NationStates Jolt Archive

So-called "moderate" John McCain is not moderate when it comes to Christianity and the Constitution.

There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda).

But that pales compared to McCain's ignorance and prejudice concerning basic religious freedom and the U.S. Constitution.

Some months ago, Senator McCain told beliefnet in an interview (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html):

"[T]he Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Not only is this statement incredibly bigotted, it is fundamentally wrong. The U.S. Constitution (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/) is purposefully devoid of any reference to Christianity. Not only does the Constitution NOT establish a Christian nation, but it expressly does the opposite: the First Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/) forbids any "law respecting an establishment of religion."

McCain also said:

"I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the Constitution actually specifies:
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. [emphasis added]

McCain fundamentally misunderstands both the language and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and, accordingly, is not fit to lead this country.

Just when I thought I could give the man an inkling of respect...

Just when I thought I could give the man an inkling of respect...

Yep, he definitely lost any respect I might've given him.

I feel sorry for him - he attacked the religious right back in 2000 and it cost him the nomination. His hands are tied.

What can any decent Republican - all jokes aside - do?

The Republican's entire platform is lost due to placing religion at the centre of politics - in many ways they can damn well reap what they've sowed over the last 30 years but, ultimately, it's detrimental to US politics as a whole.

Yep, he definitely lost any respect I might've given him.

But relative to the other republican candidates (with the exception of RuPaul), he's not all that bad.

Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the Constitution actually specifies:
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. [emphasis added]

McCain fundamentally misunderstands both the language and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and, accordingly, is not fit to lead this country.

Wait, don't some states actually have (unenforced) requirements that state candidates must be Christian or something? I thought I had heard that. Now I have to look that up, dammit. Curse you, making me 'think' and 'question' and 'research'...what kind of monster are you?

EDIT: Ah screw it. I'm just going to assume I was mislead or misunderstood until I find it again at random because I couldn't find anything but references to the fact that one is not allowed...

McCain fundamentally misunderstands both the language and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and, accordingly, is not fit to lead this country.

I think McCain understands the Constitution just fine but is now blatantly lying to court the religious right. He had to do this to win the nomination. That was the hard lesson he learned in 2000. Unfortunately for him, the only appeal he had to moderates was his "straight talk" and standing up against the Republicans. Now that he has sold his soul to win a nomination, it will probably cost him the general election. People like me who thought well of McCain just a few years ago, are sickened by his selling of principles.

Indeed. Either he gets the nomination by acting like a religious nutjob and then loses the election, or he fails to get the nomination at all.

Really, it's disgusting that this is happening with such a major U.S. political party. The control extremist religion has over our political system right now sickens and disgusts me.

McCain's flip-flop doesn't fool anyone. I think both parties realize what he has had to do. Much like Hillary has become much more of a centrist in the last year also. Chameleons one and all.

And don't think darling OB isn't doing the same. I just read an article yesterday about how he is quietly courting black churches, but was advised that it wouldn't be a good move politically to put that on his agenda for reporters.

If you think you are going to get a candidate that is devoid of religion you are wrong, they all know that the nation is approximately 80% Christian and they can't afford to ignore that.
But there is a difference. Obama is merely courting a segment of the populace that, while religious, is not extremist. They simply have their religion and certain beliefs.

McCain on the other hand has to court EXTREMIST religious viewpoints which are entirely different.

McCain's flip-flop doesn't fool anyone. I think both parties realize what he has had to do. Much like Hillary has become much more of a centrist in the last year also. Chameleons one and all.

And don't think darling OB isn't doing the same. I just read an article yesterday about how he is quietly courting black churches, but was advised that it wouldn't be a good move politically to put that on his agenda for reporters.

If you think you are going to get a candidate that is devoid of religion you are wrong, they all know that the nation is approximately 80% Christian and they can't afford to ignore that.

I don't want a candidate devoid of religion, I just want one that recognizes the separation of church and state.

It's funny, I'm giving a speech on this in Communications science class tomorrow. I just finished looking up all the parts of the constitution and quotes from founders that prove him wrong.

My favorite, by Benjamin Franklin, "“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”"

McCain's flip-flop doesn't fool anyone. I think both parties realize what he has had to do. Much like Hillary has become much more of a centrist in the last year also. Chameleons one and all.

And don't think darling BO isn't doing the same. I just read an article yesterday about how he is quietly courting black churches, but was advised that it wouldn't be a good move politically to put that on his agenda for reporters.

If you think you are going to get a candidate that is devoid of religion you are wrong, they all know that the nation is approximately 80% Christian and they can't afford to ignore that.

McCain's flip-flop doesn't fool anyone. I think both parties realize what he has had to do. Much like Hillary has become much more of a centrist in the last year also. Chameleons one and all.

And don't think darling OB isn't doing the same. I just read an article yesterday about how he is quietly courting black churches, but was advised that it wouldn't be a good move politically to put that on his agenda for reporters.

If you think you are going to get a candidate that is devoid of religion you are wrong, they all know that the nation is approximately 80% Christian and they can't afford to ignore that.

1. I think few things are lamer than the "the religious right made him say it" excuse.

2. I'd love to see you link that article, as it is rather well-known that Obama is courting black churches. So is Clinton. As there is nothing wrong with that, it would be a silly thing to hide.

3. If you think my objection to McCain's statements is that I want a candidate devoid of religion, you aren't paying attention. My objection is that McCain either fundamentally misunderstands a key concept of the Constitution or he is purposefully lying about it. THAT isn't acceptable.

The extremists are not the majority of the party by a long shot, the extremists just make the most headlines is all. I don't particularly see him as any more extremists than Obama in fact. I took the time to read and study the mission statement of the church Obama and Michelle have been long time members of and it certainly isn't any middle of the road moderate church in and of itself. His beliefs are at least as extreme as McCain's if you really study it. He is courting extremists just as heavily, it just isn't as publically. Probably the least involved with religious matters is Hillary in reality.

I see the point of the concern but I do not see it as a threat in the least. Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere we all know this. It is a women's health care act more than anything, intelligent people know that abortion will not stop. The government isn't fixing to institute a national religion (which is what the first amendment insures). Creationism can be taught along side evoluation as an alternative...why not, we want to teach alternative lifestyles too do we not, let's give it all to the kids and let them decide....isn't that what we want? So have at it on all aspects not just those liberals want. Fair enough. I learned both in school it didn't hurt me, it won't hurt kids today either.


Yes, that's perfect, let's teach Creation alongside Evolution, Alchemy alongside Chemistry, Astrology alongside astronomy, Numerology alongside math, exorcism alongside medicine, and replace geology with "how all landmarks were caused by The Great Flood!"

That sounds like a perfect compromise.

(edit: ok, seriously, the timewarps never used to be this bad.)

But there is a difference. Obama is merely courting a segment of the populace that, while religious, is not extremist. They simply have their religion and certain beliefs.

McCain on the other hand has to court EXTREMIST religious viewpoints which are entirely different.

The extremists are not the majority of the party by a long shot, the extremists just make the most headlines is all. I don't particularly see him as any more extremists than Obama in fact. I took the time to read and study the mission statement of the church Obama and Michelle have been long time members of and it certainly isn't any middle of the road moderate church in and of itself. His beliefs are at least as extreme as McCain's if you really study it. He is courting extremists just as heavily, it just isn't as publically. Probably the least involved with religious matters is Hillary in reality.

I see the point of the concern but I do not see it as a threat in the least. Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere we all know this. It is a women's health care act more than anything, intelligent people know that abortion will not stop. The government isn't fixing to institute a national religion (which is what the first amendment insures). Creationism can be taught along side evoluation as an alternative...why not, we want to teach alternative lifestyles too do we not, let's give it all to the kids and let them decide....isn't that what we want? So have at it on all aspects not just those liberals want. Fair enough. I learned both in school it didn't hurt me, it won't hurt kids today either.

The thing is I don't see any of these issues as the be all end all of what is important today. These are small potatoes in the bigger picture. They are also potatoes that can't be cooked without Congressional approval, do you see the Congress we have going with any of this? Of course not.

It all sounds like Henny Pennyism to me. There is more to all the candidates than just their faith, something they all have.

1. I think few things are lamer than the "the religious right made him say it" excuse.

2. I'd love to see you link that article, as it is rather well-known that Obama is courting black churches. So is Clinton. As there is nothing wrong with that, it would be a silly thing to hide.

3. If you think my objection to McCain's statements is that I want a candidate devoid of religion, you aren't paying attention. My objection is that McCain either fundamentally misunderstands a key concept of the Constitution or he is purposefully lying about it. THAT isn't acceptable.


The article was on MSN yesterday, I'm sorry I do not have a link. It was about his camp aides and his board that is directing his campaign and their in-fighting regarding who he should be courting and how he has handled it. It did say that he was advised to keep quiet about it and it told who had advised that. I'm sorry I don't have a link but if you know how to find yesterdays articles as I said MSN is where I read it.

No I don't think you want a candidate that is devoid of religion, that would be foolish. But I do think you somehow think a candidate should ignore his religion when it comes to governing, which also isn't going to happen. Perhaps I am still misunderstanding your point.

Jeez, Cat why are you so surprised that McCain is pandering to the religos out there? He's already sold his soul and shown himself to be willing to do and say whatever it takes to get the nomination.
Notice the places where Huckabee is doing well - the bible belt predominantly. McCain knows he needs those areas if he's to win the presidency and it's plain that lot don't think much of him at present.

What bothers me more about McCain is that he is completly computer illiterate. He lets his wife"take care of that sort of thing"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c56_1198245339

Do you have a problem knowing which ones you believe in your examples?

Do you think kids today will have such a problem?

I don't.

So you'd be fine replacing half of our class time with nonsense?

No I don't think you want a candidate that is devoid of religion, that would be foolish. But I do think you somehow think a candidate should ignore his religion when it comes to governing, which also isn't going to happen. Perhaps I am still misunderstanding your point.

Let me see if I can explain this simply. McCain wants to be president. The job of the president is to uphold the constitution. Ergo, McCain wants a job where he will be sworn to uphold the constitution.

In discussing the constitution, the document McCain wants to be sworn to uphold as president, he made a serious factual error about its contents. It's not "ignoring his religion", it's "McCain wants to be president and uphold the constitution, and he either doesn't know what the constitution says, or doesn't care enough about what it says to not lie about it"

Which is the problem. The man wants us to believe he's the best choice to uphold the constitution, and he either doesn't even know what the constitution says, or doesn't care.

So why the hell should I trust him to uphold it? He either doesn't know what it says, or holds its words in such contempt that he's willing to lie about it in order to get elected. Neither qualities are something we should tolerate in a president.

Yes, that's perfect, let's teach Creation alongside Evolution, Alchemy alongside Chemistry, Astrology alongside astronomy, Numerology alongside math, exorcism alongside medicine, and replace geology with "how all landmarks were caused by The Great Flood!"

That sounds like a perfect compromise.

(edit: ok, seriously, the timewarps never used to be this bad.)

Do you have a problem knowing which ones you believe in your examples?

Do you think kids today will have such a problem?

I don't.

No I don't think you want a candidate that is devoid of religion, that would be foolish. But I do think you somehow think a candidate should ignore his religion when it comes to governing, which also isn't going to happen. Perhaps I am still misunderstanding your point.

Come on - you can read can't you - what is being complained about is that John McCain is saying things about the Constitution that are simply, and quite clearly untrue.

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Did it?

McCain's flip-flop doesn't fool anyone. I think both parties realize what he has had to do. Much like Hillary has become much more of a centrist in the last year also. Chameleons one and all.

And don't think darling BO isn't doing the same. I just read an article yesterday about how he is quietly courting black churches, but was advised that it wouldn't be a good move politically to put that on his agenda for reporters.

If you think you are going to get a candidate that is devoid of religion you are wrong, they all know that the nation is approximately 80% Christian and they can't afford to ignore that.

Yeah well that's what the pollsters tell us, but do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly 80% of Americans go to church every Sunday?...
That's a load of crap and we all know it, their aren't enough churchs to fit that many people on a Sunday. The fact is, people will lie to pollsters, or they will say they are 'religious' just because their parents were and they went as children or whatever, very few indeed have an active religious life. They say their religious because that's how they like to think of themselves, yet few really are in the true meaning, and even fewer actively decide politics on such things.

The issue is giving these fringe (yet loud) extreme minorities more voice than they democratically deserve because of numbers. The optional voting system in America assures only the most active and fanatical voters decide, which means only the extremes are motivated enough to vote and to encourage others to vote, and organize with the GOP etc.

Not particularly, I have worked on curriculum audits for the state before, the teachers have so little time now it would be stupid. But let's face it we are teaching stupid things now as it is frankly. My point is, this isn't an issue worth this much hassle or energy. Nor is it fixing to change and actually happen. As I said do you really believe a Democrat Congress is going to pass such a law? Not on your life, and we all know that.

