Church and State Issue?

[hal bidlack]

Does this really matter? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20030218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_faith)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Does this really matter? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20030218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_faith)

It shouldn't. His own faith is his personal opinion...he should be able to express it freely as long as he doesn't start making legislation respecting a specific faith. Personally I think it's troubling. The "faith based initiative" is walking a pretty thin line IMO. Also, the Arab world is using his words to cast him as an "evil Christian Crusader".

He needs to tone it down....to me it sounds like political pandering to the religious right. To our enemies overseas it makes "jihad against the christian crusader" look necessary.

-zilla

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well would it matter if I was president and went up and stated "God is a lie" or talked about my atheism over and over?

[LeFevre]

from the link
Earlier, in his State of the Union address, he said, "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."


I am glad Odin gives such gifts.


"I think his rhetoric implies a lack of appreciation for the vast pluralism of religion in this nation," Gaddy said.

I second that

"We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history. May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America."

hmmm well that leaves out polytheists and those who think that (if there is one god) the ways of providence are witchy woman ways. I didn't know that we Americans (as Cap'n Snort would say) knew so much about all this stuff.




Yes it matters, not sure how much.

[Samus]

I've long said that the president is too religious in some of his speeches. Sometimes, I feel like he is preaching to the public, and I don't appreciate that.

"The president when he speaks, speaks in a very inclusive way, very respectful ... of the fact that we are a nation whose great strengths come from the fact that we have people of so many faiths and people who have chosen not to have any particular religious affiliation," okay, this is a pointed statement. He quotes passages from the Bible, then his press secretary calls him inclusive. Nope, can't follow that argument. "chosen not to have any...affiliation", how about "doesn't see the need for such foolery", does that count?

"I think his rhetoric implies a lack of appreciation for the vast pluralism of religion in this nation," Gaddy said.
...
"When presidents start to become theologians on a regular basis, they begin to exclude people from their audience," Agreed and agreed. If only the president saw things that way.

[arcticpenguin]

Yes, it matters to me for a couple of reasons.

1) Bush is supposed to be president for all of us. By consistently inserting Christian rhetoric in his public appearances he is making it clear that he does not consider non-believers to be among those he represents. He is being divisive, and unnecessarily so.

2) It's not just words. His desire to insert more religion into U.S. government has led to actions, such as his faith-based initiatives. Some of these actions are in direct conflict with the American tradition of separation of Church and State.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Does this really matter? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20030218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_faith)

I don't trust GWB to separate his religion and the job he's doing for this country. I am of the opinion that he does not view the government as a secular entity.

How much he can impact separation of church and state, though, is up for debate. I hate "slippery slope" arguments, but I also think that the religious right is trying to lead us down one.

Still, there are checks and balances in place, and if the public wants a more secular government, they can get one.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well would it matter if I was president and went up and stated "God is a lie" or talked about my atheism over and over?

Hell freezing over & you as president (of anything worth being president of) is the same odds. ;)

Judeo-Christian-Deist is still top-dog at 80+% in the USA so far as I can see.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by dwb
I've long said that the president is too religious in some of his speeches. Sometimes, I feel like he is preaching to the public, and I don't appreciate that.

okay, this is a pointed statement. He quotes passages from the Bible, then his press secretary calls him inclusive. Nope, can't follow that argument. "chosen not to have any...affiliation", how about "doesn't see the need for such foolery", does that count?

Agreed and agreed. If only the president saw things that way.

Bill Clinton was a Baptist, had extensive Biblical knowledge, and often quoted from the Bible (although not usually when talking about policy). The difference here is
1. Nobody believed he was a Christian :)
2. Clinton always gave lip service to tolerance and openness.

I remember an old Slashdot article, where a question about minority religions was asked. The reply from the Bush camp was (paraphrased), Bush supports freedom of religion, whether you're Christian, Jewish or Muslim. :mad:

[fishbob]

Church and State are supposed to be separate.

It matters when Bush signals his intention to start funding "faith based initiatives" and merging church and state functions.

[Brown]

Like rikzilla said, a person's religious beliefs should not (i.e., ought not) affect his or her ability to be a public servant.

What is of concern to me is whether religious beliefs will interfere with public service. When there is a concern that a religious leader may make decisions based upon religious beliefs rather than a rational analysis, then there is cause to worry.

There was cause for some people to worry in 1960. When John Kennedy was running for the White House, there were those who said that he would be compelled by his religious beliefs to do whatever the Pope wanted him to do. Kennedy publicly announced that he would not do so, and that it would be improper for him to do so.

Even today, there are reasons to be worried about acts of policy that are based upon religious motivation. Reagan's Secretary of the Interior reportedly established conservation policy based upon the religious belief that Jesus would soon be returning to Earth. Bush Sr.'s vice president, Dan Quayle, was a follower of a minister who specialized in the subject of Armageddon. Had Quayle assumed the presidency, there would be a legitimate concern as to whether he might start a nuclear war ostensibly to fulfill prophesy.

Bush Jr. and his appointees have already made decisions of public policy in which their personal religious beliefs played a major role. It is expected that they will make more. I do not expect them to disavow religious influences, as Kennedy did. In my view, there is cause to worry.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well would it matter if I was president and went up and stated "God is a lie" or talked about my atheism over and over?

Originally posted by hammegk
Hell freezing over & you as president (of anything worth being president of) is the same odds.

Judeo-Christian-Deist is still top-dog at 80+% in the USA so far as I can see.

What does the popularity of religion have to do with how the President (or anyone else in government for that matter) should conduct himself while serving in that capacity?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well would it matter if I was president and went up and stated "God is a lie" or talked about my atheism over and over?

LOL

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by fishbob
Church and State are supposed to be separate.

Where in the US Constitution does it say: "Separation of Church and State"?

If the state stood separate from religion, that would mean the state is a godless state. That was not the intention of the founding fathers. Just because a US Surpreme Court wacko mentioned in an opinion "Separation of Church and State", that does not mean it applies to the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court also affirmed slavery--was that right?

I think the president can stand by what the US Constitution says and ignore the rest. He won't have any problems while he is doing it, either.

JK

[corplinx]

I think the problem most people have with Bush's faith statements are to do with the fact that:

A. They didn't vote for him, still don't like, need something to complain about

B. He is a Xian


My guess is if some democrat muslim was elected and said "Praise Allah" or somethign at the end of every speech (as well as quoted the Quran during speeches), the same people would talk how great it is that he integrates his culture with his job.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If the state stood separate from religion, that would mean the state is a godless state.

You say that is if it's a bad thing.


That was not the intention of the founding fathers.

Who cares?


Just because a US Surpreme Court wacko mentioned in an opinion "Separation of Church and State", that does not mean it applies to the US Constitution.

And just because some religious authoritarian wackos can't find those exact words in the Constitution does not mean they should not apply to government.


The US Supreme Court also affirmed slavery--was that right?

No. So now we've identified two things government shouldn't be doing - affirming slavery and endorsing religion. Got any others you want to add to the list?

[ABBY-NORMAL]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Where in the US Constitution does it say: "Separation of Church and State"?

If the state stood separate from religion, that would mean the state is a godless state. That was not the intention of the founding fathers. Just because a US Surpreme Court wacko mentioned in an opinion "Separation of Church and State", that does not mean it applies to the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court also affirmed slavery--was that right?


JK

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" originated in a letter by Thomas Jefferson describing the establishment clause of the Constitution. This indicates that at least one founding father had the intention of separation of church and state, and that, in his mind anyway, it does apply to the Constitution

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by WMT1
You say that is if it's a bad thing.

