WTF? Bushs Thankgiving address

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those who look around the world at the countries that have established religions should be grateful that the USA is not one of them.

I can't begin to imagine why so many Americans would want religion inserted into their government, when the evidence of history shows that it is a corrosive influence for both the religion and the government.

And where are we advocating inserting religion into the gov't? That would be a violation of the First Amendment - something the left seems to think means any MENTION of the word "God"...

Well, actually it is. A state-sponsored religion is one that a state representative endorses. If that representative is on his own time, maybe not so much, but when you get to the level of Pres, if you mention anything then you are endorsing it, especioally when giving adresses to the nation.

Negative - what part of "Congress shall make no LAW (bolding and capitalization mine) regarding an establishment of religion" do you not understand?

The President (or any other government official) mentioning God is NOT making "a law regarding establishment of religion". How much more clearer can that be?

Quit trying to read nuance into it - read the words as they are put on the paper. The concept of political correctness is a recent one - you don't need to look for the "hidden meaning" behind the writings of the Founding Fathers.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

And where are we advocating inserting religion into the gov't? That would be a violation of the First Amendment - something the left seems to think means any MENTION of the word "God"...

Bush invokes (one) religion just about every time he opens his mouth. Last time I checked he was still head of the executive branch.

And again...please show how the President or any other member of the government mentioning God is against the First Amendment.

Here's the actual language, in case you need reminding:

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And please, something other than "he IS the government", please - the argument is invalid on it's face, as you well know.

The President (or any other member of the government) making mention of God is NOT:

1: Making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

2: Prohibiting the free exercise of a religion.

finis

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Make a deal with you - I'll petition the President to quit mentioning God in his speeches (thereby inhibiting HIS right to free speech) just as soon as you get Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton / etc. out of politics....

Hmmmm, a plea deal for segregation...... better look up Brown v Board of Education (seperate but equal)

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those who look around the world at the countries that have established religions should be grateful that the USA is not one of them.

I can't begin to imagine why so many Americans would want religion inserted into their government, when the evidence of history shows that it is a corrosive influence for both the religion and the government.

And where are we advocating inserting religion into the gov't? That would be a violation of the First Amendment - something the left seems to think means any MENTION of the word "God"...

Well, actually it is. A state-sponsored religion is one that a state representative endorses. If that representative is on his own time, maybe not so much, but when you get to the level of Pres, if you mention anything then you are endorsing it, especioally when giving adresses to the nation.

Negative - what part of "Congress shall make no LAW (bolding and capitalization mine) regarding an establishment of religion" do you not understand?

The President (or any other government official) mentioning God is NOT making "a law regarding establishment of religion". How much more clearer can that be?

Quit trying to read nuance into it - read the words as they are put on the paper. The concept of political correctness is a recent one - you don't need to look for the "hidden meaning" behind the writings of the Founding Fathers.

The original writing of the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) and all subsequent amendments is a foundation. The living Constitution is found in all of the legal precident from appellate courts, which is the living Constitution. A lot of people hate the idea, but it's been that way since the writing of the Constitution. So reading the verbatum text of the 1st is vague and incomplete to say the least.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Make a deal with you - I'll petition the President to quit mentioning God in his speeches (thereby inhibiting HIS right to free speech) just as soon as you get Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton / etc. out of politics....

Hmmmm, a plea deal for segregation...... better look up Brown v Board of Education (seperate but equal)

So if "ministers" can dabble in politics, then politicians can mention God... fair enough.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And where are we advocating inserting religion into the gov't? That would be a violation of the First Amendment - something the left seems to think means any MENTION of the word "God"...

Bush invokes (one) religion just about every time he opens his mouth. Last time I checked he was still head of the executive branch.

And again...please show how the President or any other member of the government mentioning God is against the First Amendment.

Here's the actual language, in case you need reminding:

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And please, something other than "he IS the government", please - the argument is invalid on it's face, as you well know.