I'd prefer not to bet the state of education on the democrats retaining congress after the 2010 elections, or the 2012 or 2014, should McCain win a second term.

The majority of our past Presidents, if not all of them, have held nearly identical beliefs regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. Are you saying they have all been wrong in the past?

now that's a claim I'll hold you to support.

(gah, every post I have made so far has been timewarped!)

So you'd be fine replacing half of our class time with nonsense?

Not particularly, I have worked on curriculum audits for the state before, the teachers have so little time now it would be stupid. But let's face it we are teaching stupid things now as it is frankly. My point is, this isn't an issue worth this much hassle or energy. Nor is it fixing to change and actually happen. As I said do you really believe a Democrat Congress is going to pass such a law? Not on your life, and we all know that.

Yes, that's perfect, let's teach Creation alongside Evolution, Alchemy alongside Chemistry, Astrology alongside astronomy, Numerology alongside math, exorcism alongside medicine, and replace geology with "how all landmarks were caused by The Great Flood!"

That sounds like a perfect compromise.



Alchemy: with more minds on the topic, we might actually figure how to transform copper to gold (after all, it was pursued by many "intelligent" minds in the past: Newton and Archimedes come immediately to mind. As a matter of fact, it was all the rage among the intelligentsia during the so-called "Enlightenment.")

Astrology: Learning the meaning of the constellations, their origin, and understanding the connections between their positions and impact on ancient peoples never hurt...Mayans or Egyptians, anyone?

Numerology: Provides some very interesting correlations in relative mathematics. The Golden number (?) is of especial interest. How is this different than other accepted observations...like the Fibonacci sequence?

Exorcism: Everyone has their own demons. Today we call it "therapy."

Has anyone here ever taken an ethics class? Saying that you're a fan of "Judeo-Christian principles" may be a bland semi-pander to religious voters, but it's also a legitimate ethical traditon, rather than a "bigotted" "God-told-me-so" attitude, even if those people do indeed exist. McCain's never been a religious extremist, and none of his statements in the article the OP linked to suggest so (did anyone actually read it?)

A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.


The OP doesn't believe this to be the statement of a religious nut or theocrat, I damn near guarantee it. Fun stuff, though. :p


What bothers me more about McCain is that he is completly computer illiterate. He lets his wife"take care of that sort of thing"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c56_1198245339

He was born in 1936. Think about that for a moment. :p

Let me see if I can explain this simply. McCain wants to be president. The job of the president is to uphold the constitution. Ergo, McCain wants a job where he will be sworn to uphold the constitution.

In discussing the constitution, the document McCain wants to be sworn to uphold as president, he made a serious factual error about its contents. It's not "ignoring his religion", it's "McCain wants to be president and uphold the constitution, and he either doesn't know what the constitution says, or doesn't care enough about what it says to not lie about it"

Which is the problem. The man wants us to believe he's the best choice to uphold the constitution, and he either doesn't even know what the constitution says, or doesn't care.

So why the hell should I trust him to uphold it? He either doesn't know what it says, or holds its words in such contempt that he's willing to lie about it in order to get elected. Neither qualities are something we should tolerate in a president.

The majority of our past Presidents, if not all of them, have held nearly identical beliefs regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. Are you saying they have all been wrong in the past?

The issue is giving these fringe (yet loud) extreme minorities more voice than they democratically deserve because of numbers. The optional voting system in America assures only the most active and fanatical voters decide, which means only the extremes are motivated enough to vote and to encourage others to vote, and organize with the GOP etc.

Sounds like a lazy electorate to me.

Seriously, get out and VOTE! It's your right, but also a responsibility. Responsible government takes all kinds.

(I realize I'm preaching to the choir...but still...)

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded by Christians...Not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ" - Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." - George Washington

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering" - Daniel Webster

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other." - John Adams

The only reference to religion in the Bill of Rights is: "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." There is no "separation of Church and state" and no reason to deny public office due to religious beliefs.

That said, I think McCain is trying to use religion as a tool for power, and his actions don't accurately reflect the Constitution or the teachings of Jesus Christ. He won't get my vote.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded by Christians...Not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ" - Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." - George Washington

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering" - Daniel Webster

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other." - John Adams

The only reference to religion in the Bill of Rights is: "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." There is no "separation of Church and state"


Wrong AGAIN!

-- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
James Madison; Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785
“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?”

I start law school in September

You poor, poor soul.

Run, run while you still can!

Come on - you can read can't you - what is being complained about is that John McCain is saying things about the Constitution that are simply, and quite clearly untrue.

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Did it?

Nope.

And God help us if we become a nationally Christian nation...Clash of Civilizations, anyone?

*snip of cat-tribe's concise and constitutionally well supported critique of McCain's statements*



See, this is the problem with Godless people like you, Cat-Tribes. You always want to decide constitutional issues by reading the Constitution.

Just because the Constitution specifically, explicitly, and with utterly stark clarity says that no religion can be established by law, that doesn't mean that it doesn't establish the U.S. as a nation of one particular religion.

And just because the Constitution expressly prohibits a religious test doesn't mean that a candidate shouldn't be excluded for being of the wrong religion.

Go get a legal education, Cat-Tribes.

And quit trying this lame trick of supporting your Constitutional interpretations with lucid examinations of the relevant articles.

I start law school in September, and I'm going to dedicate my career to resisting and exposing people like you.

This country needs to embrace a single religion and enforce it by law so we can fight the religious extremists who threaten to force us all to join a single religion.

Its unfortunate I should have to explain that.

Yeah well that's what the pollsters tell us, but do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly 80% of Americans go to church every Sunday?...
That's a load of crap and we all know it, their aren't enough churchs to fit that many people on a Sunday. The fact is, people will lie to pollsters, or they will say they are 'religious' just because their parents were and they went as children or whatever, very few indeed have an active religious life. They say their religious because that's how they like to think of themselves, yet few really are in the true meaning, and even fewer actively decide politics on such things.

The issue is giving these fringe (yet loud) extreme minorities more voice than they democratically deserve because of numbers. The optional voting system in America assures only the most active and fanatical voters decide, which means only the extremes are motivated enough to vote and to encourage others to vote, and organize with the GOP etc.

You misunderstand, 80% of the nation believes in one flavor or another of Christianity. It has no bearing on how many people are attending public services.

Someone already addressed the 'get out and vote' point very well.

The majority of our past Presidents, if not all of them, have held nearly identical beliefs regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. Are you saying they have all been wrong in the past?

All of them? really? hrm...

the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams.

fail.

Too late, just have to pick which offer to accept.

Hope its not too late to apply to Liberty, though, heh!

feh don't say I didn't warn ya.

"The only reference to religion in the Bill of Rights is: "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." There is no "separation of Church and state" and no reason to deny public office due to religious beliefs.

To have the free excercise of religion, including ones other than yours, no single religion should have power over the goverment, as it would infringe on all the other religions.

So, for all religions to be freely practiced, they must be equal before the law. To give Christianity power over the goverment impedes the free practice of the other religions.

That said, I don't think anyone should be denied the right to run for office, whether Mormon, Muslim, Baptist...okay, I personally wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, though.

As for Jefferson's referenced letter about "Separation of Church and State", I think since no law can be passed to establish a religion, and yet no religion can be restricted in its practice, that naturally leads to a neutrality of government in respect to religion.

I probably won't be voting for McCain, and I was on the fence before I read this post. Once I confirm these McCain quotes, I will bail on him.

Perhaps it would be easier for you to point me in the direction of any President we have had that doesn't believe what McCain said about this country and it's founding. Did you read the quote?

I already did, let me repeat it for you:

""[T]he Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." - John McCain

contrast with

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - John Adams

I'd prefer not to bet the state of education on the democrats retaining congress after the 2010 elections, or the 2012 or 2014, should McCain win a second term.

Good point.

To have the free excercise of religion, including ones other than yours, no single religion should have power over the goverment, as it would infringe on all the other religions.

So, for all religions to be freely practiced, they must be equal before the law. To give Christianity power over the goverment impedes the free practice of the other religions.

That said, I don't think anyone should be denied the right to run for office, whether Mormon, Muslim, Baptist...okay, I personally wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, though.

As for Jefferson's referenced letter about "Separation of Church and State", I think since no law can be passed to establish a religion, and yet no religion can be restricted in its practice, that naturally leads to a neutrality of government in respect to religion.

I probably won't be voting for McCain, and I was on the fence before I read this post. Once I confirm these McCain quotes, I will bail on him.

Here's him on video, saying what he said. It seems to come out a bit more moderate in this context, but judge for yourself.
http://video.beliefnet.com/av/popupplayer.aspx?v=3b008nem

You poor, poor soul.

Run, run while you still can!

Too late, just have to pick which offer to accept.

Hope its not too late to apply to Liberty, though, heh!

Perhaps it would be easier for you to point me in the direction of any President we have had that doesn't believe what McCain said about this country and it's founding. Did you read the quote?

George Washington was President when the treaty of Tripoli was being written, and raised no objection. it was signed by President John Adams in his first term. It includes this article:
Art. 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 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.

so there's at least two.

now that's a claim I'll hold you to support.

(gah, every post I have made so far has been timewarped!)

Perhaps it would be easier for you to point me in the direction of any President we have had that doesn't believe what McCain said about this country and it's founding. Did you read the quote?

Just when I thought I could give the man an inkling of respect...

Seconded. These fuckers need to move to somewhere like Iran and talk about how glorious it is to have a country founded specifically on religious principles.
:mad:

See, this is the problem with Godless people like you, Cat-Tribes. You always want to decide constitutional issues by reading the Constitution.

Just because the Constitution specifically, explicitly, and with utterly stark clarity says that no religion can be established by law, that doesn't mean that it doesn't establish the U.S. as a nation of one particular religion.

And just because the Constitution expressly prohibits a religious test doesn't mean that a candidate shouldn't be excluded for being of the wrong religion.

Go get a legal education, Cat-Tribes.

And quit trying this lame trick of supporting your Constitutional interpretations with lucid examinations of the relevant articles.

I start law school in September, and I'm going to dedicate my career to resisting and exposing people like you.

This country needs to embrace a single religion and enforce it by law so we can fight the religious extremists who threaten to force us all to join a single religion.

Its unfortunate I should have to explain that.

*humbly adds*
I think it explains itself rather adequately.

All of them? really? hrm...



Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams.

fail.

I said most, if not all....

Ok so you have one statement to the contrary by one President. Out of 43 presidents and thousands of statements, letters, diaries etc. One is what you found? I think I still qualify my statement that MOST is still valid.

...if not all....yep fails...:p

I said most, if not all....

you said:

point me in the direction of any President we have had that doesn't believe what McCain said about this country

If your argument is so bad that you have to shift goalposts then that's not my problem.

Ok so you have one statement to the contrary by one President. Out of 43 presidents and thousands of statements, letters, diaries etc. One is what you found? I think I still qualify my statement that MOST is still valid.

Tell you what, you think "most if not all" our presidents believed similarly? Then surely you won't have any problem finding actual quotes spoken by the following presidents to confirm that.

After all, since you said that most of those preisdents believed that, I'm sure you have actual proof for that, right? and not just talking out of your ass?

Alright then, so please show me how the following presidents believed what he said. In no particular order:

John Kennedy
Franklin Roosevelt
William Taft
Harry Truman
William Clinton
Franklin Pierce
John Tyler
Herbert Hoover
Martin Van Buren
Zachary Taylor


Do provide actual quotations, with references, to demonstrate how these presidents believed what you say they believed. Should be no problem, if you actually have proof for your statements, and not wild, baseless accusation.

you said:



If your argument is so bad that you have to shift goalposts then that's not my problem.



Tell you what, you think "most if not all" our presidents believed similarly? Then surely you won't have any problem finding actual quotes spoken by the following presidents to confirm that.

After all, since you said that most of those preisdents believed that, I'm sure you have actual proof for that, right? and not just talking out of your ass?

Alright then, so please show me how the following presidents believed what he said. In no particular order:

John Kennedy
Franklin Roosevelt
William Taft
Harry Truman
William Clinton
Franklin Pierce
John Tyler
Herbert Hoover
Martin Van Buren
Zachary Taylor


Do provide actual quotations, with references, to demonstrate how these presidents believed what you say they believed. Should be no problem, if you actually have proof for your statements, and not wild, baseless accusation.

:cool:

All of them? really? hrm...



Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams.

fail.

While I agree with your argument, which is that America is secular and not Christian, I question the Treaty of Tripoli, mainly because Tripoli is no longer a nation, so isn't the treaty not in effect now? I'm not very schooled on that, so if anyone can help out with that.

