Newdow looking for 1000 plaintiffs for removal of religious ceremony at the inauguration.

[MindPilot]

Atheists United is proud to be among the first organizations to join as a plaintiff in Newdow vs. Roberts which seeks to remove references to religion from the Presidential Inauguration ceremony. Michael Newdow is looking for 1000 new plaintiffs in the case. If you are interested in becoming one of them, read his message below:


From Michael Newdow:

“Although many think that the inaugural lawsuit was lost, it was anything but. We merely lost a preliminary injunction motion, which was expected from the outset. In a couple years, the case will eventually get to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where I have every intention of prevailing.

“Along those lines, I am now trying to demonstrate (for the future appellate judges) that this isn't the quest of some isolated individuals, but a notion that many godless Americans find important. To do so, we're trying to get 1,000 new plaintiffs by this coming weekend.”

To sign up, go to:
http://1000plaintiffsfornewdowvroberts.blogspot.com/

[rcrush]

1. How about compromise we go from the 8 or 9 prayers at inaugration to only 1?

I dont understand the need to have a prayer every 5 min.

[L. Coyote]

75. One delusion is always one too many!

"a notion that many godless Americans" should be "rational" Americans.

American culture is so dominated by delusion, we don't call the deluded delusional.
Instead we define the sane in terms of the deluded, as "godless" rather than defining them as rational!

[aquart]

2. No.

[MindPilot]

3. So are you opposed to the suit in general or you simply not want to be a plaintiff?

In either case thanks for the kick!

[frebrd]

4. K&R n/t

[gratuitous]

5. So, what's their cause of action?

Surely they won't admit that invoking a non-existent deity has any effect on them? But it's somehow a "quest" that's "important."

Maybe Newdow should hire Frodo Baggins.

[kirby]

6. Separation of Church and State...

The fundamental principal that the majority does not dictate the rights of the minority. That is why they are called rights. There are people who are believers who feel the same way, though I noticed in the press release it said 'godless Americans'.

[MindPilot]

7. Just that old separation of church & state thing.

The Constitution can be annoying at times.

[gratuitous]

11. Where does the Constitution say that?

I did a word search (always an iffy proposition on document that old), but I can't find the words "separation of church and state" anywhere in it.

Another quest!

[kirby]

12. So you are a strict constructionist?

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

[gratuitous]

17. Not necessarily

But I don't find a cause of action for Newdow's "important" "quest." No law has been passed by Congress in violation of the First Amendment. No religious test is being imposed in violation of Article 6. And since atheists are, by definition, irreligious, there can be no "prohibition" on their "free exercise" of religion. And since atheists, by definition, have no belief in a deity, the invocation of a deity has no effect on them whatsoever.

Instead of plaintiffs, perhaps Newdow should be asking for lances to tilt at windmills. He could start with the ones in his mind, through which very little breeze seems to be blowing.

[spooky3]

61. You need to look at the history of case law interpreting the First Amendment.

That's where you'll find justices' views that differ from your own.

An elementary summary is at Wiki, quoting:

In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,

'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: 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 over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

[gratuitous]

65. So, again, where is the cause of action?

Let's look at that passage of Justice Black's:

No one is setting up a church, and one is not being set up by a state or the federal government.

No laws have been passed at all by having an invocation or a prayer at the Inauguration. So no religion is being aided or preferred.

No one is being forced to profess a belief or disbelief in anything.

No one is being punished for their belief, non-belief, attendance or non-attendance.

No one is being taxed any amount, large or small.

No government, state or Federal, is participating, openly or secretly, in the affairs of any religious organization or group.

So, what is the cause of action?

Newdow needs to get another hobby.

[SidDithers]

69. You left out the"vice versa"...

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

Doesn't that mean that religious organizations can't participate in the affairs of government?

Sid

[gratuitous]

71. Sorry

No religious organization or group is participating in the affairs of a state or Federal government when a prayer is said during the Inauguration.

See, the Inauguration ceremony isn't an affair of a state or Federal government. All that hoopla and folderol? Not an affair of a state or Federal government. The only government affair that's going on is when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administers the oath of office to the President elect.

And anyway, Justice Black overreached with that statement; because there is no way to extricate a person's activities from activities that could be attributed to any organization or group that person might belong to. For example, if I "participate" in the affairs of a state or the Federal government by advocating an end to the Iraq war, am I operating on my own behalf? Am I operating on behalf of the various religious-based groups I belong to? Am I operating on behalf of the denomination I am a member of, one of the historic peace churches? There's no way to tell. I can't draw a line where my personal activities begin and end, and where activities I participate in are attributable to a religious organization or group's activity. And no court is competent to judge that, either, despite Justice Black's dictum.

