White house chastises media !

[SteamWake]

Ya cant yell 'FIRE' ! in a theater I tell you...

[Platapus]

But you CAN yell "Theater" in a crowded fire.....

Although why one would want to do so escapes me.. But you do have the right!

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You say this somehow states that a man cannot use, as a basis for his decisions as a governmet official, his own religious beliefs? In fact, it says exactly the opposite - that while government may not REQUIRE a man to support any worship, it also has no right to REQUIRE a man to NOT have his own opinions that may be based on his religious stance.

The Danbury Baptists wanted free of extreme oppression, and they were being discriminated against to the point where members were being beaten and exiled from the community. And this is exactly what Jefferson is making reference to: extreme oppression. The principle of separation of church and state as the Constitution does is not endorse that kind of behavior. It does, however, maintain that the government keep religious and political affairs separate. That's all. Article 3 of the Sixth Amendment makes that point quite clear. And that's the simplicity of it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

NO religious test..... so if a man is religious, and would use his moral or ethical compass, which is often based on faith, your saying that this is a violation of the "church and state clause", when in reality your applying a "religious test" to the person simply because of his faith - which violates the clause you claim supports your position.

You fail to see the point: this is separating religion from state affairs. No religious tests shall be used as a necessary qualification for a position in service of public affairs. Again, this upholds the idea of separation of church and state. It's not hard to understand. You're making it more complex than it is.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Again - you cannot prohibit a government official from the "free exercise" of their beliefs - but the claim that there is a "wall" between church and state that is somehow sacrosanct directly contradicts the free exercise.

Outside of their office. Inside, it's a different story. For example, a principle of a public high school is an official of a state establishment. He/she has a right to exercise his/her religious beliefs freely outside of the school. Inside, however, he/she is bound by United States law which states that he/she cannot force students to pray, push a specific religious stance on them, etc. Again, they are separating his/her state affairs as an official of the of the public high school from personal religious/church affairs. You can prohibit them in this case. And it can be applied to other government offices. Now a private school is a different story. Because it's not a state establishment, you're only bound by what the officials of it have set in place.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The only way you could have total seperation of church and state is if government was restricted to those who identify themselves as athiests, and even then, some could argue that athiesm is nothing but the religion of "no god".

You misunderstand the primary intent of the law here: keep religion out of your line of work (I'm speaking strictly from the politician's perspective here) because the people you're working for all have different beliefs, regarding all kinds of issues; it's fine to have a personal opinion about such matters outside of the office, but inside you are not there to worship; you are there to do your duty according to the law.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief. Really not a belief in anything. Not by popular consensus, but by definition.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There is a huge difference between the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion and having people of faiths involved in government.

No, there isn't. Again you fail to see the point: all religious affairs are to be kept out of state ones. It's simple. And to be honest, it really isn't that bad of a deal. People just feel the need to push their beliefs on others. I have the utmost respect for the ones who can keep their mouths shut about their faith, but too many cannot. But the meaning of this is that the United States cannot be classified solely as a Christian nation, an Islamic nation, a Jewish nation, a Mormon nation, etc. It takes no specific stance, because that's not the purpose for it existence; just as the people who work in the infrastructure of government itself- their purpose is not to worship or carry out their religious practices while in office, but to do the duty their job demands as an important member of the state, as a gear/cog in the machine that is the nation. Outside, they're free to pray, worship, do whatever they want along the lines of religion. Inside, they are there to keep the country alive, in good shape, and with it help the people to whatever ends.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You can try and twist it however you want, but NO religious test means exactly that.

You're running just off the title, not what the full clause says. The simple fact of the matter is that clause (a verified legal document) combined with Article 3 of the Sixth Amendment (a supreme legal document) makes it quite clear that separation of church and state is to be held in high regard as inherent law.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It should also be noted, since you bring up the Treaty of Tripoli, that Article 11 of said treaty in reality does not exist as claimed.

"As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."

