believes (among other things) that Moses came down off the mountain not with Ten Commandments, but with Seven Aphorisms; it was these that Moses broke, and the Commandments replaced them because “Man was not yet ready for the aphorisms.” Why one of these things is considered less likely than the other is a question I’m not going to ask at the moment.
Anyway, back in 1971, the Franternal Order of Eagles donated a granite monument of the Ten Commandments to the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah. The city decided to display the monument in a park. And then, in 2003, the Summum tried to donate a similar monument of their Seven Aphorisms to the city to sit next to the earlier monument. The city said, “Thanks but no thanks.” So the Summum sued, saying that if the city was going to display the Ten Commandments they had to also display the Seven Aphorisms.
It’s a good argument, a sound logical argument, but as the WSJ LawBlog says, there was no way the Supreme Court was going to rule in their favor and “embrace a doctrine that says that any crackpot who shows up with a slab of granite and a pickup truck can demand that a monument get installed on, say, the National Mall.” Deciding to allow truly free and inclusive permanent religious expression in the park would put a tremendous strain on public lands all across the country. So the obvious solution is the preferable one (both practically and constitutionally) that religious monuments not be allowed on public land at all.
The Court, though, didn’t go for this. They (unanimously!?!) upheld the right of the city to display ONLY the Ten Commandments if they so chose. They couldn’t rule along the lines of the original decision by the city, that the older monument was simply the city permitting the free speech of the donor, because then they would be suppressing the free speech of the Summum. So they went off in a different, frightening direction.
Their logic, as summed up by Samuel Alito, is that the Government has the right to free speech, just like you have, and that in choosing the mainstream Christian monument over the Summum’s alternative, the local government was excercising that right. He wrote: “The placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the free speech clause.”
Tell me that I am not the only one who is horrified by this. Tell me I am not the only one who realizes that only the people have the right to free speech. Freedom of speech does not have be to protected for the government, it has to be protected from the government, right?
Let me put it this way: Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is perfectly within his rights to say that all non-Christians are gonna burn in Hell forever. He’s wrong and offensive, but you’ll never hear me say that he doesn’t have the right. However, even if all of his colleagues agreed with him, they wouldn’t have the right to say this collectively. They don’t have the right to publish it as an official Senate resolution, or to make it law. If the government has the right to freedom of speech, how can we restrain them from suppressing everyone else’s?
This isn’t a right/left issue, and it isn’t a religious issue. This is a basic assault on our civil rights. Get angry, folks! Make some noise!

My sister has less than 19 minutes to contact me before I am allowed to use the phrase "Stephanie Time" again. Her timetable. Tick tock.

EDIT: Whaah-haa! "Stephanie Time" is officially back in play.

Write each entry in Word. Slap self. Write each entry in Word. Slap self.