Either way, it doesn't really affect the fact that America is a secular nation in every way, shape and form.

I said most, if not all....

Ok so you have one statement to the contrary by one President. Out of 43 presidents and thousands of statements, letters, diaries etc. One is what you found? I think I still qualify my statement that MOST is still valid.

...if not all....yep fails...:p

You realize what you're asking for would take hours of research, and I came up with that one in less than a minute?
Ok, here's a few more I can throw out:
-- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

James Madison; Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785
“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?”

note I threw these one out earlier, but it got timewarped all to hell so I can forgive you for missing it.
also: JFK
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

And in a two-fer, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.
To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life. (Theodore Roosevelt, 26th U. S. President [1901-1909], letter to J. C. Martin, November 9, 1908, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 83.)

While I agree with your argument, which is that America is secular and not Christian, I question the Treaty of Tripoli, mainly because Tripoli is no longer a nation, so isn't the treaty not in effect now? I'm not very schooled on that, so if anyone can help out with that.

The terms of the treaty are no longer valid as the nation no longer exists, yes, however Article 11 of the treaty was not creating an obligation by the US, it was creating a statement of fact, that the US was not formed on christianity. The treaty, formed after the formation of the US, did not affect that. The treaty stated the prevalent view of the US government (including president Adams) regarding the formation of the US government. The fact that Tripoli doesn't exist anymore doesn't change the basis of the article.

The terms of the treaty are no longer valid as the nation no longer exists, yes, however Article 11 of the treaty was not creating an obligation by the US, it was creating a statement of fact, that the US was not formed on christianity. The treaty, formed after the formation of the US, did not affect that. The treaty stated the prevalent view of the US government (including president Adams) regarding the formation of the US government. The fact that Tripoli doesn't exist anymore doesn't change the basis of the article.

Ok thanks. That is kind of what I was thinking.

More proof that McCain is full of more shit than a baby's diaper (unless it's a fresh diaper).

But relative to the other republican candidates (with the exception of RuPaul), he's not all that bad.

I'm glad I didn't have any liquid in my mouth, or I might have ruined my loaner iBook by snorking it all over the keyboard. The image of Ron Paul in drag...

The founding fathers wanted to protect the right of people to believe differently than they did on religious issues, and codified it accordingly. This naturally leads to the conclusion that we should believe as they did on religious issues.

You know, you actually make a really good point. Many of the founders did have religious beliefs. However, they also believed that people had the right to believe differently, and that their particular christian beliefs, even though they held them, should not form the basis of the new government.

If the only argument one can come up with for the claim that "america was formed on christian beliefs" is that some of the founders were christian...the argument falls pretty flat on its face. Why? because as you said, there is a significant difference from "a nation founded by people who held christian beliefs" and "a nation founded on christian beliefs".

Yes, some of the founders were christian, but they were also people who recognized that other people werne't christian, and that those people had every right to have their beliefs, and not be managed by a government with different principles.

Were some of the founders christian? Yes, of course. But they were also people wise enough to recognize that others weren't, and that their rights were just as important.

*snip Neo Art's well informed and nearly surgical satisfaction of the question at hand, even to the extent of revised requirements*

.

See, again, this is the problem with people like you, Neo Art.

You somehow think that providing a cogent example when challenged to provide one is a reasonable means of discourse.

Then, when the standard of proof is made more stringent after the fact, you quickly render additional evidence. That proves only this: you are a snooty pants.

The founding fathers wanted to protect the right of people to believe differently than they did on religious issues, and codified it accordingly. This naturally leads to the conclusion that we should believe as they did on religious issues.

By the way, for a crapton more quotes, here's a website that wrapped them up all nice and neat for me. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html\

A few more presidents supporting the seperation of church and state:

I believe in the American tradition of separation of church and state which is expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. By my office--and by my personal conviction--I am sworn to uphold that tradition. (Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th U. S. President [1963-1969]; interview, Baptist Standard, October, 1964, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 50.)

I believe that prayer in public schools should be voluntary. It is difficult for me to see how religious exercises can be a requirement in public schools, given our Constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. I feel that the highly desirable goal of religious education must be principally the responsibility of church and home. I do not believe that public education should show any hostility toward religion, and neither should it inhibit voluntary participation, if it does not interfere with the educational process. (Gerald R. Ford, 38th President [1974-1977], in an interview with Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, October 9, 1976 [p. A-8], according to Alan F. Pater and Jason R. Pater, compilers and editors, What They Said in 1976: The Yearbook of Spoken Opinion, Beverly Hills, CA: Monitor Book Co., 1977, p. 522.)

I believe in the separation of church and state and would not use my authority to violate this principle in any way. (Jimmy Carter, 39th U. S. President [1977-1981], in a letter to Jack V. Harwell, August 11, 1977, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 17.)

I'm a Southern Baptist, and I have always believed in a total separation of church and state. And I think the interjection of religion into politics is not good for this country....I don't accept human definitions of what I have to believe, you know, to be a Christian. (Jimmy Carter, 39th President [1977-1981], interview, USA Today, May 12, 1986, p. A-11, according to Alan F. Pater and Jason R. Pater, compilers and editors, What They Said in 1986: The Yearbook of Spoken Opinion, Beverly Hills, CA: Monitor Book Co., 1987, p. 458.)

so that's what, ten so far? And that's just the ones who had the balls to say it openly.

Z, don't be deceived by Neo Art and his blatant heathen Sophistry.

*sigh* if I had a nickle for every time someone called me a blatant heathen.

Ok thanks. That is kind of what I was thinking.

Z, don't be deceived by Neo Art and his blatant heathen Sophistry.

He seems to think that a simple array of reasonable facts interpreted with clarity and context can somehow be used to demonstrate the veracity of his views.

If you listen to people like him, the US will become a country of varied and peacably co-existing religious views wherein the government reflects their equality by imposing only collectively agreeable secular laws, composed and ratified by due process rather than dogmatic edict.

Death first, motherfuckers.

See, this is the problem with Godless people like you, Cat-Tribes. You always want to decide constitutional issues by reading the Constitution.

Just because the Constitution specifically, explicitly, and with utterly stark clarity says that no religion can be established by law, that doesn't mean that it doesn't establish the U.S. as a nation of one particular religion.

And just because the Constitution expressly prohibits a religious test doesn't mean that a candidate shouldn't be excluded for being of the wrong religion.

Go get a legal education, Cat-Tribes.

And quit trying this lame trick of supporting your Constitutional interpretations with lucid examinations of the relevant articles.

I start law school in September, and I'm going to dedicate my career to resisting and exposing people like you.

This country needs to embrace a single religion and enforce it by law so we can fight the religious extremists who threaten to force us all to join a single religion.

Its unfortunate I should have to explain that.

Pssssst. The Cat-Tribe has a legal education. What's your excuse?

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded by Christians...Not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ" - Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." - George Washington

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering" - Daniel Webster

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other." - John Adams

I have a challenge for you. Go out and find me the actual document upon which these people wrote these words (scans or photocopies are fine). I'd be willing to bet that you can't, because the source of these quotes has admitted that the Patrick Henry one is made up, and no one can find and actual, period source for any of the others.

You know, you actually make a really good point. Many of the founders did have religious beliefs. However, they also believed that people had the right to believe differently, and that their particular christian beliefs, even though they held them, should not form the basis of the new government.

If the only argument one can come up with for the claim that "america was formed on christian beliefs" is that some of the founders were christian...the argument falls pretty flat on its face. Why? because as you said, there is a significant difference from "a nation founded by people who held christian beliefs" and "a nation founded on christian beliefs".

Yes, some of the founders were christian, but they were also people who recognized that other people werne't christian, and that those people had every right to have their beliefs, and not be managed by a government with different principles.

Were some of the founders christian? Yes, of course. But they were also people wise enough to recognize that others weren't, and that their rights were just as important.

Neo Art, I grow quickly and acutely fatigued of this little rhetorical tactic of yours. I will say it again: using consistent, crafted logic in collusion with factual evidence to arrive at a reasonable conclusion is NOT sound argument.

The founding fathers wore wigs. Thus, I wear a wig. If you do not follow suit, you are a fucking Marxist sack of shit. George Boole said so in his work on The Rules of Thought. Chapter 3, I think.

Neo Art, I grow quickly and acutely fatigued of this little rhetorical tactic of yours. I will say it again: using consistent, crafted logic in collusion with factual evidence to arrive at a reasonable conclusion is NOT sound argument.

The founding fathers wore wigs. Thus, I wear a wig. If you do not follow suit, you are a fucking Marxist sack of shit. George Boole said so in his work on The Rules of Thought. Chapter 3, I think.

Who's puppet are you?

*sigh* if I had a nickle for every time someone called me a blatant heathen.

And on that nickel, tattooed on Jefferson's forehead, will be "In the Christian God we Trust, not valid in Utah".

This is why I'm a Raelian.

I'm not really a Raelian.

I think McCain understands the Constitution just fine but is now blatantly lying to court the religious right. He had to do this to win the nomination. That was the hard lesson he learned in 2000. Unfortunately for him, the only appeal he had to moderates was his "straight talk" and standing up against the Republicans. Now that he has sold his soul to win a nomination, it will probably cost him the general election. People like me who thought well of McCain just a few years ago, are sickened by his selling of principles.

Indeed...

If he'd beaten Bush in 2000, I probably would have supported McCain over Gore.

The Republican's entire platform is lost due to placing religion at the centre of politics - in many ways they can damn well reap what they've sowed over the last 30 years but, ultimately, it's detrimental to US politics as a whole.

My curiosity was piqued this morning watching some primary returns on CNN, so I did some digging...

---

Total Primary Votes Cast: Democrat / Republican

Alabama: 542,511 / 567,291
Alaska: 406 / 11,620
Arizona: 452,782 / 539,039
Arkansas: 309,590 / 225,202
California: 4,446,263 / 2,593,400
Colorado: 119,200 / 56,027
Connecticut: 353,515 / 151,212
Delaware: 96,341 / 50,237
Florida: 1,725,264 / 1,925,911
Georgia: 1,054,831 / 960,372
Hawaii ---
Idaho 21,224 / ---
Illinois: 2,012,168 / 895,247
Indiana ---
Iowa: 2,501 / 118,696
Kansas: 36,731 / 19,516
Kentucky ---
Louisiana: 384,348 / 161,319
Maine: 3,497 / 5,446
Maryland: 777,675 / 297,217
Massachusetts: 1,254,537 / 497,531
Michigan: 593,837 / 868,083
Minnesota: 212,914 / 62,857
Mississippi ---
Missouri: 823,503 / 589,289
Montana: --- / 1,630
Nebraska 38,670 / ---
Nevada: 10,560 / 44,324
New Hampshire: 287,322 / 238,548
New Jersey: 1,119,768 / 560,006
New Mexico ---
New York: 1,748,883 / 607,011
North Carolina ---
North Dakota: 19,012 / 9,785
Ohio ---
Oklahoma: 417,096 / 333,602
Oregon ---
Pennsylvania ---
Rhode Island ---
South Carolina: 532,227 / 431,196
South Dakota ---
Tennessee: 618,723 / 549,515
Texas ---
Utah: 124,307 / 284,790
Vermont ---
Virginia: 979,712 / 487,656
Washington: 31,984 / 13,475
Washington, DC: 113,746 / 5,801
West Virginia: --- / 1,100
Wisconsin ---
Wyoming: --- / 12

TOTAL: 21,265,648 / 14,163,963

Source: NPR.org

---

Now while that's hardly indicative of anything, given open primaries and cross-over voters, 60% of all votes cast in the primaries so far have been for Democratic candidates.

Or, to look at it another way, if these were tallies for the general election in November, the current electoral vote count would be...

289 to 98

...and we don't even have all the states primaries concluded yet.

I smell a landslide come November.

No, what Cat-Tribes has is evil satanist indoctrination.

Look carefully at Cat-Tribes legal claims, and notice:

1. They're all about citation, an actual careful examination of the statutes in question, grounding in the pertinent case law, and thorough grasp of the language and principals involved. Clearly bullshit.

2. His mentality will lead to the equal legal recognition of the rights of non-christians. Nobody wants that.

3. All he has is some piddly ass Juris Doctorate. I have a one-day training course in the use of MS Office, from which I have forgotten everything and for which I received a PDF file certificate of completion. Therefore, I am more qualified to address legal questions, or as we call them in the industry, "matters".

4. Liberty Law school professors are probably on my side. I forgot to apply there, though.

1 plus 2 plus 3 plus 4 = I fucking win.

Ah!

Hellow pawpet! Who is your master?

And on that nickel, tattooed on Jefferson's forehead, will be "In the Christian God we Trust, not valid in Utah".

Well, we all know those mormons aren't christian. Dirty, dirty mormons.

