House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today defended the Architect of the Capitol's refusal to permit use of the word "God" on official certificates enclosed with flags flown over the U.S. Capitol.
Dayton-area GOP Rep. Michael Turner and more than 100 of his Republican colleagues sent a letter to Pelosi last week after an Eagle Scout in his district asked that a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol be sent to his grandfather with a certificate inscribed with the message: "In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family."
The boy and his father contacted Turner's office after noticing the word "God" was left off the certificate included with the flag.
I don't understand why Democrats are so outraged by God. Our Founding Fathers had God's name all over the place.
So who do you think is right. Republicans who say Separation of Church and state simply means the govt cant tell people what religion they have to be, or Democrats who have taken God out of everything, even school.
I'll go with the Founding Fathers, common sense, morality and a decent society.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Pelosi defends refusal to put "God" on flag certificates
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
This is your Democrat Party folks.
For abortion, against God.
The Constitution does not prohibit the word God.
No.
The non-partisan Capitol Architect doesn't want to put God on the certificates he issues, but the Congressmen who order the certs for their constituents may still personalize them however they wish. Pelosi is blocking moves by religious panderers to force the architect to change his long-standing policy.
Don't want to be rude...But I find the whole discussion on God and religion a little funny. and outdated! Even more outrageous is to compare the belief in God to common sense and decent society!
Actually common sense will make you question the very existence of God!! And decent society? Do you realize that ‘war on terrorism’ has deep roots in the very same God?
It really bothers me when I see ‘religious’ folks try to make it a public policy. Nobody is stopping you from practicing your faith and believing your God in your personal life.
"The non-partisan Capitol Architect doesn't want to put God on the certificates he issues, but the Congressmen who order the certs for their constituents may still personalize them however they wish. Pelosi is blocking moves by religious panderers to force the architect to change his long-standing policy."
That seems fair, reasonable, and a very sensitive way of thinking about it....after all, what if a veteran or some other American who may have had his faith knocked out of him on some godforsaken dusty battlefield were to come across the proclamation, as he was handling the flag? How is he supposed to feel?
I am a strong man of faith but like my religion seperate from my politics, so both may be permitted to thrive, which was the REAL message of the Founding Fathers.
"Even more outrageous is to compare the belief in God to common sense and decent society!"
American, with all respect, that's a very unfair statement. It's one thing to criticize individual belief systems, doctrines, and practices, but another entirely to ridicule ALL religious Americans across the board for exercizing their right to believe what they want without malice.
"Actually common sense will make you question the very existence of God!!"
That's an individual judgement for every man to make. I would argue that the cult of atheism is a false religion of its own, that worships self and is the height of arrogance. Again, this is my opinion, but you did provoke it with your statement.
"Do you realize that ‘war on terrorism’ has deep roots in the very same God?"
No, because the Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God we worship, and neither do the Judeochristrianist, dominionist, premillenial dispensationalist evangelical cultists who form the core of the military brass and private mercenary corporations.
"It really bothers me when I see ‘religious’ folks try to make it a public policy. Nobody is stopping you from practicing your faith and believing your God in your personal life."
Here, I could not agree with you more, America, but, then again, Americans used to think things out a little bit more and had a lot more common sense, back in the day.
It's important to understand that dark forces used a spirit of fear to sell "Islamofascism" and the "War On Terror" to an unwitting public. Americans are largely a deeply religious and/or spiritual people, and contorting their religious beliefs to fit their insidious agenda was the quickest and most effective way the neocons could establish control over Americans.
What I noticed is that all y'all missed the fact that an Eagle Scout requested the flag and certificate for his Grandfather. The Scout made the request that a quote containing the word God be put on the certificate.
Now when is the architect supposed to censor speech? This was not a mandate from the Legislature, Judicial or Executive branches.
It all boils down to Liberals FEAR the public having any profession of faith and feality to anything but the government, a government as big and socialistic as they can create.
right on...
I knew it was a touchy subject. Again, didn't mean to be rude...
When I used the word 'God', I referred to it as one 'concept'. I was not referring to any specific god.
