Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Republicans could not find someone who was not a mass adulterer who lies every time he opens his mouth and defrauds seniors of their retirement nest eggs and worships a KGB thug.
They could not find an honest, decent man who is also against abortion anywhere in the whoooooooooooooole party!
They had a primary, he won the primary.
Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.
Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.
Superdelegates.
They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
You left out "Pretend". You left out Muslims, Hindus, etc as they will not support Trump.
A true Christian would not stand for the lying, disregard fir marriage, cheating, lying, bigotry, hate, greed, stealing of children, opulence, and Trump's overall amorality.
You don't get to decide who is a "True" Christian.
Nope, just as easy. Remember, you don't get to decide who is a Christian and what their beliefs are.When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.
The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.
The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.
Bullshit. Racists are just as sure of their bible passages as homophobes are.
They have far less standing, and like progressives trying to create rights like abortion and SSM, use far more steps of interpetation.
No they don’t. They have the same exact standing, maybe more so since they were able to use it to justify slavery.
Try finding passages that endorse slavery, as opposed to those that regulate it. Then try and find passages that see homosexuality as sinful.
Far easier to find the latter.
so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?
how is *that* american?
Yes, obviously.
Congress is elected based on the population.
Every State gets two Senators.
Thus, people in small states have more say that people in larger states.
You think that Delaware & California should get equal votes?
Yes. California as a State can make whatever laws it wants for people in their State via the State government. Why should California, New York, and even Texas be able to make rules for everyone, when it comes to things inside a State, when small States don't want it?
This is a symptom of the federal government doing things outside it's scope and Constitutional mandate.
You mean like PA laws that protect gays along with race and religion? Okay!
PA laws that apply to actual PA's, and of course the States are still bound by the right to free exercise.
As always the government has to have a compelling reason to deny free exercise, and butt hurt is not a compelling reason.
But one religious representative WAS allowed in, elevating that one above all others. Directly in violation of the Constitution.So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
He wasn't allowed in the death chamber, because the law as set up didn't allow it. The guy was not denied an Imam prior to being in the death chamber.
The issue becomes that if he was allowed in, the people trying to get his sentence commuted would have also appealed for THAT, because the State was then not following the rules of the death chamber.
Catch-22 situation.
The law was probably from a time when it wasn't considered. Blame the legislature for not updating the law.
Again, if they HAD let the guy in, I guarantee his defense attorneys would have claimed a violation of execution chamber procedure and sought a stay.
The rule in question is that no one is allowed in the execution chamber who is not an employee of the Department of Corrections. One assumes it's a matter of security and safety, and I am willing to defer to the prison staff's superior knowledge and expertise on that subject.
Whether or not the Department of Corrections has any imams on its chaplain staff, or whether or not any imams have even TRIED to become part of the staff, is unclear from that article.
It appears that the Supreme Court felt that the inmate had waited far too long to address the question and that made it likely just an attempt to delay his execution.
[
1) We don't believe sperm are sacred. We never have. The whole sperm thing is a left-wing attempt at dodging the issue of abortion by way of left-wing abysmal ignorance of basic reproductive biology. Just because you baby-killing mouthbreathers have spent the last 50 years shouting, "If you think abortion is murder, then you have to think masturbation is too!" does NOT in any way make your stupidity any part of OUR beliefs.
Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.
Don't you?
They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
Did you even bother to read your own link?
You are such a hypocrite, Seabiscuit. If the guy had been a Christian and wanting his own personal pastor there, you'd have been screeching about "Have to follow the rules!" and "No special treatment!" and "Separation of church and state!" at the top of your lungs.
No matter how much you and Justice Kagan try to pretend otherwise, your link had nothing to do with "shitting on religion", or with the inmate's religion at all, and everything to do with rules and proper procedure.
No, actually I would not. If he were Christian and the prison only offered an Imam be in the room, I'd respond the same way I am now, with outrage. The difference is that if that were the case, you'd be outraged and you aren't now.
Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.
The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.
SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.
The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.
Same sex marriage is not a concept which began only in the last few decades. It may be rare, but there is evidence of same sex unions as far back as ancient Rome.