The President (or any other member of the government) making mention of God is NOT:

1: Making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

2: Prohibiting the free exercise of a religion.

finis

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13sep20010740/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-1407r.pdf

This has to do with the palcement of written religious symbolism in government buildings, so I think verbal religious representations should carry the same weight and be prohibited.

They use the legal concept of, "The Establishment Clause." This has more to do with physical representations of Christian symbolism, but a little more research might prove fruitful.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The original writing of the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) and all subsequent amendments is a foundation. The living Constitution is found in all of the legal precident from appellate courts, which is the living Constitution. A lot of people hate the idea, but it's been that way since the writing of the Constitution. So reading the verbatum text of the 1st is vague and incomplete to say the least.

Really? Please find me the laws that say that what the Constitution says is open to interpretation, activist justices aside.

Also, please explain to me how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is "vague and incomplete". It either says that "Congress shall make no law..." or it does not. Which is it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Make a deal with you - I'll petition the President to quit mentioning God in his speeches (thereby inhibiting HIS right to free speech) just as soon as you get Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton / etc. out of politics....

Hmmmm, a plea deal for segregation...... better look up Brown v Board of Education (seperate but equal)

So if "ministers" can dabble in politics, then politicians can mention God... fair enough.

Uh, no. Ministers of the cross have zero duty to anyone, but maybe God in their minds. Politicians have a distinct duty to the peole to follow laws and in this case uphold them. The parallel you're drawing would be tantamount to saying criminals can break the law so can cops.

Also, cops can't break the law, but they can lie to criminals to get a conviction and it's US Sup Ct approved. But criminals cannot legally lie to cops. At the same time, cops cannot commit crimes to sustain the conviction.

These are not like parallels; they're very different even though the players might seem to be the same. You cannot reasonably draw this goose/gander comparison - much more complex. The church has no duty to the US Constitution, but the cops do, the gov does.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

The original writing of the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) and all subsequent amendments is a foundation. The living Constitution is found in all of the legal precident from appellate courts, which is the living Constitution. A lot of people hate the idea, but it's been that way since the writing of the Constitution. So reading the verbatum text of the 1st is vague and incomplete to say the least.

Really? Please find me the laws that say that what the Constitution says is open to interpretation, activist justices aside.

Also, please explain to me how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is "vague and incomplete". It either says that "Congress shall make no law..." or it does not. Which is it?

"Really? Please find me the laws that say that what the Constitution says is open to interpretation, activist justices aside."

"Really? Please find me the laws that say that what the Constitution says is open to interpretation, activist justices aside."

So what you're saying is that the US, under the Constitution has been operating illegally since the inception of the Constitution? Well, that's a larger issue. If you think that's the case, then you'll have to go higher than this board. Besides, define, "unreasonable searches" as prohibited in the 4th. Point is, the US Const is full of voids. Either way, sorry to advise, but the US Const has undergone interpretation since the conception of it. So your argument here is moot within the context of our argument - reason is that the constitution has been interpreted - like it or not / legal or not.

Oh, and as for activist judges, enough about the parade of clowns appointed by Reagan/Bush1. See, the right loves to call the 9th activist, but the truth is that judges on the other side are activist from the dissenting side.

Also, please explain to me how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is "vague and incomplete". It either says that "Congress shall make no law..." or it does not. Which is it?

Explain to me how the 2nd and well-regulated state militia (or something to that effect) means I can keep a gun under my pillow. Explain how the 4th is reinterpreted. Explain how prisoners can be treated differently throughout time, based on different interpretations of the 8th. Ex: 1972 Fuhrman vs. Georgia wrote that it was considered cruel and unusual that prisoners are executed with racial bias. Then in 1976, with Gregg vs. Georgia, they decided they fixed it and reinstated cap pun. I have a BS in Justice, and found that when you start talking US Const that professor's eyes roll up in their head. You need to understand that this gov will do what it wants and even issue stare decisis that contradicts each other.

Conclusion: Don't get to enamored with the US Const., even tho we reference it and use it as a standard for equal protection.

