Nothing to stop them
By Patrick Kelley
Originally published 01:11 p.m., October 25, 2007
Updated 01:11 p.m., October 25, 2007
The first clause of the First Amendment is clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
The drafters of the Constitution valued the role of religion in a free society, but they also feared the establishment of a state religion — a religion that was an arm of government and could be used to control the populace.
The Establishment Clause, as it is known, is the reason Emporia no longer has an official school district Christmas program. Using public money and the time of public employees to produce a program to celebrate a Christian holiday was the establishment of a state religion by the school board. Taxpayers — all taxpayers — were being required to foot the bill for what was essentially a church function.
The clause is not anti-Christian, but theologically neutral. And in supporting free exercise, it is downright friendly to religion — to all religions.
It is a simple and even-handed concept, but people continue to misunderstand it.
That is probably why, 14 years after the school district staged its last Christmas program, some Emporians still want their old Christmas program back.
It is not going to happen. The Constitution has not changed and the laws have not changed and that anyone would think that a petition is going to trump them is a good argument for more and better civics classes in the public schools.
That said, it would be nice if Emporia did have a Christmas program much like the old one. At its best, the carols and the tableaux could be inspiring. The Seasonal Celebration is nice, but it lacks the resonance of the Christmas story.
The community could have such a program if it really wanted it.
There is nothing in the Constitution or in federal or state law to ban Christmas programs — just using public money and public employees to stage Christmas programs, buy Eid al-Fitr finery or pay for Hannukah celebrations.
Emporia’s churches — or even just Emporia’s Christians — are free to band together and stage any sort of religious pageant they wish. They are even free to solicit the participation of schoolchildren and teachers, as long as it is clear that all work must be done outside school hours and off the public payroll.
Surely old scripts are still around. The stage props and costumes are long since gone, but they could be reproduced. It could be done, if people really wanted the Christmas program back and were willing to do the hard work needed to make it happen.
The school board, city commission, Legislature or Congress cannot sponsor a Christmas program without violating the Constitution.
But churches and individual Christians? They can do whatever they please — as long as they keep their fingers out of their neighbors’ pocketbooks.
That is the free exercise of religion.
proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...
Gee, could you run that 2nd part of the constitutional clause by me again, Mr. Kelley???? The part that says --- "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Not wishing to deny anyone else their right to believe as they wish, but with Christmas being a federally-acknowledged holiday (the day off for federal workers is not called a 'seasonal' holiday), I don't believe it's such an unrealistic request for the program to again be referred to as the "Christmas Program".
October 25, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Flips (anonymous) says...
AMEN--- proverbs18_21 very well said!
October 25, 2007 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
Exactly what I was thinking - thank you for pointing that out!
October 25, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
Doesn't it read that the UNITED STATES CONGRESS shall make no laws...and doesn't it also say that all other matters are left to the States? Isn't this a local School District?
October 25, 2007 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tosie (anonymous) says...
I hope they bring back the "old" Christmas program. It really sucked my Senior year in high school when it all changed and we had to participate in something dull and boring because of one person's religious views......here's a thought....if you don't like the Christmas program or what it's all about then DON'T ATTEND!!!!!! The rest of us like it just fine.....I was in the orchestra and some of the most beautiful music was taken out because of the changes....
October 25, 2007 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wanderer (anonymous) says...
This is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. As the editorial pointed out, any private citizen that wants to can establish a Christmas show at any time. It just can't be publicly funded because that would be a state-supported religious observance -- the sort of thing that the rest of the amendment forbids. Otherwise, what's to stop the school board from sponsoring a Wicca-based show in honor of the Winter Solstice?
October 25, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...
Food for thought: the majority of Emporians are Christian. That's just a fact. I'd venture a guess that is well over 80 per cent . Imagine now for a moment the removal of all selections of the seasonal celebration that are christian in nature, and then imagine too, the removal from the audience of all those who celebrate Christmas and call themselves Christians. Leaves me imagining a pretty empty White Auditorium for a pretty silly seasonal celebration.
October 25, 2007 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
What Congress meant was that federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support, and or FORCE that religion upon the people. That doesn't mean ALL traces of religion must be banished from ANYTHING to do with the government. During the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, church services were held regularly in the House of Representatives - a practice that continued until after the Civil War. They were acceptable because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant and Catholic denomination appeared. So our own founding fathers saw nothing wrong with it, as long as it was voluntary and not forced. I seriously doubt they meant that the Ten Commandments couldn't be displayed on public property, as long as it was not forced (like everyone that passed thru the doorway had to go thru the tradition of getting down on their knees and kissing it, or they could not gain admission) - and the majority of the democracy found it acceptable.