I'm not even going to compare religions here. My point is - as long as we keep religion separate from the politics - we are good. This is precisely the issue with most of the Islamic countries. They have mixed their religion with their politics and we all know what difference it makes. This mixing of religion with politics is what has led those countries/societies on the path of terrorism.
When unchecked, religion has the tendency to make some individuals, groups and societies intolerant.
If you think our society is free from it, please watch this video clip and listen to Ann Coulter. You all know what I am talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVtL80HqjEk
"If you think our society is free from it, please watch this video clip and listen to Ann Coulter. You all know what I am talking about."
Yes, but only because I tuned into the savage weiner for a few moments, and he was having a meltdown over her..
IMHO, Coulter is a vile, revolting individual, and I believe almost everything she says is designed to boost her flagging book sales, but she WAS just relating the doctrine of whatever Christian tradition she is a part of.
The Jews always dictate the boundaries of where Christianity starts and ends in this country, and they work very hard to censor the thoughts and expressions of all Christian traditions, and the woman just wasn't having any of it. They are trained to hate Jesus and reject any manifestation of Him, and the interviewer just naturally slipped into defense mode, which is why the interview went to holy hell.
This is an unresolvable fact of life that the Christian Zionists and the philo-Semitic wing of the American conservatives will never breach. It is the main reason why I am strictly opposed to "interfaith" services and any dilution of any of the individual religions that Americans are free to practice.
The religious divisions that sadly separate us as friends, coworkers, teammates, etc. are also very necessary divisions when it comes to preserving our individual faiths and traditions, and make coexistence possible. It's also why I am such a believer in keeping religion and politics separate from one another.
You have to be realistic. Our belief systems are incompatible.
I thought Jews and Christians do worship the same God. How did I miss this?
Well, my flavor of Christianity does not, because we believe in the Trinity (The Father, The Son, And the Holy Spirit), and the Jews do not accept Jesus Christ, so....
It's not a distinction that has been highlighted in recent years, but it is the truth nonetheless.
A lot of these differences were glazed over in religious education and popular culture starting in the times of the civil rights movement in the late sixties, where most of our organized institutions and spiritual leaders went along with a more ecumenical outlook.
But the problem with that was that mentality went too far, many of us lost sight of our distinct traditions, mores, and cultures, because we as Americans were taught that we were all equal and therefore (here is the key) we are ALL THE SAME, which may have been done with the best of intentions but was completely ridiculous to achieve, in a society made up of people from all over the world.
I am simplifying but that is how I see it, from someone who came up in that era.
You lefties will be crying in your coffee. The Architect caved in and will not be censoring God out of citations anymore.
Too bad. It was a stupid thing for conservatards to get their panties in an uproar about (but, then again, you always do have an amazing way of responding to the commands of your masters...)
No sane person would have been kept up nights over this....
Not being sane, how would you know?
Hash likes to pose as a knowlegable man of God but the fact is that the Jews and Christians indeed worshipt the same God. The Jews do not believe the aspect of the Trinity, that is, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but that's their choice. In fact, St. Paul was arrested by the Roman authorities due to the fact that they did not allow new religions. They allowed Judaism because it existed when they took over, but beyond that, it was Judaism or the Roman gods or nothing. Paul's defense was that he was indeed preaching the same religion but in the form that it had evolve into with the life, death and Resurrection of Christ.
I would also say that the notion that this was meant to be a secular country is flat out a distortion of history. Our government is secular, but that doesn't prohibit the passage of policy based on Christian morals. In fact, it was believed that this system of government would not work without a moral people, and by that, they indeed meant "Christian" morals. One look at the decadence and direction of this nation bears that out. If there's anything that will bring this country down, it's not a mythical "Bush Crime Family" or any such bullshit, but the continued ignoring of traditional principles of morality, character, and values. Because if there would ever be the type of leadership of which the likes of Hash chooses to accuse Bush, it would be a result of those traits lacking in the leader and the voters both.