It is bad. Atheist states killed over 150,000,000 people last century. Non-atheist states then had to gather and then go overseas to stop them. Now that was a bad thing, wasn't it?

Who cares?

You do and that is why I brought it up. If you didn't care you would not have replied to my post.

And just because some religious authoritarian wackos can't find those exact words in the Constitution does not mean they should not apply to government.

If it isn't in the US Constitution, there is no comment necessary by anyone. The Constitution is not a "living document" (communist propaganda and subversive) as many leftists and even organized communists claim that it is.

No. So now we've identified two things government shouldn't be doing - affirming slavery and endorsing religion. Got any others you want to add to the list?

Slavery ended by Amendment. There is no Amendment changing the US Constitution into an atheist sovereign. The US Supreme Court got it all wrong. There is no separation of church and state--that is just leftist propaganda and hysteria.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Where in the US Constitution does it say: "Separation of Church and State"?

If the state stood separate from religion, that would mean the state is a godless state. That was not the intention of the founding fathers. Just because a US Surpreme Court wacko mentioned in an opinion "Separation of Church and State", that does not mean it applies to the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court also affirmed slavery--was that right?

I think the president can stand by what the US Constitution says and ignore the rest. He won't have any problems while he is doing it, either.

JK

JK you may be a military combat veteran but you are still thoughtless person.

Please take a peek at the first statement in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and just so you do not have to exercise too much effort, I have provided a copy of it for you to peruse.

Granted it does not use the exact terms "seperation of church and state" but the intent to do so is quite clear and has been interpeted in this way by the courts time and time and time again.

I hope this helps!


Amendment I -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by ABBY-NORMAL


The phrase "Separation of Church and State" originated in a letter by Thomas Jefferson describing the establishment clause of the Constitution. This indicates that at least one founding father had the intention of separation of church and state, and that, in his mind anyway, it does apply to the Constitution

Wrong. Using your logic, I could take letters from the other founding fathers and apply them to the constitution. That is...laughable.

The US Constitution is the sovereign. It was not the work of one man, but debated and approved by the colonial authorities who were statesmen. A letter or tiny note after the fact does not change the rules of the document.

The rules are clear--two thirds of all states must approve the change. If it isn't written in the constitution, it just doesn't matter.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


JK you may be a military combat veteran but you are still thoughtless person.

Please take a peek at the first statement in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and just so you do not have to exercise too much effort, I have provided a copy of it for you to peruse.

Granted it does not use the exact terms "seperation of church and state" but the intent to do so is quite clear and has been interpeted in this way by the courts time and time and time again.

I hope this helps!


Amendment I -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...


The First Amendment is clear. The Congress shall make no law which interferes in any way, shape or form with the establishment of religion or the prohibiting of religion. I complete agree. That means the president can talk freely about his religion and everyone else in the country can do the same whenever and wherever they want to. It also means that children can go to school and talk about their religion without fear of persecution and retaliation by communists who run them, and Congress can make no law to stop that because it prohibits the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment is "Freedom of Religion", not "Freedom from Religion". You know, "Freedom of Speech", not "Freedom from Speech".

JK

[Gregor]

"make no law regarding the establishment of religion"

What don't you understand about that phrase?

That means freedom from religion, quite simply.

Want a source document from the founding of the country? How about the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, negotiated under Washington, adopted under John Adams.

"The entire Article Xl in the original treaty [English language version, only] reads as follows:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries." [Freethought today]

The senate heard these terms, the president (Adams) accepted these terms, and it became law in 1796.

[Samus]

Jedi Knight, you are correct, the Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state. The president speaking of God and quoting the bible does not violate the Establishment clause...he's not enacting any kind of law.

That does not make his liberal usage of bible passages and God references a good idea. He's dividing people, and seemingly trying to play to the religious right. He can be just as passionate and just as firm in his beliefs without having to flaunt his religion.

It's almost as though he's trying to draw a stark contrast between him, the God-fearing good American, and those evil Muslims who want to kill people. Not a good idea.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by corplinx:
I think the problem most people have with Bush's faith statements are to do with the fact that:

A. They didn't vote for him, still don't like, need something to complain about

B. He is a Xian


My guess is if some democrat muslim was elected and said "Praise Allah" or somethign at the end of every speech (as well as quoted the Quran during speeches), the same people would talk how great it is that he integrates his culture with his job.

And my guess is that this is a bad guess on your part. Or is it simply meant to imply some inconsistency where none actually exists?

[ABBY-NORMAL]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Wrong. Using your logic, I could take letters from the other founding fathers and apply them to the constitution. That is...laughable.

The US Constitution is the sovereign. It was not the work of one man, but debated and approved by the colonial authorities who were statesmen. A letter or tiny note after the fact does not change the rules of the document.

The rules are clear--two thirds of all states must approve the change. If it isn't written in the constitution, it just doesn't matter.

JK

I respectfully disagree. Letters written by the founding fathers about the Constitution can give valuable insight into what the founding father's original intent was concerning the Constitution.

I never meant to imply that these letters change the Constitution, or that they should in any way be construed as amendments to the Constitution, but they can help clarify the meaning of the language of the Constitution, since they reflect the opinions of those who actually wrote it.

Edited for gramatical error

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Crossbow


....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
[/B]

Then why are some of you incensed that our President is exercising *his* right of free exercise thereof? :)

Plug your ears if what he says offends. That's *your* free right.

[fishbob]

Let me rephase my position.

The Bush statements, taken with his stated plans to implement "faith based initiatives" indicate that our president is not as concerned as I am about separation of church and state. Therefore his statements do matter.

I do not want the gummint (the state) to be in the church business. I do not want religion to be in the government business. This is a bad idea. Afganistan under the Taliban is a prime example carried to the extreme. If we were all the same religion, it might not be as bad, but we have more differing beliefs than probably any other country. And I like it that way.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by hammegk


Then why are some of you incensed that our President is exercising *his* right of free exercise thereof? :)

Plug your ears if what he says offends. That's *your* free right.

It's his free right, ok.
But isn't there some point where it gets a bit too much? Suppose he starts believing that he's acting in HIS will, that he is God's weapon to clean the earth from all evil. If he tries to get his bosse's orders from reading the bible, I hope he doesn't finds the book of revalation too entertaining.:(

Zee

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gregor
"make no law regarding the establishment of religion"

What don't you understand about that phrase?

That means freedom from religion, quite simply.

Want a source document from the founding of the country? How about the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, negotiated under Washington, adopted under John Adams.

"The entire Article Xl in the original treaty [English language version, only] reads as follows:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries." [Freethought today]

The senate heard these terms, the president (Adams) accepted these terms, and it became law in 1796.

No, it means government shall be neutral about the establishment of religion and all religions are acceptable. What has happened is that radical leftists have tried to subvert the US Constitution by applying one fragment of the 1st Amendment to their self-appointed view of its legalise. You can't just say use the "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" without including the "free exercise thereof". That was just a clever way of the forefathers saying they were neutral on the religious question and government had no business in the religious business. That was left up to the people and it is a 1st Amendment right where religion is a form of free-speech to be used by any American citizen anywhere that they see fit without government institutions regulating them in any way.

Now you learned something about the 1st Amendment today. There is never any "taking away" from the 1st Amendment. That is the test and the anti-religious crowd doesn't understand it.