October 25, 2007 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
I think the point that is being missed is that the FEDERAL Government shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a FEDERAL Government sanctioned religion. This is not a FEDERAL issue.
October 25, 2007 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Every state constitution and every state law must conform to the Constitution of the United States. So, too, must county and city codes. State governments or subsidiary governments are not allowed to establish a state/city/county religion. The Constitution does not apply just to the Federal Government.
October 25, 2007 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
yeah, right. I suppose that's why California has "medicinal" marijuana? Are you also telling me that is why we now have sanctuary cities where city employees aren't allowed to question imigration status? You might want to do some homework.
October 25, 2007 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There is a difference between FORCING a religion and ALLOWING it. If the Constitution framers really thought it meant not allowing it in any way, shape or form on federal property and/or time, then can someone tell me why they held church services in the House of Reps for the better part of a century?
October 25, 2007 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
From this article:
"The drafters of the Constitution valued the role of religion in a free society, but they also feared the establishment of a state religion " and "It is a simple and even-handed concept, but people continue to misunderstand it."
Given that many of those key members of the drafting of our Constitution themselves saw nothing wrong with (and attended regularly) church services in the House of Reps, a tradition that continued for the better part of a century, I would say it is the writer of this article that misunderstands the concept as it was originally intended.
October 25, 2007 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...
Very well-said, open_eyes!
Too many people today tout "separation of church and state" with no real idea at all of what our founding fathers were trying to protect and guard against while framing the constitution.
And I have to laugh every time I hear someone say we're forcing our beliefs on them. Can't recall the last time I held a gun to someone's head and made them attend a religious event with me.
I am however, sick and tired of the extent of so-called political correctness this country is embracing.
October 25, 2007 at 10:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Right, proverbs, however, I CAN remember the last time atheists tried (and succeeded) to shove their views down our throats!!!
October 26, 2007 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Now, this is interesting. A Federal judge in Wisconsin in 2005 ruled that atheism IS a religion, and the Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. So, why is it that atheism seems to be crammed down everyone's throat by the courts?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/art...
October 26, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...
open_eyes: Exactly!
So quick to accuse us of shoving our beliefs at them when all we are asking for and are constitutionally entitled to is the right to express them. Yet, they work vehemently to silence us by forcing their ungodly beliefs on us, telling us we MUST accept their version of everything, lest we be called intolerant. Lord have mercy on this once-great country.
October 26, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Nothing is stopping you from expressing your belief. So go do it already, just don't use public funds or a public supported building to do it in. Speaking of people who work vehemently to force a belief system on others, Fred Phelps and his belief system comes to mind. Look at the damage that kind of intolerance has done.
October 26, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Medical marijuana and city ordinances preventing city employees from asking questions regarding citizenship are not specifically covered by the US Constitution. Therefore, questions regarding such things are referred to the courts through litigation. I have not tried to keep up with the litigation involving medical marijuana but I believe the federal courts have by and large supported the administration's contention that federal oversight holds precedence. The state legislatures which have passed such laws continue to insist that they have jurisdiction and the cases just keep piling up. So far, the federal government has declined to take a harsh stance because so many citizens in those states also feel strongly about the medicinal properties of the drug and the administration fears the electoral backlash which would result from coming down hard on users, doctors, and distributors.
As for sanctuary, the city councils do have the right, according to the courts, though the question is not yet finally settled, to instruct their police forces and employees to ignore citizenship under most circumstances (not including criminal arrests, for instance) because local authorities have no legal capability to prosecute illegal immigrants, that falling under the jurisdiction of the HSA which is incapable of addressing all instances of violation.
These are good examples of the complicated and lengthy process required to determine constitutionality. However, the questions involving the Establishment Clause have been addressed for much longer and agreement has been reached over and over by the courts that, in general, governments should not spend public funds to promote a religious viewpoint which is the same as establishing a state sponsored religion.
I believe this is best. Having observed the historical roles of religion in several European societies where close relationships have existed between church and state, the response of the people has usually been more or less negative. The same will probably eventually happen in countries which have Islamic governments. Mixing the two often results in the worst of both.