And we see those traits are lacking in Pelosi and the rest of the left because much of this state of affairs is a direct result of their philosophies. Recently, in Pelosi's own district, there was the Folsom Street Fest (the name might not be entirely accurate) which was as decadent and indecent a celebration as one could imagine. Public displays of nudity and sex was rampant and just like the so-called "Gay Pride" parades, there were children present to witness the filth. This is allowed annually, as well as other tragic displays of human self-centeredness, in the San Fran area, while at the same time, a Christian youth group has been harrassed by the same city officials that welcome the sado-masochistic crap of the Folsom vermin. No surprise that Pelosi wouldn't defend "God" being printed on certificates.
I would also like to say that the notion of "religious folks" trying to make public policy as a bad thing is goofy. What does it matter whence sprang the policy if the policy is a good one? The policy should be judged on it's own merits, not the source of it. If this is how we judge policy, then I'd have to say that secular policy would be equally suspicious for the anti-religious ramifications that could likely be present. But no, I'd look at the policy and judge it upon what I think is likely to be the result. Different potentialities and all that. Just because a policy proposal is based on a religious teaching doesn't guarantee establishment, oppression or any other negative, and in fact if it is based on Christianity, it's likely to be quite beneficial to society in general.
To suggest that religiously inspired policy is automatically harmful is pure paranoia. All public policy is based on someone's belief in right and wrong. Doesn't matter why he believes it, it only matters whether or not the policy is judged to be sound.
"but the fact is that the Jews and Christians indeed worshipt the same God."
Perhaps in your Judeo-christianist fundie cultic belief system, but not to Christians who actually worship Jesus Christ, not the Synagogue of Satan.
I thought this was interesting...
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/10/13/poll-intolerance-drives-up-christians-negatives/
Poll: Intolerance Of Gays Drives Up Christianity’s Negatives Among Young People
Posted by Jon Ponder
Oct. 13, 2007, 10:39 am
Opposition to gay civil rights has become an extremely effective fundraising tool for the Christian right. In 2005, for example, four of the leading organizations focused on institutionalizing homophobia — Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition (which advocates execution of gays) — raised $169 million.
But the effectiveness with which these groups have gotten their message out is proving to be a double-edged sword. While it has ginned up antipathy toward gays — which simultaneously stalled progress on gay civil rights and served as a powerful political tool that Republicans used to seize power — a poll released last month by Barna, a Christian research group, suggests that the relentless intolerance has seriously damaged the image of Christianity among young people:
Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91 percent of [16- to 29-year-old] non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity.
As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.
One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.
Attitudes toward Christianity among today’s youth are much more negative than they were a generation ago, says Barna:
For instance, a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16 percent of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a “good impression” of Christianity.
The poll found that, in the broadest sense, Christians’ intolerance and hypocrisy were key factors in their approval:
Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87 percent), hypocritical (85 percent), old-fashioned (78 percent), and too involved in politics (75 percent) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians …
Even among young Christians … [half] of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.
One side note: Evangelicals remain the Christian sect viewed most negatively:
The new study shows that only 3 percent of 16- to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals. This means that today’s young non-Christians are eight times less likely to experience positive associations toward evangelicals than were non-Christians of the Boomer generation (25 percent).
Evangelicals view any negative reaction as persecution:
91 percent of the nation’s evangelicals believe that “Americans are becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity.”
Unfortunately for evangelicals (and especially for the people they persecute), they will never get it that they bring this hostility onto themselves.
Interesting article, Hash. But these results are due to a complete misunderstanding of Christianity by both the non-Christian youth and those whithin the faith. There obviously has been a major failure in explaining the distinction between homosexuals and homosexuality. Scripture speaks against the latter. Thus, it is only natural that the Church would oppose legislation that would seek to enable the practice and/or legitimize it in the eyes of the general population. Frankly, if adultery and out-of-wedlock partners were seeking such legitimacy, the Church would be equally aghast. It's poor education that is the cause of this phenomenon. How do you address it to the young with whom YOU come into contact?
"There obviously has been a major failure in explaining the distinction between homosexuals and homosexuality."
