Tuesday, August 28, 2012


Now I Sit Me Down in School
Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Now I sit me down in school  
Where praying is against the rule  
For this great nation under God  
Tries to place Him ‘neath the sod.  

If Scripture now the class recites,  
It violates the Bill of Rights,  
And anytime our heads we bow  
Becomes a Federal Issue now.

Hair died purple, blue or green,  
Is no offense to the Freedom Scene.
The law’s specific, strict, precise.  
Spoken prayers are the worst vice.  

For prayer in public as a trend 
Might some poor Satanist offend.  
In silence we must meditate,  
God can't be mentioned says the State.  

But, we can curse and dress like freaks,  
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.  
They outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.  
To quote the Good Book makes me liable
To be called a bigoted brute, 
Then subject to a legal suit.

We now see pregnant Campus Queens,  
And unwed Daddies in their teens.
Girls of eleven swinging their asses
Carting their babies to and from classes. 
Now, teaching right from wrong's taboo,  
We learn our morals from the zoo. 

They give us condoms and birth controls,  
We’re told that Witchcraft, Totem Poles,
Voodoo and Satan could save our souls, 
But the Lord from whom our rights are endowed
Can’t be mentioned. It’s not allowed,  
No word of His may reach our crowd. 

We owe this all to Murray O’Hair 
Who from her dark, degraded lair
With perverse notions of what’s fair
Has made each one of us the heir
To vice, corruption and lunacy
Unbounded, given parity
With what we knew was right and true,
So children can feel free to screw.

I'm frightened here I must confess,  
When Chaos reigns, there's great distress.  
If I receive a bullet hole,  
I beg you, Lord, to take my soul!

AMEN!


Satan's sickest servant O'Hair in her last days


~  Anne Animus (with a little help from FT)

36 comments:

  1. To this most of which I agree
    I do so without a Bible upon my knee
    A worn copy of the Constitution doth rest
    Silently, reassuringly near my breast
    Proudly I walk with understanding unshaken
    By the likes of idiots like Murray O'Hair

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder what kind of hatred motivates people to not simply reject God, but to hatefully cram their agenda down everyone else's throat?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I wonder what kind of hatred motivates people to not simply reject God, but to hatefully cram their agenda down everyone else's throat?"

    Let me ask a simple question:

    Wouldn't requiring students to recite Christian prayers in public schools cramming an agenda down everyone else's throat?

    And if people want Bible verses read and prayers recited in public schools, why wouldn't, say, Wiccan's get to recite their verses? Muslim? Jews? Hindus? Jainists? Mormons? Scientologists? Pagans?



    "In God We Trust" is on the money we handle each and every day. Children recite "One Nation Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, all sorts of places of worship flourish, tax free, in every corner of this country.

    The public airwaves host dozens of religious programs on teevee and radio all over this country.

    Every session of Congress is begun with a blessing from a member of the clergy--as is the same in most state houses in this country.

    The president, vice president and members of congress take their oath on a Bible and recite "so help me God," although it is not required by the Constitution.

    Christmas, which celebrates the birth of the Christian god, is a national holiday.

    Mr. Free Thinke and others believe moral decay comes from adhering to the Constitution in not favoring one religion over another and by being neutral on the matter?

    Religion doesn't make people moral, as the history of human beings sadly teaches us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps if we left "education" to parents, or at a minimum, LOCAL entities, we could avoid all of these curriculum controversies... but then of course, Shaw could never rise to title of "Queen of the World."

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Secularists Prayer...

    I believe in ONE ALL POWERFUL Federal Government (substitute WORLD for Federal in 10 years)....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here are the true culprits responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

    Supreme Court Justices Black, Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan rendered the anti-Christian decision

    Potter Stewart was the lone dissenter

    Frankfurter and White took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. (It would be interesting to learn why, one would think.)

    Ms. Shaw gives the classic distorted liberal logic in support this lamentable decision [actually a SERIES of decisions -- the harridan O'Hair was merely the last of several cases that firmly pushed this country into the downward spiral from which it has never has recovered -- and probably never will.]

    The doggerel, which has been making the email rounds for years in various versions, is a poor excuse for poetry, of course, but like many other corny populist utterances it makes its point very well.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Ms. Shaw gives the classic distorted liberal logic in support this lamentable decision..."

    It's one thing to make an accusation, and quite another to back it up with evidence--something you failed to do when addressing my comment.

    One could say it is you who is guilty of distorted logic, since you fail to show any direct causation between not praying in school and moral decay.

    Printing a lamentable piece of doggerel is indicative of nothing except, perhaps, poor taste in poetry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, of course, Thersites, you are perfectly correct in your indication that the essence of what those in Ms Shaw's camp ardently advocate is the moral equivalent of Mediaeval Theocratic Tyranny -- despotism in yet another guise.

