The left is famous for its general intolerance and suspicion of religion, especially in the public sector. Yet, increasingly, an exception seems to be made for Islam.
Scott at Power Line caught another instance of this in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune where the normally anti-religious editorial page is oddly favorable to a local college's installation of a foot-washing basin for Islamic students:
It's worth remembering that this question first arose at MCTC as a matter of safety, not religion. A student slipped and fell after another student used a campus sink to wash his or her feet. [...]
Banning Christmas carols on the official campus coffee cart -- which incensed the school's critics -- seems plainly in keeping with a long string of court rulings that forbid the use of public resources to endorse a particular religion. But accommodating the prayer practices of some devout Muslims seems akin to putting kosher items on the cafeteria menu and letting employees display religious objects in their private workspaces -- accommodations that MCTC has in fact made in the past.
The argument makes no sense whatsoever. Could not the presence of a foot-washing basin be considered an offense to those who think Islam is a cult? Of course it could. The Star Tribune is completely inconsistent here.
Related: American moderate Muslim: American left caters to Islamists out of misguided minority politics
Comments Policy
Showing their true thought process
April 25, 2007 - 09:48 ET by c5thenThe left is not really anti-religion, just anti-Christianity. It's really all about self preservation for the liberals. If you piss off some Christians you may get some bad press, if you piss off some muslims, you may get blown up by a suicide mass murderer.
I think it's a little more
April 25, 2007 - 09:52 ET by Matthew SheffieldI think it's a little more than that, however.
My personal theory is that it's several reasons:
Exactly c5
April 25, 2007 - 09:53 ET by florida_chadExactly c5
Bashing non violent christian
April 25, 2007 - 09:52 ET by florida_chadBashing non violent christians is safe. You gotta be brave to bash the muslims. The MSM is not brave. Plus they are at war with Bush, not violent muslims.
The argument makes sense very
April 25, 2007 - 09:56 ET by kafkakaeferThe argument makes sense very well. While religious statements on coffee carts are not necessary for the religious practice of christians, a sink for washing ones feed is a very important and necessary tool for muslims. What the government is supposed to do, is to enable the followers of any religion to practice their religion. Every thing else is endorsement.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Your argument is all about
April 25, 2007 - 10:04 ET by Matthew SheffieldYour argument is all about semantics, nothing more. Plenty of Muslims do not wash their feet for prayer. And plenty of Christians consider it part of their expression to give cards with Christian messages. You can't be for one thing but not the other IMO. Being for/against both is more consistent.
It is as always the semanti
April 25, 2007 - 10:33 ET by kafkakaeferIt is as always the semantic that matters, when you talk about the legal issues. What I am for, I have not said. I was just refering to the legal point of the situation, which is afaik, that the government is not allowed to endorse a religion, but on the other side has to enable everyone to practice their religion. As the line dividing both is quite blurred, you have to talk about semantics. Or putting it in the context of the above mentioned case: They are neither allowed to put christmas carrols on their cards nor to put phrases on them like "Allahu Akbar". On the other side they have to enable both sides to practice their religion meaning that they have to spare room for christians, muslims etc. and all the facilities you need, to worship.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Baloney!
April 25, 2007 - 11:36 ET by The Wicked ConservativeThe government is not allowed to endorse a religion,...Baloney..."congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof" This line has been so twisted, or omitted in the case of the latter half that lefties the world over actually believe separation of church and state is constitutional. This speaks to a "state religion" like the church of england had become or liberalism or global warming. When we examine the founders intent by looking at everything else they did it becomes evident that they believed in God. God's influence was evident in everything they wrote and seen in their actions.
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a
liberal and he calls you a racist, sexist, biggot, homophobe, denier.
Enable v. Not Obstruct
April 25, 2007 - 12:00 ET by EllisWyatt"... that the government is not allowed to endorse a religion, but on the other side has to enable everyone to practice their religion."
