Hard to Believe

[Rich]

You've sidestepped, the question again George does the Supreme court agree with me or you? Do you want me to post links that show where the supreme court agrees with me, or is it just that the constitution is so ambivalent that it can be regarded as irrelevant and mean anything you want

 

[Rabbie]

The first amendment to the constitution of the United States states among other things "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." . THis however does not stop individual states from passing their own laws about this. So I imagine any decision of the Supreme Court would depend on the exact details of the case it was being asked to rule on.

 

[sbenj69]

there are rulings on both sides..... Heck, some lawyers bring up law suits in certain parts of California just to get their mandate through.

Regardless, the constitution does not say there must be a separation of church and state; it states that the Government cannot endorse a religion, nor can it prohibit a religion. To go even further, it states that no law shall be passed to acknowledge a religion or deny a religion. This means, the Congress (where all federal laws originate) cannot enact any law recognize a religion or prohibit a religion. So, technically, if I'm a government employee, I can wear a shirt that reads John 3:16 (If you follow the constitution to the letter of the law).

However..... this is on the federal level..... http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19970819-3275.html
The states are free to establish separation of church and state even further.

Edit: Heh, I guess Rabbie and I posted pretty much the same thing

 

[Rich]

Amendment 1 states, congress shall make no laws recognizing a religion, nor can they prohibit free exercise of religion.

So, if a law-maker wants to proclaim his love for God, he is fully entitled to do so; however, he cannot enact a law saying that the U.S. Govt believes in a certain religion, nor can he pass a law to condemn a certain religion.

So, to believe in separation of church and state is to believe in removing religious expression in any government entity, which, of course, is unconstitutional.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife. Many commentators feel that over two centuries of relative religious peace in the U.S. have shown that they were right.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

You've sidestepped, the question again George does the Supreme court agree with me or you? Do you want me to post links that show where the supreme court agrees with me, or is it just that the constitution is so ambivalent that it can be regarded as irrelevant and mean anything you want

Not meaning to side-step, just not interested in your question.

1. The OP said that Obama believed in separation of church and state.

2. You said it was in the constitution.

3. I said it was not.

I honestly don't care much after that, anything else is not pertinent to steps 1-3. The point was that the OP and people who think like him don't care much for the idea of "separation of church and state" the way it is being interpreted, or the way some old men interpreted it. You wanted to find fault with the whole argument and selected, incorrectly, the separation of church and state comment stating it was in our constitution. You should find a different part of the post to pick on...heck, I might even support you (remembering this is a marketing piece).

Just trying to help out.

 

[sbenj69]

Well, actually, the U.S. was primarily settled by people wishing to have religious freedom, not by people looking for a government without religion. The intent was so no one religious group would be held above all others; which of course, worked. The 1st amendment secures the right for religion, without endorsing a particular one.

 

[Rich]

Not meaning to side-step, just not interested in your question.

1. The OP said that Obama believed in separation of church and state.

2. You said it was in the constitution.

3. I said it was not.

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"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."

This was ratified by the States in 1791.



The establishment clause of the First Amendment:
The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

Like I said it's in your constitution and is re-inforced by this statement

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'." 12

 

[georgedwilkinson]

No contention here. I totally agree with that (post #48). It's exactly how I learned it in grade through high school.

 

[Rich]

No contention here. I totally agree with that (post #48). It's exactly how I learned it in grade through high school.

Ok so you just wish to argue semantics on the word "church"?

 

[Joe8915]

Think about this

If I only had 143 days of experience, Would you hire me to fix your car? Would
you hire me to run your company? If I only had 143 days experience would you
hire me to run the country? Something America might want to think about May
30, 2008

Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work
days? Not much. From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State
Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory
committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days
the Senate was actually in session and working (??).

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander
In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR,
JFK and Ronald Reagan.

143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.
This isn't taking into account the days he has missed.
In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.

Think about IT!!!

 

[Alc]

Think about this

If I only had 143 days of experience, Would you hire me to fix your car? Would
you hire me to run your company? If I only had 143 days experience would you
hire me to run the country? Something America might want to think about May
30, 2008

Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work
days? Not much. From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State
Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory
committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days
the Senate was actually in session and working (??).

