Skip to main content

Wheelhouse,

Your post was well thought out but I must assume you're not a constitutional scholar....

quote:
To others on the religion discussions - whatever you religious beliefs, or lack thereof, we have a constitution, bill of rights and several hundred years of tradition in this country that, among other things, guarantee the separation of church and state.


Show me in the constitution or other where the phase "separation of church and state" are used?

You won't find it....fact is the framers were highly religious men and were considering including a national religion. Their only holdup was thoughts of the oppression of the Church of England....that is the only reason the amendment was crafted....not the applications that liberal judges and lawyers has applied to it since.

Here's your amendment FYI:

Amendment I

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.

Notice that there's nothing in there about government officials not making decisions based on religion, or religion being a part of government. Purely stated the amendment means that the government cannot force people to be members (an collect money, etc...) of any religion.
Oh, Blazer, that old arguement! "Religious Liberty" isn't in the Constitiution either, or "fair trial" for that matter, but I think we'd all agree those are basic American democratic principles which must be respected. The very fact that we all recognize the phrase "separation of church and state" as one of substance is testimony to its importance in our country.

There were a number of reasons the principle was introduced. I'd be interested in your reasoning on the C of E being "oppressive" (it may be only because the sovereign is the titular head of that church....and the colonists were none too fond of him). But a primary reason was that the founders did not want membership in any specific religion to be a prerequisite for public office, so they put that bit in. (hmmmmm.....) And you can look that up: Article IV, Section III.
quote:
Originally posted by DaddyBo:
Easy does it there CoachB...I agree with you that BlueDog's tact leaves something to be desired; Frown but, it appears that in your reply you have played an all too common card...judjmental Christians. Roll Eyes Let it be known that I agree there are those Christians out there who sit in judgment of others...but I also believe there to be judgmental Jews, Muslims, athiests, agnostics, blah blah blah. Your specificity seems to be a little...how is it phrased?...oh yeah, "narrow-minded". Big Grin


DaddyBo,
"Narrow-minded" = Guilty as charged! Heck, some might think that "narrow minded" give me too much credit since it implies that I have a mind at all. I never said I was perfect. However, when a poster post that the majority of people want a President that prays to God, then the implication is that the other party that lost this election does not. How can I derive any other implication from this post? As per "judgmental christians," wouldn't my take on that post then lead to the logical conclusion from statements concerning "pray" and "man who does" that the poster (Bluedog) is judging others from his Christian perspective? Please explain how I have errored in my logic. Heck, I'd be the first to admit that I error in logic often.
Politics and religion in the same thread.... duel

I fear this thread may last the requisite 4 years until the next election. angry

I can guarrantee that not a single issue is going to be resolved on this web site in respect to either. toilet

Last I heard, the vote was Tuesday ... That is SUPPOSED to mean 730 days (approximately) before we have to do this again at the mid-term elections. Couldn't we grace this site with at least the traditional 100-day cease-fire.
If we're on constitutional history, actually all of the state Constitutions for the original 13 included a REQUIREMENT for religious qualification for legislators (exceptions: Virginia and New York, likely the last time they agreed on anything) so pure, absolute separation of Church and state would've been a very different thing for them all, but


THIS IS A BASEBALL SITE SO HOW 'BOUT THOSE O'S

I hereby pledge to post no more, save for baseball issues. Who's with me? Anyone?
hokie,
How about 'em? Who are they going to sign? Who aren't they going to sign? Wait a minute, all I really care about are the Angels and the Dodgers. Who are they going to sign? The Angels aren't going to sign Glaus or Percival. I think MacPherson needs a year as a part time player in the bigs still and I think Frankie will be good, but not quite as good as the Angels are hoping.
Last edited by CADad
quote:
Originally posted by DaddyBo:
CoachB25...I agree with the main point of your post...I was just having a little fun with the "broad brush" aspect. Wink

Hey...what we need is a good rotational vs. linear thread. That would calm everyone down, right? duel


SORRY, I HAD TOO MANY COKES TODAY!!! HOW BOUT DEM O'S MY BOY DAVID CROUTHERS took some time off and is home now. Hope he is ready to challenge for a spot in the rotation next year.
Hokie,

Thanks for that...that was my next point.

Orlando,

They DID expect leaders of government to be members of a religion...Tennessee's constitution goes so far as to say that it is the requirement of being a good citizen.

Just because liberal lawyers and judges have twisted the meaning of an amendment to further their cause does not mean that is the original intent of the law....I could site another example that has been recently voted on (by a resounding majority I might add) but that would stir up a whole other mess...