Not quite. The Constitution says that the government cannot "prevent the free exercise" of religion. That's a lot different from saying the government "has to enable everyone to practice their religion". For example, certain Indian tribes want to use Peyote in their religious rituals, but the government does not allow it since Peyote is a controlled substance.
In this case, we have a government institution spending taxpayer dollars to create some kind of facility for Muslims to use for their religious rituals. If this is allowable, then shouldn't the government also provide basins of Holy Water for Catholics? How about Kosher food in the school cafeteria?
As far as the Christmas cards on the coffee cart, I don't see the harm. Presumably, those cards have to be purchased by those who want them. The school is not providing them to the students.
If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.
Enabling?
April 25, 2007 - 12:51 ET by nkviking75"On the other side they have to enable both sides to practice their
religion meaning that they have to spare room for christians, muslims
etc. and all the facilities you need, to worship."
By that reasoning, government would have to build a mosque for the Muslims, a church for the Christians, a synagogue for the Jews, and so on. It's the problem of individual Muslims to find a way to get their foot-washing done in a way that satisfies their religion. The government does not have to enable any religious practice. They have to stay out of the way of religious practice.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
You are an exquisite example
April 25, 2007 - 13:00 ET by mattmYou are an exquisite example of how wrong so many people are on Church/State issues. READ THE CONSTITUTION!!
The government can neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Accomodating muslim foot basins (at taxpayer expense) would, arguably, be establishing (not "endorsing") a religion; while banning Christmas cards is a direct violation "free-exercise."
Government does not have to "enable" people to practice their religion... They can provide their own foot washing stations...
Word up, or shut up!
"while banning Christm
April 26, 2007 - 05:57 ET by kafkakaefer"while banning Christmas cards is a direct violation "free-exercise.""
No it isn't neccesarily that way. You can check that if you read some decisions of the supreme court, concerning the free-exercise clause.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
context of church and state
April 25, 2007 - 17:01 ET by m1xramYou want context, here it is.
Here are Jefferson's various responses concerning religious freedom:
Our government is not to interfere, in any way, the practice of religion. If some principal of a school wishes to put Merry Christmas on a card they should not be interfered with.
He also wrote to the Danbury Baptists:
And to Benjamin Rush:
You should be detecting a theme by now, but if not, let's look at the context of religion. Out of the signers of the Declaration of Independence almost all were Christians who follow the Bible. This is why early Congresses ordered, and/or commissioned, printing and importing Bibles when they were needed. It is also why the Capitol was used as a church.
How could the Capitol be used as a church? It's very simple if you look at the Bible.
This is The Great Commision, which requires Christians to evangelize. Not only should government not interfere but as a Christian nation it should also help, providing the government does not endorse a particular denomination like England did.
And lastly there is the context of the First Commandment.
Back then religion equaled one form or another of Christianity, nothing else was considered because of the first commandment.
So now you have the complete context of Seperation of Church and State along with how this once Christian nation was. Some never knew, some forgot, some use semantics to change its meaning.
m1xram
That something happened 200
April 26, 2007 - 05:54 ET by kafkakaeferThat something happened 200 years ago, doesn't make the same actions legal today.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Well, comrade, forgive us if
April 26, 2007 - 14:14 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, comrade, forgive us if our country bases our laws and rights on documents that are 200+ years old, not from 1946, like you grew up following. I fnid it especially amusing to hear Euro-weenie Marxist trash like you lecture Americans on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Roger, obviously nobody did
April 27, 2007 - 10:15 ET by kafkakaeferRoger, obviously nobody did so before. Most of the people here seem to think, that the meaning of the constitution is something that has never changed and will never change, as if it had always to be interpreted like the founding fathers did. That this is a living document, which is constantly reinterpreted to match the reality in which you live in, is embodied into the constitution, by establishing a supreme court, which is the main organ to judge on the constitutionality of laws.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
The left believes that the C
April 27, 2007 - 13:00 ET by RJThe left believes that the Constitition is a "living document" because that would allow them to "interpret" it in any way they wish, including the use of judicial decisions from other countries. I always find it amusing that Europeans attempt to lecture us on what OUR Constitution is or is not.