As a mainstream legal construct is is only a creation of the past few decades.
The "evidence" isn't about State sanctioning, it's about people buggering others of the same sex, which of course has occurred throughout the millennia.
Even in those cases the relationships were not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, which had the required ability to procreate, and back then since infant mortality and life spans were so short, procreating had to be done "early and often" to assure enough people in the next generation to continue a given culture/tribe/family/nation etc.
It's about a bit more than "people buggering other of the same sex." I said it was rare, certainly not a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that the concept of same sex marriage is not only from the past few decades, as you stated.
One or two random cases does not a precedent make. The current concept of it being equal to opposite sex marriage, or that there was even something besides opposite sex marriage is a new construct.
Christianity is the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus' teachings were based on the OT, and the NT written by his followers after his death.
Inspiration by God or Man for this is up to your own views and beliefs.
So suddenly you've gone from "every word in the Bible is the sacred word of God", to "some parts of the Bible, like the entire New Testament, upon which Christianity is founded, is to be ignored". Here's a clue, Jackass. MEN wrote the Old Testament too. It was written by the prophets, as a history of the Jewish peoples. Within its pages you can find stories of daughters having sex with their fathers, fathers willing to murder their children as sacrifices to God, and God inflicting the Trials of Job upon a man who dared to disobey him.
Jesus teachings weren't based on the Old Testament. The Old Testament prohibits sins and punishes those who sin. Jesus teachings are all about love and the foregiveness of sins. God gave a list of things you shouldn't do, and homosexuality was not along them. Jesus gave a list of things to do, which was to love God, and to love one another. Jesus opposed wealth, and the pursuit of wealth. His Kingdom was the spirtual world. Wealth and money are secular concepts and Jesus was clear that the secular pursuit of money imperilled your immortal soul. One need only to read the Sermon on the Mount to appreciate how utterly different the teaching of Jesus were to the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.
Still not a reason to say "bake that fucking cake, peasant"
And religion is not a valid reason to refuse to bake the fucking cake, asshole!
It is plenty enough of a valid reason, as people have the right to free exercise, and the government only has the ability to deny that for compelling reasons. And even then it must rectify it in the least intrusive method possible.
This is not a compelling reason, and fining someone hundreds of thousands of dollars and/or forcing them out of business is not the least intrusive method.
You only want this because you hate religious people. Fess up, it's good for the soul.
They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
Did you even bother to read your own link?
You are such a hypocrite, Seabiscuit. If the guy had been a Christian and wanting his own personal pastor there, you'd have been screeching about "Have to follow the rules!" and "No special treatment!" and "Separation of church and state!" at the top of your lungs.
No matter how much you and Justice Kagan try to pretend otherwise, your link had nothing to do with "shitting on religion", or with the inmate's religion at all, and everything to do with rules and proper procedure.
No, actually I would not. If he were Christian and the prison only offered an Imam be in the room, I'd respond the same way I am now, with outrage. The difference is that if that were the case, you'd be outraged and you aren't now.
Tell us seawitch...what church do you attend again?
So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?
And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.
As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.
They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
Did you even bother to read your own link?
You are such a hypocrite, Seabiscuit. If the guy had been a Christian and wanting his own personal pastor there, you'd have been screeching about "Have to follow the rules!" and "No special treatment!" and "Separation of church and state!" at the top of your lungs.
No matter how much you and Justice Kagan try to pretend otherwise, your link had nothing to do with "shitting on religion", or with the inmate's religion at all, and everything to do with rules and proper procedure.
No, actually I would not. If he were Christian and the prison only offered an Imam be in the room, I'd respond the same way I am now, with outrage. The difference is that if that were the case, you'd be outraged and you aren't now.
Tell us seawitch...what church do you attend again?
What difference does that make to the Constitution?
CorrectJesus said it. That should be enough.Where it says "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights".
Even the Bible says that Christian should obey the laws of the land. These bigots don't have a leg to stand on - not Constitutionally, and certainly not according to the word in the Bible.
Guess what, foreign "expert": that phrase doesn't appear in our Constitution, which you would know, if it wasn't OUR Constitution, not yours.