    Instead of Christofascism -- which is NOT to be confused with Christianity by the way -- we now have other forms of dictatorial power looming large and taking over.

    Legal Terrorism -- i.e SUING Your Way to the Top after jockeying judges devoted to your agenda into key position among the judiciary -- is one of the several ways we've been gradually, insidiously overtaken by Intellectual Aggression.

    The process has been too slow, too surreptitious, and too subtle -- and too larded with seductive blandishments -- for most to comprehend, so it's easy to dismiss those of us who do realize what has been happening as "conspiracy theorists" or members of "the lunatic fringe."

    The Facts and Figures crowd lack imagination, insight and Vision, therefore they are blind to much of the most significant aspects of reality.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  9. RESULTS are all that count, Ms. Shaw.

    I do not believe in "coincidence."

    If it's big, bulky, basically brown, moves awkwardly and goes "gobble gobble gobble," it must be a TURKEY.

    We do not need to call in biologists specially trained in avian evolution to take blood and tissue samples and make a definitive chemical analysis to get clear DNA evidence proving the creature is, indeed, a turkey to KNOW it is a TURKEY -- and not an emu, an ostrich -- or a chimera.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interestingly enough Silver and Shaw the Constitution, Article 1 Bill of Rights, address freedom of religion rather than freedom from religion. At least that is my reading of it. I presume it is also Silver's reading of it.

    I am not at all sure what copy Shaw is reading, or any of the pointy headed intellectuals for that matter.

    Freedom of religion and the constitutional law that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." has been bastardized by the liberal legal establishment to the point it is no longer recognizable as to its original intent.

    A shame really. And this from a atheist in regards to conventional and established religious dogma.

    FT, the liberally educated, the ones who see themselves as intellectually superior (especially those in the legal profession like BHO) and therefore infallible have done more to destroy the ethical and moral fiber of this nation than any other group. Bar none.

    The sword of truth cuts both ways indeed. However, in this specific issue it cuts deeply into the liberal left.

    ReplyDelete

  11. FT: "RESULTS are all that count, Ms. Shaw.

    I do not believe in 'coincidence.' "

    In other words, you have no basis in fact, except your hunch, for your premise that taking Christian prayers out of public schools leads to moral decay.


    RN: "Freedom of religion and the constitutional law that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." has been bastardized by the liberal legal establishment to the point it is no longer recognizable as to its original intent."

    I call b.s. on that. Ameicans are free to practice their religion anywhere they choose, so long as the venue is not government supported.

    The government does NOT stop religious organizations from building their churches and schools where they desire, nor has the government shut down religious teevee or radio or internet programming or sites.

    What this blogpost's complaint is all about is that forcing Christian prayer on public school children no longer exists.

    That is what the Constitution addresses when it states Congress shall make no law in an establishment of a religion.


    And not one person here has been able to answer how, if prayer were allowed back in public schools, would you gentlefolk deal with forcing children to recite the prayers of other religions as well as pagan sects?

    Religion does not make people moral.

    And, despite what Free Thinke insists, correlation is not causation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why are all of you getting upset about public prayer not being allowed in school?

    I'm assuming that most of you who are upset are Christian, so let's appeal to your Christianity.

    Didn't Jesus tell you not to pray in public anyway?

    Let me consult my King James Version sitting in front of me on my desk:

    "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synogogues and in the corners of the streets that they may be seen of men . . . But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret . . ."

    So really, not allowing school prayer is just keeping our kids honest with the bible anyway.

    Look, my dad and his sister are hard core bible thumpers, so I get how many of you are all super excited to show off your faith and praise Jesus for saving you or whatever, but most people just don't really care that much.

    It's not that they don't care about Jesus, or religion, or whatever, it's that they don't care about being ardent warriors for Christ.

    Religion is a personal matter, yet some of you go about it as though it's something that humanity must collectively believe in or else, what? we're all going to burn in hell?

    And Shaw, having "In God we trust," and what not on our money doesn't impose religion on anyone. God is a generic term that can mean just about anything to someone with enlightened thinking, so it's not particularly offensive to about 99.9% of the population that identifies themself with some sort of religion.

    And if you think it imposes religion on atheists, you're wrong on that one. My guess is that the people who mint the money actually do believe in God, so the statement "In God we trust," is just that: a statement. Am I not allowed to say "I believe in God," without it being construed as me pushing my religion on anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Religion does not make people moral

    No, unlike Government, it can't MAKE people anything.

    ...and yet it is said that "absolute power (to MAKE) corrupts ABSOLUTELY."

    It's nice to have a "calibration" reference signal/tone of religion outside of the corruption loop... something those caught within the loop trying to MAKE people do things will stop and NOTHING to obscure and/or destroy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "And Shaw, having "In God we trust," and what not on our money doesn't impose religion on anyone."


