Well, Bush just cited the book of Isiah..

[Gil Hamilton]

Some lip service is justified in order to prevent political suicide.

Exactly. In this case, this is what Bush is doing. He undoubtably believes all the stuff, but the reason the speeches are all written that way is because his major support base wants strongly to believe that he is the Great Christian Conservative President who will put the Christian Right back in the government over those godless pinko commie democratic scum. If he didn't purposely nod to the Bible at every chance he gets, his support base might get uneasy.

[Falcon]

Some lip service is justified in order to prevent political suicide.

So you're willing to believe that Washington was trying to save his political rear, but Bush is a raving fanatic who wants to burn the Constitution...

What the hell are you talking about?

You can't justify Washington and condem Bush at the same time.

[Superman]

Are fundies born with a label on their head that says,"Logically Impaired?" Damn, all of you fundies are the same.

[Joe]

So you're willing to believe that Washington was trying to save his political rear, but Bush is a raving fanatic who wants to burn the Constitution...

What the hell are you talking about?

You can't justify Washington and condem Bush at the same time.

False analogy. Washington never paid lip service to Jesus and Christianity with quite the enthusiasm that Bush has, nor did Washington violate the separation of church and state with a faith-based charity initiative. Furthermore, we know that Washington secretly thought poorly of religion; we don't know this is true of Bush. He seems to genuinely believe this shit. And as Wong pointed out, Bush is in a different time than Washington.

[Gil Hamilton]

Oh no, I'd say its far more likely that they're both right than both wrong. You can't pick and choose. Either we toss the Constitution and all the framer's intent right out the window (in which case we can do whatever we want), or we follow historical precedent(something we don't do often enough).

The founding fathers wanted an entirely secular government, not one with that appealed to dieties.

[Falcon]

Oh no, I'd say its far more likely that they're both right than both wrong. You can't pick and choose. Either we toss the Constitution and all the framer's intent right out the window (in which case we can do whatever we want), or we follow historical precedent(something we don't do often enough).

The founding fathers wanted an entirely secular government, not one with that appealed to dieties.

I agree, and one man making a comment in a speech does not lead to a religious government. The government is not to do anything to inhibit or promote religion, or to pass any law fostering excessive entanglement between church and state (Lemon test). That doesn't mean that anyone elected into office must disavow their faith. Its like suggesting they lose some other Constitutional right like speech.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe Bush is just paying lip service too. The effect is the same regardless of the intention. There is no difference between Washington mentioning religion in a speech and Bush mentioning religion in a speech.

Correct. They're both wrong. But Bush has less of an excuse; he lives in a more liberal age.

Oh no, I'd say its far more likely that they're both right than both wrong. You can't pick and choose. Either we toss the Constitution and all the framer's intent right out the window (in which case we can do whatever we want), or we follow historical precedent(something we don't do often enough).

Shell game: you are trying to treat "historical precedent" and "Constitution" as the same thing, when they're not. As for framer's intent, I suggest you look at what Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin wrote about religion and government.

[Falcon]

Correct. They're both wrong. But Bush has less of an excuse; he lives in a more liberal age.

Oh no, I'd say its far more likely that they're both right than both wrong. You can't pick and choose. Either we toss the Constitution and all the framer's intent right out the window (in which case we can do whatever we want), or we follow historical precedent(something we don't do often enough).

Shell game: you are trying to treat "historical precedent" and "Constitution" as the same thing, when they're not. As for framer's intent, I suggest you look at what Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin wrote about religion and government.

No two people ever agree on any one issue. For you to want to use one precedent or one intent while dismissing others is laughable at the least. We agree part ways, but I stop short of waging wholesale war on the rights of my elected officials and trying to stamp out faith from society. You berate the religious 'fundies' for being intolorent belief pushers, then you do the exact same thing, only 180 degrees on the ideological scale.

[Sea Skimmer]

Teenagers can't tune out a teacher? Obviously, you're on drugs.

The POINT is that both the high school teacher and the president are civil servants, and are expected to conform to certain standards of professional behaviour. But for some perverse reason, that standard is LOWER for the president than the teacher.

Perhaps because the president was elected by the nation, while teachers are generally hired by a select few in a district.

[Darth Wong]

No two people ever agree on any one issue. For you to want to use one precedent or one intent while dismissing others is laughable at the least.

Strawman. There is no constitutional principle which I am dismissing. And the "so-and-so did it, therefore it's OK" argument is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to tradition, also known as the "everybody does it" excuse.

We agree part ways, but I stop short of waging wholesale war on the rights of my elected officials and trying to stamp out faith from society.

Another strawman. It would hardly stamp out faith from society to remind civil servants that they have certain obligations in the performance of their professional duties, and the president is not exempted from these obligations.

You berate the religious 'fundies' for being intolorent belief pushers, then you do the exact same thing, only 180 degrees on the ideological scale.

Wow, I've never heard this idiotic fundie distortion upon the separation of church and state before ...

[Superman]

There is a difference between making religious comments and neutrality. If a President were to NEVER make a public comment about his faith, that does NOT mean he is not a believer. Dude, are you for real?

[Falcon]

No two people ever agree on any one issue. For you to want to use one precedent or one intent while dismissing others is laughable at the least.