No, just differing doctrines, and varying amounts of emphasis and levels of overall importance.
The evangelicals are the most strident, and the most likely to allow their disapproval to move into something uglier.
That's why they are targeted.
"Thus, it is only natural that the Church would oppose legislation that would seek to enable the practice and/or legitimize it in the eyes of the general population."
No, not if the mission of the church is to minister to the people. Never before has any religious body in America (and mind you, I do not accept these churches as having the Gospel anyway) attempted to flex its muscle in a political vein. This nation was founded by Christians, but the founding fathers themselves worked tirelessly to limit the amount of influence that the religious of any sort had on the nation's laws and policies. That's what I believe...I want religion out of my government, and government out of my religion, so that both may thrive and prosper.
"Frankly, if adultery and out-of-wedlock partners were seeking such legitimacy, the Church would be equally aghast."
In practice, this never happens.
"How do you address it to the young with whom YOU come into contact?"
-That, in this house, we believe that homosexuality is something one is born into, or at least oriented towards, and that our flavor of Christianity believes that the orientation, the feelings, etc. that go along with being gay (or THINKING that you MIGHT be gay) is something you might as well accept, like your eye color.
-That, our church teaches that if you are gay, you are to remain celibate (and then we go into everything that entails....)
And then we go into our personal opinions on church doctrine and where we personally differ with them, and so on...
Kids talk about these issues ENDLESSLY amongst themselves...
Our way is to explain all the consequences that life may bring you in that situation, go over the heartaches and disappointments that all of us will be faced with, but to remember that I love you, but my job as parent is that you live a good life, not a happy or a fun one, and to be honest, especially with the clergy. Every family has personal standards...I'd rank us somewhere to the stringent side of moderate, by our community's standards.
It's not as big of a nightmare of an issue as it once was, but more of one then it was ten years ago.
In a departure from my current policy of ignoring all things Hash:
"No, just differing doctrines, and varying amounts of emphasis and levels of overall importance."
The difference is simple: one is a person with a particular desire, and the other is the manifestation of that desire. One is welcomed by the average Christian church, and the other not so much.
"The evangelicals are the most strident, and the most likely to allow their disapproval to move into something uglier."
This is a misperception that people who know better do little, if anything, to dispute.
"Never before has any religious body in America (and mind you, I do not accept these churches as having the Gospel anyway) attempted to flex its muscle in a political vein."
Not true. Many at our founding did just that. The clergy pushed the people for revolution and they were known as "the Black Regiment" for their ardor for the cause. This isn't to say that all did, or did so as complete denominations, but it mirrors those in this day who preach against the type of public actions that would allow for sinful behavior. Sadly, it dosen't happen enough, for without the influence of the faithful, the decadence in this nation will only worsen. Also keep in mind that slavery was opposed by Christian groups. Again, not all, but enough to have stirred the consciences of many. This is ministering as well; to bring others to see the world in God's terms.
"...but the founding fathers themselves worked tirelessly to limit the amount of influence that the religious of any sort had on the nation's laws and policies."
This also is not true. They were only concerned that one Christian denomination was not supported above all others, that the law allowed for free expression of faith to all. They did not worry about religious influence in policy. In fact they were concerned that without a moral people, the experiment wouldn't work. Moral to them meant Christianity in general.
"In practice, this never happens."
Uh, that's what "if" means.
Now in your house, do you believe that feelings of anger, violence, covetousness, greed, laziness, drunkeness are things that should just be accepted or worked on with God's help to change? I believe, that despite accepting that we are who we are, we have the power of God to help us become what we can become. If this were not true, no one would seek to improve or change for the better. However one has come to be homosexual does not mean they must remain so. Many have proven this to be so, in much the same way that violent people have come to harness their anger and become people of peace. So I don't see it as a physical trait like eye color, but a behavioral trait like anger. Both may have some biological factor, but that doesn't preclude change.
The one thing you haven't mentioned is the Scriptural admonitions against homosexual behavior (or out of wedlock or adulterous---all equally prohibited). It's important to begin with Scripture before all those other acceptable things you've mentioned. (By that I mean that what Scripture says and what a given church says is not always the same.)