And thank you for demonstrating just one of the reasons why nothing you have to say about how the US runs itself has any value whatsoever.
"These bigot don't have a leg to stand on . . . except for laws I can't cite, a culture I know nothing about, and a history that's utterly foreign to me. But damn it, I just KNOW that this is how your country is supposed to work, because I want it to!"
The only reason you're still running your toothless gums is that you have even less shame than you do brains.
it is kind of cute how you think they care what Jesus says.
It is not at all cute how you think dimwits like you and "Assfuck Dave" have anything to tell anyone about what Jesus says.
We care what He said. We care not in the slightest what you and "Assfuck Dave" think about it.
but it is damn cute how someone that claims to follow Jesus is calling someone "assfuck dave".
I do not recall Jesus using that term!
it is kind of cute how you think they care what Jesus says.
It is not at all cute how you think dimwits like you and "Assfuck Dave" have anything to tell anyone about what Jesus says.
We care what He said. We care not in the slightest what you and "Assfuck Dave" think about it.
but it is damn cute how someone that claims to follow Jesus is calling someone "assfuck dave".
I do not recall Jesus using that term!
"If you call yourself a christian then you should turn the other cheek while I fuck you in the ass!"
I do not recall Jesus saying that either.
I am guessing you have never read a bible in your life.
I've never turned water to wine or risen from the dead either, what's your point?
Again, this is something that would never be asked of the male gender. For women the specter of a bunch of politicians stating what you can do with your body is a bit more personal. I would ask you to give it some thought but clearly, you’re not much into the whole thinking business.
Considering the male gender doesn't have a "choice" anyway in this situation, I honestly don't care.
There are plenty of pro-life women who understand exactly the point you are making, and they are still pro-life. Why do you have to frame this as a "all-men" vs "all-women" conflict?
Oh, right, because hacks gotta hack.
Being a male and a trump supporter, caring is probably too much to ask of you.
As for the supposed “conflict”, it’s a construct of your imagination. About 90% of catholic women practice contraception which was and likely still is antithetical to Church teachings. Women pretty much know the score when it comes to a bunch of people in state capitols making their healthcare decisions. This is why the contraception is used in the first place.
It’s a pretty easy scenario to understand. I’m sure if you try, you could too.
You equate caring with government overreach, or following progressive matras, typical.
Why did you have to shift to contraception of Catholics? I stated there are plenty of pro-life women, and you saw fit to ignore that?
Dodge, duck dip, dive, and dodge.
The fact that there are "pro-life" women adds nothing. The issue deals only with conditions inside a female' body. Presumably these women exercise autonomy. But plenty of women exist that are not "pro-life" and Big Government is trying to steal their autonomy.
It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.
"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.
Sums up perfectly why I left organized religion years ago. The one thing that supposedly cannot be compromised is religious principles yet here they are, believing in a figure who doesn’t embody any of their beliefs.
But to your point, like the GOP now…they won’t abandon Mara-Lard-Ass, they have nowhere else to go.
What do the Dems offer them besides persecution?
Sorry, the party of "Bake that cake, peasant" isn't going to win over these people.
No, I don’t expect it would. I wouldn’t expect them as a group to endorse the Democrats.
However if your loyalty is to God (make me laugh harder), your loyalty is to her/him (or just “him” in their case). You don’t compromise that and give your loyalty to someone who doesn’t share your values.
As for the Politics of the situation, lets say Joe Biden is the nominee. You’re stating—correctly—that the Christian Conservatives will support someone who has had multiple affairs over Biden who TTBOOK, never had any.
Biden supports policies harmful to their interests.
You are confusing supporting someone politically with endorsing their behavior.
Trump may violate the rules they live by, but to them his soul is his issue,and thus they know God will judge him as he sees fit.
But what he doesn't do it try to ruin them for their belief structure.
Ok.
Just a quick question…
If it comes out that Mara-Lard-Ass paid for some abortions when he was spilling his baby batter, should that change anything as far as Christian Conservatives go?
Just a quick question: Do you actually think you just asked a legitimate, serious question that should be answered seriously?
