Really? Hey, where did you live?
No they wouldn’t.
It’s figurative and just refers to something that humans have no control over. It might arguably be called ceremonial deism if it was used in legislation (in that it’s a figure of speech with no literal religious meaning), but not in civil contractual language since that doesn’t involve the state.
Perhaps ‘approach’ or ‘intent’ would have been a better choice. Same result, but one from a pastor’s personal view that God can’t do bad things and the other from a stop-sticking-God-into-the-damn-law-every-chance-you-get view.
ETA: So Dio agrees that it’s a linguistic convention. Great. So is In God We Trust the same thing? Again, not a gotcha ya, but an interest in the nuances of language.
Oh, note that if we’re getting to be hyper pedantic about it, it becomes state action the moment the state is used as a vehicle to enforce a contract.
Three years in England, two years in Liberia.
Very interesting, Dio. Perhaps you can start a thread sometime on how it was to live in Liberia. I have questions…oh, so, so many questions.
Sure. I don’t know how interesting it will be, but I can start one.
Funny, as a teen, I lived one year in England, and two in Nigeria. Are you some parallel me typing from another dimension?
I never went to Nigeria, but I heard some gnarly stories about it. Some guys I knew in the Navy said there were dead bodies floating in the harbor there.
Where did you live in England? We were at Lakenheath.
No, I wasnt that fortunate. I was in London (kidding, love the city).
But surely you didn’t summer there!
lol
Nor did Beebe pardon two murderers because they found Jesus who murdered again when they were released.
Jesus murdered again? Wow. Even the death penalty doesn’t prevent recidivism…
I would usually refrain from criticizing a perfectly good snark, but 'round these parts Huckabee’s “born-again” clemency is still kind of a touchy subject.
(To be at least somewhat fair, the Arkansas parole board also approved Clemmons’ release. Also, when notified of later violations in Washington that violated his parole, Arkansas authorities quickly decided they didn’t want him back and would not seek extradition.)

So by his reasoning, should we also be suspicious of all those teabaggers dressed in 18th century revolutionary garb? I wouldn’t think they’d be overly fond of British imperialism either.
Or the DAR. Who take great pride in their (great great) grandfathers being oppressed by British Imperialisim and throwing off that tyranny.

Also, when notified of later violations in Washington that violated his parole, Arkansas authorities quickly decided they didn’t want him back and would not seek extradition.)
They probably figured Huckleberry would release him again.
Huckabee must be encouraged by all press overage he got. Because he’s got more to say. And this time his target is Natalie Portman. In a radio interview with Michael Medved, Huckabee said:
You know Michael, one of the things that’s troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, ‘Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine.’ But there aren’t really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that’s the story that we’re not seeing, and it’s unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.
You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids - across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering.
I’m not sure what exactly Huckabee thought Portman should have done. Had an abortion before the Oscar ceremony so she wouldn’t appear pregnant?

Huckabee must be encouraged by all press overage he got. Because he’s got more to say. And this time his target is Natalie Portman. In a radio interview with Michael Medved, Huckabee said:
…You know Michael, one of the things that’s troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, ‘Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine…’
I’m not sure what exactly Huckabee thought Portman should have done. Had an abortion before the Oscar ceremony so she wouldn’t appear pregnant?
I wonder what he thinks of Bristol Palin.

Huckabee must be encouraged by all press overage he got. Because he’s got more to say. And this time his target is Natalie Portman. In a radio interview with Michael Medved, Huckabee said:I’m not sure what exactly Huckabee thought Portman should have done. Had an abortion before the Oscar ceremony so she wouldn’t appear pregnant?
He is encouraging the poor Republicans, who are encouraged to vote for Family Values and against Gun Control (like they could afford an ersatz assault rifle) to vote in condemnation of wealthy people who have children like trailer trash.
He is appealing to his voter base.