How to win the Church and State argument

by Anonymous

We are under siege, and our faith is under attack.

Whenever any attempt is made to bring God into his Church (the United States), it is struck down. "Separation of Church and State" is the rallying cry of the godless unbelievers. While many among you would have no response to this nuanced 5 word argument, I certainly would.

Simply use the following arguments against anyone who believes God has no place in this government.

Argument 1:
"Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution
This is of course technically true since the phrase does not appear anywhere in the Constitution (take care not to precede this unholy phrase with "the idea of" or "principle of"). This should be enough to completely shatter the world view of your attacker.

If however this enemy of God starts talking about interpretations of the First Amendment, move on to the second argument.

Argument 2:
"In God We Trust" is our country's motto and appears on US currency.
Mention that since of the framers were religious (read: Christian) they founded this country upon Christian ideals and principles. Why else would "In God We Trust" be our motto? This is certainly not the creed of a godless country.

Hope against hope that your enemy doesn't know this only became our national motto in 1956 (although it did appear on a coin in 1864). If he does know this unfortunate bit of information, say that although the framers didn't coin the phrase, it certainly was their belief. With you opponent temporarily disarmed by this clever pun, quickly move on to Argument 3.

Argument 3:
The Framers of the Constitution never intended for God not to play a part in government.
Framer's intent is often used as a justification for separation of church and state, but it could just as easily be used as an argument against it. This is especially effective against someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

God permitting, you are not presented with this quote from Thomas Jefferson (or another like it from an actual framer):

... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

If you are presented with such a quote, unless your name happens to be Michael Gregory Steele, you are undoubtedly intellectually outmatched. But there is no need to despair, because you are morally superior and can win this battle with one last righteous argument (Argument 4) .

Argument 4:
If any of the founding fathers could see what is happening to this country now they would have a different opinion. If any founder saw two men engaging in homosexual intercourse, he would immediately press for an amendment banning such acts, that is after he was finished vomiting into his hat.

This argument is of course, irrefutable. If you choose to follow my sage advise, you can win the separation of church and state argument against anyone who would oppose you.

A final note: Separation of church and state may not have been the framers' intent, but they lived in a much different America. If the founders could see the sin and debauchery that we all must witness daily then God would no doubt have been very prominent in the Constitution. This is why we must work towards amending this document in order to add God wherever possible. We do this only so we can invite God back into his church.

Lessons from a newly elected pope

by Anonymous

White smoke billows. The bells of the Sistene Chapel ring. Habemus Papam! (We have a pope)

Yesterday Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was selected as the 265th pontiff, and took the name Benedict XVI. This was undoubtedly an inspired choice made from within the conclave.

Many people (less learned than I) are still unsure what to make of this new pope, so I will put your minds at ease with some lessons that conservatives and their political leaders can learn from this great man.

1. On Women

"Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."

I think the political implications of this statement are clear. Our male conservative leaders reluctantly and dutifully seek additional power only when the need arises (the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, Terri Shiavo). Allowing women into political office, and giving them power is just plain dangerous.

Imagine what would happen if a woman (say, Hillary Clinton) became President of these great United States. The confusion of having a woman in the highest office, in regards to roles of men and women, would be enough to tear apart the very moral fabric of this country. Your family would likely dissolve before the end of her first term.

2. On Homosexuality

"when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."

Well this is something that should come as no surprise to any moral individual such as myself. If we attempt to legislate "gay rights," then we open the door for all kinds of deviant behavior -- man on dog or gay dog on straight dog or even dog on cat!

If we start giving homosexuals rights, then people who don't particularly care for gay people (some call them homophobic, I call them principled) may react violently. If our leaders do choose to continue to go down this path of government sanctioned homosexual acceptance, they must also legislate laws to protect those who react violently to these new gay laws. We really can't blame these people for lashing out, they were simply born violent, it's who they are.

3. On Voting

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. "

This sound fine and good, but what if you disagreed with the Vatican's position on the War in Iraq? (John Paul II called the war a "Defeat for humanity") What if you voted for George W. Bush in part because of his brave actions in Iraq, would this too be a sin? Don't worry, the very wise Joseph Ratzinger has all of us covered on this one.

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."

In short Ratzinger's message is vote Republican or find yourself burning in eternal hellfire.

I think you can now see that that Pope Benedict XVI is a brilliantly inspired man of God. I would even go so far as to call him Steele-esque in his moral clarity. Whatever your brand of Christianity, you can learn nearly as much from this new pope, as you would by reading this very blog.

Viva el Papa! (long live the Pope)

God has given you this blog

by Anonymous

Congratulations, fellow netizens, you've been given a gift from God. You've been given this blog.

Herman and I, driven by a mutual love of both conservatism and American (Christian) values, have decided to start the Conservatives for American Values weblog. We are determined to shout the truth over the unceasing racket of the unholy rabble that is the blogosphere. We hope this blog is to the internet what Fox News has become for cable news, a light in a place of darkness. God has smiled upon you today.

Since both Herman and I have been blessed with certain ethical, moral and political understandings, it is our duty to share this knowledge with you. Feel free to comment on anything we write, but understand this is not a place for debate. This is a place for acceptance of the truths that Herman and I impart to you. You are truly blessed to be reading this blog.

Legal Notice

by Michael Gregory Steele and Herman B. Hayes

I'm putting a link to this post at the bottom of every page so I can make the following legal notice available:

Legal Notice: Everything written on this blog is satire/parody and should be understood as such.

My reason for putting up this notice up is simple -- I have no interest in getting sued for making a joke.

The fact that this blog is satire is no surprise to those who frequent it and is something of an open secret. My response to those who think I'm trying to perpetrate some sort of fraud as a means to scare others away from Christianity is: "Get A BRAIN! MORANS"

This blog is not an attempt to make some overarching statement about Christianity or religion. It is a satirical look at the Christian Right in American politics with a few stupid jokes about Republicans thrown in and is nothing more than this.

This admission changes nothing about the dynamic of this blog. Herman and I will remain as committed as ever to writing absurd posts and responding to comments in a belligerent manner.

Please also note that all comments posted on the blog, and all emails sent to The Moral Mailbox become property of Conservatives for American Values.