This is why I'm a Raelian.

Yay!

I'm not really a Raelian.

Boo!

Straughn has developed a pronounced dissociative identity disorder.

Well...tell him I hope they get better.

Pssssst. The Cat-Tribe has a legal education. What's your excuse?

No, what Cat-Tribes has is evil satanist indoctrination.

Look carefully at Cat-Tribes legal claims, and notice:

1. They're all about citation, an actual careful examination of the statutes in question, grounding in the pertinent case law, and thorough grasp of the language and principals involved. Clearly bullshit.

2. His mentality will lead to the equal legal recognition of the rights of non-christians. Nobody wants that.

3. All he has is some piddly ass Juris Doctorate. I have a one-day training course in the use of MS Office, from which I have forgotten everything and for which I received a PDF file certificate of completion. Therefore, I am more qualified to address legal questions, or as we call them in the industry, "matters".

4. Liberty Law school professors are probably on my side. I forgot to apply there, though.

1 plus 2 plus 3 plus 4 = I fucking win.

If you listen to people like him, the US will become a country of varied and peacably co-existing religious views wherein the government reflects their equality by imposing only collectively agreeable secular laws, composed and ratified by due process rather than dogmatic edict.

Death first, motherfuckers.

Siggable!

:p

Why do people keep asking me that?

Sigh...I'll explain again.

Straughn has developed a pronounced dissociative identity disorder. I am an alternate personality of his. At various times, I can and have seized various parts of his higher cognitive functions and used them to post the Truth on nationstates.

Also, when he dies, only my section of his brain will go to heaven, because I support Jebus, at the polls.

Now.

Who's puppet are you?

I am Maxxx Barry, of course.

Who's puppet are you?

Why do people keep asking me that?

Sigh...I'll explain again.

Straughn has developed a pronounced dissociative identity disorder. I am an alternate personality of his. At various times, I can and have seized various parts of his higher cognitive functions and used them to post the Truth on nationstates.

Also, when he dies, only my section of his brain will go to heaven, because I support Jebus, at the polls.

Now.

Who's puppet are you?

People, people, Jhahannam's got enough sarcasm here to break quite a few detectors, so bear with me for some analysis.


Just because the Constitution specifically, explicitly, and with utterly stark clarity says that no religion can be established by law, that doesn't mean that it doesn't establish the U.S. as a nation of one particular religion.

See, here he says one thing in clear and concise manners, and then says that it can't be.


1. They're all about citation, an actual careful examination of the statutes in question, grounding in the pertinent case law, and thorough grasp of the language and principals involved. Clearly bullshit.

2. His mentality will lead to the equal legal recognition of the rights of non-christians. Nobody wants that.

3. All he has is some piddly ass Juris Doctorate. I have a one-day training course in the use of MS Office, from which I have forgotten everything and for which I received a PDF file certificate of completion. Therefore, I am more qualified to address legal questions, or as we call them in the industry, "matters".

4. Liberty Law school professors are probably on my side. I forgot to apply there, though.


Again here, he lists a number of positive attributes about his opponent, and then claims that his is superior by outlining his inferior qualities.

No troll would ever do that. A lampooner on the other hand...

First of all, the one and only master is Sho'Nuff, the Shogun of Harlem.

http://www.arch102-07.form-ula.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/sho_nuff.jpg

Sho’Nuff: Am I the meanest?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Am I the prettiest?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Am I the baddest mo-fo, low-down, around this town?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Well, who am I?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Who am I?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: I can’t hear you!
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: The Shogun of Harlem!


:D

Ah!

Hellow pawpet! Who is your master?

First of all, the one and only master is Sho'Nuff, the Shogun of Harlem.

Second, in all this pointless inquiry as to my allegedly pawpetry, we are forgetting one thing:

Suppose we actually caved in to fuckwits like Cat Tribes and Neo Art and we bought into this whole "Congress shall make no law blababalbabla" tardbarking.

What would REALLY be the result?

If the goverment is secular, and religion does not have the power of the state, that means every religion would have fair, commeasurate standing under the law. Every religion would be free to practice as a religion without intrusion from the government, and vice versa. This will lead to the right to practice any religion, many religions.

Well guess what, dumbasses? The vast majority of these religions WILL NOT BE YOURS! If you're Catholic, you'll have to live alongside protestants. If you're protestant, you might have to work with a Jew. If you're a Jew, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Life is important, people. God is more important. Force your God on others, with all the weight of the law. Otherwise, you might be have to just freely practice your faith and allow others to do the same.

First of all, the one and only master is Sho'Nuff, the Shogun of Harlem.

Second, in all this pointless inquiry as to my allegedly pawpetry, we are forgetting one thing:

Suppose we actually caved in to fuckwits like Cat Tribes and Neo Art and we bought into this whole "Congress shall make no law blababalbabla" tardbarking.

What would REALLY be the result?

If the goverment is secular, and religion does not have the power of the state, that means every religion would have fair, commeasurate standing under the law. Every religion would be free to practice as a religion without intrusion from the government, and vice versa. This will lead to the right to practice any religion, many religions.

Well guess what, dumbasses? The vast majority of these religions WILL NOT BE YOURS! If you're Catholic, you'll have to live alongside protestants. If you're protestant, you might have to work with a Jew. If you're a Jew, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Life is important, people. God is more important. Force your God on others, with all the weight of the law. Otherwise, you might be have to just freely practice your faith and allow others to do the same.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm. Because I know fundies who are serious about this.

Well...tell him I hope they get better.

heehehe!:)

First of all, the one and only master is Sho'Nuff, the Shogun of Harlem.

Oh my god. Somebody else actually so that movie!

Oh my god. Somebody else actually so that movie!

http://commonsensegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/250px-shonuff01.jpg

Sho'Nuff! :D

Ah, LG, my old enemy. I thought I could feel your maniacal energies polluting this thread.

LG, look, in another world, we could have been friends, so I'm going to say this to you plain. Please listen.

Many of the first colonists that came to my country were fleeing government supported religious strife. It only makes sense that they would want religion to continue to have that opportunity.

Jesus can save you, LG, from your madness, from sin, from the microbial pathogens released into your water supply by gay people.

I love you, Lunatic Goofballs, and Jesus loves you.

But not in a gay way!

I love you, Lunatic Goofballs, and Jesus loves you.

:eek:

You haven't seen that video, have you? Because Jesus promised me that it was just to remember me by.

:eek:

First of all, the one and only master is Sho'Nuff, the Shogun of Harlem.

Am I the meanest?

Am I the prettiest?

Am I the mo fo lowdown around this town?

Well, who am I?
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3/bizzy1985/sho-nuff.jpg
Kiss my Converse.



Screw you bastards for being quicker than me. I'm leaving it up, I don't care if I'm behind...

http://www.arch102-07.form-ula.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/sho_nuff.jpg

Sho’Nuff: Am I the meanest?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Am I the prettiest?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Am I the baddest mo-fo, low-down, around this town?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Well, who am I?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: Who am I?
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: I can’t hear you!
Gang: Sho’Nuff!
Sho’Nuff: The Shogun of Harlem!


:D

Ah, LG, my old enemy. I thought I could feel your maniacal energies polluting this thread.

LG, look, in another world, we could have been friends, so I'm going to say this to you plain. Please listen.

Many of the first colonists that came to my country were fleeing government supported religious strife. It only makes sense that they would want religion to continue to have that opportunity.

Jesus can save you, LG, from your madness, from sin, from the microbial pathogens released into your water supply by gay people.

I love you, Lunatic Goofballs, and Jesus loves you.

Don't you realize what that will do to religion?

Create intense pressures to succeed in an increasingly materialistic world where churches will eventually turn into pubs and temples into entertainment centers in order to draw in converts?

Am I the meanest?

Am I the prettiest?

Am I the mo fo lowdown around this town?

Well, who am I?
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3/bizzy1985/sho-nuff.jpg
Kiss my Converse.



Screw you bastards for being quicker than me. I'm leaving it up, I don't care if I'm behind...

There's never too much Sho'Nuff. :)

Many of the first colonists that came to my country were fleeing government supported religious strife. It only makes sense that they would want religion to continue to have that opportunity.

Exactly, the pilgrims didn't come to America for religious freedom, they came to be in charge of religious oppression. Stocks, dunkings, hangings and burnings were their style. It's high time the tardbarking lactators got a clue to what this country was founded for.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm. Because I know fundies who are serious about this.

Okay, first of all, Fundies are a sexually immoral item sold at Spencer's Gifts.

Fundamentalists are people who know that simple truths should guide the way, so long as those simple truths are only interpreted and applied in light of their own stringest religious dogma.

As for sarcasm, it is beneath me, right next to the sin I've washed out of my life, now a danger only to my Crocs brand plastic sandals (tm).

Why won't anyone listen?

There is no separation of church and state!!! To do so would only allow the free practice of multiple religions while recognizing the rights of people to be governed by laws that don't favor one set of religious beliefs over another!!!!!

Don't you realize what that will do to religion?

We need to restore those times, and make slutty girls where scarlet letters on their clothes. Save a lot of time at parties.

I fully support any legislation that requires easy women to identify themselves so that us respectable law abiding men know where to go without approaching the wrong people.

Fucking lawsuits.

Finally, somebody versed in the benefits of religion-based government.

You can't, I repeat CAN NOT, argue with people who wore buckles on their hats.

We need to restore those times, and make slutty girls where scarlet letters on their clothes. Save a lot of time at parties.

You sir, are an absolute MASTER of the sarcasm. Just enough stupidity and blatant agreement to KNOW its sarcasm, with all the trollishness for extra juicyness. I bow down to your superior wit, intellect, and bizzarro humour. You are the Shogun of NS.

Ah, LG, my old enemy. I thought I could feel your maniacal energies polluting this thread.

LG, look, in another world, we could have been friends, so I'm going to say this to you plain. Please listen.

Many of the first colonists that came to my country were fleeing government supported religious strife. It only makes sense that they would want religion to continue to have that opportunity.

Jesus can save you, LG, from your madness, from sin, from the microbial pathogens released into your water supply by gay people.

I love you, Lunatic Goofballs, and Jesus loves you.

It's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinkin' they the Last Dragon that gives kung-fu a bad name.

Exactly, the pilgrims didn't come to America for religious freedom, they came to be in charge of religious oppression. Stocks, dunkings, hangings and burnings were their style. It's high time the tardbarking lactators got a clue to what this country was founded for.

Finally, somebody versed in the benefits of religion-based government.

You can't, I repeat CAN NOT, argue with people who wore buckles on their hats.

We need to restore those times, and make slutty girls where scarlet letters on their clothes. Save a lot of time at parties.

Of course not. Christians aren't gay, not even in Colorado Springs.

Gays have to go over to Scientology and be ungayed.

Anyway, LG is what we call omni-sexual. Fucking him is sort of like quantum entanglement.

Just don't observe him while you're doing him, it will cause him to take on an actual state and your genitals might be damaged.

Sort of like how you don't look a girl in the eye when you get your cookie unless you want her as a girlfriend.

Look, religion MUST have government power. Without it, it will have to satisfy itself with sincere spiritual choice. Fuck that noise.

Where the fuck were you all this time, anyway? Real life or something?

Anyway, LG is what we call omni-sexual. Fucking him is sort of like quantum entanglement.

Just don't observe him while you're doing him, it will cause him to take on an actual state and your genitals might be damaged.

Schrodinger's Boink. :)

But not in a gay way!

Of course not. Christians aren't gay, not even in Colorado Springs.

Gays have to go over to Scientology and be ungayed.

Anyway, LG is what we call omni-sexual. Fucking him is sort of like quantum entanglement.

Just don't observe him while you're doing him, it will cause him to take on an actual state and your genitals might be damaged.

Sort of like how you don't look a girl in the eye when you get your cookie unless you want her as a girlfriend.

Look, religion MUST have government power. Without it, it will have to satisfy itself with sincere spiritual choice. Fuck that noise.

Schrodinger's Boink. :)

Sigworthy, yet again. *bows*

Wait, did I hear Straughn is having a baby?

The trees have been whispering incessantly.

Schrodinger's Boink. :)

is that when you simultaniously are and are not having sex with a cat?

See, this is the problem with Godless people like you, Cat-Tribes. You always want to decide constitutional issues by reading the Constitution.

Just because the Constitution specifically, explicitly, and with utterly stark clarity says that no religion can be established by law, that doesn't mean that it doesn't establish the U.S. as a nation of one particular religion.

And just because the Constitution expressly prohibits a religious test doesn't mean that a candidate shouldn't be excluded for being of the wrong religion.

Go get a legal education, Cat-Tribes.

And quit trying this lame trick of supporting your Constitutional interpretations with lucid examinations of the relevant articles.