Instead of wasting time trying to dictate to people whose beliefs you don't share how purist you think they ought to be in practicing their beliefs - which you don't share - and just exactly what Donald Trump would have to do to finally become more objectionable than literally every single Democrat politician currently breathing, it might be more profitable for you to spend some time questioning why it is that every Democrat in the country is such an amoral, disgusting pile of crap that they make Donald Trump look good in comparison.
Maybe the problem isn't that conservatives don't understand who and what Trump is; maybe the problem is that we DO understand who DEMOCRATS are.
I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?
Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says
Did you even bother to read your own link?
You are such a hypocrite, Seabiscuit. If the guy had been a Christian and wanting his own personal pastor there, you'd have been screeching about "Have to follow the rules!" and "No special treatment!" and "Separation of church and state!" at the top of your lungs.
No matter how much you and Justice Kagan try to pretend otherwise, your link had nothing to do with "shitting on religion", or with the inmate's religion at all, and everything to do with rules and proper procedure.
No, actually I would not. If he were Christian and the prison only offered an Imam be in the room, I'd respond the same way I am now, with outrage. The difference is that if that were the case, you'd be outraged and you aren't now.
Tell us seawitch...what church do you attend again?
What difference does that make to the Constitution?
Oy vey...did I ask you about the Constitution?
I'm not pro sex marriage, also anti abortion, beleive in God almighty...but I also know for a fact that evangelicals in the US are the biggest hypocrites and assholes in the world...or at least most of them. They preach and preach, and they thrive on hate racism and bigotry...and worse they voted overwhelmingly for the most evil **** in the world.Evangelicals are religious ? Lol....I'm sorry but having Christian's friends from Catholics to Greek orthodox I think those who call themselves evangelicals are the worst (highly likely bigots or racists, supported, slavery, racism, anti immigrants and anti refugees, gave us the most immoral human being as president) they are not religious.They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.
Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.
But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."
Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
These people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without any further identifier are trying to mold the Christian faith according to their sickness. They are an insult to every other Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all the rest..
I always find it comical that progressives are far more judgemental than the people they are bitching about being judgemental.
Far less forgiving as well.
"Hate the sinner and the sin, and make sure they are ruined for life" The progressive mantra.
Jesus said it. That should be enough.Read the case. He doesn't. This is all about religion, but more importantly it's about horrible people like you who need to force others to be like you, think like you, and act like you OR ELSE.
Where in the Constitution does it say a person has a right to a specific cake from a specific baker?
Where it says "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights".
Even the Bible says that Christian should obey the laws of the land. These bigots don't have a leg to stand on - not Constitutionally, and certainly not according to the word in the Bible.
Guess what, foreign "expert": that phrase doesn't appear in our Constitution, which you would know, if it wasn't OUR Constitution, not yours.
And thank you for demonstrating just one of the reasons why nothing you have to say about how the US runs itself has any value whatsoever.
"These bigot don't have a leg to stand on . . . except for laws I can't cite, a culture I know nothing about, and a history that's utterly foreign to me. But damn it, I just KNOW that this is how your country is supposed to work, because I want it to!"
The only reason you're still running your toothless gums is that you have even less shame than you do brains.
it is kind of cute how you think they care what Jesus says.
It is not at all cute how you think dimwits like you and "Assfuck Dave" have anything to tell anyone about what Jesus says.
We care what He said. We care not in the slightest what you and "Assfuck Dave" think about it.
Did you even bother to read your own link?
You are such a hypocrite, Seabiscuit. If the guy had been a Christian and wanting his own personal pastor there, you'd have been screeching about "Have to follow the rules!" and "No special treatment!" and "Separation of church and state!" at the top of your lungs.
No matter how much you and Justice Kagan try to pretend otherwise, your link had nothing to do with "shitting on religion", or with the inmate's religion at all, and everything to do with rules and proper procedure.
No, actually I would not. If he were Christian and the prison only offered an Imam be in the room, I'd respond the same way I am now, with outrage. The difference is that if that were the case, you'd be outraged and you aren't now.
Tell us seawitch...what church do you attend again?
What difference does that make to the Constitution?
Oy vey...did I ask you about the Constitution?
What difference does it make to the conversation then?