The point was well made that the religious communities of Emporia would be best suited to organize a public Christmas Celebration which would not be particularly expensive if shared round, and there would be no question regarding religiosity as is the case with the Seasonal Celebration.
October 26, 2007 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orig_patriot (anonymous) says...
Individuals get confused with the idea of separation of church and state because of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote 11 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In the letter, Jefferson wrote there needs to be "a wall of separation between church and state" so the government would not create a federal religion like the Church of England.
Jefferson's intent with the letter was to "assure that the individual members of a state ... would be able to freely worship and practice as they saw fit." These words have been manipulated overtime and wrongly associated with the U.S. Constitution (Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with the constitution.)
"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion not freedom from religion." The Left has been using a Soviet Union doctrine ... to advance the notion that religion has no place in public. This has resulted in the wrongful reduction/elimination of the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools, attempts to remove “In God We Trust” from our national currency, along with other such attacks against the civil liberties of those that would wish to recognize a paramount basis for the establishment of this country. A person can simply opt out of any exercise that he/she does not wish to engage in, that is guaranteed by the constition, but to deny others freedoms because of your antheist views is an infringment upon civil rights, because we are then left with no choice of "opting in". In light of the above, and in the latest attack on Christianity, the U.S. government has banned the flag –folding recitations at all 125 national cemeteries. The banning came as the result of one complaint! The situation is similar to that in which one person removed prayer from schools.
This article from The Associated Press explains the situation:
Complaints about religious content have led to a ban on flag-folding recitations by Veterans Administration employees and volunteers at all national cemeteries.
At thousands of military burials, VA volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of each fold to survivors. The 11th fold glorifies "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The 12th glorifies "God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost."
Citing a need for uniformity, the National Cemetery Administration has prohibited unpaid VA volunteers as well as employees from conducting the recital at all 125 national cemeteries.
American Legion attorney Rees Lloyd calls it "another attempt by secularist fanatics to cleanse any reference to God."
Following one complaint, the Veterans Administration has made anti-Christian bigotry the law of the land. The U.S. government has bowed to pressure from one radical anti-Christian secularist. Allowed to stand, the action by the Veterans Administration, in essence, means that anti-Christian bigotry is now the accepted and approved law of the land.
October 26, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orig_patriot (anonymous) says...
Follow up, Case In Point: An American Legion commander in California says he and other veterans will defy a newly imposed ban on flag-folding recitations that include references to God.
Rees Lloyd is director of the California Defense of Veterans Memorials Project and part of a 16-member detail that has performed military honors at more than 1,400 services. He says veterans -- and in particular, American Legionnaires -- are outraged by the ban.
"It's outrageous," he says bluntly. "These are decisions that should be made by the families of our deceased veteran comrades and not by Washington bureaucrats -- and most certainly not by any narcissistic, disaffected, offended atheist, agnostic, or any other [person] who is upset or offended by the word 'God' or a religious symbol which might offend his delicate sensibilities."
Lloyd vows that even if there are "a hundred-million offended atheists," he and other American Legionnaires will stand against the ban.
"We will defy this ban, pure and simple," he states. "If the families ask us to recite the flag-folding ceremony, we will abide by the wishes of the family -- not [by the wishes of] some bureaucrat sitting in an air-conditioned office in Washington, DC, or some lawyer wearing a diaper back there whose main mission in life is to protect his own behind instead of standing up for the American people and saying enough is enough."
Lloyd, who is a California civil rights attorney, says he and his allies at the Alliance Defense Fund are considering their legal options.
October 26, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
create, CAFE, any others that would like to weigh in, I'd like to hear your take on the fact that the original framers of the constitution themselves attended church services held in the House of Representatives. It doesn't sound to me like they had any intention of banning any religious function from taking part on federal or state property, with its associated cost, just that they wouldn't FORCE anyone to go to it. But that's just my thoughts. Yours?
October 26, 2007 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
It matters not what the original framers of the Constitution thought or did. We are not living in the 18th century; we are living in the 21st. As time passes, we learn, we grow, and we better understand what the words of the Constitution mean. At that time when the Constitution was written, slavery was allowed, women had few rights, and voting was anything but universal. Things are, indeed, different. Some of it is written explicitly into the Constitution, some is a result of better understanding.
One thing that is definitely different about this country is the demographics as regards religious belief. There are significant portions of the population which are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or other religions. Within the Christian community, there is a wide range of belief such that one might be truly uncomfortable in the regular worship services of another. All believers demand that their beliefs be honored. Our government, in response, comprehends the 1st Amendment in a slightly different way than it did over 200 years ago.