I start law school in September, and I'm going to dedicate my career to resisting and exposing people like you.

This country needs to embrace a single religion and enforce it by law so we can fight the religious extremists who threaten to force us all to join a single religion.

Its unfortunate I should have to explain that.nice, I like your style.

:D

You sir, are an absolute MASTER of the sarcasm. Just enough stupidity and blatant agreement to KNOW its sarcasm, with all the trollishness for extra juicyness. I bow down to your superior wit, intellect, and bizzarro humour. You are the Shogun of NS.

Svalbardania came not to praise Jhahannam, but to bury him...

You give me too much credit, for what you call stupidity is in fact my authentic and most deeply held conviction, and on the day of broken seals, it will be yours too.

Sadly for me, the obtuse pseudo-religous horseshit is real, my wit and intellect are faux...

I beg you, all of you, hear me.

Your children must pray in school. If people don't see them praying, it doesn't count. They must use money with God on it (albeit this must be modified to more clearly indicate the Christian God, and even more specifically, whichever Christian sect wins the 2nd American Revolution).

If you allow multiple beliefs to express themselves with neither government support nor interference, people will start choosing from those ideas, freely, adding to them, developing them, openly practicing them.

Is that the world you want your children to grow up in?

Wait, did I hear Straughn is having a baby?

It's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinkin' they the Last Dragon that gives kung-fu a bad name.

Bullets...with his teeth?

is that when you simultaniously are and are not having sex with a cat?

Yes. No.

:confused:

:)

Where the fuck were you all this time, anyway? Real life or something?

I don't know, you're asking me?

Its your brain I'm housed in. You must've been using it for something.

What happened, big project at work?

Finally finishing that novel you been workin' on?

Remember, Straughn, my attempt to develop indepedent neural tissue failed, so I still have to use yours. That thing you blew out of your nose was supposed to allow me to have discrete cognitive functions.

Straughn, look, we can't burn in hell. Won't you join me in explaining to these people that McCain is right?

Don't you see, this fallacy of separation of church and state is killing me?

Funny to watch though.

nice, I like your style.

:D

Dammit, it is not a style, and I am not a friggin' puppet!!!!

Why won't anyone believe me?

Look, I know my postings are a little contradictive, sharing a brain with Straughn and his filthy liberal views has afflicted me with the kind of cognitive dissonance that only the enforced adherence to one specific religion can resolve.

Don't you see, this fallacy of separation of church and state is killing me?

Well I'm nearly convinced - my question now to those looking to wrestle religion back into the epicentre of the political sphere is:

John McCain?

That liberal, heathen, non-fundamental, semi-lucid, practically atheist, doddering old fool?

How can he be expected to rain fire and brimstone on the godless?

I'm assuming democracy stands second to God here so should Pat Robertson be installed as some kind of all-in-one judicial-presidential overlord?

Dammit, it is not a style, and I am not a friggin' puppet!!!!

Why won't anyone believe me?
If you insist, I'll try not to look at you in the eye ;)

Yes. No.

:confused:

:)

*turns all cats into soap*

All possible LG's involved with cats spontaneously suffer total existence failure. Quantum waveform collapsed, returning LG into a single state particle.

:p

If you insist, I'll try not to look at you in the eye ;)

Go slow, its my first time.

I need to go to bed soon, so I'm going to try one last time:

America is a christian nation, established by law. Any rebuttal of that would only be based on the Constitution, which has little place in defining, limiting, and enumerating rights in America.

US Presidents should and must be Christian. Testing their religion as a means of qualifying them in no way results in any kind of "religious test".

Cat-Tribes is a fraud. He passed the bar exam using nothing but a well-trained legal mind and the conscientious application of reason. Fuck that guy.

Well I'm nearly convinced - my question now to those looking to wrestle religion back into the epicentre of the political sphere is:

John McCain?

That liberal, heathen, non-fundamental, semi-lucid, practically atheist, doddering old fool?

How can he be expected to rain fire and brimstone on the godless?

I'm assuming democracy stands second to God here so should Pat Robertson be installed as some kind of all-in-one judicial-presidential overlord?

Actually, we're going with Ted Haggard, a brilliant, faithful, fabulous pastor from Colorado Springs. I haven't been keeping up with him the last couple years, but last I heard, in 2005 or so, he was doing great.

He's our man in 2012.

Go slow, its my first time.

I need to go to bed soon, so I'm going to try one last time:

America is a christian nation, established by law. Any rebuttal of that would only be based on the Constitution, which has little place in defining, limiting, and enumerating rights in America.

US Presidents should and must be Christian. Testing their religion as a means of qualifying them in no way results in any kind of "religious test".

Cat-Tribes is a fraud. He passed the bar exam using nothing but a well-trained legal mind and the conscientious application of reason. Fuck that guy.I am impressed.
instant replies, displaying stunning IQ + awesome Wit.

A++

Looking forward to see more of your posts around.

DAMMIT!

I like McCain. I like his policies, and I like the fact that he generally spews less bullshit then most politicians.

Now I can't vote for him.

DAMMIT!

I like McCain. I like his policies, and I like the fact that he generally spews less bullshit then most politicians.

Now I can't vote for him.Actually this "God speak" is not the Worst of him. There is other -more realistic- dangers if we elect him.
>> Going AFK, shall be back Saturday >>

Actually, we're going with Ted Haggard, a brilliant, faithful, fabulous pastor from Colorado Springs. I haven't been keeping up with him the last couple years, but last I heard, in 2005 or so, he was doing great.

He's our man in 2012.

Hmm, his name sure makes him sound like a man's man, someone who's up to speed on the issues.

What about Rick Santorum?

President Santorum! I'm sure he'll deal with any frothy residue resulting from heathen activities.

*turns all cats into soap*

All possible LG's involved with cats spontaneously suffer total existence failure. Quantum waveform collapsed, returning LG into a single state particle.

:p

Or did it? :D

We already know that McCain is a class A nut. This just proves it.

I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it.

He's even picked up Bush's speech patterns!

So-called "moderate" John McCain is not moderate when it comes to Christianity and the Constitution.

There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda).

But that pales compared to McCain's ignorance and prejudice concerning basic religious freedom and the U.S. Constitution.

Some months ago, Senator McCain told beliefnet in an interview (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html):

"[T]he Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Not only is this statement incredibly bigotted, it is fundamentally wrong. The U.S. Constitution (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/) is purposefully devoid of any reference to Christianity. Not only does the Constitution NOT establish a Christian nation, but it expressly does the opposite: the First Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/) forbids any "law respecting an establishment of religion."

McCain also said:

"I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the Constitution actually specifies:
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. [emphasis added]

McCain fundamentally misunderstands both the language and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and, accordingly, is not fit to lead this country.

This is the time when McCain started to freak me out. I realized that he was just pandering to the audience intended for the article. I chose instead to judge McCain on his past record and not this idiotic blunder. I agree with you on how it seems on the surface.

how do i read treay of tripoli?

While I agree with your argument, which is that America is secular and not Christian, I question the Treaty of Tripoli, mainly because Tripoli is no longer a nation, so isn't the treaty not in effect now? I'm not very schooled on that, so if anyone can help out with that.
The point for bringing it up is that it gives the opinion of the FOUNDERS of the United States, on this very question, absolutely explicitly.

I think McCain understands the Constitution just fine but is now blatantly lying to court the religious right.

Either case makes him unfit to be president.

He was born in 1936. Think about that for a moment. :p

It isn't 1936 anymore. Learn to use a damn computer.

Does McCain even know when "In God we Trust" became the motto? He's talking about the Founding Fathers as if they were still around in the 1950's.

Edit: Scratch that. It first came into use on some currency around the Civil War era. But, still, I don't think the Founding Fathers were around anymore.

Hopefully McCain and Obama will win the nomination because then McCain will hand the election to Obama. McCain hasn't been a moderate since his campaign 8 years ago and if he stays in the limelight, the moderates and independents are going to see that he is as hard right as any of them.

"McCain steals Huckabee's thunder shocker"

how do i read treay of tripoli?
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1786t.htm

There you go.

Don't worry, it's all okay. Jesus talked to him in a dream, so it's alright! ;)

I think McCain understands the Constitution just fine but is now blatantly lying to court the religious right. He had to do this to win the nomination. That was the hard lesson he learned in 2000. Unfortunately for him, the only appeal he had to moderates was his "straight talk" and standing up against the Republicans. Now that he has sold his soul to win a nomination, it will probably cost him the general election. People like me who thought well of McCain just a few years ago, are sickened by his selling of principles.

^This. He's a liar and it's really sad. He used to be a great Republican because he put principles above "winning". Now it's reversed and, like Clinton, he'll do anything for a shot at the Presidency.

One more reason to vote for McCain: it'll piss off the Christophobes :headbang:

One more reason to vote for McCain: it'll piss off the Christophobes :headbang:

And to think I was looking for reasons to vote for hillary in the general. I guess this one is good enough. She'll piss off repugnocrats.

I fully support any legislation that requires easy women to identify themselves so that us respectable law abiding men know where to go without approaching the wrong people.

Fucking lawsuits.

I jut spilled mounain dew on my keboad. I WILL have m evenge!

No I don't think you want a candidate that is devoid of religion, that would be foolish. But I do think you somehow think a candidate should ignore his religion when it comes to governing, which also isn't going to happen. Perhaps I am still misunderstanding your point.

I'm surprised nobody else picked up on this.

Why, exactly, would it be foolish to have a president devoid of faith? Would he somehow do a worse job than a similar president with faith? :confused:

The extremists are not the majority of the party by a long shot, the extremists just make the most headlines is all. I don't particularly see him as any more extremists than Obama in fact. I took the time to read and study the mission statement of the church Obama and Michelle have been long time members of and it certainly isn't any middle of the road moderate church in and of itself. His beliefs are at least as extreme as McCain's if you really study it. He is courting extremists just as heavily, it just isn't as publically. Probably the least involved with religious matters is Hillary in reality.

I see the point of the concern but I do not see it as a threat in the least. Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere we all know this. It is a women's health care act more than anything, intelligent people know that abortion will not stop. The government isn't fixing to institute a national religion (which is what the first amendment insures). Creationism can be taught along side evoluation as an alternative...why not, we want to teach alternative lifestyles too do we not, let's give it all to the kids and let them decide....isn't that what we want? So have at it on all aspects not just those liberals want. Fair enough. I learned both in school it didn't hurt me, it won't hurt kids today either.

The thing is I don't see any of these issues as the be all end all of what is important today. These are small potatoes in the bigger picture. They are also potatoes that can't be cooked without Congressional approval, do you see the Congress we have going with any of this? Of course not.

It all sounds like Henny Pennyism to me. There is more to all the candidates than just their faith, something they all have.

1. As has been explained to you, the basic question is how one who either fundamentally misunderstands the Constitution or is blatantly lying about it can be trusted to uphold the Constitution. I'm not a single-issue voter, but the Constitution is about as close to a decisive litmus test as I get.

2. You confuse having faith with disrespecting the Constitution. All of the mainstream candidates for the Presidency are zealous Christians (and that is all very well), but Clinton and Obama recognize that it is the Constitution, not their faith, that is supreme.

3. As for the side-issues I mentioned that go along with McCain's placing his religion over the Constitution, your answers are less than convincing. First, you ignore the issue of school prayer, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Next, it is all very well to say Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, but the fact is an increasing number of Supreme Court Justices are hostile to Roe and McCain would add to that number if he gets the chance. Moreover, it is more than a little confusing to have you defend someone's view that abortion should be illegal by saying that "intelligent people know that abortion will not stop." Are you admitting McCain isn't intelligent? Finally, teaching creationism as science alongside evolution is a violation of the separation of Church and State. Creationism is religous dogma, not a scientific theory. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

The extremists are not the majority of the party by a long shot, the extremists just make the most headlines is all.

Seriously, you don't recognize the irony of this given what you're arguing in other threads. It seems like someone wants special treatment. Sucks when someone doesn't treat individuals like individuals, doesn't it?

that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing013.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing013.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing013.gif

Has anyone here ever taken an ethics class? Saying that you're a fan of "Judeo-Christian principles" may be a bland semi-pander to religious voters, but it's also a legitimate ethical traditon, rather than a "bigotted" "God-told-me-so" attitude, even if those people do indeed exist. McCain's never been a religious extremist, and none of his statements in the article the OP linked to suggest so (did anyone actually read it?
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

The OP doesn't believe this to be the statement of a religious nut or theocrat, I damn near guarantee it. Fun stuff, though. :p

1. You misstate the issue. The question is not whether McCain is a theocrat (although he talks like one), the issue is either his misunderstanding of or his lying about the Constitution.

