Something Bush has yet to do

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-12-02 11:25pm

The morality of the president is clear.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-03 01:00am

For us non-Americans, what does that photo represent? It's a bit hard to judge the morality of a man without knowing the context. For instance, the immediate question I have is: who is being buried, and who is John Kerry paying his respects to and George W Bush not?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-03 01:05am

Stofsk wrote:For us non-Americans, what does that photo represent? It's a bit hard to judge the morality of a man without knowing the context. For instance, the immediate question I have is: who is being buried, and who is John Kerry paying his respects to and George W Bush not?

It looks to be a military funeral at Arlington Nation Cemetery. I can't say that I know who's funeral it is or the circumstances that brought Mr Kerry there.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-03 01:08am

I thought it might have something to do with a soldier's funeral, but I was wondering if it was a particular soldier or if Kerry was laying the flowers for general casualty.

In any case, kudos to Kerry for doing it. But I am surprised if Bush hasn't done anything like this. I would be really surprised.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-03 01:33am

Stofsk wrote:I thought it might have something to do with a soldier's funeral, but I was wondering if it was a particular soldier or if Kerry was laying the flowers for general casualty.

I couldn't tell you from the picture. It hasn't been mentioned on any news outlet for anything. And so the where and when of it is something I can't say.

Might be some one from Vietnam.

Stofsk wrote:In any case, kudos to Kerry for doing it. But I am surprised if Bush hasn't done anything like this. I would be really surprised.

Bush has for a number of soldiers, Pat Tillman being one that comes to mind almost immediately.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-12-03 08:00am

Without contex its Flamebait..... Post a pretty pic and run away.....

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-12-03 09:08am

Something Kerry has yet to do

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-03 09:11am

Augustus wrote:Something Kerry has yet to do

Take an oath to uphold the Constitution (including its provisions for separation of church and state) that he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of keeping?

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-12-03 09:19am

Darth Wong wrote:
Augustus wrote:Something Kerry has yet to do
Take an oath to uphold the Constitution (including its provisions for separation of church and state) that he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of keeping?

...or be sworn in as President.

BTW there is no provision for 'seperation of church and state' in the constitution. Those words do not appear in the first amendmentof the US Constitution. Rather what the First Amendment does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-03 09:45am

Augustus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Augustus wrote:Something Kerry has yet to do
Take an oath to uphold the Constitution (including its provisions for separation of church and state) that he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of keeping?
...or be sworn in as President.

BTW there is no provision for 'seperation of church and state' in the constitution. Those words do not appear in the first amendment of the US Constitution. Rather what the First Amendment does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That is the provision of church/state seperation.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-03 09:47am

Shhhh, don't break his fragile walls of delusion down!

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-12-03 10:03am

Patrick Degan wrote: That is the provision of church/state seperation.

The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not originate in the US Consitution but rather from a speech that Thomas Jefferson gave when addressing a Baptist congregation.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Jefferson was in turn borrowing words from the Baptist preacher Roger Williams.

Roger Williams wrote:When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...

It is aruguable that Jefferson was speaking about the establishment of a National Religion as opposed to the seperation of civil auortiy from ecclesiastical authority. Regardless the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not appear in the Consitution.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-12-03 10:17am

EDIT:

The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not originate in the US Consitution but rather from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to address a Baptist congregation in 1802. The Baptists had begun believing a rumor that Congregationalists were to become the offical national religion. Jefferson was writing to them to assure them that the method in which citizens chose to worship was a protected by the first amendment.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-03 10:22am

Nice little exercise in nitpickery but irrelevant. The operation of the First Amendment in law effects the principle of church/state seperation even if the actual words do not appear in the document itself.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-12-03 10:26am

Augustus wrote:EDIT:

The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not originate in the US Consitution but rather from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to address a Baptist congregation in 1802. The Baptists had begun believing a rumor that Congregationalists were to become the offical national religion. Jefferson was writing to them to assure them that the method in which citizens chose to worship was a protected by the first amendment.

Since the first amendment seperates church and state, what the fuck difference does it make?

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-12-03 10:30am

Patrick Degan wrote:Nice little exercise in nitpickery but irrelevant.

Nitpickery? Hardly considering the pharse in question does not occur in the US Consitution and can only be found in Jefferson's writings, which have no weight in in law. The context in which he is writing it crucial to understanding his meaning.