[SidDithers]

79. And didn't the Chief Justice insert the words...

"So help me God" into the oath of office?

Sid

[The Straight Story]

24. Yeah, I always thought that they could not pass a law making one religion the official one

It is like the bible - different people see different things when they read the same thing.

[Lost in CT]

8. Fucking 2nd hand atheists.

I call them second hand atheists cause they treat a mention of God like it was second hand smoke.

They think they have the right to go through life without being "assaulted" by someone praying.

Honestly I find their sanctimonious fundamentalist bullshit to be a real turn off.

We are a mixed society. Sometimes people will say and do things you personally don't agree with.

No reason to get the vapors all of the sudden.

They remind me also of the Knights that say Nee.....

But that is another rant.

[kirby]

10. Puleezze...

"Sometimes people will say and do things you personally don't agree with".

We aren't talking about 'people', we are talking about Government infusing religion into Government policy/procedures such as the Inauguration and/or Oath of Office. The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the MINORITY against the tyranny of the Majority. For people who dont give a shit about this issue, it is easy to dismiss, but some of us feel our rights have been are continue to be violated by these religious infusions.

[Lost in CT]

13. How are your rights violated by hearing a prayer being said????

Seriously.

You have no Constitutional right not to hear prayers.

You have a right not to say them.

[kirby]

15. Naive view...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

It it not a matter of 'hearing it or not', it is a matter of the Gov't giving legitimacy to religion in an official function. It does not represent everyone. Just like in 1956 when Congress, during the Cold War, added In God We Trust to our currency to 'differentiate' ourselves from those 'godless' commies.

It is naive to think this is simply a matter of 'ignoring it'.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. It was in 1864, actually, Perhaps you are thinking of...

"one nation under God"

At any rate, we have survived well over 200 years of preachers and politicians making supplication to whatever Gods they believed in and don't seem all the worse for it.

[kirby]

21. It was 1956...

In 1956 the US Congress passed a law that made 'In God We Trust' the OFFICIAL National Motto. In appeared at various times on coins, first in 1864 as you mentioned, but was required by law on all currency in 1956.

[TreasonousBastard]

72. As long as we're doing this hairsplitting...

there were laws passed in 1909 and 1911 allowing the Treasurer to put what he wanted on money and the actual wording came from "The Star Spangled Banner." Teddy Roosevelt was the only President to object to the wording on coinage, but that was because he considered it sacrilage to mention God on something spending so much time in your back pocket.

My point is simple, however-- even though I agree that it's kind of silly to put this on coins, we've been doing it for a very long time without any noticable ill effects.

(Just for shits and giggles, try expanding the effort to taking any mention of God out of the national anthem.)

[NeedleCast]

16. Saying a Prayer Does Not = Establishing a Religion

No one is forcing you to pray or even listen to the prayer. Hit mute on your remote during the prayer.

Nothing in the constitution guarantees you a right to never encounter something that may offend you.

[kirby]

18. Fuzzy math

It is not that I have to hear it. It is that my tax dollars and my Gov't is requiring it within an official ceremony.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. What if Fred Smith, newly elected President of the United States, REQUESTS IT?

It's HIS inauguration, shouldn't HE be allowed to see it conducted according to HIS beliefs?

I would add that it's NOT REQUIRED anywhere at ANY time. You said your "Gov't is requiring it". I say prove it.

[kirby]

28. It is not HIS inauguration...

It is the inauguration of the President of the United States, not a particular persons wishes. So no, it is not to be conducted according to his/her beliefs.

Other expenses that will be paid by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremony include $1.2 million for the swearing-in ceremony.
Go see their website @ senate.gov

http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. I repeat: You said your "Gov't is requiring it". I say prove it.

[kirby]

36. I provided links...

I just provided you a link to the official Senate website which is the one responsible for the protocol of the ceremony. What more proof do you need? Also, here is the US LAW requiring So Help Me God in the oath.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000453----000-.html

[Lance_Boyle]

77. that is precisely the issue - Roberts inserted the words, not Obama

The Chief Justice is responsible for administering the Oath as written. We saw what happened when he got a few words out of place, and the damned thing had to be re-done to appease the "strict constructionist" crowd. Well, the words "so help me gawd" are not in the Constitutionally-prescribed language for the Oath. Which is why it is inappropriate for Roberts to add them. Roberts is Constitutionally bound to administer the Oath as written. Any person taking the Oath can insert "so help me gawd" or "hep me jeebus" or "klepto baretta necktie" at the end of it if s/he wishes. But the Chief Justice administering the Oath cannot. That's Newdow's suit. And he's 100% right.