Strawman. There is no constitutional principle which I am dismissing. And the "so-and-so did it, therefore it's OK" argument is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to tradition, also known as the "everybody does it" excuse.

We agree part ways, but I stop short of waging wholesale war on the rights of my elected officials and trying to stamp out faith from society.

Another strawman. It would hardly stamp out faith from society to remind civil servants that they have certain obligations in the performance of their professional duties, and the president is not exempted from these obligations.

You wouldn't fare very well in a court. Stare decisis

The president isn't betraying any professional duty by mentioning a religion in a speech. He isn't inhibiting religion nor is he advancing it. Your crusade to ban all mention of religion by public officials is ridiculous. I suppose you would deny Bush the right to attend church too?

[Superman]

Falcon, you just made more Red Herrings and Strawmen. For fuck's sake, do you even know what that means? Do you have ANY idea on how to carry on a rational debate? Oh right, I forgot you are a fundie...

[Darth Wong]

You wouldn't fare very well in a court. Stare decisis

The president isn't betraying any professional duty by mentioning a religion in a speech. He isn't inhibiting religion nor is he advancing it.

His job is not to discuss his personal beliefs. His job is to be the chief executive officer of a country.

Your crusade to ban all mention of religion by public officials is ridiculous. I suppose you would deny Bush the right to attend church too?

What he does on his own time is his own business. When he's giving public speeches in his professional capacity, that is no longer his own time. It is his job. What part of this are you too dense to understand?

[Falcon]

Falcon, you just made more Red Herrings and Strawmen. For fuck's sake, do you even know what that means? Do you have ANY idea on how to carry on a rational debate? Oh right, I forgot you are a fundie...

so far you have

insulted
raved
and
contributed nothing

[Superman]

Yes, but at least EVERYTHING I have said thus far has BEEN THE TRUTH!

[Falcon]

You wouldn't fare very well in a court. Stare decisis

The president isn't betraying any professional duty by mentioning a religion in a speech. He isn't inhibiting religion nor is he advancing it.

His job is not to discuss his personal beliefs. His job is to be the chief executive officer of a country.

It isn't like he sits around discussing religion endlessly, letting his other duties go by the wayside.

I assume by this you object to Clinton's behavior, using a government employee on government time to have oral sex in the oval office.

Your crusade to ban all mention of religion by public officials is ridiculous. I suppose you would deny Bush the right to attend church too?

What he does on his own time is his own business. When he's giving public speeches in his professional capacity, that is no longer his own time. It is his job. What part of this are you too dense to understand?[/quote]

Bush has no 'own time' He is president 24\7, subject to his duties 24\7. Anytime he speakes its as the President.

[Falcon]

Yes, but at least EVERYTHING I have said thus far has BEEN THE TRUTH!

Everything I've said has been the truth. Wow, what a great discussion that makes, ego wars.

[Superman]

Ok, now he brings up Clinton. Ok, how many Red Herrings is that now? 6?

[Alex Moon]

Here's the part that apparently is such a horrible breach of the seperation of Church and State.

Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring liberty to others. All of you -- all in this generation of our military -- have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, 'come out,' -- and to those in darkness, 'be free.'"

emphasis mine.

So Superman, please explain to me how quoting these few lines from Isaiah concerning people being free, words which do not mention god, are a violation of C/S. Especially since that part of his speech was specifically about the universal desire for freedom and how the US military was bringing it to people around the world.

[Superman]

But Falcon, you don't even debate. You just commit rhetorical fallacies with every post! Will you at least admit that? Read about what they are? They are posted here under the SLM forum!

[Darth Wong]

It isn't like he sits around discussing religion endlessly, letting his other duties go by the wayside.

Pointless exaggeration of the argument. How transparent of you. I suppose that a teacher preaching in the classroom is OK, as long as he doesn't do it "endlessly, letting his other duties go by the wayside?"

I assume by this you object to Clinton's behavior, using a government employee on government time to have oral sex in the oval office.

Of course. That was also unprofessional. So what? If Bush gets the same kind of relentless abuse over his unprofessional behaviour as Clinton got over his, then I would be quite happy.

What he does on his own time is his own business. When he's giving public speeches in his professional capacity, that is no longer his own time. It is his job. What part of this are you too dense to understand?

Bush has no 'own time' He is president 24\7, subject to his duties 24\7. Anytime he speakes its as the President.

Now you're just getting desperate. He is the President 24/7, but there are still functions and events at which he is clearly acting in his official capacity, as opposed to being the President out walking his dog.

[Falcon]

But Falcon, you don't even debate. You just commit rhetorical fallacies with every post! Will you at least admit that? Read about what they are? They are posted here under the SLM forum!

what tripe, come out and play or go away

[Darth Wong]

So Superman, please explain to me how quoting these few lines from Isaiah concerning people being free, words which do not mention god, are a violation of C/S. Especially since that part of his speech was specifically about the universal desire for freedom and how the US military was bringing it to people around the world.

Because he attempts to tie it to his Bible instead of leaving it alone.

[Superman]

[/quote] think he gave a positive message, but what the fuck? This is not a fucking theocracy, Bush! Must you invoke the name of your diety or the Bible in every fucking speech. Fuck the President...


That is what I said, Alex Moon. Let's not make strawmans here. I never said it was a violation, but I don't believe that it is all appropriate either. And yes, he is tying in the religious book of his choice.