It clear he is speaking about the founding of a national religion as opposed to protecting the civil goverment from the influence of the church.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-12-03 10:31am

Augustus wrote:EDIT:

The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not originate in the US Consitution but rather from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to address a Baptist congregation in 1802. The Baptists had begun believing a rumor that Congregationalists were to become the offical national religion. Jefferson was writing to them to assure them that the method in which citizens chose to worship was a protected by the first amendment.

Since Congress is Constitutionally forbidden from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise of it, in what way, then, is religion allowed in the government?

Be specific.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-03 10:43am

Augustus wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Nice little exercise in nitpickery but irrelevant.
Nitpickery? Hardly considering the pharse in question does not occur in the US Consitution and can only be found in Jefferson's writings, which have no weight in in law. The context in which he is writing it crucial to understanding his meaning.

It clear he is speaking about the founding of a national religion as opposed to protecting the civil goverment from the influence of the church.

I will repeat this again: the operation of the First Amendment in law (which includes its interpretation in the courts) effects the principle of church/state seperation even if the actual words do not appear in the text of the Constitution. The government can make no law favouring or hindering religion; it cannot put law on the side of religion in general or of any particular denomination, nor can it hinder or prohibit religious practise. This over and beyond the question of establishing an official state religion which is clearly verbotten. And in case that's not enough for you, the 14th Amendment reinforces this principle by the requirement for equal protection under the law.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-03 10:47am

Augustus wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Nice little exercise in nitpickery but irrelevant.
Nitpickery? Hardly considering the pharse in question does not occur in the US Consitution and can only be found in Jefferson's writings, which have no weight in in law. The context in which he is writing it crucial to understanding his meaning.

Translation: YOU DURN LIBERALS! DON'T YOU BE BEING LOGICAL AT ME! IT DUN SAY IT SO IT DUN COUNT!

If this ignorant crap hadn't been getting smacked around for two hundred years, it might be interesting.

It clear he is speaking about the founding of a national religion as opposed to protecting the civil goverment from the influence of the church.

Bullshit, and anyone with proper reading comprehension and no bias will see straight through this particular bullshit. There's absolutely no qualifiers in Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. As much as you would like it to say ..When they try to establish a direct theology, it does not. Kindly do not insult the intelligence of posters here with this ignorant bullcrap.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-12-03 02:35pm

Augustus wrote:Nitpickery? Hardly considering the pharse in question does not occur in the US Consitution and can only be found in Jefferson's writings, which have no weight in in law. The context in which he is writing it crucial to understanding his meaning.

It clear he is speaking about the founding of a national religion as opposed to protecting the civil goverment from the influence of the church.

What part of "NO law" do you not understand? 'No' means none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Get it yet? Any law that promotes religion is FORBIDDEN. This is not a difficult concept.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-03 02:48pm

Augustus wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:That is the provision of church/state seperation.
The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not originate in the US Consitution but rather from a speech that Thomas Jefferson gave when addressing a Baptist congregation.

I find it amusing that you seem incapable of recognizing that a provision need not state something in the exact same words in order to state the same idea.

It is aruguable that Jefferson was speaking about the establishment of a National Religion as opposed to the seperation of civil auortiy from ecclesiastical authority.

First you admit that Jefferson's own speech to the Baptists clarified his intent to explicitly mean "a wall of separation between church and state", then you argue that he might have actually meant nothing of the sort?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-12-03 05:39pm

Augustus wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Nice little exercise in nitpickery but irrelevant.
Nitpickery? Hardly considering the pharse in question does not occur in the US Consitution and can only be found in Jefferson's writings, which have no weight in in law.

You're ignoring the times Madison, IN CONGRESS, protested against laws because they would violate "the seperation of church and state"?

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-12-03 08:27pm

I was able to track down what the original post is referring to.

HyperionX, was "Bush has not attended any soldiers' funerals" the point of your post?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-03 08:32pm

White Cat wrote:I was able to track down what the original post is referring to.

HyperionX, was "Bush has not attended any soldiers' funerals" the point of your post?

Now is he attending the funeral for political gain, perhaps gathering support for a 08 run at the White House, or does he actually care about the soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq? How many other Senators attend funerals for the fallen?