[NeedleCast]

25. Oh Bullshit, it's ALL about the fact that you have to hear it

There would be an inauguration ceremony with or without the prayer. Unless the people doing the praying are being paid to do it, your tax dollars are not an issue. The inauguration is about the peaceful transfer of power from one President to the next. The prayer may be part of the ceremony, but the ceremony has little, if anything, to do with the prayer.

Unless your argument is that the prayer itself is somehow being funded by tax dollars, your argument is moot. Many government functions and meetings begin or end with a prayer, but the function or meeting can take place without the prayer, and is not about the prayer. Only way this argument holds water is if you can show that these functions or meetings would cost less without the prayer.

[MindPilot]

33. And for Rosa Parks, it was all about where to sit on the bus.

Thanks so much for explaining the motivations of a minority group fighting for its rights. Certainly atheists will accept their second-class citizen status with much more understanding.

[NeedleCast]

37. ROFL

This isn't even apples an oranges. There is no comparison.

Oh, us poor Atheists, so repressed. Please...

Just for clarification though, when was the last time you were forced to the back of the bus for being Atheist?

[MindPilot]

43. You say you're Atheist, but you spout the right-wing talking points

I question your "a-cred".

And no of course I have not been forced to the back of the bus for being an atheist but you can bet your ass that if it were possible to tell an atheist by appearance, we would be. Or worse.

I have however been denied a job. And had a couple of death threats. (They were the result of LTTEs and the police were called.)

[NeedleCast]

46. Don't care!

LOL, questioning my lack of belief is it? Well, that's truly insane. Best of luck with that. Then there's the accusation of dreaded "right wing talking points," sort of the DU version of accusing me of being Hitler.

You're worse than the fundies crying about how they're being oppressed. Here you are with exactly zero ability to prove your argument but that's not going to stop you from claiming how oppressed you WOULD be. Hahahaha! Really? REALLY?!? You're the one who made the comparison to Rosa Parks.

If you were denied a job for being an Atheist and feel you can prove it, then bring suit against the person/company doing the denying.

[Joanie Baloney]

48. self - delete

wrong place

[MindPilot]

49. I'm worse than a fundie!? High praise coming from you!!

I'm not the one bringing the suit -- I just posted about it.

But I do agree with it and you can feel completely free to live the rest of your life willfully oblivious to your own oppression. Some of will be out there advocating for your rights.

Don't bother to thank me.

[Lost in CT]

51. I didn't know you were called Dennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

[MindPilot]

54. Ohhh more intollerance!!! I scurry away in fear!

No matter what you say we are not going to go away and we are not going to shut up.

[kirby]

56. But...

"If you were denied a job for being an Atheist and feel you can prove it, then bring suit against the person/company doing the denying."

But what if he ends up with you or someone like you on the jury...

Example:

Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution states that "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

See http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/2/17/arkansas-5-other-states-ban-atheists-from-public-service-seriously.html

[Lost in CT]

58. I fully support the right for anyone to practice their religion free of any interference

by public or private institutions.

Or as our Constitution says.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I believe in freedom of religion

There is no freedom from religion which is what this lawsuit is about.

[NeedleCast]

59. It's a law that should be challenged

That's actually a good example, unlike Newdow's case. That article is discriminatory. Is it being enforced?

If I was on that jury, I'd do what any juror should do and make a ruling based on the law. If I saw discrimination based on religion, I'd rule in favor of the claimant.

As I've said before, I've never claimed that there are no instances where true discrimination is happening. I just think Newdow doesn't have a leg to stand on here and so far, the courts, including the supreme court, agree.

[kirby]

35. You are so sure of yourself...

Just because you disagree with a minority view does not mean my argument is moot or simply about the fact I have to hear it. And of course the functions would cost less without a prayer portion. Don't you think we would save money if we laid off the House and Senate Chaplain. And all the military Chaplains we pay for?

As far as the inauguration - other expenses that will be paid by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremony include $1.2 million for the swearing-in ceremony. Go see their website @ senate.gov

http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/

And of course the oath itself, as dictated by law, includes 'So Help Me God'.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000453----000-.html

[NeedleCast]

40. You're missing the point

Chaplains are not an endorsement or establishment of a particular religion. Military personnel have a right to access a religious leader of their preferred denomination. In some areas, this isn't possible. Further, chaplains provide additional services, not just "preacher." You may have a point regarding the house and senate chaplain if their only task is to preside over religious ceremonies.

Again...and again and again...the swearing in ceremony is not about the prayer, it's about the swearing in. The prayer may be part of it, but even without the prayer, the swearing in ceremony would still take place.