Of course none of this has anything to do with Pelosi being a bonehead, but what the heck...
"The one thing you haven't mentioned is the Scriptural admonitions against homosexual behavior (or out of wedlock or adulterous---all equally prohibited). It's important to begin with Scripture before all those other acceptable things you've mentioned. (By that I mean that what Scripture says and what a given church says is not always the same.)"
Do you have any idea what the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality?
I don't recall Jesus EVER actually mentioning it (although he certainly had much to say about males and females together)...
This is not a wiseass comment. I want you to KNOW what it says, and what it means to you in your life, and how you really need to start being a wee bit more humane in treating people you have no possible way of understanding.
And do NOT come to me hiding behind your church, because a)I am not bound by the doctrines of your church, and b) I happen to be well aware of the UCC's position on homosexuality, and let us just say, it in NO way encompasses your very non-scriptural personal prejudices.
This is the sort of regressive thinking that leads a father to proudly proclaim that his daughter "loves the Lord", and in the same sentence, mention that she'd "really like a better present this Christmas". In the middle of summer.
Something tells me Nancy Pelosi's kids don't come out with one-liners like that.
"The one thing you haven't mentioned is the Scriptural admonitions against homosexual behavior (or out of wedlock or adulterous---all equally prohibited)."
That's because I don't recall protest signs saying "GOD HATES ADULTERERS"....and because the Christian blogosphere was eerily quiet when YET ANOTHER good christianist man of God was discovered.....in a leather suit with a head flap with WHAT, uh, placed inside of him?
Evangelical Christianity is soon to be HISTORY....but not because anyone is out to destroy it, but because it is a false belief system, a corruption of the church that Jesus himself created, rife with hypocrisy, legalisms, bizarre eschatological fairy tales, and a completely deluded worship of the modern-day entity known as Israel and people known as modern-day Jews, which have absolutely no correlation to the Israel and Jews in the Bible.
Maybe there's ANOTHER Christian denomination you can strongarm into accepting YOU and your extremist beliefs, as you are?
Now, go back to standing in your corner. (I like that!)
"Now, go back to standing in your corner. (I like that!)"
Yeah, whatever.
I hope Game doesn't mind the side-track here, but for the sake of readers, I need to address Hash's goofy understanding of Scripture and Christianity.
Jesus spoke to the sins that were prevalent at the time of His ministry on earth. At no time did He ever speak of marriage except in terms of the male/female traditional version. And as a Christian who believes that Christ is God, I understand that He indeed spoke on the subject back in Leviticus. Now apparently some poorly educated Christians believe that God needs to repeat Himself over and over and over in order for His Will to be a mandate in our hearts. That's unfortunate. Since bestiality is only mentioned briefly, I suppose Hash defends that practice as well. (I'm sure those who engage in such are EXCELLENT employees.) Now there have been attempts to color the Levitical Law, certain Gospel episodes and Paulian Epistles in order to distort the message in favor of homosexual behavior, but they are expertly and exhaustively refuted by serious and objective Biblical scholars. Yet this is viewed by mentally deficient people like Rashfanatic as "hatred" and "bigotry" as if adhering to the Will of God as presented in Scripture could ever be so. It would be like saying I'm bigoted because I oppose theft. Very silly.
So to concern one's self with the fact that Jesus doesn't refer to this one particular sin is irrelevant, especially since he never spoke of other sins either, such as the aforementioned bestiality. He simply had no need to do so.
Thus, I have a really good idea of what the Bible says, and without being a scholar, understand discussions on translations and interpretations. I just don't give much credence to progressive, post-modern, liberal scholars who think they've uncovered true meanings heretofor unknown to all the thousands of scholars who've come before them. I also have a pretty good idea about homosexuals having known a few in my time, including one very close friend who has passed away after suffering the horrible scourge of AIDS. So on that score, fuck you.