Here's your "right to fair trial" ammendments....not as much of a liberal judical stretch as has been placed on these as has the 1st ammendment.

I wonder why?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

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 defense.


I'd say that spells out a "fair trial" pretty clearly...don't you. No lawyering needed...


PS I think you meant article VI not IV...
Last edited by blazer25
"One thing's very clear: What Democrats are selling, people aren't buying in large parts of the country," said Jim Kessler, a Democratic strategist."

CoachB25, all this talk of tolerance is nonsense......Tolerance and disenfranchisement are nothing but foolish words that are excuses for a move away from Christianity.....The majority of Americans want to put God back in our schools and courtrooms.......
Bluedog,
I believe I have no problem with my son reading a healthy discussion over viewpoints, reading downright NASTY replies about another's viewpoint is a different story. Doesn't matter which viewpoint one has. You just don't get it. There is a difference, write it down!

In case you and some others have not noticed, it is the High School BASEBALL Website.
You're quite right, I reversed my Roman Numerals. Mea culpa.

And this is the phrase I was referring to, from the US Constitution, the basis of the discussion as started by Wheelhouse and to which you replied, not individual state's constitutions, what with our talking about national politics and all.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

Your suggestion that the founders expected office holders to be members of a religion is fine, they may well have. I certainly know I have no problem with that, nor do I number amongst my acquaintances anyone who would. What the article says is that religion cannot be a prerequisite.

You told Wheelhouse :

"Show me in the constitution or other where the phase "separation of church and state" are used?"

....and then went on later to show how the term "fair trial" is not specifically used, but is most certainly implied. Just like 'separation of church and state'; just like Wheelhouse said......

hoo-boy....
quote:
Originally posted by KellerDad:
BTW, what you call religious extremists?

Down south, we call them neighbors, friends, family and most of all, we call them Christians.

BTW, just heard that 7 MILLION MORE people voted for Bush this time around?

Isn't it GREAT?!!?!!


ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Your "neighbors, friends family and most of all christians" in 11 states made second class citizens out of approximately 10% of their residents on Tuesday.

Furthermore your "neighbors, friends family and most of all christians" elected Senators in Oklahoma & S.Carolina whose campaigns included positions against terminating a pregnancy for ANY reason including the life of the Mother.

These benevolent Senators elected by your "neighbors, friends, family and most of all christians" also believe that a woman who has a child out of wedlock should not be permitted to teach in a public school. How is that the State's business? What about a man who Fathers a child out of wedlock?

KDad there's a document you need to read. It states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal."
It doesn't say people who look like us, or people who think like us, people we like, people who worship the same way we do, who have the same morals as we do, who have the same sexual preferences etc. etc. It says ALL men are created equal.
Last edited by voodoochile
The Taliban said they came to power in possession of the ultimate truth because they spoke to the Lord.

They appointed mullahs & Imams, their version of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson & Ralph Reed to run their government & courts.

They had their version of the Patriot act to stifle dissent.

They also supressed women's rights & defiled the environment while turning over their commerce to warlords, their version of the thieves at Enron, Halliburton & WorldCom.

When others are persecuted because they don't pray in the right way, don't look like you, don't share the same morals & beliefs, don't look away & think it can't happen here & can't happen to you.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoller
Last edited by voodoochile
quote:
Originally posted by voodoochile:
The Taliban said they came to power in possession of the ultimate truth because they spoke to the Lord.

They appointed mullahs & Imams, their version of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson & Ralph Reed to run their government & courts.

They had their version of the Patriot act to stifle dissent.

They also supressed women's rights & defiled the environment while turning over their commerce to warlords, their version of the thieves at Enron, Halliburton & WorldCom.

When others are persecuted because they don't pray in the right way, don't look like you, don't share the same morals & beliefs, don't look away & think it can't happen here & can't happen to you.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoller

Maybe after reading the B.S. you were spewing they decided that somebody NEEDED TO COME AND GET YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by voodoochile:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Your "neighbors, friends family and most of all christians" in 11 states made second class citizens out of approximately 10% of their residents on Tuesday.



How far out of the mainstream are you? *** Mariage?

BOTH Presidential Canidates were against it. BOTH.
And yes, 11 states passed constitutional amendments banning it in their states.

You know what? They weren't just southern states either. The liberal bastion of Oregon defeated their ballot initiative.

Michigan, another Blue state defeated theirs.

Yes, I am against it. Does that make me an extremist?

I think it makes you an extremist because you feel you should push your out of the mainstream values on the rest of us. And today, I read three or four articles about Democrats blaming this very issue for their defeat in this election.

quote:
Furthermore your "neighbors, friends family and most of all christians" elected Senators in Oklahoma & S.Carolina whose campaigns included positions against terminating a pregnancy for ANY reason including the life of the Mother.