Good government is flexible, welcomes diversity, and gives respect to all. We are headed in that direction and will, I hope, eventually attain it.
October 26, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
CAFE, thank your for your very respectable answer. I agree with parts of it in principle, but again, respectfully disagree in others. Nobody is forcing anyone to attend regular worship services of the other. As I wrote on another thread, there is plenty of historical evidence to support the fact that a man called Jesus Christ DID exist 2000 years ago. He is even one of the main prophets of Islam. And, since the holiday in question (Christmas) is to celebrate HIS birthday, not yours, mine, or Joe Smiths, much as Martin Luther King Day (a Reverend) is to celebrate HIS birthday, not anyone elses, what is wrong with the celebration and name remaining the same. As was stated by others, I can't recall how long ago it was I actually put a gun to anyone's head to force them to attend a religious service. Nor has anyone forced me to attend theirs, EXCEPT for atheists, which our own courts (due to their better understanding, since they're living in the 21st century) have declared a religion itself. One might argue (against the court decision) that atheism isn't a religion, it is the abscence of religious belief. But this is like saying Black is not a color, even though a physicist would define black as the absence of color.
Also, just because it is the 21st century, I don't believe that automatically makes everything better or any more right. I look around me and see plenty of things that seem to have regressed backwards since the 18th century. And the tradition in question continued until close to the end of the 19th.
But you're right, the constitution is a work in progress. Hopefully it will progress to the same point where people of all religions are not forced at gunpoint (hyperbole) to do the atheists bidding.
October 26, 2007 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Since I am not an atheist, I do not qualify to discuss what they don't believe. And since my own religious beliefs include not pushing it upon anyone else, I am largely unaffected by the ways the courts have decided these questions.
I do believe that the courts have allowed for a reasonable amount of Christian dominance within our society by recognizing Christmas and Easter as official holidays which generally means a taxable day to us all, but I don't think expending public funds for religious recognition or celebration is a wise course for the government, the society, or the religion, itself. Look at how that has worked in Russia or Romania or Sweden or England in the past. Miserable. It made a mockery of religion and corrupted the government.
This is a question that will continue to be asked and, honestly, it is not a particularly important one to me given the other problems we face at this time. It will get worked out.
October 26, 2007 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I do agree with that point CAFE, the courts HAVE allowed a reasonable amount of Christian dominance by recognizing Christmas and Easter as official holidays. Because, in a democratic society, as a majority Christian nation, that is what the people wanted. They were not given status as official holidays because 1 or 2 people pushed their belief on the majority. Which seems to be where we are at now, sadly. I also would add that banning religion totally as has happened in some communist countries in the past has not worked out well, either :). As for corrupting government, that seems to happen everywhere 100% of the time whether religion has anything to do with it or not LOL :)
Again, thanks for your comments.
October 26, 2007 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
4Jayhawks (anonymous) says...
Just observance, but I have never heard a federal/state/county/city employee complain or refuse it when they are given a paid national holiday from work called CHRISTMAS. Wouldn't this be considered funding a religion? I am probably wrong about this but the thought crossed my mind.
October 26, 2007 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
4Jayhawks, you are right that religious holidays such as Christmas are, in a sense, funding religion or, more to the point, an establishment of religion. However, tradition plays a part in such things and so does the desire of an overwhelming majority of the citizens. The courts have considered the question and have agreed that these points - tradition and desire of a large majority - are also of importance. As a result, they then tend to reign in further "establishment" by refusing government funding of ceremonies, displays, and other programs. It becomes a reasonable concession for most people. Note that since church contributions are non-taxable, all religions are "funded" or subsidized by our government.
As a side note, I believe it should be the policy of businesses - and it often is - that minority religion followers should be allowed similar holidays for their holy days if they so wish to take it in exchange. Most will not since they celebrate a "season of giving" or Saturnalia or something else that they may say falls on Christmas. Others, though, may consider their own holy days to have preeminence and wish it off.
October 26, 2007 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Emporia_Spartan (anonymous) says...