2. The context you add does little to help McCain's statement. Think if he had said the following (which is equally untrue):

I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Muslim nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Muslims.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Islamic principles.

Wouldn't you say the above was unacceptable?


He was born in 1936. Think about that for a moment. :p

FWIW, my grandparents are older than McCain and yet have some degree of computer literacy. I exchanged e-mails with my grandmother this morning.:p

Cat-Tribes, where did you go to law school? I've been offered a full ride to Thomas Cooley Law in Michigan, so you should listen to me.
It's sentences like this that draw me to these threads.

1. As has been explained to you, the basic question is how one who either fundamentally misunderstands the Constitution or is blatantly lying about it can be trusted to uphold the Constitution. I'm not a single-issue voter, but the Constitution is about as close to a decisive litmus test as I get.

As usual, your argument is specious. If the Constitution were so central to the President's role, then they would be required to take an oath to uphold and defend it.


2. You confuse having faith with disrespecting the Constitution. All of the mainstream candidates for the Presidency are zealous Christians (and that is all very well), but Clinton and Obama recognize that it is the Constitution, not their faith, that is supreme.

Again, if this were the case, there would be some kind of legal tradition of holding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, with which other laws must be consistent.



3. As for the side-issues I mentioned that go along with McCain's placing his religion over the Constitution, your answers are less than convincing. First, you ignore the issue of school prayer, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Next, it is all very well to say Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, but the fact is an increasing number of Supreme Court Justices are hostile to Roe and McCain would add to that number if he gets the chance. Moreover, it is more than a little confusing to have you defend someone's view that abortion should be illegal by saying that "intelligent people know that abortion will not stop." Are you admitting McCain isn't intelligent? Finally, teaching creationism as science alongside evolution is a violation of the separation of Church and State. Creationism is religous dogma, not a scientific theory. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

Every part of what you just said is wrong, because the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution, merely a clause that very clearly results in precisely the same idea.

Cat-Tribes, where did you go to law school? I've been offered a full ride to Thomas Cooley Law in Michigan, so you should listen to me.

I'm surprised nobody else picked up on this.

Why, exactly, would it be foolish to have a president devoid of faith? Would he somehow do a worse job than a similar president with faith? :confused:

Don't you get this yet?

If a President didn't apply a specific religious faith to his governing, he or she would be forced to respect the rights of all other religions to not be governed by somebody else's religious views.

This in turn would actually provide the broadest and most effective protection for religion as a whole, but not provide special power to YOUR religion.

And God only believes in YOUR religion, a priori.

Checkmate, bitches.

It's sentences like this that draw me to these threads.

Allow me to educate you. Cooley is consistently ranked in the top 180 Law Schools in this country, and their selectivity is beyond reproach, with the caveat that you do nothing to actually examine that claim.

Cat-Tribes on the other hand seems to think the Law is about nothing but valid citations, consistent logic, fair deference to primary principles, and a pervasive grasp of its meaning and purpose.

I, on the other hand, know that law is about faith.

I will accept your apology now.

Allow me to educate you. Cooley is consistently ranked in the top 180 Law Schools in this country, and their selectivity is beyond reproach, with the caveat that you do nothing to actually examine that claim.

Cat-Tribes on the other hand seems to think the Law is about nothing but valid citations, consistent logic, fair deference to primary principles, and a pervasive grasp of its meaning and purpose.

I, on the other hand, know that law is about faith.

I will accept your apology now.
I humbly apologize. I see the error of my ways and let You proceed.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

1. You misstate the issue. The question is not whether McCain is a theocrat (although he talks like one), the issue is either his misunderstanding of or his lying about the Constitution.

2. The context you add does little to help McCain's statement. Think if he had said the following (which is equally untrue):

I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Muslim nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Muslims.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Islamic principles.

Wouldn't you say the above was unacceptable?


FWIW, my grandparents are older than McCain and yet have some degree of computer literacy. I exchanged e-mails with my grandmother this morning.:p

This is where you typically run aground, Cat-Tribes.

Your comparison implies that the standards that apply to Christianity would have to apply fairly and judiciously to other religions.

Equality before the law is not a primal theme in American law.

Jeez, dude, take some CLE.

Allow me to educate you. Cooley is consistently ranked in the top 180 Law Schools in this country, and their selectivity is beyond reproach, with the caveat that you do nothing to actually examine that claim.

Cat-Tribes on the other hand seems to think the Law is about nothing but valid citations, consistent logic, fair deference to primary principles, and a pervasive grasp of its meaning and purpose.

I, on the other hand, know that law is about faith.

I will accept your apology now.

You are the best troll I've seen yet. *hi fives*

You are the best troll I've seen yet. *hi fives*

A. I am not a troll.

B. I have, at every instance, utterly shredded Cat-Tribes legal opinions with my insight and complete liberation from fact.

C. You are forgetting the main topic of this thread:

McCain has clearly stated that the Constitution of the US establishes the US as a Christian nation. This man might be President.

Rejoice.

Anyone who says the US is a Christian nation shows a contempt of the constitution and a lack of knowledge of American history.

Many if not most of the founding fathers were athiests, while many others were deists.

Finally:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

You should also apologize to Jesus, but not the Catholic or Mormon Jesus.

Or the Muslim Jesus. They don't even spell it right.

In fact, I change my mind. Don't apologize at all, but if you're American, vote for McCain in the General Election, and support America has a Christian Nation and therefore a nation of not not Christians.
Not not not American, so I have to just ask you to carry on.

I humbly apologize. I see the error of my ways and let You proceed.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

You should also apologize to Jesus, but not the Catholic or Mormon Jesus.

Or the Muslim Jesus. They don't even spell it right.

In fact, I change my mind. Don't apologize at all, but if you're American, vote for McCain in the General Election, and support America has a Christian Nation and therefore a nation of not not Christians.

You are the best troll I've seen yet. *hi fives*

No, I wouldn't say he's trolling. I'd say he's one of the most fantastic posters so far, with a beautiful blend of satire and irony.

Jhahannam, keep up the good work. Particularly such wonderful posts as this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13449929&postcount=109) one.

Anyone who says the US is a Christian nation shows a contempt of the constitution and a lack of knowledge of American history.


As has been explained already, just because the Constitution deliberately forbids the establishment of a religion doesn't mean we can't establish Christianity as the National Religion.

After all, the Constitution (hollow words compared to the Bible) is not the foundation of American law and governance. If it were, we would have to toss out every law that violated it.

I feel sorry for him - he attacked the religious right back in 2000 and it cost him the nomination. His hands are tied.

What can any decent Republican - all jokes aside - do?

The same thing all decent republicans did. Quit the party.

The extremists are not the majority of the party by a long shot, the extremists just make the most headlines is all. I don't particularly see him as any more extremists than Obama in fact. I took the time to read and study the mission statement of the church Obama and Michelle have been long time members of and it certainly isn't any middle of the road moderate church in and of itself. His beliefs are at least as extreme as McCain's if you really study it. He is courting extremists just as heavily, it just isn't as publically. Probably the least involved with religious matters is Hillary in reality.

I see the point of the concern but I do not see it as a threat in the least. Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere we all know this. It is a women's health care act more than anything, intelligent people know that abortion will not stop. The government isn't fixing to institute a national religion (which is what the first amendment insures). Creationism can be taught along side evoluation as an alternative...why not, we want to teach alternative lifestyles too do we not, let's give it all to the kids and let them decide....isn't that what we want? So have at it on all aspects not just those liberals want. Fair enough. I learned both in school it didn't hurt me, it won't hurt kids today either.

The thing is I don't see any of these issues as the be all end all of what is important today. These are small potatoes in the bigger picture. They are also potatoes that can't be cooked without Congressional approval, do you see the Congress we have going with any of this? Of course not.

It all sounds like Henny Pennyism to me. There is more to all the candidates than just their faith, something they all have.

I assume you are speaking of the Trinity United Church of Christ? Looks like a congregation who has decided that they're going to focus on ministering to Africa and helping to educate black people about their geneology due to the diaspora forced upon them. Why should white people be able to know all about the emigration of their people and then blacks not be able to know about their own diaspora? As well, it is a mission oriented church which means that their goal is to bring more people into the flock and show them what they percieve as the true teachings of Christ(in communion with the United Church of Christ), therefore their focus on Africa can be seen from the missionary point of view and the education about the diaspora as a way to ensure that their missionaries are able to connect with the locals.

Oh, and to ward off any accusations of bias; I am an atheist hispanic from suburban Georgia. No affiliation with the church or its members at all.

As has been explained already, just because the Constitution deliberately forbids the establishment of a religion doesn't mean we can't establish Christianity as the National Religion.

How the hell do you figure the bolded?

After all, the Constitution (hollow words compared to the Bible) is not the foundation of American law and governance.

The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and yes it does for it lays out the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial.

If it were, we would have to toss out every law that violated it.

Hence the Judicial Branch! Thanks for playing now go back and study some more.

No, I wouldn't say he's trolling. I'd say he's one of the most fantastic posters so far, with a beautiful blend of satire and irony.

Jhahannam, keep up the good work. Particularly such wonderful posts as this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13449929&postcount=109) one.

Thank you for your kind words, as I am not a troll.

I would like to point out that John McCain is THE candidate for people who care about the Constitution and other obstructions to the only real faith, which is the nationalized unilateral kind.

YES! Show him, Corny!

YES! Show him, Corny!

I guess my poli sci classes paid off eh? :D

Shhh, I finally caught one!

Caught one what? Someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

YES! Show him, Corny!

Shhh, I finally caught one!

Oh, and to ward off any accusations of bias; I am an atheist hispanic from suburban Georgia. No affiliation with the church or its members at all.

Woo! Suburban Georgian Atheists, represent! :D

I went to high school in Peachtree City myself, and that's still where I go when I visit home, though I spend most of my time at the University.

[/threadjack]

How the hell do you figure the bolded?


You can tell which part is bolded because the letters are thicker and darker than the other words.


The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and yes it does for it lays out the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial.

Hah! Rookie mistake, son. Your logic is elliptical (that means like circular but especially deformed)! The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land because the Law says so? Well, the law, and precedent, and pretty much all legal scholarship on the subject, but other than that, your argument is specious in the extreme.


Hence the Judicial Branch! Thanks for playing now go back and study some more.

The Judicial Branch became invalid when they began basing their decisions solely on an analysis of the Constitution, as opposed to the idealogical inclination of the President who appointed them.

If you had read my previous posts, I can't study more yet, because I haven't chosen which Law School offer to accept, and I forgot to apply to Liberty, and I can't study unless its for credit units.

Caught one what? Someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

Yes, in your quick and incisive rebuttal to my arguments, you have shown that you are perceptive, my first worthy adversary.

Now, quit tooting your own horn and make a cogent argument for once!

Just because McCain claims that our national ordinances are based in one particular religious view does not mean he has violated the principle of religious pluralism.

Now YOU go study!

I guess my poli sci classes paid off eh? :D

I disagree and challenge you to make evident the fruits of this supposed education!

You can tell which part is bolded because the letters are thicker and darker than the other words.

Nice dodge. Now care to actually..you know..answer the question?

Hah! Rookie mistake, son. Your logic is elliptical (that means like circular but especially deformed)! The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land because the Law says so? Well, the law, and precedent, and pretty much all legal scholarship on the subject, but other than that, your argument is specious in the extreme.

*sighs*

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI of the Constitution seems to disagree with you.

The Judicial Branch became invalid when they began basing their decisions solely on an analysis of the Constitution, as opposed to the idealogical inclination of the President who appointed them.

Basing it on analysis of the Constitution? Good. Just as it should be.

If you had read my previous posts, I can't study more yet, because I haven't chosen which Law School offer to accept, and I forgot to apply to Liberty, and I can't study unless its for credit units.

HAHA!! You really are a piece of work. Maybe you should take some more government classes then maybe you would see that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of this Nation as specified in Article VI of the Constitution.

How the hell do you figure the bolded?



The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and yes it does for it lays out the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial.



Hence the Judicial Branch! Thanks for playing now go back and study some more.

If you don't mind a humble suggestion, it's possibly time to retune your satire detectors. And then go and reread his posts in this thread.

I disagree and challenge you to make evident the fruits of this supposed education!

Why bother? I know an ideological idiot when I see one.

If you don't mind a humble suggestion, it's possibly time to retune your satire detectors. And then go and reread his posts in this thread.
Spoilsport!
Corny happens to be the only NSGr without any kind of satiredetector installed.

Yes, in your quick and incisive rebuttal to my arguments, you have shown that you are perceptive, my first worthy adversary.

Now, quit tooting your own horn and make a cogent argument for once!

Just because McCain claims that our national ordinances are based in one particular religious view does not mean he has violated the principle of religious pluralism.

Now YOU go study!