JK

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


It's his free right, ok.
But isn't there some point where it gets a bit too much? Suppose he starts believing that he's acting in HIS will, that he is God's weapon to clean the earth from all evil. If he tries to get his bosse's orders from reading the bible, I hope he doesn't finds the book of revalation too entertaining.:(

Zee

So true. We definitely need another atheist of the Stalin type assuming power.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by dwb
Jedi Knight, you are correct, the Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state. The president speaking of God and quoting the bible does not violate the Establishment clause...he's not enacting any kind of law.

That does not make his liberal usage of bible passages and God references a good idea. He's dividing people, and seemingly trying to play to the religious right. He can be just as passionate and just as firm in his beliefs without having to flaunt his religion.

It's almost as though he's trying to draw a stark contrast between him, the God-fearing good American, and those evil Muslims who want to kill people. Not a good idea.

I don't have a problem whatsoever with the president expressing his religious beliefs. Those belief-expressions are guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

How can a religious person not offend "someone"? There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees you the right to not be offended by something someone says. If the President got up on stage and said he was a Muslim, he would supposedly offend others too, right? The point of the 1st Amendment makes it clear that regarding beliefs the citizen must respect the diversity of others. Why is it that Christians like President Bush can't talk about his beliefs without reactive hostility against him, and yet Americans are hammered daily to respect "diversity" and "celebrate" every other form of belief the human mind can think up?

Not respecting the president's religious beliefs that he expresses via the 1st Amendment is bigotry and hate. It is not respecting and celebrating multiculturalism and diversity. Religious belief must be neutral in the United States--that goes for everyone.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by ABBY-NORMAL


I respectfully disagree. Letters written by the founding fathers about the Constitution can give valuable insight into what the founding father's original intent was concerning the Constitution.

I never meant to imply that these letters change the Constitution, or that they should in any way be construed as amendments to the Constitution, but they can help clarify the meaning of the language of the Constitution, since they reflect the opinions of those who actually wrote it.

Edited for gramatical error

Thomas Jefferson also wrote many letters about his desired European-only agrarian nation-state system. We didn't take that advice seriously as a nation, did we?

The point that I am making is that debate between statesmen led to the creation of the sovereign (the US Constitution). Now, debate settles the desires and facts leading down the path of unification and statehood and then a legal attachment is made to the conclusion. That legal attachment is usually a vote, as the forefathers voted to ratify the Constitution of the United States and then implemented rules to stabilize it for posterity--2/3 of all states.

Once that happened the "letters" by a participant after the fact really do not matter. They may be interesting as a form of pulp--fiction, but they do not change the meaning of the sovereign document because the forefathers didn't want one person to change it. That is why they created the Constitution with a separation of powers as its cornerstone.

The separation of powers prevents emotional causes from destroying the sovereign by one person or even a group. Just because Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter over two hundred years ago that may be fashionable to groups now does not mean that the letter has any foundation in reality.

If special interest groups are really annoyed about religious expression, organize and promote a constitutional convention and change it. Just keep in mind that as those groups seek changes, many, many conservative groups will seek their own. That is why the 2/3's test is such a high hurdle and why no sane politician seeks a referendum on a constitutional change.

JK

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If the state stood separate from religion, that would mean the state is a godless state.

Originally posted by WMT1
You say that is if it's a bad thing.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
It is bad. Atheist states killed over 150,000,000 people last century. Non-atheist states then had to gather and then go overseas to stop them. Now that was a bad thing, wasn't it?

If your statement is true, then that would certainly be a bad thing, but it's hardly attributable to atheism. You're not very specific about what "states" you're talking about, but it sounds to me like it has a lot more to do with a lack of respect for human rights than anything having to do with religion. In any case, is it your position that a religious state is somehow superior to one that is neutral toward religion?


That was not the intention of the founding fathers.

Who cares?

You do and that is why I brought it up. If you didn't care you would not have replied to my post.

This makes no sense. (You're not much for context, are you?) Did you even notice what my "who cares?" was in response to? And on that point, I specifically do not care. Some of us are able to form our own conclusions about how things should be without concerning ourselves too much with what a few guys who have been dead for centuries might have "intended".


Just because a US Surpreme Court wacko mentioned in an opinion "Separation of Church and State", that does not mean it applies to the US Constitution.

And just because some religious authoritarian wackos can't find those exact words in the Constitution does not mean they should not apply to government.

If it isn't in the US Constitution, there is no comment necessary by anyone.

Necessary for what? This doesn't make much sense either. If nobody ever commented on anything that wasn't in the Constitution, then how would anybody ever comment on a proposed amendment to the Constitution? You don't think this stuff through very well, do you?


The Constitution is not a "living document" (communist propaganda and subversive) as many leftists and even organized communists claim that it is.

Uh, okay. I'm pretty sure I never claimed it was.


No. So now we've identified two things government shouldn't be doing - affirming slavery and endorsing religion. Got any others you want to add to the list?

Slavery ended by Amendment. There is no Amendment changing the US Constitution into an atheist sovereign.

Nor is there one making it theist. So, I guess if the Constitution is what you're basing your views on, you'd kinda have to go with a religion-neutral government, huh?

And by the way, if the fact that slavery was ended by amendment is the basis for what makes it wrong, does that mean slavery was acceptable prior to that amendment?


The US Supreme Court got it all wrong. There is no separation of church and state--that is just leftist propaganda and hysteria.

Wow. If it's that easy, then doesn't that make your claim (that there is no such separation) just rightist "propaganda and hysteria"?

Besides, what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter is irrelevant to my position, which is that religion has no place in government, regardless of what any courts (or documents) might have to say on the matter.

I am curious about your consistency, though. If, as you claim, the Supreme Court is capable of error, do you agree that the Constitution is as well?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, it means government shall be neutral about the establishment of religion and all religions are acceptable. What has happened is that radical leftists have tried to subvert the US Constitution by applying one fragment of the 1st Amendment to their self-appointed view of its legalise. You can't just say use the "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" without including the "free exercise thereof". That was just a clever way of the forefathers saying they were neutral on the religious question and government had no business in the religious business. That was left up to the people and it is a 1st Amendment right where religion is a form of free-speech to be used by any American citizen anywhere that they see fit without government institutions regulating them in any way.

Kill me now, I agree with JK.

I've never agreed with modern Supreme Court rulings on this topic. The first amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law." If Congress isn't making a law, the first amendment has nothing to say about it.

Compare with the phrasing in subsequent amendments: "the right...shall not be infringed." "The right...shall not be violated." "The right...shall be preserved." Out of the bill of rights, only the first amendment specifically mentions limits on the powers of Congress. I don't believe this is coincidental, or loose language -- remember how many years people labored over the document, trying to get every word just right in order to reach an acceptable compromise.

It seems clear to me that the framers of the Constitution intended matters of religion, speech, assembly, and so on to be relegated to state governments.

Now, this doesn't really change anything, practically speaking, because every state Constitution I've read expresses in even clearer terms the separation of religion and government. My own (Illinois) says:

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Others that I've read seem equivalent, even in highly religious states such as Alabama. All a more literal interpretation of the first amendment does is push the issue down a level -- the same principle is at work, and stated even more explicitly.

Jeremy

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by fishbob
Let me rephase my position.

The Bush statements, taken with his stated plans to implement "faith based initiatives" indicate that our president is not as concerned as I am about separation of church and state. Therefore his statements do matter.

I do not want the gummint (the state) to be in the church business. I do not want religion to be in the government business. This is a bad idea. Afganistan under the Taliban is a prime example carried to the extreme. If we were all the same religion, it might not be as bad, but we have more differing beliefs than probably any other country. And I like it that way.