Also, legal or not, like it or not, you'll have to come to terms with the interpretations of the US Const - I'm sure you don't bitch too much when decisions go your way.

See, what the thumpers don't realize and refuse to accept is that some of these fine federal laws designed and implemented by the conservatives to do positive things are actually used against them. Great example is RICO. RICO is now used to prosecute abortion clinic protestors that block the doors to abortion clinics, hence fall under the purview of, "commerce" as is defined in RICO.

Also, please explain to me how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is "vague and incomplete". It either says that "Congress shall make no law..." or it does not. Which is it?

To give more depth into this, I would say that US Sup Ct, or any appellate court interpretations can take that any way they want. If it goes your way, the judges are fair. If it goes the other way, the judges are activists. Since the 1st doesn't make mention of public expressions of religion, AKA God, then it is therefore incomplete. The best example of the incomplete nature of the US Const is in the absence of the word, "privacy." I challenge you to find that word in there, anywhere. So the judges realized it is contemporarily important, but was left out, so they interpreted it in, like it or not.

I think to assert that the concept of privacy being unimportant and not a US Const issue is nuts. Now they have the, "Expectation of Privacy" in the living const that excludes autos, but includes houses, which is why anyone can snap your picture in a non-harassing fashion in public.

[mnealtx 0]

Ok, we're getting really deep into this, and I need to do some reading on the issues you've mentioned (thanks, btw - I'm sure there's good info in there)

Let me get back to my original question: Please explain how the President or other government officials mentioning God equates to "Congress passing a law regarding the establishment of religion".

Has the U.S. Supreme Court made some sort of ruling equating the two?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 348]

3 pages long now - wow

OK here is what we have a problem with and I think the Constitution has not much to do with it except at a high level:

If the President had sung praises to Allah in his speech, OR praises to Wiccan or praises to Judaism, OR praises to Satan...

he DEFINITELY would have offended people and bothered people and it would not have been a 'correct' thing to do.

So then why is it so difficult to understand why we have a problem with praises to God coming from the President at every public appearance?

It BOTHERS us. I do not want my government run with a Christian oversight, and references to it at every turn. I do not want "Faith-Based" initiatives on the White House governments front page and I do not want to see my tax dollars funding ANYTHING of the sort.

He either endorses ALL religions or no religions, and I prefer NO religions.

And what he does on Sunday morning or before bedtime or at the dinner table on his own time, I could care less about, but leave it at home, between him, his congregation and family.

I hope that it explains why it OFFENDS me (us).

Quote the 'consitution' and the 'law' if you like, but it is a poor way to justify the 'New Crusade' era that this country sppears to be entering.

TK

[mnealtx 0]

I'd call it more "a return to our beginnings"....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Ok, we're getting really deep into this, and I need to do some reading on the issues you've mentioned (thanks, btw - I'm sure there's good info in there)

Let me get back to my original question: Please explain how the President or other government officials mentioning God equates to "Congress passing a law regarding the establishment of religion".

Has the U.S. Supreme Court made some sort of ruling equating the two?

I think I did with the example I gave of the 2nd; explain how the language in the 2nd allows me to place a gun under my pillow. Also, in AZ, I can carry a gun in my car, loaded, but it must be in a holster; explain why I can do that here and not in many/most states? The US Const is supposed to be supreme, so how is that, "equal protection/equal rights" don't permeate to that too?

Medical marijuana - voted in by many states, the US Sup Ct overrode that, how can they?

After becoming less ignorant of the law and US Const, a person comes to the reality that the Const is just a tool of many that the gov plays with to justify what they're going to do anyway. The find their decision, then look for an amendment that works with it.

In case you didn't fully understand (not condescending here) my example and set of rhetorical questions, I'll answer it by saying that the 1st doesn't address your issue of: "Please explain how the President or other government officials mentioning God so they use the spirit of: "equates to "Congress passing a law regarding the establishment of religion".

