Well, Bush just cited the book of Isiah..

[Superman]

I 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...

[Frank Hipper]

I 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 would be all you, Supes! I wouldn't fuck him with somebody else's dick....

[Superman]

heheheh

[Falcon]

I'm not to worried about him mentioning something in the Bible when he's busily passing laws like PA.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not to worried about him mentioning something in the Bible when he's busily passing laws like PA.

Both actions stem from the same general disregard of the Constitution.

[Alex Moon]

Well gee, it's not like he's a professed Christian, so there's no way the bible could play any roll in his life. Oh no, that would be crazy!

[Joe]

I don't really care, personally. This is nothing new. I don't like it, but it could be a lot worse.

[Darth Wong]

Well gee, it's not like he's a professed Christian, so there's no way the bible could play any roll in his life. Oh no, that would be crazy!

The rest of us are expected not to allow our personal lives to interfere with our professional activities. This is normal for all employers across the land.

But for some reason, the man elected to the highest office in the land is not held to the same standard as a high school teacher. And people defend this double-standard

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm not seeing why I should care, nor do I see this as a violation of the Constitution. How exactly is the President saying something religious causing a congressional law to spring forth that establishes a state church or such?

[Falcon]

I'm not to worried about him mentioning something in the Bible when he's busily passing laws like PA.

Both actions stem from the same general disregard of the Constitution.

Might I direct you to George Washington's inaguation speech.

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. "


Now if the founding fathers can speak of a religion, and we've survived all this time, then surely it can't be that bad (or unconstitutional).

[Joe]

What, Mike, you don't think employers quote Bible verses in order to motivate their employees or whatever? Ever heard of Chick-Fil-A?

[Joe]

I'm not to worried about him mentioning something in the Bible when he's busily passing laws like PA.

Both actions stem from the same general disregard of the Constitution.

Might I direct you to George Washington's inaguation speech.

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. "


Now if the founding fathers can speak of a religion, and we've survived all this time, then surely it can't be that bad (or unconstitutional).

Lip service. Read his private shit.

[Falcon]

Well gee, it's not like he's a professed Christian, so there's no way the bible could play any roll in his life. Oh no, that would be crazy!

The rest of us are expected not to allow our personal lives to interfere with our professional activities. This is normal for all employers across the land.

But for some reason, the man elected to the highest office in the land is not held to the same standard as a high school teacher. And people defend this double-standard

If you infer from Abington Township School District v. Schempp you can see that school children are conformist and thus a different standard of school\religion should apply. Are you so conformist that you need everything filtered to prevent the warping of your fragile mind?

[Darth Wong]

What, Mike, you don't think employers quote Bible verses in order to motivate their employees or whatever? Ever heard of Chick-Fil-A?

Sorry, I forgot about the widespread existence of donkey-fucker organizations in certain parts of the world

But the bit about high school teachers still stands. When making an official speech, he is abusing his position to stump for his religious beliefs. It is grossly unprofessional at the very least, and may also be unconstitutional. Someone please explain to me why the president is held to a looser standard of behaviour than a typical high school teacher.

[Falcon]

Both actions stem from the same general disregard of the Constitution.

Might I direct you to George Washington's inaguation speech.

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. "


Now if the founding fathers can speak of a religion, and we've survived all this time, then surely it can't be that bad (or unconstitutional).

Lip service. Read his private shit.

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.

[Darth Wong]

If you infer from Abington Township School District v. Schempp you can see that school children are conformist and thus a different standard of school\religion should apply. Are you so conformist that you need everything filtered to prevent the warping of your fragile mind?

How is it "conformist" to say that people should not be using government auspices to promote a particular religion? Is there an on-topic argument buried under all of that bullshit?

[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.

[Gil Hamilton]

As long as he doesn't make any political decisions based on the Bible, I couldn't care less. All the bible stuff in his speeches is mostly trying to appeal to his major support base anyway, which is why he goes out of the way to include that stuff in his speeches.

[Joe]

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

[Falcon]

If you infer from Abington Township School District v. Schempp you can see that school children are conformist and thus a different standard of school\religion should apply. Are you so conformist that you need everything filtered to prevent the warping of your fragile mind?

How is it "conformist" to say that people should not be using government auspices to promote a particular religion? Is there an on-topic argument buried under all of that bullshit?

You wanted to know the difference between Bush and a school teacher. A school teacher is addressing a conformist, captive audience. Bush is addressing a passive group of adults who can tune out at will.

[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...

[Superman]

Don't make this into a Red Herring, dude.

[Darth Wong]

If you infer from Abington Township School District v. Schempp you can see that school children are conformist and thus a different standard of school\religion should apply. Are you so conformist that you need everything filtered to prevent the warping of your fragile mind?

How is it "conformist" to say that people should not be using government auspices to promote a particular religion? Is there an on-topic argument buried under all of that bullshit?

You wanted to know the difference between Bush and a school teacher. A school teacher is addressing a conformist, captive audience. Bush is addressing a passive group of adults who can tune out at will.

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.

[Joe]

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?

[Falcon]

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).