The Faith Based Initiative is a new agenda that seeks to capitalize on the extensive networks that Churches possess to assist in the welfare responsibilities of the citizens. Churches and those types of groups, since they are housed at the community level, are much more efficient at handling the issues of the downtrodden moreso than a federal bureaucracy that employs lazy bureaucrats.

Imagine if the poor had to go to a motor-vehicle type location to get food. They would starve to death before they got anything done.

President Bush, like I mentioned above, is just tapping into a vast labor pool that can be used for free while giving that labor pool money to buy food and provide other services for the poor. The people that work in that labor pool are from the same communities as those seeking assistance--it is a very strong institution. There is nothing wrong with that, and there is no religious piece that the people who are seeking assistance have to sign onto. They my be in the presence of religion, but they never have to accept religion.

It boils down to what I said above--"freedom from Religion"--there is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees freedom from religion. That is just an excuse by leftists who want another bloated, inefficient bureacracy to "save America". Big government never saved anything. You should be happy the President is putting this power back into the hands of "the people".

JK

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
Then why are some of you incensed that our President is exercising *his* right of free exercise thereof?

As a variation on something someone posted earlier, try imagining a President specifically claiming there is no God, and finding new ways to essentially express the same view in speech after speech, in his capacity as President. Think about how you (or at least many others) might react to such a pattern, and that might give you some indication of the problem.

[hal bidlack]

You folks need to attend your local Jefferson-Hamilton debate!

27 Nov Denver

26 Mar Seattle

:)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by WMT1
Wow. If it's that easy, then doesn't that make your claim (that there is no such separation) just rightist "propaganda and hysteria"?

No, it is "in the middle" where it should be. If you disagree with religion, no one is forcing you to agree, right? That means it is working and is in the middle. It is not on the right.

If changes are what you seek, do it with the rules set in the US Constitution. Have a constitutional convention--if you think there are "errors"--change them. Good luck getting 2/3 of all states to agree, and that is also no excuse for judicial activism. Judicial activism is not valid institutional change and creates simply candidates for impeachment.

JK

[Brown]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
You folks need to attend your local Jefferson-Hamilton debate!

27 Nov Denver

26 Mar Seattle26 Mar ... 2004?

Clay will be there, right?

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by Brown
26 Mar ... 2004?

Clay will be there, right?

No, this year, in about a month. Yes, Clay and I will debate at the Seattle Public Library (I think, it may be a different venue, but I'll find out) See www.hamiltonlives.com/events.htm

and the Library's link, http://www.spl.org/wacentbook/livinghistory.html

[hammegk]

Originally posted by WMT1


As a variation on something someone posted earlier, try imagining a President specifically claiming there is no God, and finding new ways to essentially express the same view in speech after speech, in his capacity as President. Think about how you (or at least many others) might react to such a pattern, and that might give you some indication of the problem.

If atheists/materialists ever manage to find a suitable Presidential candidate & get him/her/it elected, I'll put up with it, ok?

Meanwhile, you could try holding your breath 'til we get someone in the job you like. Or, maybe some secular humanistic EU country might be more to your liking. None of the leadership there talk much about God.

Or, lastly, tough nookies. ;)

[Pyrrho]

It doesn't matter, because politicians have shown time and time again that they're willing to adopt or throw aside religious beliefs as it suits their purposes.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Does this really matter? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20030218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_faith)

Hi Hal,

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, just an average American. My reading of the that document makes me believe that the intention was that the government should stay out of the business of religion and that religion should stay out of the business of governing.

In our republic, our law makers and the president can hold whatever personal opinions/beliefs that they like concerning religion. Just as you and I can.

The president, as a private citizen, can express his personal beliefs. He should be able to. Otherwise, we deny him one of the freedoms we claim to hold near and dear.

In his role as President, however, many expect him to pick and choose his remarks carefully to avoid saying anything which would sound like an endorsement of one set of religious beliefs. You and I may or may not believe what he does. If we do, we are likely to find comfort in his words. If we don't, we may find them inappropriate.

The pendulum swings back and forth. It is currently swinging to the right, but it will swing back. It always does. When it is in the middle, the left and right are critical for different reasons. When it is to one side, the other side cries foul.

But his words are just words. His beliefs are relatively harmless until they direct policy.

I am concerned when he talks of churches distributing "food and assistance" to those in need. Perhaps these churches will simply act in good faith (pun unintended) and distribute this assistance without conditions or using it as a marketing opportunity to the needy.

If they wish to preach to the needy, that is fine. This is a (relatively) free country. But when acting as agents of the state, they *must* act as an agent of the state - one that doesn't push its own agenda.

Even if these churches are right and that God created the Earth and that you and I will spend eternity in damnation if we don't believe, they are still obligated to act as an agent of the state and not of their religion.

I respect their right to decline to act in this capacity if they cannot comply with the spirit of the Consititution.

Just my opinion.

Take care,
Sort:)

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by hammegk


So true. We definitely need another atheist of the Stalin type assuming power.

Oh, I didn't know you already had a Stalin type atheist as president. When was that?

Zee

[Crossbow]

Wow! This is a real first for me, so I would like to share the experience with everyone else.

Jedi Knight started off by saying:

Where in the US Constitution does it say: "Separation of Church and State"? ...

Then Crossbow responded to this question with:

Please take a peek at the first statement in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, ...

Then Jedi Knight responded to that answer with:

The First Amendment is clear. The Congress shall make no law which interferes in any way, shape or form with the establishment of religion or the prohibiting of religion. I complete agree. ...

I really think that for the first time I have actually made a factual point to him and he has accepted it. I have tried to point out several other facts to him but of course he was always thought that he is far too intelligent to recognize them, but this time is different.

So an old adage is validated once again, "There is a first time for everything".

Bye for now!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


Oh, I didn't know you already had a Stalin type atheist as president. When was that?

Zee

You must actually be French. :rolleyes:

Or if German your location seems appropriate. ;)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Wow. If it's that easy, then doesn't that make your claim (that there is no such separation) just rightist "propaganda and hysteria"?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, it is "in the middle" where it should be.

Based on what? I could just as easily make the same claim about the view that there is such a separation. Moreover, regardless of right vs. left, exactly what is it that makes the view that there is such a separation any more "propaganda and hysteria" than the view that there is not?


If you disagree with religion, no one is forcing you to agree, right?

Who the hell said I "disagree with religion"? My comments have to do with religion in government. Try and keep up.


That means it is working and is in the middle. It is not on the right.

What the hell does that mean? As nearly as I can tell, the only thing you've got to support any of this is the apparent view that any opinion of yours is, by definition, in the "middle", and anything you disagree with is, by definition, "propaganda" or "hysteria". You don't seem to accept any responsibility for actually making the case for such characterizations.


If changes are what you seek, do it with the rules set in the US Constitution. Have a constitutional convention--if you think there are "errors"--change them. Good luck getting 2/3 of all states to agree, and that is also no excuse for judicial activism. Judicial activism is not valid institutional change and creates simply candidates for impeachment.

That's nice. But you seem to responding to someone else here, since I haven't called for any changes to the Constitution. Besides, is it your position that no one should ever even question or criticize any particular behavior, or laws, or the Constitution itself, unless they are also fully prepared to take on the task you just described? If not, I'm not sure what the point of your commentary is, especially since you could have spent this time answering some fairly straightforward questions I asked about some of the earlier comments you made. But then, I do seem to recall that you do have considerable difficulty in that area.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
Then why are some of you incensed that our President is exercising *his* right of free exercise thereof?

As a variation on something someone posted earlier, try imagining a President specifically claiming there is no God, and finding new ways to essentially express the same view in speech after speech, in his capacity as President. Think about how you (or at least many others) might react to such a pattern, and that might give you some indication of the problem.