Does that help? Since the Constitution doesn't address school vouchers, the pledge, and a million other issues, a body of some sort has to be responsible to take what is written and try to think what the founding fathers meant. Of course that's the flowery bs, as they will do what they want based upon politics and pressure, but there is so much that was missed and vaguely written that someone needs to interpret.

Again, the 4th is the most vague. The word, "uneasonable" is 100% subjective. Inthe 50's-60's there was a case where a guy swallowed a balloon of what the cops thought was heroin, they took him to the hospital and pumped his stomache - they were right, got the conviction and it was thrown out at the US Sup Ct due to that particular court thinking the process, "Shocked their conscious." The DUI laws today allow cops to get telephonic warrants to slam defendants that are unwilling to give blood, to the ground and forcibly draw it. Now I'm not looking for opinions as to whether that's a good or bad/right or wrong thing, just that what used to be abhorrent police/gov conduct is now interpreted as just fine.

Now please, tell where in the US Const it allows for the cops to fircibly draw blood. Tell me where it doesn't allow the gov to forcibly draw blood. See, your asking questions for which there are no answers. Tell me where we would decide and who would decide these questions if not for the US Sup Ct. I'm not blowing their whistle and I dislike most of what the US Sup Ct has done over the past 20 years, but tell me who is going to decide the rules if not the US Sup Ct.

Some people will say legislators, but they pass very different laws from state to state, and the idea is to have 1 America, even tho they aren't even close.

Keep the input and thx for everyone keeping it nice. LMK what you think.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

3 pages long now - wow

OK here is what we have a problem with and I think the Constitution has not much to do with it except at a high level:

If the President had sung praises to Allah in his speech, OR praises to Wiccan or praises to Judaism, OR praises to Satan...

he DEFINITELY would have offended people and bothered people and it would not have been a 'correct' thing to do.

So then why is it so difficult to understand why we have a problem with praises to God coming from the President at every public appearance?

It BOTHERS us. I do not want my government run with a Christian oversight, and references to it at every turn. I do not want "Faith-Based" initiatives on the White House governments front page and I do not want to see my tax dollars funding ANYTHING of the sort.

He either endorses ALL religions or no religions, and I prefer NO religions.

And what he does on Sunday morning or before bedtime or at the dinner table on his own time, I could care less about, but leave it at home, between him, his congregation and family.

I hope that it explains why it OFFENDS me (us).

Quote the 'consitution' and the 'law' if you like, but it is a poor way to justify the 'New Crusade' era that this country sppears to be entering.

TK

See, and that's my point exactly. When Bush or whoever talks about God, he's talking about Christianity and that becomes a state-sponsored religion. If we could reasonably believe he was talking about some generic God, then that would be a little different, but we know the deal. God/Jesus is the Pepsi-sponsored religion of choice in the US, and it's not supposed to be that way per the US Const.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm disturbed by religious fundamentalism no matter what guise it takes.

Yeah! Damn those Dead White Men (tm) anyway, for being religious and referencing God in their documents!! Who did they think they were????

I know this one..... it's too easy.... they were slave owners, rapists, and murderers. Before you get mad, you must agree it's true. They may have been the most honorable of the time, but they may not have been either.

Point here is, the government may not establish a religion, and when they push or in any way reference Christianity, they are. BTW, that's a pesky lil 1st Amend thingy....

Re-read the Amendment...that is NOT what it says, and is the point that I am debating with Kallend...

You may be, I'm debating the wisdom of mixing religion with government. Which history shows us is bad for both religion and government. Nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Seemed to work well enough, until the last, oh, 40 years or so....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Seemed to work well enough, until the last, oh, 40 years or so....

It did? Why is it, then, that the founders chose not just to avoid having an established church, but to go so far as to outlaw an established church?

I am old enough to remember speeches by Truman and Eisenhower. I don't recall their wrapping themselves in piety like Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I'd call it more "a return to our beginnings"....

Care to elaborate on those beginnings? What exactly to you mean by that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>Seemed to work well enough, until the last, oh, 40 years or so....