    You made the wrong assumption on why I brought that up.

    I never said "IGWT" on our money was imposing religion on people. I used it as an example of how "God" is everywhere in our public lives and to counter the argument that government is stifling religious expression.

    "Am I not allowed to say "I believe in God," without it being construed as me pushing my religion on anyone?"

    You're making assumptions again about what I intended.

    No one I know is against anyone declaring his/her religious ardor.

    This post is complaining about not allowing children to recite Christian prayers in public schools.

    That is all that I'm addressing.

    BTW, Mr. Free Thinke. The USA is THE most religious, technically advanced western democracy in the world.

    Now explain to me how this country, in which an overwhelming majority is religious, can at the same time be wallowing in moral decay.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey Freethinker.
    I have some dough in my iTunes account that I wasn't aware of.

    Can you recommend a good recording of the Brandenburgs? Really, I'm not kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now explain to me how this country, in which an overwhelming majority is religious, can at the same time be wallowing in moral decay.

    How many policemen do you need to police 100m libertines and keep them from destroying the lives and property of the other 200m G_d fearing people?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Shaw who said... "What this blogpost's complaint is all about is that forcing Christian prayer on public school children no longer exists."

    Really Shaw, I didn't read it that way at all. Maybe it is my naivete, perhaps FT could elaborate mor.

    As to your bs call, well Shaw your BS is far deeper than mine.

    Frankly it hurts not to provide a moment each morning for students to reflect on their blessings of life and liberty, regardless of who or what they may believe is responsible for them. It is called a moment of silence, and it is what I support and have always supported. It is not wrong nor is it forcing anybody to believe anything they are not comfortable with. If they believe nothing they can twiddle their thumbs in silence for a minute.

    The things the elitist left can think of to get indignant over has always amazed me. You Shaw epitomize the pinnacle of the malady.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wasn't O'Hair murdered? Something weird happened, but I do not recall the details.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But, we can curse and dress like freaks,
    And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.


    I've been struggling with composing the student dress code the past few days. I can't even get some of the parents to see that their children look inappropriate, particularly for entering a church building, where our classes are held.

    ReplyDelete


  20. RN: "Frankly it hurts not to provide a moment each morning for students to reflect on their blessings of life and liberty, regardless of who or what they may believe is responsible for them."


    Exactly whom does it hurt? No child is prevented from silently praying to him/herself anytime of the day. You missed Jack Cramwell's point entirely. Go back and read what he said. He's right.



    RN: "It is called a moment of silence, and it is what I support and have always supported. It is not wrong nor is it forcing anybody to believe anything they are not comfortable with. If they believe nothing they can twiddle their thumbs in silence for a minute."

    If a kid can pray with his parents before he leaves his home for school and as soon as he returns to his home from school, and pray to him/herself while he/she is at school, give us a reason why a moment of silence is needed.

    You haven't done so.

    RN: "The things the elitist left can think of to get indignant over has always amazed me. You Shaw epitomize the pinnacle of the malady."

    Written like a true pettifogger.

    I've given my opinion on this just as every other person here has. But you're bothered only by my opinion. Cramwell just about said the same thing.

    You're selective in whom you think gets "indignant." I'm surprised you didn't use "catty" to describe me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Shaw, you are becoming evermore sensitive and demanding of political correctness over the most minute things. It really doesn't become you or your intelligence.

    I have taken issue with Silver, Free Thinker, LCR, and other commenter who I typically agree with on my own site and theirs. While we agree on many things we don't agree on all. Neither I or them carry water for any particular ideology.

    Please note that these are all men I mention. Perhaps you have just failed to notice or more likely you don't give a rats arse.

    However, in consideration of your sensitivity I will ask you for your advice in what adjectives I might apply during those situations when I disagree with them.

    In fairness to You Shaw, because I once referred to your approach on a certain post at PE as "catty", I will give you the opportunity to select for me an appropriate term when I disagree with men commentators I am responding to. I was thinking of limp dick, or dickhead. What do you think?

    Awaiting your timely response.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ducky,

    I can't give you a "favorite" recording of the Brandenburgs., but I can tell you I thoroughly enjoy the work of these conductors all of whom have greatly distinguished themselves in the performance of Barogue music: John Eliot Gardiner, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Christopher Hogwood, Neville Marriner.

    I tend to avoid Karl Richter's Prussian Drill Sergeant approach to Bach, which -- though highly praised and critically acclaimed in its day -- has always struck me as steely, dessicated, and brusque.

    If you prefer less "historical accuracy" and a more lush, nuanced traditional orchestral sound, I am sure that you'd love anything Herbert Von Karajan chose to do with this music.