And they were elected. Do you think their election should be thrown out because you don't agree with their principals? This isn't a dictatorship, it's a republic.

I don't agree with Senator Patty Murray of Washington, who I think is a wingnut. But, I don't think she should be removed from office because she's a nut. That is up to the citizens of the state of Washington.

The great thing about this country, is we can have people like Cynthia McKinney elected to Congress from a red state like Georgia, and also have Rick Santorum from a Blue state like Pennsylvania.


quote:
These benevolent Senators elected by your "neighbors, friends, family and most of all christians" also believe that a woman who has a child out of wedlock should not be permitted to teach in a public school. How is that the State's business? What about a man who Fathers a child out of wedlock?



What do you mean "Hows is that the State's business?"

They are State Employees. The State can determine their qualifications and expectations of their employees.

And believe it or not, most every school system has a morals clause in the teachers contract. Not just here in the deep south.

In fact, my mother who was a teacher in Illinois had a morals clause in her contract that didn't allow her to be seen in a local bar. Local teachers here in "Extremist Texas" don't have such a clause.

quote:
KDad there's a document you need to read. It states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal."
It doesn't say people who look like us, or people who think like us, people we like, people who worship the same way we do, who have the same morals as we do, who have the same sexual preferences etc. etc. It says ALL men are created equal.


Don't lecture me on the Declaration of Independence (or for that matter the Constitution), however I should remind you that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in the United States. While it is a great document, our system of laws is not based upon that document, it is based upon another document....The Constitution.

Remember, the people that wrote the Declaration of Independence were slave holders, but yet they were declaring all men were created equal. They also did not allow women to vote, hold positions of power nor did they allow them to work outside of being a nurse or a teacher.

They also required you to be a land owner to vote.

They also persecuted other non Europeans, such as Orientals.

They also murdered millions of Native Americans, for no other purpose than to move them off thier property.

Look thru history, there have been extremist in our nations past.

George W. Bush is not one of them.
Last thing I am going to add to this thread. The election is over, the left lost.

For you Voodoo, pick up next week's Newsweek. In it you will find

quote:
Clinton Advice Spurned. Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on g a y marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that


That's the hero of the left there Voodoo. How could Bill Clinton have said that? He must have turned into an extremist in the last 4 years.

Either that, or he knows that if you are going to be a National Canidate in the Democratic Party, you have to lie about what you really believe to get elected.
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
"One thing's very clear: What Democrats are selling, people aren't buying in large parts of the country," said Jim Kessler, a Democratic strategist."

CoachB25, all this talk of tolerance is nonsense......Tolerance and disenfranchisement are nothing but foolish words that are excuses for a move away from Christianity.....The majority of Americans want to put God back in our schools and courtrooms.......


First I looked for where I said anything about tolerance but couldn't find it. Secondly, you are right. Thanks for the quote Blue Dog. We are studying the Constitution and I'm using your above quote in class. It should be good fodder. Lets see along with the various arguments we have had concerning baseball, you now SUGGEST THAT WE BE AN INTOLERANT CHRISTIAN NATION. Guess I'll just tell all of my Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, and even some Byzantine Christians that we just won't abide by any of their lifestyle and religion and if they don't like it, get out of America. Now, since we are making this a Christian argument, why not go ahead and make this a Protestant v Catholic one. Those darn Catholics! Well I say... While we are at it, lets get the 7th day adventist out of the way and those Mormon, if they come to my house one more time.

I can see it now. ONE INTOLERANT NATION BASED UPON BLUE DOG'S INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE. GOD IS EVERYWHERE IN THAT ADMINISTRATION EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO EXILE A FEW. (Maybe you don't want to stop at exile.)
CoachB25, Orlando (and others)...My suggestion is to ignore future baiting by our canine friend. It is apparent that You and I probably come down on different sides of faith based discussions. It is my "belief" though that these discussions can be beneficial (if nothing but cathartic Big Grin) for both sides if they start from some sort of common ground. An understanding of differences is one of the first crucial steps to healthy discussion, especially if we know very little about the "person" of who we are talking with. We can usually carry two cans to a potential blaze...one of water, another of gasoline. Our barking friend's container has a distinct odor. Razz
It's all water under the bridge, Bush won because a majority of people believe in him, he does what he says he will and people respect that. Kerry lost because he was all over the place on almost every issue, he tried to be what ever the latest focus group told him he needed to be. Most American's had a lot of trouble figuring out what Kerry was about and that bred enough mistrust to cost him the election. Democrats need to learn once and for all that trying to govern via the results of the latest focus group won't work. If you believe in something, stick to it. American's don't want or need a wishy washy leader in this day and age.
Baseball fans overwhelmingly supported the President and it was easy to see why. Soon after 9-11, President Bush went to Yankee stadium to throw out the first pitch. Despite wearing a heavy bulletproof vest, the President threw a perfect strike from the mound.