If atheists/materialists ever manage to find a suitable Presidential candidate & get him/her/it elected, I'll put up with it, ok?

Does "put up with it" mean you would keep your mouth shut about it, and completely refrain from expressing any criticism whatsoever? If so, I guess you're not much for standing up for your principles when they're unpopular, are you?

Moreover, regardless of how you would react, do you think others would simply keep quiet about it? And if they didn't, would you be asking them why they were "incensed that our President is exercising *his* right of free exercise thereof"?

(The above questions were not rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested in your answer to each of them.)


Meanwhile, you could try holding your breath 'til we get someone in the job you like.

No thanks. I think I'll continue to question support for religion in government whenever I encounter it.


Or, maybe some secular humanistic EU country might be more to your liking.

I never cease to be amazed that some people still seem to think variations on the old "love it or leave it" mantra are sound responses to criticism, particularly in this forum. But in any case, this is my country, and I prefer to stay here and challenge the idiotic reasoning behind the things that are wrong with it.


None of the leadership there talk much about God.

And if you're talking about government leaders, they shouldn't here either, at least not in their capacity as government leaders.


Or, lastly, tough nookies.

Are these kinds of comments meant to cover for your inability to defend your views with sound arguments?

[ABBY-NORMAL]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Thomas Jefferson also wrote many letters about his desired European-only agrarian nation-state system. We didn't take that advice seriously as a nation, did we? ...

If special interest groups are really annoyed about religious expression, organize and promote a constitutional convention and change it. Just keep in mind that as those groups seek changes, many, many conservative groups will seek their own. That is why the 2/3's test is such a high hurdle and why no sane politician seeks a referendum on a constitutional change.

JK

I do not, in essence, disagree with any of these statements. My original post was merely a correction to your post which claimed the SOCAS was not the original intention of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson stated very clearly, in his own words, that it was precisely his intention, AND he was a founding father. If your original claim was that "SOCAS was the original intention of at least some of the founding fathers, but the original intention of the founding fathers is no longer relevant", then I would not have disagreed with you. Whether the constitution should be interpreted according to the original intentions of the framers, or from a more contemporary point of view is a matter of opinion. I tend to choose whichever interpretation best serves my personal political leanings at the time. :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by WMT1


Are these kinds of comments meant to cover for your inability to defend your views with sound arguments?

More correctly my unwillingness to even attempt rational discussion with you. On this issue, I know where you stand, you know my beliefs on the matter.

And I state now your reasoned arguments will not have me agreeing with you on the matter. Have at someone else. :rolleyes:

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Are these kinds of comments meant to cover for your inability to defend your views with sound arguments?

Originally posted by hammegk
More correctly my unwillingness to even attempt rational discussion with you.

In this case, both descriptions seem to fit. You sounded off first, and I'm attempting to have a rational discussion with you about the statements you made. Unfortunately, as soon as you encounter serious challenges to your statements, you seem to want to run away from them. Such is the case with most people who support things like religion in government. Doesn't speak well for that point of view, does it?


On this issue, I know where you stand, you know my beliefs on the matter.

Yeah, and one of us is obviously willing to subject our beliefs to the scrutiny of debate, and one of us is not.


And I state now your reasoned arguments will not have me agreeing with you on the matter.

Well, if nothing else, at least you're admitting to your rejection of reasoned arguments. Can't say I've seen many people do that.


Have at someone else.

Actually, you were the one who asked "Then why are some of you incensed that our President is exercising *his* right of free exercise thereof?", and I was trying to help clear up your confusion. Were you only pretending to want an answer?

[JAR]

Originally posted by LeFevre


I am glad Odin gives such gifts.

I don't practice any religion, but I had a good laugh over that Odin thing.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by WMT1

blah,blah,blah

Have you recently cranked up a sockpuppet? If not, you & Unas will have a lot of laughs; just not with me. :eek:

[Oso]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Does this really matter? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20030218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_faith)

Yes. It shows we have a president making decisions at least partialy based on his belief in magic.
Oso

I'm from Texas and proud to say I've never voted for a Bush.

[Oso]

Originally posted by LeFevre

I am glad Odin gives such gifts.


Hey, I happen to be a lineal descendant of Odin (seriously) and we never gave nuthin away.

[fishbob]

The Faith Based Initiative is a new agenda that seeks to capitalize on the extensive networks that Churches possess to assist in the welfare responsibilities of the citizens. Churches and those types of groups, since they are housed at the community level, are much more efficient at handling the issues of the downtrodden moreso than a federal bureaucracy that employs lazy bureaucrats. True enough, but the Feds are not going to pass out funds to the churches with no strings attached. And those strings are likely to diminish the intended functions of the churches, and their efficiencies at handling the issues of the downtrodden. No lazy bureaucrats are going to lose jobs over this.

The gubmint has taken responsibility for welfare, has collected the taxes to pay for it, and is now trying to pass off the responsibility to others.

The trade off for inefficient government is supposed to be equal protection for the population. The trade off for efficiency at the local level is selective assistance to the constituents of the local church.

[Unas]

Originally posted by hammegk
Have you recently cranked up a sockpuppet? If not, you & Unas will have a lot of laughs; just not with me.
In the past two days, hammegk has demonstrated clearly that he is uninterested in rational discussion, nor in backing up his claims with facts.

[repcon]

[qoute]hal bidlack You folks need to attend your local Jefferson-Hamilton debate![/quote]

When are you coming to the boston area?

[American]

NO!

What matters is one's ability to break a bottle over one's own head. I recommend wearing a baseball cap and (if you're a real cheat) peeling the label back and scoring the side of the bottle with a metal file, thus helping the bottle to break, rather than your own empty skull for attempting such a feat.


In summary, this is a non-issue. I concur.

[gnome]

In an of itself, I don't believe the President's comments raise a constitutional issue. They remain within the bounds of individual expression.

BUT... I am troubled by it, for a much simpler reason. How trustworty is the person that prays the loudest? What have they got to prove? And what have they got to hide?

I don't trust politicians that wave their bibles because I believe most of them couldn't give two figs about it, and just know that it gets votes, as does waving the flag and looking in their thesaurus for more superlatives to express their opposition to universally abhorrent acts like blowing up babies. I'm not impressed.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Judeo-Christian-Deist is still top-dog at 80+% in the USA so far as I can see.

Ah yes because that is what determines true or false; majority opinion.

Likewise that determines whether or not the statements are in poor taste and apropriate as well.

Basically what you are saying is that you'd rather have a preacher then a president.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Ah yes because that is what determines true or false; majority opinion.



No, that determines the current political reality all of us must live within. True/false is a different kettle of fish.

[DialecticMaterialist]

No, that determines the current political reality all of us must live within.

And the fact that it is poor taste and marginalizes a large group of people does not?

Again if an atheist was elected president and kept making reference to our "godless" nation, would you take offense?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


And the fact that it is poor taste and marginalizes a large group of people does not?
Life is bitch, and then you die. Doggonit.

In poor taste by the definition of what "large group"?

Again if an atheist was elected president and kept making reference to our "godless" nation, would you take offense?
Again, herding cats will be easier than atheists getting an atheist elected to the Presidency.

Logicians seem fond of impossible-to-accomplish Hypotheticals.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk

Again, herding cats will be easier than atheists getting an atheist elected to the Presidency.


Lol...that one cracked me up. Can I use it? I will credit you..:)

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Again if an atheist was elected president and kept making reference to our "godless" nation, would you take offense?

I imagine that they would accuse him of abusing his position as president by using it to spread his atheism.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk


Judeo-Christian-Deist is still top-dog at 80+% in the USA so far as I can see.

...

No, that [majority opinion] determines the current political reality all of us must live within.

...

Again, herding cats will be easier than atheists getting an atheist elected to the Presidency.




Has anyone failed to notice that poor hammegk is so inept at defending his views based on their merit that he has to rely almost exclusively on commentary about their popularity?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by WMT1


Has anyone failed to notice that poor hammegk is so inept at defending his views based on their merit that he has to rely almost exclusively on commentary about their popularity?

Yup, unlike some I could name here who make no views known, but rather throw snide comments from the sidelines. :rolleyes:

PS. Please go start a question-only thread for you & Unas-Anus.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Has anyone failed to notice that poor hammegk is so inept at defending his views based on their merit that he has to rely almost exclusively on commentary about their popularity?

Originally posted by hammegk
Yup, unlike some I could name here who make no views known, but rather throw snide comments from the sidelines.

Of course, at first I thought you might be trying to convey the impression that this applied to me, but then I remembered that you yourself admitted "I know where you stand" earlier in this thread, and in fact used it as an excuse to dodge any meaningful debate.

Besides, anyone familiar with both of us will have no trouble whatsoever determining which of us is prepared to defend the views he expresses, and which of us is prone to making "snide comments from the sidelines".

[hammegk]

Yup, and plonk again. This IS fun.

Have fun defending your "views".

[kittynh]

OK, don't mean to give away my age, but when I was just an egg I remember hearing a lot about Reagan and his use of psychics and astrologers. this kind of worried me at the time, but I hadn't truly embraced my skeptic nature (I was only an egg for goodness sake!)

But I think that worries me more than Mr.Bush being a bit nonconsiliatory toward the fastest growing religious group in the US - muslims. I think I would be a little more tactful, as what he says is being scruntized by the whole world, and a lot of that world has different religious beliefs that are worthy of respect.

But, he has the same freedom of speech as the rest of us.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Life is bitch, and then you die. Doggonit.

LOL. So why are you on this board whining about atheists and critics?

In poor taste by the definition of what "large group"?

Atheists,humanists,secularists,those who are not Xians.



Again, herding cats will be easier than atheists getting an atheist elected to the Presidency.

Logicians seem fond of impossible-to-accomplish Hypotheticals.

Yeah cause they illustrate hypcorcisy in some cases.

In any event: Logicians may be fond of "impossible" hypotheticas but sneaks seem fond of avoiding the question.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


LOL. So why are you on this board whining about atheists and critics?

Whining? Er, ok, if you say so. :)

I thought most of the time I'm laughing at, but bow in this case to your superior analysis of the facts.



Atheists,humanists,secularists,those who are not Xians.

As some here keep telling me, bring some data to back up your claim. Oh I know it's great fun to think in the us/them trouble here you have the status of a "major group". What numbers are you using?

(Damn, this is fun. :rolleyes: )


cause they illustrate hypcorcisy in some cases.

In any event: Logicians may be fond of "impossible" hypotheticas but sneaks seem fond of avoiding the question.

Hypotheticals may work and have worked ok for Scientific Theorizing, but have zero merit when you pretend you will predict human reactions to hot-button topics, imnsho, of course. Would you care to back up your claim of hypothetical & logical analysis of such a situation that brought (en)light(enment) rather than heat to the discussion?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
I thought most of the time I'm laughing at

Don't you find it the least bit embarrassing that, when you're laughing at others, it's fairly obvious to everyone else that you're doing it to deflect attention from your own incompetence at the stuff that counts?

As some here keep telling me, bring some data to back up your claim.

Actually, some of us would consider it a fairly major step forward if you could just learn to answer a simple question in a straightforward manner.

[hammegk]

My mistake. I cheated on my Ignore List & looked at WMT1's post. Same old, same old.

If he has ever taken a stance I've missed it.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
My mistake. I cheated on my Ignore List & looked at WMT1's post. Same old, same old.

If he has ever taken a stance I've missed it.

Then what did you mean when you said "I know where you stand" - you know, back when you were dodging questions earlier in this thread?

[hammegk]

I'll just guess. Same old ****....

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'll just guess. Same old ****....

Funny, that's pretty much how the rest of us feel about your posts.

[shanek]

Quite frankly, I don't understand why Christians are so gung ho about having the government accept their religion and act upon it, given the astounding way that government completely screws up everything else...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by shanek
Quite frankly, I don't understand why Christians are so gung ho about having the government accept their religion and act upon it...
Quite frankly, there may be a number of things you don't understand. The fact that God in the pledge is not specifically an Xian's Jehovah is one of them.


given the astounding way that government completely screws up everything else...
What astounds me is way folks of your ilk - who have food, shelter, transport, freedom, etc -- bitch about how bad the government treats, who? you?

You would prefer full socialism, perhaps -- everyone equally miserable? Oh, I forgot; I think you are a Libertarian, so socialism isn't it. What *do* you want, other than freedom to exercise your right to bitch. Is my freedom to tell you, imo, how full of it you are ok too?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Whining? Er, ok, if you say so.

I thought most of the time I'm laughing at, but bow in this case to your superior analysis of the facts.

Ah yes because it is so wrong to try and analyse facts instead of giving dull comments which are supposed to be witty.



As some here keep telling me, bring some data to back up your claim.

Back up what claim? That atheists/secularists and humanists don't like hearing their president preach? Go to secularhumanism.com or american atheist for that. This really is a matter of basic reasoning friend, not study.


Oh I know it's great fun to think in the us/them trouble here you have the status of a "major group". What numbers are you using?

Well the CIA world factbook good enough for you?



http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

According to it about 10 percent of americans have no religion.

Meaning there are more nonreligious folk in the US then there are asians. Another 4 percent adhere to a religion other then mainstream christianity and judaism. That's what? 12 percent who would be marginaized via Bushe's Xian preaching. A fair sized groupof people I should say.

(Damn, this is fun. )

Ah yes and the wit of your statements is so powerful. I can't help but laugh....at how dull and clumsy your rhetoric really is.




Hypotheticals may work and have worked ok for Scientific Theorizing, but have zero merit when you pretend you will predict human reactions to hot-button topics, imnsho, of course.

Why? We as human beings do it all the time.

Also I wasn't even making a prediction, I was asking you what your response would be...are you incapable of making a prediction about your own reaction?


Would you care to back up your claim of hypothetical & logical analysis of such a situation that brought (en)light(enment) rather than heat to the discussion?

Well its more a matter of a priori reasoning concerning human nature and how people react. I likewise know if you took a **** in the middle of a nice parade you would get negative responses-no need for hard statistics to support such a view. Perhaps you merely don't know how to distinguish between noncontroversial claims,which fit well with background knowledge and need little support and questionable claims which don't fit in quite as well with background knowledge and need more support?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Ah yes because it is so wrong to try and analyse facts instead of giving dull comments which are supposed to be witty.
Sure, if you say so.


Back up what claim? That atheists/secularists and humanists don't like hearing their president preach? Go to secularhumanism.com or american atheist for that. This really is a matter of basic reasoning friend, not study.

Well the CIA world factbook good enough for you?

According to it about 10 percent of americans have no religion.
Congratulations. You finally got to the Claim of "major group". Do you contend that all 10% agree with you & your buddies? Again, prove it.