Further, so help me god is an OPTIONAL part of the swearing in ceremony for presidents. The link you have posted has nothing to do with the swearing in of presidents.

[earth mom]

30. Fucking religious nutcases!

What part of SEPARATION of Church & State do you NOT understand?! :grr:

[Lost in CT]

39. The part that is in the constitution

Not the imaginary right to never hear a prayer in public.

[Romulox]

32. Religious fundies and anti-religious fundies are two sides of the same coin

They're both all about controlling other people.

[NeedleCast]

41. Yup n/t

[kath]

50. "God", and the mention of such, does NOT belong in any govt function - ours is a secular govt.

BTW, it's "all of A sudden", not "THE sudden"

I highly recommend the book "The Godless Constitution"

[Dreamer Tatum]

66. You are my new hero. nt

[SidneyCarton]

9. I frankly have no dog in this fight...

I could care less whether or not there is a prayer, but does Mr. Newdow have a suggestion as to what should replace the ceremony he wishes abolished?

I would appriciate his efforts more if they did not just offer me a ceremonial/cultural void out of respect for his beliefs, or lack thereof.

[SidDithers]

31. The University of Toronto replaced the Convocation Prayer...

a few years ago. Originally, the prayer was:

Eternal God, from whom alone come wisdom and
understanding, we pray that you will bless and preserve our Universities, Colleges and
Schools. In particular, we pray that you will look with favour upon this University and all
its sons and daughters. Let knowledge be increased among us and all good learning
flourish and abound. Bless all who teach and all who learn, and grant that we may always
look to you, the source of light and ground of truth, to whom be glory for ever and ever.
Amen."

which was changed to:

We come to celebrate the achievement of our scholars who are graduating today. This ceremony has great meaning for students, their families and friends, and for those faculty and staff who have guided them in their pursuit of knowledge. Graduation is truly a milestone in one’s life and the tradition from which we come gives significance to this event in different ways. Whatever our individual traditions might be, it is appropriate – as we proceed through the convocation ceremony – to reflect on the many successes and on the years of effort and the sacrifice that have brought us to this time of celebration. Convocatio convocata est.

Perhaps a similar "celebratory" message could be written for the Inauguration.

Sid

[SidneyCarton]

67. That would work...

Assuming we could ever agree on what to say.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Sidney,

You are religious and we all know that. The bolivated 'prayers' of Warren were worse than a void, they were a taint that spoiled a perfect day for millions.
The prayer is a ceremony? Not an element thereof? Ok. Tell me, other than prayer, what sort of ceremonies do those of your faith practice? Offer some suggestions. None of us know, for you guys are more secretive than any faith on Earth about your practices, so share.

[SidneyCarton]

68. How Secretive are we really Blue?

After all there seems to be a great number of self-proclaimed experts on my faith here on DU. As to other "ceremonies" perhaps you refer to our getting married naked, or our disinterrment of corpses to "baptize them" or the enslavement of hundreds of women to be our plural wives, or any one of the other clandestine and scandalous activities which have been attributed to my faith over the years. Humorously enough, my religion would be far more interesting if even a tenth of them would be true. Feel free to stop by and sleep through a Sacrament Meeting on any given Sunday if you care to.

As to whether the prayer is a ceremony, or merely an element of the entire ceremonial of the Inauguration is open to debate. As to filling the void, Sid Dithers response to my post above suits me fine. And as I could care less whether or not the prayer stays, it doesn't bother me, I see no reason to offer suggestions. You want it out, you figure out what to replace it with.

[NeedleCast]

14. Stupid

And I say that as an Atheist. Inaugural prayer isn't hurting anyone. Newdow is almost as much of a douche as the fundies.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. How much money for the lawsuit are these plaintiffs...

expected to cough up?

(I know at least 30 or 40 people who prayed last Sunday. Any interested atheist may contact me for names and locations so he or she may feel dutifully insulted, oppressed, and poutraged)

[MindPilot]

23. Nothing.

Now, please send me those names and addresses. Because, you see, there is absolutely NO difference between an individual praying in a church with other individuals and a FUCKING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED PRAYER AT A FUCKING GOVERNMENT EVENT!

[NeedleCast]

26. That's the thing...there really isnt

They're not establishing a religion. They're not infringing on your right to practice a religion if you so desire. No constitutional issue.

[MindPilot]

27. Apply the Lemon test...,.

an inaugural prayer has all the hallmarks of establishment.

[NeedleCast]

42. No, it doesn't

So sayeth the courts. Until they reverse that, you're officially wrong.

You may feel that a prayer at a government function is an establishment of religion but courts have said this is incorrect. There are plenty of non-believers who feel the same way, including myself.