Senator Kerry had an opportunity to throw out the first pitch at a game this spring and despite throwing from the base of the mound, he bounced a lob ball by the catcher. Kerry’s first reaction was to blame the catcher. The ceremonial catcher ironically was a member of the military.

In Kerry’s sporting defense, while baseball and football is not his game, he is the clear choice of European s o c c e r fans.
goMo- it ain't no joke that it's gonna be time to start packing. Forget Blue Dog's comment, you had the puppet president, in his news conference yesterday actually state that he understood that Jews and Muslims are Americans TOO.

When the President of the United States has the need to make such a statement in the 21st century, you better know we are in for oppression, discrimination and repression the likes of which this country has never seen. The (un)Patriot act is only the beginning.

As soon as W (well its actually Cheney, Rumsfeld and Daddy Bush) gets the chance, you'll see a Supreme Court that will turn Roe vs. Wade into terms that apply to nothing more than how you get across water.

With daylight savings just starting, if you only turned your clock back an hour, it wasn't enought, try turning it back to about the '50s, although the middle ages might be more apprporiate.

the war in Iraq is just a modern version of the Crusades... we're gonna convert all them heathens before its too late (oh and take their oil while we're at it, whadda they need it for).

The philosophy of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Daddy Bush administration is that we know better than you, just do as we say and everything will be alright or..... . . .

AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG. THINK AND DIE (oh guess that one isn't quite out yet)

Oh and don't dare change your mind on anything, even if new info comes your way. Do just like your President and keep thinking the world is flat.
After Blue Dog's response to my last post, I think that I'm done with him. I'll practice my own intolerance. For the record, President Bush is our President. Now, we must, as a nation, throw our support behind him until he demonstrates that he does not deserve that trust. We have always, as a nation, been able to come together as Americans. Yes, Americans comprised of various ethic, racial groups etc. I teach kids. Kids of the "melting pot." If you can name it, I have them in class. I have 2 kids from Panama. 1 kid from Slovakia. 1 from the Ukraine. 1 from Germany. I have 2 from India. THEY ARE KIDS. MOST ARE NATURALIZED CITIZENS. NONE ARE OF MY FAITH.

THEY ARE KIDS!

That's good enough for me and I won't be one of those intolerante people who are better than everyone else.
Hey Batter,
I think you're overstating what will actually happen. That's why we have checks and balances. If I'm wrong, I'll vote Democratic in the next presidential election. We do get a chance to fix things every few years. Congress will allow a conservative to replace Rehnquist but I doubt that they'll replace a liberal with a conservative. In fact, I have to believe that no liberal justice is going to retire in the next 4 years if they believe it will result in a shift toward a more conservative court.
CADAD- You and I know that there are checks and balances. I sincerely am not sure that this administration knows that too.

The rhetoric I hear just smacks too much of Nixon enemy lists, the labeling of "liberals" as some form of demons, an overriding us vs. you mentality. W actually believes he has a mandate and can just move forward. His margin of victory is hardly a mandate. Half the country rejected him and of those who voted for him, many did not necessairily want Bush they just didn't want Kerry or were too afraid to make a change in these uncertain times. I think that was a huge factor as many don't want to change horses in mid stream and with the war etc. making change is a huge issue.

Plus a huge portion of the population didn't even vote and what might the result have been. To that end, the biggest disappointment in this election to me and a circumstance that I'm sure the administration doesn't even recognize is that only 10% of the eligible 18-24 year old voters, voted. That's the age group that's getting sent to war, that may well have no social security in their future and will face social change that will seemingly be formed through an 1850's wild west mentality and they didn't vote.

I see today there is an anti-Bush rally/sit in at the U of Colorado. A little late kids. Where were you on Tuesday.

You need only listen to the things President Bush says. For example, yesterday in his news conference (besides the Jew and Muslim comment Roll Eyes) he stated he's ready to welcome and reconcile with those that embrace the goals of his administration. that's not reaching out, that's not reconcilation, that's just more do what we say.

In any event, and maybe to take this thread in a little different direction, just curious if anyone has an opinion (did I say that biglaugh) as to why the 18-24 year old group forgot there was an election this week.
Last edited by HeyBatter
Post
.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×