I'm not sure that anyone knows the exact statistical information on Christians in the Emporia area, even though many people claim a "huge majority" when speaking for others. I would venture to guess that there are many non-Christians here now. The school district has worked hard over the years to present a musical gift to ALL area residents. The main point in this discussion is that when the name of the program was changed in 1992, the content was also changed to be in line with the Constitutional guidelines and to reflect the season around the world -- including but not limited to Christian music. As a long-time attendee, I loved the old program and the new one. To me and the many people who fill the Civic Auditorium for each performance, it is not dull and boring as one person claimed -- but a beautiful presentation of music and dance that gets everyone in the "holiday spirit"-- whether that be Christmas, Hannukah, or other religious celebrations. To rename the current program a "Christmas Program" would be false advertising, because it is now much more than that. I hope that the current school board endorses the hard work, research, and cooperation that went into the transition that took place in 1992. If the area churches want to present a Christmas program, it would be welcomed; the schools simply cannot do so, and both sides know that. Let us be happy with the wonderful gift that is called the Seasonal Celebration that helps us all to understand diverse cultures and religions and practice tolerance, as any deity would ask us to do. As with any controversy, we risk losing what we have when we continue to bicker over labels. The Board can easily say-- OK, no more program of any kind, and we are all lose.
October 26, 2007 at 11:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Some good and thoughtful comments made by both sides here. In a pure democracy, the majority rules. Our particular form, however, even though majority rules, basic rights of the minorities (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc...) are protected. A good analogy I've heard and always liked is the one about the nation being comprised of 3 wolves and 1 sheep. In a pure democracy, things don't look too good for the sheep. In the way our democracy is supposed to work, the wolves can feed as they like, but the sheep's rights are protected. The way our democracy seems to be moving increasingly toward, is that the 3 wolves are all being forced to eat grass by the 1 sheep :)
Another thing I worry about, in addition, is the slippery slope we seem to be heading down. I am wondering how long it will be before our government, in addition to not allowing any religious displays, will get to the point where it will no longer allow itself to follow or adhere to any religious or moral principles. Oh, wait, we're almost there now :)
So what to do? I have a couple of suggestions, one of which has been touched upon already.
1) If you don't want to celebrate Christmas, be given the option of taking another day off in lieu of it at your discretion. Unfortunately, this will not work well in alot of businesses. For instance, if only 38 people show up to work on Christmas Day at Tyson. So that idea would need some work or tweaking.
2) If you object to having "In God We Trust" on your money, you can give it all to me to be rid of it LOL
October 27, 2007 at 1:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lincoln (anonymous) says...
Patrick Kelley's October 25, 2007 "Nothing to Stop Them" editorial
is a succinct, articulate and comprehensive presentation of the situation. It could not have been explained more clearly or accurately.
Thank you Patrick!
October 27, 2007 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
There are a lot of people at Tyson these days who are not Christian so that may solve the taking Christmas off problem for some. Might Christians be kind enough take their place when their holidays come about?
In New York, at one restaurant I know about, on Christmas, you can take the day off if you are Christian provided a Jewish worker (or some other belief system) can work for you. This has been happening successfully for years. But I don't know if it would work on a very large scale. It would depend on how many different religions lived and worked there.
October 27, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hey orig_patriot, liked your post and the info you presented, but one thing you said surprised me. "Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with the constitution".
Did a little digging, according to what I found, you are right, (mostly). Did find this quote: "Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence". Many other sources say his correspondence was instrumental during the 1787 convention that drafted the constitution, so in an indirect way he did have quite a bit to do with the Constitution. Looks like we're both right :)
Not trying to split hairs or get off subject, just an FYI.
Thanks for the info, learned something new today :)
October 28, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TruthRising (anonymous) says...
Patrick, you just need a hug. You are so sad and bitter. I suppose just before judgment, God'll say, "You should have helped keep the program ... it made people think about me." Now they don't. Many weren't saved as a result. And you are partially to blame. "But if the watchman sees the enemy coming and doesn’t sound the alarm to warn the people, he is responsible for their deaths. They will die in their sins, but I will hold the watchman accountable." Ezekiel 33:6
November 1, 2007 at 1:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Imoved (anonymous) says...
You can call it the Christmas Program as much as you want, as long as you stop busing school kids over to it during school hours and using taxpayer money to pay for it. If so many people are so passionate about a religious celebration, put your money where your mouth is and organize one outside of school hours.
I don't know how you do it now, but when I was a kid (pre-rename) you were forced to participate or sit in a room by yourself with nothing to do during a large portion of school time. I really don't know why we didn't complain to the ACLU ourselves, but probably it was to avoid exactly the sort of mob mentality I see evident here.
November 21, 2007 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )