[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What "clause" would that be?

Well to name one, the "No Religious Test Clause".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There is no constitutional basis for such a seperation.

Article 6, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That is a form of Separation of Church & State, and it is within the Constitution. Argue about it all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is although the specific phrase isn't in there, the principles/ideas of the phrase are. Similarly, nowhere in the Constitution will you find phrases "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does that mean no citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Or that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision? Of course not. The absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. To put it bluntly, the right to a fair trial is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise (and I only consider the moral aspect here because you seem so hell-bent on always talking about them, even though they are really quite useless in a debate or in real life because you will always have people with different moral opinions and beliefs around you).

Furthermore, this is what the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Nothing is mentioned in there about a "fair trial"- but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials, that being public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thusly so, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional. It's a simple matter of law and logic.


Additionally, the courts have found that the principles of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

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

Again, separating religious beliefs from state affairs. Try and spin it how you want, but the words and ideas of the Framers are spelled out quite clearly there.

To cite something outside of the Constitution that further signifies that the United States holds true these beliefs, I also call to your attention the Treaty of Tripoli's statement that:

{Article 11} As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

People THINK their is because they are ill informed.

Oh the irony runs as thick as a vein of curd here.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its ideal originates in a Supreme Court decision that used a personal letter from Jefferson to the Danville Baptists that had the phrase. The decision referenced that phrase in an attempt to ramrod such a seperation into being.

Well as you can see above, that's not the case. But persist if you wish. It's your right to, no matter how wrong it may be. It was also the DanBURY Bapists, BTW.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The phrase as used by Jefferson was simply a reference to the fact that government should not mandate a religion, not that religious views (or people) should be excluded from recognition or acceptance in governance of the country.

This is somewhat incorrect (but not totally). As far as law interpretation is concerned, it is incorrect however. Jefferson's writings have been used as, for the last two centuries, a means for making legal rulings, by courts in all jurisdictions. In the 1879 decision of Reynolds v. the United States, for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment."

The man himself didn't see the letter as an unimportant one. He had Levi Lincoln, the attorney general under him at the time, review it to him before he sent it. Jefferson even told Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."


The letter itself has a clear connection to the First Amendment. Even the phrase "wall of separation" stands as a direct testament and reference to it (does the specific quote from the Constitution ring any bells up there for you?). He meant it to have a larger political meaning. This is not a matter of opinion, but one of historical fact and logic. And an excellent example of why would be his efforts to eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that:


...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...


But don't confuse me on this, I know full and well that he was not an Atheist, just as you k now full and well that he was not a Christian. He was a self-professed Deist.

Originally Posted by August

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your professional foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of.


There was also her interview with Charlie Gibson where she discussed Russia, but that yielded fewer lulz. The SNL skit certainly delivered however.

Originally Posted by August

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Actually, there is such a thing as Conservative Democrats, which are on the right side of the spectrum. But you just forgot about them... right?

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

*random pictures of ducks*

Do you ever contribute anything more than just image macros to a debate, or is it that you in fact have nothing to contribute? I'm guessing it's that you have nothing to contribute, yet you feel the need to get your political beliefs in there somehow- be it in a rational manner or not.

Anyway, you would be wise to note that National Socialism is generally a right-wing political system (as in there are more right-wing ideas it incorporates than left-wing ones), though it denotes its beliefs from both sides of the spectrum. But don't take my word for it. Try our beloved Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.

Take note of the latter, if you'd kindly.