    If I had to choose just one from the list, however, John Eliot Gardiner would be it. I felt as though I had never before heard Handel's Messiah until I was confronted with his magnificent, lean, clean, tremendously lively approach.

    Raymond Leppard is another great name in early music, and anything he recorded it bound to be stimulating and intriguing.

    Hope this helps.


    Sincerely,

    FT

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Shaw: "Cramwell"? Is that a dig against me or a typo? I'm confused, especially after I admitted that I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry.

    A typo.

    I don't attack people's names.

    You explained your blognym as a combination of, I forget the first, but the second was Orwell.

    No offense meant at all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Very helpful and informative. Thanks FT.

    Christopher Hogwood has one on iTunes for a reasonable price.

    ReplyDelete
  26. My dear Ms. Shaw,

    You seem to have little or no awareness of the value of perception, intuition, vision, insight and imagination.

    We may learn that 5 + 5 + 10 as an established "fact," but that gives us no idea how that might apply to everyday life -- and no idea whatsoever as to HOW we came to know it or WHY it's important.

    I would dare to say that virtually ALL important knowledge came to us via INTUITION - DISCOVERY!

    Put in the crudest possible terms only a person DETERMINED to deceive herself, could possibly den that a pig sty smells revolting, yet that is what leftists seem to do -- they INSIST -- because they've been indoctrinated with a pre-conceived notion that the world would be a better pace if everyone went into DENIAL -- that black is white, good is bad, night is day, wretchedness and criminality are noble, and that pigpens have "a certain, undeniable BEAUTY about them" -- that filth, sloth, licentiousness, aimlessness, jealousy, hate, the lust for revenge, dishonesty -- and decay -- are somehow laudable and worthy of emulation.

    If i weren't so hideously destructive, it would be risible.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  27. You're welcome, Ducky.

    Chris Hogwood has produced some of the most vitally energetic, beautifully detailed performances of classical symphonies with early instruments or replicas thereof.

    I remember hearing his account of Beethoven's First Symphony and was tremendously impressed. He managed to get all the players sounding genuinely involved instead of merely displaying their painfully-acquired expertise with an aura of dutifulness.

    From what I've heard I think Gardiner may have the edge, but I could never settle for just ONE version of any of the masterworks.

    You know you can get a lot of great musical stuff on YouTube -- an endless, ever-expanding treasure trove of historic and contemporary performances of just about everything.

    Of course, I'm not hung up on the quality of recorded sound as much as I am the quality of the playing and conducting. Choice of tempo, phrasing, pacing, subtle nuances, the nature of pauses, and dynamic gradations, of course, make intensive study of this stuff endlessly fascinating.

    Hope you enjoy your purchase.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  28. Compare the appearance of Madalyn Murray O'Hair with those of Ann Romney, Nikki Haley, Luce Vela Fortuno, -- or Margaret Chase Smith, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Elizabeth Dole, Laura Bush -- or Barbara Bush for that matter -- and tell us what you see.

    Your answer will reveal more about you than it does about any of them, of course.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  29. FT: "You seem to have little or no awareness of the value of perception, intuition, vision, insight and imagination."

    Do you charge for your armchair evaluations?

    You know almost nothing about me or my awareness of anything.

    You perceive me through your biased eyes.

    That's all you know about me.

    I, at least, have never had the bad manners to engage in pseudo-psychology about you in a public forum.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Does not the question reveal as much about the questioner?

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, my dear Ms Shaw. I perceive you through YOUR biased opinions -- when politics are a issue.

    Fortunately for both of us I have seen other facets of you personality at other times in other places and have found you intriguing, charming, engaging, and frankly attractive.

    So there! ;-)

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Does not the question reveal as much about the questioner?"

    It does, indeed, Jez.

    That's what we mean when we say, "You learn more about Peter than do about Paul from Peters says about Paul."

    The question I've never heard answered to my satisfaction is "Why should a thoroughly benign, non-controversial custom of longstanding established without political motivation of any kind suddenly be questioned, challenged and sued into extinction?"

    The "concerns" of the "suers" were obviously disingenuous -- obviously part of a Power Play making expert use of perverted logic conjured up by disaffected malcontents or shrewish individuals possessed of a pointlessly pugnacious disposition with nothing better to do than try to make trouble for the reasonably contented majority.

    Leftists either become suspicious or "offended" and choose -- often stridently -- to take umbrage whenever they see happiness, contentment. profitable productivity and fulfillment made manifest.

    STREWTH!

    ~ FT


    ReplyDelete
  33. When did you stop beating your wife?

    Neither of our questions will ever be answered, because they are leading.

    Is it benign? Is it non-controversial?

    ReplyDelete
  34. what a cunt that bitch was!

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.