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander
In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR,
JFK and Ronald Reagan.

143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.
This isn't taking into account the days he has missed.
In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.

Think about IT!!!

You certainly are the master of the old cut-and-paste, Joe.
Don't let anyone tell you any different.

 

[MSAccessRookie]

You certainly are the master of the old cut-and-paste, Joe.
Don't let anyone tell you any different.

Maybe he can cut and past, but does that make his post any less true? Allowing for the fluxuation in time between when the facts were gathered for the article and now, not much has changed in terms of "days experience". This does not necessarily have to be as negative of a thing as his author is trying to play it to be, but nevertheless, it remains the truth

 

[Alc]

Maybe he can cut and past, but does that make his post any less true? Allowing for the fluxuation in time between when the facts were gathered for the article and now, not much has changed in terms of "days experience". This does not necessarily have to be as negative of a thing as his author is trying to play it to be, but nevertheless, it remains the truth

Not arguing with it's veracity. It may well be true.

It's just a bit pointless to copy blocks of text from some article of other without adding some kind of personal comment on it. If the aim is to insult Obama, the point was made with the first cut-and-paste post.

People who didn't like him before, still don't.
People who did, still do.
Whining about how he's not really black, and MicCain was a POW so he's somehow more qualified. isn't going to change anyone's mind either way, is it?

 

[Joe8915]

Yes, I admit that I cut and paste, but what does that mean? If it is what I believe in and support, why not. If someone can put words together, better than me, so what. As you can tell my grammar is not the best and I admit.

That’s what I get for being kick out of a Catholic school when I was in 6th grade.

 

[Alc]

Yes, I admit that I cut and paste, but what does that mean?

Exactly, my question.

Do you have no opinion on any of the points made beyond 'they're correct'? You have nothing to add? There's nothing about the lists you feel should be irrelevant to how well he could do the job or that should be stressed more than anything else?

For example:
Why does the fact that McCain was unlucky enough to have been a POW make him better trained to be President?
Why does the fact that Obama is X% black affect his ability to do the job?

 

[Joe8915]

Alc, I understand what you are saying. I guess it makes me look like that is not my opinion. I can just say I agree with his opinion and that would be my belief as well. If that makes sense.

 

[sbenj69]

Please..... being a former POW has no bearing on being president. I don't think we have to worry about our president being held in captivity, and even if he was, the VP would assume the responsibilities.

Now, on the other hand, military experience has quite a bit of relevance to the job of president. McCain knows when he sends troops in, he may be sending them to their deaths. That's what a president has to do, choose whether it's worth it or not to send our young men and women to possibly be killed.

As far as national security, I sure feel a lot safer with McCain.

However, if I decide that I want more taxes and social programs, I will surely switch my vote to obama.

 

[Alc]

Please..... being a former POW has no bearing on being president.

This is what I was thinking. Do I feel sorry for the guy? Yes. Does it affect how he'd do as leader of the US? Not really.

Now, on the other hand, military experience has quite a bit of relevance to the job of president.

So would you say that the presidents who didn't serve in the military were worse at the job than those who did? For example, did his military service make Nixon a better president than Roosevelt or Wilson?

 

[Alc]

Alc, I understand what you are saying. I guess it makes me look like that is not my opinion. I can just say I agree with his opinion and that would be my belief as well. If that makes sense.

I wasn't suggesting that wasn't your opinion (honest)

It just comes across as though less thought went into it when it's a straight copy, as opposed to containing your own comments, that's all.

Back to the two questions, though
1) Do you personally feel that the fact McCain was a POW would have any bearing on how well/badly he'd perform?
2) How would the fact that Obama is only X% black relevant?

 

[redneckgeek]

So would you say that the presidents who didn't serve in the military were worse at the job than those who did? For example, did his military service make Nixon a better president than Roosevelt or Wilson?

Not to take the thread off topic, but...
(Assuming you're talking about FDR) - you are comparing Nixon to the 2 presidents that started America down the road of public dependance on the government. I'd say Nixon did far less damage to the country than either of those two. So I guess, technically, he was a better president.