Next, you've once again made the ignorant comment regarding my daughter (very dangerous) suggesting something is unusual that one so young could both love the Lord and still hope for a good haul under the tree. It takes a fucking idiot like yourself to view this as some kind of anomaly.
Before I forget, you're right about the UCC. They're also wrong on the subject of homosexuality. But I'm with a mostly conservative congregation with regards to that issue.
"That's because I don't recall protest signs saying "GOD HATES ADULTERERS"....and because the Christian blogosphere was eerily quiet when YET ANOTHER good christianist man of God was discovered.....in a leather suit with a head flap with WHAT, uh, placed inside of him?"
I admit it. I don't know WHAT the fuck the above means or how it ties into the exerpt that preceded it. I have no relation to Fred Phelps and have never expressed the notion that God hates any person. The rest? Who the hell knows what Hashbrowns meant? I will say that the paragraph that follows the above drivel shows a complete lack of understanding regarding Evangelicals by the goofy Hashferatu.
My beliefs are not extreme, they're traditional. They're consistent with Scripture. They're grounded in an objective study of all it says without regard to my personal desires and inclinations. Frankly, I don't fucking care if you insist on taking up the hindquarters if that's what really floats your boat, Hashdude. That's between you and whatever you think is your god. I'd prefer you adhere to the teachings of Christ, but it's up to you to choose to do so. I'm only concerned with making sure that the lies of those who seek to pervert Scripture aren't left without opposition, for I'm compelled by the Great Commission. I've no interest in forcing anyone to do anything.
Now go back to Mama and get that drool wiped up. That's a good boy.
"I also have a pretty good idea about homosexuals having known a few in my time..."
I'm sure you have!!
"including one very close friend who has passed away after suffering the horrible scourge of AIDS."
Prolly hit the mainline too many times. Tough titties.
"Next, you've once again made the ignorant comment regarding my daughter (very dangerous)..."
Oh? Really? Whaddya YOU gonna do about it?
"It takes a fucking idiot like yourself to view this as some kind of anomaly."
Better than a lousy parent that teaches a warped sense of priorities and then publicly brags about it, but hey...
Guess we'll just stick to our naive little ideas about charity and kindness and let you have your side of the fence.
"I'd prefer you adhere to the teachings of Christ, but it's up to you to choose to do so."
You'd need to join the Real Church first before you'd be in any way qualified to make such judgements...
Happily, I'm sure you're headed in precisely the opposite direction.
"If you think our society is free from it, please watch this video clip and listen to Ann Coulter. You all know what I am talking about."
I saw that exchange with Donny. It was nice of him to immediately claim he was offended but never really seek clarification. What little clarification Coulter provided was rather clumsy. But she was merely referring to what is known in Christianity, but not necessarily to Hash because he's an idiot, as "the Great Commission". This simply means that Christ wants us to spread the Gospel everywhere. NOWHERE within Christianity is there any mandate, encouragement, directive or order to FORCE anyone to convert. Indeed, from Christ's perspective, He was a Jew and was bringing the Jews amongst whom He lived to a sharper focus of God's Will. He wasn't necessarily forming "Christianity". He is the Messiah for whom they've been waiting.
So it's NOT intolerance of Judaism or any other religion. It's simply a statement of faith, that her's is true and that she wishes to bring all to Christ.
Ash-hole,
You've now crossed the line by not only daring to comment on my child, but by cracking wise regarding a dear friend who has passed on. You are about as low a character as one can imagine. If you want to continue in this manner, I can assure you you don't have what it takes. You can look me up anytime you're in the Chicago area and I'll prove it for you happily. I'd much prefer that you man up and admit you went too far. Then, you can try to convince me that you don't do presents at Christmas time, and that children in your family don't hope for them. Go ahead. Tell me that bullshit. It will confirm you're a liar.
"It's simply a statement of faith, that her's is true and that she wishes to bring all to Christ."
Absolutely correct.
I despise that vicious man-bitch with every tooth in my head, but she was only stating the tenets of her faith.
And if you run astray of the Jews and their synchophants in this media culture, you will pay for it.
I rest my case.
Post a Comment