Meaning there are more nonreligious folk in the US then there are asians. Another 4 percent adhere to a religion other then mainstream christianity and judaism. That's what? 12 percent who would be marginaized via Bushe's Xian preaching. A fair sized groupof people I should say.
Yup 10+4=12 in my book. Also prove why you speak for that added 4%.


Ah yes and the wit of your statements is so powerful. I can't help but laugh....at how dull and clumsy your rhetoric really is.
You got me there. I admit it.


Why? We as human beings do it all the time. What do ya'all call that: Mob appeal?

Also I wasn't even making a prediction, I was asking you what your response would be...
You already got my "response"; you just didn't like it.

are you incapable of making a prediction about your own reaction?
To a meaningful case I do so from time to time.


Well its more a matter of a priori reasoning concerning human nature and how people react. I likewise know if you took a **** in the middle of a nice parade you would get negative responses-no need for hard statistics to support such a view. Perhaps you merely don't know how to distinguish between noncontroversial claims,which fit well with background knowledge and need little support and questionable claims which don't fit in quite as well with background knowledge and need more support?
You mean like your claim that 12% of the population care a whit about the words "under god", and in fact support your further claim that the words are harmful to your well-being?

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by shanek
Quite frankly, I don't understand why Christians are so gung ho about having the government accept their religion and act upon it, given the astounding way that government completely screws up everything else...

Because Christianity seeks to dominate every aspect of human existence, which is why it's so important to maintain separation of church and state, and why even the smallest inroad by Christianity should be considered the 'thin end of the wedge.'

[DialecticMaterialist]

Congratulations. You finally got to the Claim of "major group". Do you contend that all 10% agree with you & your buddies? Again, prove it.

Well I'm failry sure nonreligious americans don't like having the president preach about god....





Yup 10+4=12 in my book. Also prove why you speak for that added 4%.

Well I presumed about half would be monotheist. The other Buddhists and such would probably take offense.




What do ya'all call that: Mob appeal?

Total non seq.

You already got my "response"; you just didn't like it.

Well you did respond technically but it doesn't take a geniius to figure out that I was asking not just for a random response but to an actual answer to my question....


To a meaningful case I do so from time to time.

Ah yes and I imagine a meaningful case is one you are comfortable with....how conveniant.


You mean like your claim that 12% of the population care a whit about the words "under god", and in fact support your further claim that the words are harmful to your well-being?

Did I ever say they were harmful to my well being? You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Basically Hammer you are playing a game-i.e. you don't like proving your claims I imagine-like atheism is a religion. Hence you ask for proof for something rather obvious(for lack of anything better to say)-then when given some proof declare it "not good enough." For rather arbitrary reasons.

But to turn the tables around, do you have any proof that nobody really cares?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Well I'm failry sure nonreligious americans don't like having the president preach about god....
Cool. As I am fairly sure a very large percentage don't mind. So what.

The other Buddhists and such would probably take offense.
If I wanted to go with an organizational view, Buddhism is high on my list. I still haven't decided why so many people find Buddhism atheistic. Buddhists don't "take offense" anyway.


Well you did respond technically but it doesn't take a geniius to figure out that I was asking not just for a random response but to an actual answer to my question....
Ummmm, yeah, I often don't get what I want either.

Did I ever say they were harmful to my well being? You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
If the words are not harmful to your well-being why do you care?

Basically Hammer you are playing a game-i.e. you don't like proving your claims I imagine-like atheism is a religion. Hence you ask for proof for something rather obvious(for lack of anything better to say)-then when given some proof declare it "not good enough." For rather arbitrary reasons.

But to turn the tables around, do you have any proof that nobody really cares?
Whatever -- BTW it's hammegk --.

A game. Oh, like posting on a bulletin board in anonymity? ;)

And sorry, your claim; you prove it. (Damn this is fun!)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Cool. As I am fairly sure a very large percentage don't mind. So what.

Well chico I'd like you to prove that. ;)


If I wanted to go with an organizational view, Buddhism is high on my list. I still haven't decided why so many people find Buddhism atheistic. Buddhists don't "take offense" anyway.

Buddhism is atheistic, you are obviously ignorant of the religion.



Ummmm, yeah, I often don't get what I want either.

Here I completely agree with you.


If the words are not harmful to your well-being why do you care?

There's more at stake then my health bud, maybe because I don't believe its apropriate to use your political office to preach.....that sounds a bit like government favoritism to religion doesn't it?


Whatever -- BTW it's hammegk --.

Gee so sorry about the confusion chica.

A game. Oh, like posting on a bulletin board in anonymity?

Yes I remember playing games like that as well....then I turned 8.

And sorry, your claim; you prove it. (Damn this is fun!)

Already did. Now its your turn. Tit for tat pal.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk
You would prefer full socialism, perhaps -- blah blah blah blah blah

I would prefer a system that works. And that ain't government, except for a very few things, and even then you have to keep an eye on them.

You wanna know what I want? Read the Constitution sometime. It's obviously a document you're not familiar with.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Scorpy
Because Christianity seeks to dominate every aspect of human existence, which is why it's so important to maintain separation of church and state, and why even the smallest inroad by Christianity should be considered the 'thin end of the wedge.'

My point is that if they really wanted Christianity to dominate, the last place they should go is government, because government's just going to mess it up until what you have is something that doesn't really represent Christianity at all.

The real truth of the matter is that the forces behind this are really motivated by power, and they're duping gullible Christians into believing it's all for them.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Well chico I'd like you to prove that. ;)
Right after you back up your claim, mmmkay?
And, chico? Oh that hurts.

Buddhism is atheistic, you are obviously ignorant of the religion.

So you contend. I agree wholly with your right to have that opinion.

There's more at stake then my health bud, maybe because I don't believe its apropriate to use your political office to preach.....that sounds a bit like government favoritism to religion doesn't it?
Oh, I always thought well-being was more a mental issue. You do seem quite disturbed imo. ;)


Gee so sorry about the confusion chica.
Yeah I know, spelling is difficult for some. Copying seems to be involved though, and that happens less frequently.

Yes I remember playing games like that as well....then I turned 8.

Good luck for the upcoming big 1 0. :)

Already did. Now its your turn. Tit for tat pal.
Well, doggone it I just disagree; you remain the 12% (unproved) claimant.

And I don't really look for "pals" here; thanks anyway.

Originally posted by shanek

Read the Constitution sometime. It's obviously a document you're not familiar with.
Actually what is "obvious" is that we don't agree on the meaning of certain sections. And I'm upfront about it. You are not going to convince me that your reading is the only possible, correct, interpretation.

Anyway, SCOTUS does have some actual authority in that regard. I don't like a number of the more recent decisions, but sense some return towards less liberal rulings. If I'm right, you can live with it, as I currently do, while exercising our rights of free speech.

[DialecticMaterialist]

LOL. I really hope that last post was a joke as it was utterly devoid of reason. Maybe this is a sign of the sort of mental atrophy that leads one to suspect that atheism is a religion....

And that "seperation of church and state" does not mean seperation of church and state.....

[hammegk]

Does that mean you think "seperation(sic) of church & state" is in the Constitution?

What you don't understand is the meaning of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

What grade are you in, DiaMat?

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk
Does that mean you think "seperation(sic) of church & state" is in the Constitution?

Because it is.

What you don't understand is the meaning of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

This has nothing to do with "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and everything to do with "respecting an establishment of religion," which is the part you don't seem to understand.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Good call Shanek.

Seriously how many ways are there to interpret Jefferson's statement concerning a "wall of separation between church and state"?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Seriously how many ways are there to interpret Jefferson's statement concerning a "wall of separation between church and state"?

Note to DiaMat -- not in Constitution.