I'm not the one that said that there is nothing barring us in having Christianity as a National Religion. The 1st Amendment debunks that premise. You know the one! The one that states that Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the worship thereof.

Horseshit.

If what you're saying is true, the judicial branch would have to meet and hear cases from lower appelate courts and make some sort of vote to decide whether to uphold or overturn legislation based on its harmony with the Constitution.

That is NOT what the Supreme Court does.

So, save your condescension for somebody who doesn't know better.

I vote that we elect Jhahannam Nationstates information minister.

Anyone second?

If you don't mind a humble suggestion, it's possibly time to retune your satire detectors. And then go and reread his posts in this thread.

I have. I just like to argue :D

Um, yes it is, and we are supposed to toss out every law that violates it.

Horseshit.

If what you're saying is true, the judicial branch would have to meet and hear cases from lower appelate courts and make some sort of vote to decide whether to uphold or overturn legislation based on its harmony with the Constitution.

That is NOT what the Supreme Court does.

So, save your condescension for somebody who doesn't know better.

If you don't mind a humble suggestion, it's possibly time to retune your satire detectors. And then go and reread his posts in this thread.

No, no, no, there was no satire involved.

Corneliu 2 wouldn't even grasp my previous posts, and their sheer inescapable veracity would cause him to suddenly surrender all of his political and religious convictions.

Fuck sake, people, I finally got one, don't fucking tell him!

IWell, I'll tell you something about the Constitution, Mr. Clearly Still an Undergraduate: Don't believe everything you read.

I never do mr. satire. And I graduated last year with a Bachelors in Government as well as in History. Oh and I'm going for my Masters in History to :D

Nice dodge. Now care to actually..you know..answer the question?

I did answer the question. If you don't like it, ask more insightful questions.



*sighs*


Farts.


Article VI of the Constitution seems to disagree with you.

Basing it on analysis of the Constitution? Good. Just as it should be.

HAHA!! You really are a piece of work. Maybe you should take some more government classes then maybe you would see that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of this Nation as specified in Article VI of the Constitution.

You sound just like that senile jackass Cat-Tribes, thinking that citation of the relevant articles actually composes a reply.

Well, I'll tell you something about the Constitution, Mr. Clearly Still an Undergraduate: Don't believe everything you read.

If we took the Constitution as merely a collection of articles and amendments and applied it thusly, we would be left with nothing more than a consistent and well deliberated assembly of governing principals to ensure and expand the rights of the people while limiting the goverment.

Death first, motherfuckers.

You are actually buying this shit

Nope!

I'm not the one that said that there is nothing barring us in having Christianity as a National Religion. The 1st Amendment debunks that premise. You know the one! The one that states that Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the worship thereof.

First of all, if that were true, it would have already been pointed out several times in this thread, including by me.

Try again.

Why bother? I know an ideological idiot when I see one.

Your ad hominem attack reveals only one thing:

You are actually buying this shit

You cannot craft a reasonable response.

I never do mr. satire. And I graduated last year with a Bachelors in Government as well as in History. Oh and I'm going for my Masters in History to :D

I will concede that your blossoming graduate education has gifted you with a tremendous acumen for the written word.

I rest easy that the tremendous subtlety and nuance of history will be easily and deeply penetrated by your quick criticism.

Let me look forward to the many peer-reviewed journal articles that will birth from your righteous mind.

Nope?

So, anyone on this thread can't look at your responses and see that perhaps something escaped you?

I see you forgot the post where I said that I just liked to argue? Thanks though. If you excuse me! I have a class to get off to and I still need dinner and to print 20 copies of my paper.

I have. I just like to argue :D

Yes, and your argument thus far reflects an adept grasp of my genuine premise.

Nope!

Nope?

So, anyone on this thread can't look at your responses and see that perhaps something escaped you?

To Jhahannam:

Awesome satire. You win the thread.

As for the issue at hand:

This isn't easy to accept. I still support McCain over other candidates, because I still think he's the best. But if he keeps this up, I might have to drop my support of him.

Do you have a problem knowing which ones you believe in your examples?

Do you think kids today will have such a problem?

I don't.

As a non-christian I would have a problem with my children being taught biblical bs.

My god...nobody make a sound, he's actually buying it!

I see you forgot the post where I said that I just liked to argue? Thanks though. If you excuse me! I have a class to get off to and I still need dinner and to print 20 copies of my paper.

Of course, my mistake.

The tenor and content of your arguments show that you were on to me the whole time.

My fault.

Originally Posted by John Adams

Awesome! When was he here?

;)

You are affable to say so, but I only got one person to buy it past a single post or two. He was entirely convinced, until people started tipping him off, and even several posts after that.

Yes, well, in truth the true test of satire is to be just this side of nonsensical to retain the inkling that it might be real. While your posts retained enough oddity to be obvious as satire to anyone who paid attention, the fact that a few went with it makes the comedic value even more hillarious. It's like someone watching Mel Brooks' "History of the World" and yelling at the screen that Judas was not, in fact, served soup at the last supper.

But one bullseye is still only one bullseye, although in my defense, every post had a glaring clue and he still bought it.

True in the sense that catching the slowest fish in the school is still a caught fish.

But one bullseye is still only one bullseye, although in my defense, every post had a glaring clue and he still bought it.

LikeAnd God only believes in YOUR religion, a priori.
Damn! It took me like the time to write and post 10 words to see it...

As has been explained already, just because the Constitution deliberately forbids the establishment of a religion doesn't mean we can't establish Christianity as the National Religion.

After all, the Constitution (hollow words compared to the Bible) is not the foundation of American law and governance. If it were, we would have to toss out every law that violated it.

And the fact that the first ammendment specifically says Congress cannot establish religion means we cant establish Christianity as the National Religion.


You fail.

To Jhahannam:

Awesome satire. You win the thread.


You are affable to say so, but I only got one person to buy it past a single post or two. He was entirely convinced, until people started tipping him off, and even several posts after that.

But one bullseye is still only one bullseye, although in my defense, every post had a glaring clue and he still bought it.


As for the issue at hand:

This isn't easy to accept. I still support McCain over other candidates, because I still think he's the best. But if he keeps this up, I might have to drop my support of him.

Yeah, I bailed on him already. But in his head, it might just be math...if your vote is less than some number of fundy votes, worth it to lose you.

As a non-christian I would have a problem with my children being taught biblical bs.

Too bad.

Nothing in the Constitution serves to protect you or your little children from mandated teaching of an established religion, and I prove that by pointing out that the majority of the amendments say nothing about it.

Awesome! When was he here?

;)

What surprised me was that Mr. Adams was never deleted.

I was gone for a month and lost my nation.

Adams hasn't posted shit for a couple centuries, and he keeps his nation?

MODS!

Wait, dude, are you...do you still- Oh, no wait, okay.

First of all, as I've said before, if there were such an amendment, it would have already been brought up several times in this thread, including by me.

I've already proven conclusively that establishing the US as Christian in no way establishes a religion for the nation. Because the words are in reverse order. That negates it.

Okay, really Knights? Really?

Ok, I guess this is satire.


*reads rest of thread*


Ok, this is for sure satire. Well done sir, well done. :)

Yes, well, in truth the true test of satire is to be just this side of nonsensical to retain the inkling that it might be real. While your posts retained enough oddity to be obvious as satire to anyone who paid attention, the fact that a few went with it makes the comedic value even more hillarious. It's like someone watching Mel Brooks' "History of the World" and yelling at the screen that Judas was not, in fact, served soup at the last supper.

Niiiiiice! Seriously, thanks, you're kind.



True in the sense that catching the slowest fish in the school is still a caught fish.

I still have to wonder how far it could've gone if nobody had said anything.

And the fact that the first ammendment specifically says Congress cannot establish religion means we cant establish Christianity as the National Religion.


You fail.

Wait, dude, are you...do you still- Oh, no wait, okay.

First of all, as I've said before, if there were such an amendment, it would have already been brought up several times in this thread, including by me.

I've already proven conclusively that establishing the US as Christian in no way establishes a religion for the nation. Because the words are in reverse order. That negates it.

Okay, really Knights? Really?

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded by Christians...Not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ" - Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible." - George Washington

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering" - Daniel Webster

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other." - John Adams

1. Even taken at face value (which they shouldn't be), none of these quotes goes so far as McCain to claim the Constitution established a Christian Nation.

2. Your first two quotes are of suspicious origin and probably weren't actually said by Messrs. Henry and Washington. link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/badquotes.htm)

3. Daniel Webster wasn't a Founder, although he is an important American, and he is entitled to his view.

4. John Adams, as has already been noted, signed the Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm) which declared as a matter of law that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

5. If you want to play a game of quotes, here are some from James Madison, the author of the First Amendment(emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

The only reference to religion in the Bill of Rights is: "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."

Um. Just before the part you highlight the Bill of Rights refers to religion in the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. :headbang:

There is no "separation of Church and state"

The phrase is "wall of separation of Church and State" and it has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment since at least 1878. The particular phrase came from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, but was adopted by the Court after a discussion of the history of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878); Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html), 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

The concept of "separation of Church and State" was used by many Founders -- particularly James Madison -- to describe their view of the First Amendment and the proper roles of religion and government.

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in at least 130 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw.

and no reason to deny public office due to religious beliefs.

No one, except John McCain, is saying in this thread that public office should depend on one's religious view. To the contrary, I pointed out that Article VI of the Constitution forbids a religious test.

That said, I think McCain is trying to use religion as a tool for power, and his actions don't accurately reflect the Constitution or the teachings of Jesus Christ. He won't get my vote.

On these things we agree.

1.

No one, except John McCain, is saying in this thread that public office should depend on one's religious view. To the contrary, I pointed out that Article VI of the Constitution forbids a religious test.


I'm saying it. Public office should depend on one's religious views. As long as this is done orally and not on paper, it doesn't count as a religious test, because tests are on paper.

Look just because the Supreme Court adopts something doesn't mean that it expresses the meaning of the Constitution.

Now, the establishment clause does express the practical reality of a separation of church and state, but that's beside the point.

Completely.

Ok, I guess this is satire.


*reads rest of thread*


Ok, this is for sure satire. Well done sir, well done. :)

Grazi. You picked it up faster than some others. My thanks, and please be kind when I fall for the satire of others.

I feel sorry for him - he attacked the religious right back in 2000 and it cost him the nomination. His hands are tied.

What can any decent Republican - all jokes aside - do?

The Republican's entire platform is lost due to placing religion at the centre of politics - in many ways they can damn well reap what they've sowed over the last 30 years but, ultimately, it's detrimental to US politics as a whole.

My sentiments. It's rather ironic: in 2000, his (justified) attack on the intolerance of people such as Jerry Falwell probably cost him the nomination. Now, his syncophantic behavior hasn't made him more popular with social conservatives, it has only scared away independents. It appears that he is damned if he does, and damned if he don'ts. (I know, it's not a real word. But it sounds better than "doesn't.")

Grazi. You picked it up faster than some others. My thanks, and please be kind when I fall for the satire of others.

I want to add to the kudos. Brilliant satire throughout the thread. :cool:

Hopefully, law school won't suck the wit out of you. :p

I want to add to the kudos. Brilliant satire throughout the thread. :cool:

Hopefully, law school won't suck the wit out of you. :p

Well, if you and Neo Art are anything to go by...:eek:

I want to add to the kudos. Brilliant satire throughout the thread. :cool:

Hopefully, law school won't suck the wit out of you. :p

Thanks, Tribes, but like I said, I only really got Corneliu 2, and for a very short time, Knights.

I'm probably long past the point of being taken seriously by anyone now, but you're one of the people in the world (even the internet world) that has shown me that some lawyers care about something other than billable hours.

I hope I never have to take you on for real, Cat-Tribes, because my syruppy sarcasm might be funny sometimes, but its no subsitute for real knowledge.

I don't agree with you on everything, Tribes, but if you are in real life the same way you behave here, I'd clerk for you any day.

See, that was so sappy...that's why I never try to be serious.

Well, if you and Neo Art are anything to go by...:eek:
What you see as "wit" is in fact years of carefully honed sense of morbid cynicism tinged with a healthy dose of irony and gallows humor constructed through years of being part of the soul crushing machinations of "the system"

And the fact that the first ammendment specifically says Congress cannot establish religion means we cant establish Christianity as the National Religion.

Why should the constitution stop it?

If the people - a majority - wish to institute national religion I hardly see how a scrap of paper should have any right to stand in the way of democracy or are you really arguing that US of A is governed by it's constitution and not its people? What form of government would that be anyways, constitutiocracy? :p

What you see as "wit" is in fact years of carefully honed sense of morbid cynicism tinged with a healthy dose of irony and gallows humor constructed through years of being part of the soul crushing machinations of "the system"

Yes, but you're twitching in the corner. It can't be all good.

or are you really arguing that US of A is governed by it's constitution and not its people?