[MindPilot]

45. And the courts are always right?

You may not agree with this case--that doesn't matter--what matters is that cases like this whether you like it or not are the messy ugly front lines of keeping the Christers from turning America into a totalitarian theocracy.

They almost succeeded with the Bush administration.

This particular one may be inconsequential and probably is, but it is still one small skirmish in a very big battle.

[NeedleCast]

47. As far as the law is concerned, yes

This kinds of case has nothing to do with turning America into a totalitarian theocracy. None. This particular case has to do with Newdow and his desire to never have to see anything that might offend his delicate sensibilities.

The Bush administration didn't even remotely come close to turning the country into a religious theocracy. I've lived in countries that were religious theocracies. The US is pretty much the opposite of that. We are not a religious theocracy. Were are not even slightly kind of a little be a religious theocracy.

I'm not denying there is a battle to be fought, but idiotic suits like this diminish what a serious issue it really is. It's nothing but self-serving nonsense and does far more to hurt the causes of those of us who are non-believers than it does to help.

This is like PETA members dressing up as the KKK and handing out pamphlets that compare the Westminster dog show to slavery.

[MindPilot]

52. While you are being so critical...

Perhaps you can tell the class what you have done to advance the cause of church-state separation. What lawsuits have you filed? What Atheist/Freethinker/Humanist groups do you belong to or donate to? When was the last editorial or LTTE you had published?

[NeedleCast]

62. I'm terribly hard to offend

I know that doesn't make me a good DUer.

I don't donate to any atheist groups (or any theist groups). Since when do I have to "participate in a group" to not believe in something? I have never filed a lawsuit against "religious oppressors" because it just doesn't bother me. I don't feel religious people have ever oppressed me and further, I'm just not a very litigious person. In fact, I love the batshit insane fundies. They're always good for a laugh. I have never had an LTTE or editorial published, as doing so is simply not a requirement of atheism. I think it's pretty funny that you put some sort of weight behind these things.

What's the difference in saying "I don't believe in any gods or spiritual beings. I am an atheist" and "I really really really super duper don't believe in any gods or spiritual beings, I am a hardcore super duper atheist?

None.

I'm just a plain old Atheist, sitting here not believing and not being very concerned with the activities of the believers because said believers are neither offending or oppressing me.

[Lost in CT]

76. Clearly you aren't a real atheist unless you show up at the atheist meetings

write for atheist publications and donate to atheist causes....

Fuck it might just be easier and cheaper to be a Christan and show up twice a year. (Christmas and Easter)

[kirby]

57. Do you know how the court 'weaseled' out of this?

They simply quote the 'majority' view of people like yourself who say 'it doesnt matter'.

The Supreme Court has upheld the motto of 'In God We Trust' being required on the currency as not being religious because it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

[NeedleCast]

63. Yup, I pretty much agree with the court

The vast majority of the time I forget that "In god we trust" is printed on money. It's completely insignificant to me. It doesn't oppress me by being there. It doesn't offend me by being there.

I'm sorry it bothers you but as has been stated many times, you don't have a right to freedom from religion.

[TreasonousBastard]

73. Relax before you have a stroke...

prayer is suppose to be a good thing amongst those who get involved with it, not cause physical damage.

Now, since each branch of Federal government, and quite a few state governments, starts out with some sort of convocation, prayer, or other religious observancem, and has since the first days of the nation, get ready to just suck it up if it doesn't stop during your lifetime.

[Romulox]

29. Rod and Todd: "Daddy, we think you need a new mommy..."

What an attention whore this guy is! :eyes:

[spoony]

44. Lol, just saw that the other day

And what a fine comparison.

[serrano2008]

38. Oh them crazy Anti-Religioners are at it again!

Lord help us all!!!

[Thothmes]

70. Sort like ND legislation to get a fertilized egg declaired a person

in my book.

[serrano2008]

74. I agree...both stories are equally ridiculous.

[Arugula Latte]

53. I hope they succeed, but this country is probably too backwards to accept it.

Gotta appease the imaginary invisible friend, dontcha know.

[Joanie Baloney]

55. The country! Hell, half of DU is too backward to accept it.

It really is shamefully how shabbily Atheist are treated here.

Just substitute Black or Gay for Atheist and see how it sounds.

The OP posts some information and y'all treat him like he just returned from the Olive Garden after having a smoke while breast feeding his unruly toddler.

edit for typos

[DavidDvorkin]

78. Isn't that the depressing truth!

[Bill McBlueState]

64. good

It's kind of embarrassing, this need for the government to invoke a deity every five minutes.