Meaning: no US religious institution like the 17th-18th century Church of Engand that had it's fingers in the political spoils.

Under God doesn't qualify imnsho. It's 'under men' that worries me. Fanatics of evert persuasion who have the ONLY RIGHT WAY.

Something like many materialists/atheists, who are the final answer to all problems; i.e. God, in their own minds. So what's the problem be under & praying to yourself? Doesn't work maybe?

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk
Note to DiaMat -- not in Constitution.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

That's Thomas Jefferson writing to the Danbury Baptist Association. It's considered "separation of church and state" BY THE VERY MAN WHO WROTE THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

Meaning: no US religious institution like the 17th-18th century Church of Engand that had it's fingers in the political spoils.

No; meaning no respecting any establishment of religion AT ALL!

Fanatics of evert persuasion who have the ONLY RIGHT WAY.

Sounds to me like you just described yourself.

So what's the problem be under & praying to yourself?

Who does this???

[hammegk]

Originally posted by shanek


That's Thomas Jefferson writing to the Danbury Baptist Association. It's considered "separation of church and state" BY THE VERY MAN WHO WROTE THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

Yeah, but Duh! Those words are not in it! Even if they were we would be having the same discussion.



No; meaning no respecting any establishment of religion AT ALL!


LOL. Unfortunately for me anyway, SCOTUS has never asked for my opinion on what a ruling should be. What did you tell them last time they asked you?



Sounds to me like you just described yourself.
Yeah, and holders of every "100% sure belief" from materialist/atheist to the other end of the spectrum which I posit as Idealism. For myself I'm an Agnostic Idealist(i.e. NOT 100%).

Who does this???

Materialists/atheists don't "pray/comtemplate/meditate"? OK.

What do you have besides ego? Ummm, the egotists' version of Morality of Secular Humanism ( book underway by one of the posters here as I recall )? Newton? Einstein? Bohr? Heisenberg? I don't know. ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, but Duh! Those words are not in it! Even if they were we would be having the same discussion.

Those exact words may not be in it, but the concept certainly is. You have the testament of that from the man that wrote it.

LOL. Unfortunately for me anyway, SCOTUS has never asked for my opinion on what a ruling should be. What did you tell them last time they asked you?

Irrelevant blathering from someone who's obviously completely unable to substantiate his position.

Yeah, and holders of every "100% sure belief" from materialist/atheist to the other end of the spectrum which I posit as Idealism.

Sounds like projection to me.

Materialists/atheists don't "pray/comtemplate/meditate"?

I don't claim to speak for other atheists (unlike you), but I certainly don't.

What do you have besides ego?

It's called a "brain." You might want to try using yours sometime.

[Oso]

Originally posted by hammegk
Under God doesn't qualify imnsho. It's 'under men' that worries me. Fanatics of evert persuasion who have the ONLY RIGHT WAY.

The proper replacement for under god is indivisible not under men

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Oso


The proper replacement for under god is indivisible not under men


Great point! Atheists aren't suggesting that "under God" be replaced with wording that affirms their atheistic beliefs. They just want the reference to god removed because they consider it an establishment of religion.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by shanek


Those exact words may not be in it, but the concept certainly is. You have the testament of that from the man that wrote it.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

Irrelevant blathering from someone who's obviously completely unable to substantiate his position.
Er, as compared to your purple prose, unsubstantiated by anything other than *your* opinion?


Sounds like projection to me.
You forgot my next sentence.
Yeah, and holders of every "100% sure belief" from materialist/atheist to the other end of the spectrum which I posit as Idealism. For myself I'm an Agnostic Idealist(i.e. NOT 100%)."

Speak for yourself, ok? Are YOU a 100% er?


I don't claim to speak for other atheists (unlike you), but I certainly don't.
Oh, ok. If it's "just you" why don't you go convince the world (or at least the judicial system) that things must be changed to suit your individual tastes?


It's called a "brain." You might want to try using yours sometime.
When do you intend to start?


Great point! Atheists aren't suggesting that "under God" be replaced with wording that affirms their atheistic beliefs.

Dear Scorpy & Oso, it might be a great point but it has nothing to do with I meant: That is, I wasn't referring to word replacement in a phrase, rather to real geopolitics. Think Stalin, etc.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

You are such a putz. Anyone can see that it is you who were wrong, not I.

Er, as compared to your purple prose, unsubstantiated by anything other than *your* opinion?

I cited references to back me up. You cited nothing.

Speak for yourself, ok? Are YOU a 100% er?

No, but you obviously are, no matter how much you blather to the contrary. You even said I admitted you were right when I had proved you wrong!

Oh, ok. If it's "just you" why don't you go convince the world (or at least the judicial system) that things must be changed to suit your individual tastes?

More projection. I don't think things should be changed to suit the tastes of any individual, like when "Under God" was added into the pledge as part of McCarthyism.

When do you intend to start?

Been using mine all my life.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by shanek

Been using mine all my life.
Keep trying, maybe you'll get better with more practice. You might even be able to go back and decipher what was said rather than erroneously declaring "Victory".

Why don't you cite the part of the Constitution that contains the words "separation of church and state". Doofus.


As I said before, you have an opinion, not shared by many other people, with nothing to substantiate that opinion.

[mindless]

Im not sure what the diferent percentages are between the religions in the USA but im gonna hazard a guess that christianity is one of the biggest. Is bush doing this to get the votes from the highest demographic?

maybe he wants to start a christian jihad movement of his own :)

[Oso]

Originally posted by hammegk
Dear Scorpy & Oso, it might be a great point but it has nothing to do with I meant: That is, I wasn't referring to word replacement in a phrase, rather to real geopolitics. Think Stalin, etc. Yeah religions don't have a monopoly on destructive behavior. This is the very reason our constitution is so worthy of respect. It is a secular document written by men, the continuation of a process begun by the Magna Charta. I will not deny that the church was an equal partner in essentially extorting it from King John I in 1215. The Bill of Rights of 1689 had much less, if any, need for church support, and our constitution makes the final step of seperation.

Of course in fact no document has ever been written that is anything other than the words of man.

[Scorpy]

Dear Scorpy & Oso, it might be a great point but it has nothing to do with I meant: That is, I wasn't referring to word replacement in a phrase, rather to real geopolitics. Think Stalin, etc.

This discussion is about separation of church and state. Stalin didn't believe in separating church and state. He believed the state should wipe the church off the face of the earth. He is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk
Why don't you cite the part of the Constitution that contains the words "separation of church and state".

Already quoted Jefferson, who wrote the language used, as saying it constitutes a wall of separation between church and state. And you know it.

Doofus.

Back atcha.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Why don't you cite the part of the Constitution that contains the words "separation of church and state".

He did halfwit. LOL. Now you are down to denying the obvious-Orwellian style.

Seriously the Founding fathers were very specific about their language, going through drafts of th Constitution. If they just meant "we don't want a National Church" they would have said that. Instead they said "government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Not establishing a religion but respecting the establishment of religion.

[hammegk]

What is so difficult for you dunces to agree that The Words "separation of church and state" DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION -- which is what I've said from the beginning.

Enough for me; enjoy your circle jerk, mmmkay?

[DialecticMaterialist]

What a phucking child.....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
What a phucking child.....
Nah, I just tire of conversing with idiots like yourself. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk
What is so difficult for you dunces to agree that The Words "separation of church and state" DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION -- which is what I've said from the beginning.

Why is it so difficult for you to get the idea that IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE EXACT WORDS APPEAR BECAUSE THE CONCEPT DOES?????