This is a quote directly from the notes of one Hunter Miller, who was commissioned by the US Government to analyze the treaty in 1931.

You may find the information here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp

You're forgetting that it's not the Arabic version that was presented to, read aloud to, and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate. Whether or not the Arabic version states that or not is irrelevant, because the fact remains that the English Barlow copy (with Article 11 included) of the Treaty of Tripoli, preserved in Washington, D.C.'s National Archives, is the one that the Senate agreed to, and it states that:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I totally concur that the US is not a "christian" nation as many claim, the majority of the founding fathers were deists, yet there is no denying the fact that deists and christians share both a very similiar moral and ethical code that stems from common roots.

Deists ascribe to the belief that a higher power created the universe in which we reside, and then, for whatever reason that they or someone that they follow and hold in high regards, abandoned it. Moral and ethics need not be denied, because all Deists vary in their morals and ethics; all people do really. It depends on the upbringing they've had. For instance, Benjamin Franklin was not at all Christianlike in his actions; the man drank and partied all the time, he had frequent affairs while away in France, he fathered several bastard children, and he basically didn't take care any further of his family after he journeyed for the last time to Paris.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Ya cant yell 'FIRE' ! in a theater I tell you...

But there is a fire. Right there. That robot just blew up that building, and the people are running out engulfed in flames.

[August]

Well thank you for once again proving my point SH, (or Tina as the case may be ). At no time did Palin ever use the words "comment expertly".

See, the truth comes out if one digs deep enough. You Democrats,... excuse me, Social Democrats, had better not get too used to having a political majority. The American people are starting to see through you.

Originally Posted by August

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

If Joe Biden is a "known dumbass" then how would you characterize George W. Bush?

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Here August I'll explain:

Democrat:


national socialist


socialist


hope~change

Let me explain too.

GOP


Nazis


Neo-nazis

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

Well thank you for once again proving my point SH, (or Tina as the case may be ). At no time did Palin ever use the words "comment expertly".

Nope, but she is the one who was described as the professional in foreign policy experience.

Originally Posted by August

See, the truth comes out if one digs deep enough. You Democrats,... excuse me, Social Democrats, had better not get too used to having a political majority. The American people are starting to see through you.

Right, right. I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, though. But whatever. From the defensive behavior you Republicans seem to be showing on these issues (not to mention the touchiness and sensitivity) I sense your confidence in victory over the Democrats is now wavering. It is nevertheless interesting viewing the reactions from both sides in the stands.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Let me explain too.

GOP

I'm surprised you'd even acknowledge such a rhetorical and nonsensical post, Herring, but I lol'd at that pic of the camel spider.

[nikimcbee]

Speaking of white house and news media, what ever happen to the body count in the Middle East? Is it just me, or have they lost count? Atleast they can count the number of times odufus has gone golfing in the last 8 months. The thing that really makes me mad about the right currently, is the new call to withdraw. After all the time we spent beating up on the left for "cut and run", some seem awflly eager to get out of there now.

Here' my solution to the problem: I'll comprimise; Not one more troop to the region, in exchange, I want ALL ROE removed. I don't know where we went wrong on our history, that we nolonger fight to win (Except Gulf War 1) It seems like every military affair since Vietnam, we just make a half assed effort to fight. With the exception of use of NBC, get put of the way of our military leaders and let them win. All of the micro-managing just drives me crazy. You can bomb here, but not there, you must assault the city, but no air or artillery support. And then we ring our hands when we get bogged down.

It's not a partisan issue, but a national issue.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

If Joe Biden is a "known dumbass" then how would you characterize George W. Bush?

Checkmate:

Yea but Obama is not hugging the rabbit? Bush is. The mark of a clear fool.

[SteamWake]

Oh noes ! Bunny hugging is foolish !

Im going to break down in tears.. poor un loved bunnys...

Oh that reminds me !



Musta been



Back on topic

[nikimcbee]

wow this thread has such potential...better than the lolcat thread.