Yes :p

Yes, but you're twitching in the corner.

I call it "love dancing"

Why should the constitution stop it?

If the people - a majority - wish to institute national religion I hardly see how a scrap of paper should have any right to stand in the way of democracy or are you really arguing that US of A is governed by it's constitution and not its people? What form of government would that be anyways, constitutiocracy? :p

Actually, it is. When he takes the oath of office, the President swears to uphold the Constitution, and doesn't even really mention the country or its people. The reason for this is clear: often times, the people are "helped" in deciding what they want by the folks in power. The Founders wisely foresaw that a piece of paper would be much more impartial than a living human.

Actually, it is. When he takes the oath of office, the President swears to uphold the Constitution, and doesn't even really mention the country or its people. The reason for this is clear: often times, the people are "helped" in deciding what they want by the folks in power. The Founders wisely foresaw that a piece of paper would be much more impartial than a living human.

Wouldn't similar reasoning work for Bible also? It's immutable and written in stone, so to speak, so it shouldn't be questioned only believed in even though times are a'changing?

I guess Constitution/Amendment pair would make a great candidate in 2008... :p

I call it "love dancing"

Ah. Lonely Valentine's?

Ah. Lonely Valentine's?

Hah, I wish. Thursday night is my warhammer night. but NO I have to go to the four seasons tonight. I have to bring flowers. I have to wear a suit to dinner after wearing one ALL DAY.

I keep telling her, there's a wendy's across the street from my gaming club, we can get dinner there, apparently that's not "romantic" enough. Seriously, what does she expect from me? Blood?


........there are days that I'm amazed I'm not single

Why should the constitution stop it?

If the people - a majority - wish to institute national religion I hardly see how a scrap of paper should have any right to stand in the way of democracy or are you really arguing that US of A is governed by it's constitution and not its people? What form of government would that be anyways, constitutiocracy? :p

What you advocate is called the "tyranny of the majority" and is basically a more organized version of mob rule. This is the greatest danger of any democratic system, something the founding fathers spend considerable time trying to thwart.

Wouldn't similar reasoning work for Bible also? It's immutable and written in stone, so to speak, so it shouldn't be questioned only believed in even though times are a'changing?

I guess Constitution/Amendment pair would make a great candidate in 2008... :p

Aside from mormonism, when was the bible last amended? The constitution has been amended 27 times.

Hah, I wish. Thursday night is my warhammer night. but NO I have to go to the four seasons tonight. I have to bring flowers. I have to wear a suit to dinner after wearing one ALL DAY.

I keep telling her, there's a wendy's across the street from my gaming club, we can get dinner there, apparently that's not "romantic" enough. Seriously, what does she expect from me? Blood?

A small bottle of blood is always a lovely gift. I suggest you add some to perfume, as it makes a gift both personal and practical.

Hah, I wish. Thursday night is my warhammer night. but NO I have to go to the four seasons tonight. I have to bring flowers. I have to wear a suit to dinner after wearing one ALL DAY.

I keep telling her, there's a wendy's across the street from my gaming club, we can get dinner there, apparently that's not "romantic" enough. Seriously, what does she expect from me? Blood?


........there are days that I'm amazed I'm not single

Hehe.

Hmm, that reminds me. I need to block off time on my schedule tomorrow for playing Paranoia.

Oh, there's some info about a D&D game on the site that's got openings. If you're interested, I can add you to the group to check it out. Jocabia and I will be co-DMing it.

Plus Snafturi's going to announce and then run a Star Wars d20 game on the site once she's stateside again.

(I realize that piling on many games eats into a generally already busy schedule. However, this does give you the option to be selective in what games you wish to join. I'm debating making an announcement about this in general after I've cleared it with/invited Katganistan, who's also apparently a D&D player.)

I remember the first time I invited my wife (then my fiance) to a game of Vampire: The Masquerade...

Well, tell you're girl that a double with cheese and repelling a group of Ork tanks is way better than some pasta with rosemary tomatoes and a mid price range wine.

I'm fairly sure he's not a greenskin player, but I also know he's not Dark Eldar, so I don't particularly care *hmph*

What you advocate is called the "tyranny of the majority" and is basically a more organized version of mob rule. This is the greatest danger of any democratic system, something the founding fathers spend considerable time trying to thwart.

Tyranny of majority already exists in US politics with its rather limited, basically, bi-party politics.

I'm not saying constitution shouldn't exist just that it should be able to live on with the times, for example our constitution was revised last time in 1999, and in 1995 before that, and probably will be revised again in few years to diminish the power of democratically elected president ("simple" majority) in favour of democratically elected multi-party parliament (multi-party alliances)...though I'm not really in favour of this.

The basic content will remain the same but some important sections will be changed to better reflect the world today.

Hah, I wish. Thursday night is my warhammer night. but NO I have to go to the four seasons tonight. I have to bring flowers. I have to wear a suit to dinner after wearing one ALL DAY.

I keep telling her, there's a wendy's across the street from my gaming club, we can get dinner there, apparently that's not "romantic" enough. Seriously, what does she expect from me? Blood?


........there are days that I'm amazed I'm not single

I remember the first time I invited my wife (then my fiance) to a game of Vampire: The Masquerade...

Well, tell your girl that a double with cheese and repelling a group of Ork tanks is way better than some pasta with rosemary tomatoes and a mid price range wine.

I remember the first time I invited my wife (then my fiance) to a game of Vampire: The Masquerade...

Well, tell your girl that a double with cheese and repelling a group of Ork tanks is way better than some pasta with rosemary tomatoes and a mid price range wine.

It's funny actually, I have a doubles tournament next saturady and had a planned doubles game against 'nids and orks until we all realized "shit, it's valentines day".

That reminds me, I've really been meaning to start a warhammer thread on these forums...

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it. I mean your sitting on here preaching about seperation of church and state but obviously the government doesnt seem to mind it so much. Also up until the late 1900's, when ignorant people like YOU came around. We still had prayer in school and it was still ok to say "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" whilst saying the pledge of alligence. So dont fucking come in here with your tyranical, athiest bullshit. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

I'm fairly sure he's not a greenskin player, but I also know he's not Dark Eldar, so I don't particularly care *hmph*

Chaos, for 40k. Vampire Counts in fantasy. And the new vampire counts book coming out next month has me squealing with anticipation at a pitch unbefiting of a man my age and stature.

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it. I mean your sitting on here preaching about seperation of church and state but obviously the government doesnt seem to mind it so much. Also up until the late 1900's, when ignorant people like YOU came around. We still had prayer in school and it was still ok to say "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" whilst saying the pledge of alligence. So dont fucking come in here with your tyranical, athiest bullshit. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

I hope you're trolling. Neither one of those existed at the beginning of our country. Both were the result of perceived threats, as a misplaced effort to unify the country. one of them was the result of McCarthyism, one of the most embarrassing times in this country. Though anti-Muslim sentiment is starting to look like it.

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it. I mean your sitting on here preaching about seperation of church and state but obviously the government doesnt seem to mind it so much. Also up until the late 1900's, when ignorant people like YOU came around. We still had prayer in school and it was still ok to say "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" whilst saying the pledge of alligence. So dont fucking come in here with your tyranical, athiest bullshit. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

Ohhhh, a flaming troll! *pulls out s'mores makings* This should be fun! Remember the first rule of internet trolling: Everything and everyone is gay.

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it. I mean your sitting on here preaching about seperation of church and state but obviously the government doesnt seem to mind it so much. Also up until the late 1900's, when ignorant people like YOU came around. We still had prayer in school and it was still ok to say "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" whilst saying the pledge of alligence. So dont fucking come in here with your tyranical, athiest bullshit. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

This is why I stay on NSG.

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it. I mean your sitting on here preaching about seperation of church and state but obviously the government doesnt seem to mind it so much. Also up until the late 1900's, when ignorant people like YOU came around. We still had prayer in school and it was still ok to say "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" whilst saying the pledge of alligence. So dont fucking come in here with your tyranical, athiest bullshit. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

'Under God' was added in 1954 to "combat" Communism. And to claim an opponent is tyrannical when you too preach tyranny is quite a stupid maneuver.

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it. I mean your sitting on here preaching about seperation of church and state but obviously the government doesnt seem to mind it so much. Also up until the late 1900's, when ignorant people like YOU came around. We still had prayer in school and it was still ok to say "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" whilst saying the pledge of alligence. So dont fucking come in here with your tyranical, athiest bullshit. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

Hmmm...first post, use of caps too much, doesn't go by facts and a rediculous opinion. You, my good man, are a troll.

COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

Your wrong. That has already been addressed.


The money and under god parts in the pledge were added MUCH later.


Learn your history.

Oh, there's some info about a D&D game on the site that's got openings. If you're interested, I can add you to the group to check it out. Jocabia and I will be co-DMing it.

What site is this? As a total geek who has somehow never actually played D&D (and has therefore been trying to convince all her friends to run a game for her for, like, TEN YEARS), I might be interested... :)

The last part of the constitution first sentance states, We therefore the represnetatives of the United States of America in general congress assembled appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD, is a direct reference to god.

He may be quoting from the Declaration, which is full of references to a Deist kind of God.

What site is this? As a total geek who has somehow never actually played D&D (and has therefore been trying to convince all her friends to run a game for her for, like, TEN YEARS), I might be interested... :)

You MUST play. We really need more people and the characters we have are really good.

The last part of the constitution first sentance states, We therefore the represnetatives of the United States of America in general congress assembled appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD, is a direct reference to god.

Uh, what? Please quote.

What site is this? As a total geek who has somehow never actually played D&D (and has therefore been trying to convince all her friends to run a game for her for, like, TEN YEARS), I might be interested... :)

what, a girl? There are no girls on the internet!

You MUST play. We really need more people and the characters we have are really good.

Hey, if you folks are willing to put up with a D&D n00b, you can count me in. :)

what, a girl? There are no girls on the internet!

What about girls with smokin' hot beards?

He may be quoting from the Declaration, which is full of references to a Deist kind of God.

So? The declaration is exactly the same thing as the constitution. They were printed at the same Philadelphia Kinko's.

MightySeven is better at this than I am.

You MUST play. We really need more people and the characters we have are really good.

Can I play a multi-classed halfling barbarian fanatic who discredits peacable religious people by trying to nationalize religion?

Ya know I am obviously outmatched, so i will tip my hat to you gentlemen, and bid you farwell.

Can I play a multi-classed halfling barbarian fanatic who discredits peacable religious people by trying to nationalize religion?

Sure. I'll help you build your char.

What about girls with smokin' hot beards?

Sending you a PM on GM. Honestly, it'll really help. Deus and I wanted to both play to keep the numbers up so we had to split the players up.

The last part of the constitution first sentance states, We therefore the represnetatives of the United States of America in general congress assembled appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD, is a direct reference to god.

Actually, that's a direct reference to George Clinton.

http://daduke.org/img/gc.jpg

The Supreme Judge of Funk. :)

Actually, that's a direct reference to George Clinton.

http://daduke.org/img/gc.jpg

The Supreme Judge of Funk. :)

As opposed to Roger Clinton, the Supreme Flunky of the Judge.

Sending you a PM on GM. Honestly, it'll really help. Deus and I wanted to both play to keep the numbers up so we had to split the players up.

can you send me the info in a TG here?

can you send me the info in a TG here?

I made an announcement on PNPO already. I'll add you to the D&D group so you can poke around.

Just when I thought I could give the man an inkling of respect...

Yeah, seriously.

You should also apologize to Jesus, but not the Catholic or Mormon Jesus.

Or the Muslim Jesus. They don't even spell it right.

In fact, I change my mind. Don't apologize at all, but if you're American, vote for McCain in the General Election, and support America has a Christian Nation and therefore a nation of not not Christians.

Man, you should be writing for Colbert.

Caught one what? Someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

He finally caught someone who doesn't realize he's a satirist, despite everyone in thread talking about his brilliant satire.

You know he's just pandering to the right with that rhetoric, right? His record is divergent of what many Evangelicals want.

<snip>

In my authority as pope I name you St. Jhahannam, Discordian patron saint of Satire.

In my authority as pope I name you St. Jhahannam, Discordian patron saint of Satire.

You are gracious, Your Holiness ( and/or you are holy, Your Grace, not sure how it works in your mob).

Sadly, my miracles are insufficient.

Using Bush as an alternate template? That'd be more like "troll/halfling"?

is there a class called shrub?

Sadly, my miracles are insufficient.Surrounds yaself wiz gullible folk. They'll do the rest. Like around half of the U.S. population.

Sure. I'll help you build your char.

Using Bush as an alternate template? That'd be more like "troll/halfling"?