Odd, since it was about 50 years ago that the US decided to suck god into the pledge to distinguish ourselves from "the godless commies." It seems like it's been the last 50 years that have seen god used as just another tool of a political party. Before that. god was just a part of society (not government, society) that the government acknowledged but remained separate from.

[wmw999 2,587]

Until the last 40 years or so much of the US was more homogeneous within regions, and transportation was slower and less common. So that pretty much everyone that someone knew was like them, religion included. We didn't "need" to include God in the Pledge of Allegiance or on the money because you knew that everyone you knew went to church on Sundays, so they were all talking about the same guy. It was always OK to say grace before dinner, and assume that kids who were visiting would know the same grace.

A lot of people stayed closer to home; speed limits were in the 50's, and roads were windier and it just plain took longer to get places.

It's easier to be exposed to people who are unfamiliar now; that's uncomfortable, and it makes some folks want to legislate the world they grew up with.

That might include adding God to things that didn't include God before; it might include removing health classes from schools, or legislating the kind of science education so that it affords religion a more central role in science.

But it's not how we started either way. The country was founded on going forward to see what was out there socially, politically, and historically. Not in wrapping themselves in a warm, comfortable perception of the past.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd call it more "a return to our beginnings"....

Care to elaborate on those beginnings? What exactly to you mean by that?

Look at the change in society over the last (roughly) 30 years. (the public in GENERAL, please- I am not talking about any individual posters here) The loss of the concepts of personal responsibility, honor, glorification of drug use, denigration of religious people as "fundies" and the fact that people as a whole just don't give a shit about anything except themselves anymore (the whole "me" generation)...

Then tell me that we're so much better off as a society.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,587]

I remember the 1970's (I was even there). Drug use was common enough that the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers were part of popular culture. Marijuana was common, and acid was easy to get.

We called fundamentalists "Jesus Freaks" and there were bumper stickers that said "I was never looking for it" (in response to the "I found it" bumper stickers that were signs of, yes Jesus freaks.

Lawsuits were definitely less common, gotta hand it to you there.

Over all, there are things that are better now (far more people have access to roughly equal schools and job opportunities now than then -- but if you're a white mail that doesn't matter, because, well, you always had it) as well as things that are worse (getting pregnant and having a child raise a child seems to be more common).

And young people didn't respect their elders then, either. There are more people who respect the military and the police, and probably more who respect the President no matter what now. But mass communications is even easier than it was then, so we see so much more seamy side.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tkhayes 348]

The 'beginnings' included the wanton destruction of a beautiful place (before we arrived), demolition of an race of native Indians, slavery, witch burning etc etc

something to be proud of for sure. As long as we keep telling the 'great war stories' and the like, we will continue to believe that we did nothing wrong all those years ago in order to 'further our causes' and look after 'American Interests'

there are far too many parallels in this day and age with gruesome mistakes of the past. This planet is only so big with a finite amount of space. I am more interested in trying to get along than I am with being the 'superpower' willing to dominate at any price.

[Nightingale 0]

I don't know that unplanned pregnancy is a larger problem now, percentage wise, I think it's just that we talk about it more. Back then, if a teenager got pregnant, they were sent away "to live with an aunt" but actually got sent to a home for unwed mothers, and were forced to give up the child for adoption.

I think the world is a better place because we can talk about this problem, rather than hiding it.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd call it more "a return to our beginnings"....

Care to elaborate on those beginnings? What exactly to you mean by that?

Look at the change in society over the last (roughly) 30 years. (the public in GENERAL, please- I am not talking about any individual posters here) The loss of the concepts of personal responsibility, honor, glorification of drug use, denigration of religious people as "fundies" and the fact that people as a whole just don't give a shit about anything except themselves anymore (the whole "me" generation)...

Then tell me that we're so much better off as a society.

Oh, the beginnings you refer to are 30 years ago.

How about going back a little further, say 207 years:

The following wording is from a treaty signed by President Adams and ratified by the United States Senate in 1797

ARTICLE 11.
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 tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.

As I am sure you are aware, treaties become the supreme law of the land according to the US Constitution.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.