Putting that aside, your assertion follows an erroneous line of thought. You say "...as if it always had to be interepreteted like the founding fathers did." You are wrong. The framers did not "interpret" the Constitution, they wrote it. Your use of the word "interpret" implies permission to change it, but we don't do that. Instead, we attempt to determine and follow the INTENT of the framers.
established law
April 26, 2007 - 21:14 ET by m1xramI think I understand where you're coming from. It appears you don't like established law and wish to reject our Biblical foundation. Others feel the same way and are working to destroy our heritage. Free will allows you to do the same.
m1xram
Of course free will allows
April 27, 2007 - 10:06 ET by kafkakaeferOf course free will allows you to tun the U.S. into a theocracy, also.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Don't be ridiculous. Theo
April 27, 2007 - 12:39 ET by RJDon't be ridiculous. Theocracy is what "separation of church and state" prevents. (BTW, it is not indended to force the elimination of religious displays, as the left wants)
what theocracy
April 27, 2007 - 12:53 ET by m1xramWhat theocracy? I said "heritage". There is no "system of government by priests claiming a divine commission" here, and no one is trying to turn this country into one.
What does your comment have to do with what was said? Are you proposing that we create a theocracy?
Further above, you requested context, that implies what went before. Your opinion seems to indicate you wish that our heritage was different, or should be different.
Do you dislike the U.S.A.'s Biblical heritage? Do you wish to change it?
m1xram
but on the other side
April 27, 2007 - 14:01 ET by misterbill" but on the other side has to enable everyone to practice their religion."
ENABLE??? Dear God am I glad you are not my lawyer.
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.
Where does it say Congress must enable??? Spare me!!!
You're wrong.
April 25, 2007 - 10:06 ET by c5thenTHE key tennent of Christianity is to evangelize. That is, to make sure that everyone hears about the good news and the choice that is available to them should they choose to take it. It is precisely this evangalization that upsets the liberals and that they try and prevent.
But to evangelize is not th
April 25, 2007 - 10:36 ET by kafkakaeferBut to evangelize is not the task of the state, but of christians. And so I understand if somebody feels upset about the state sponsoring evangalization.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
"State sponsored Evang
April 25, 2007 - 10:45 ET by MightyMouth"State sponsored Evangelsim", that would be horrific, almost as bad as state sponsored abortion. BTW your tagline sucks!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
There are different opinion
April 25, 2007 - 10:48 ET by kafkakaeferThere are different opinions about my tagline.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Well, let me guess, you mus
April 25, 2007 - 11:01 ET by MightyMouthWell, let me guess, you must be a left leaning Hegelian? Right?... I mean correct?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I have to disappoint you: n
April 25, 2007 - 11:08 ET by kafkakaeferI have to disappoint you: no.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
So you are not an athiest a
April 25, 2007 - 11:24 ET by MightyMouthSo you are not an athiest and not a liberal in your politics?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Think Karl Marx, MM.
April 25, 2007 - 15:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberThink Karl Marx, MM.
That's why some of us oppos
April 25, 2007 - 10:49 ET by sarcasmoThat's why some of us opposed "Faith Based Initiatives" (translastion: welfare for churches). Once again, my side lost & big government (NOT religion, unless one counts the worship of said big government...) won.
JMR
Cmon sarc, even you would s
April 25, 2007 - 10:56 ET by MightyMouthCmon sarc, even you would support non-exempt tax status (other than televangelists) for legit Churches. Considering many churches cater to the down trodden and homeless. Reduces government involvement in such matters.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I don't want the government
April 25, 2007 - 11:01 ET by sarcasmoI don't want the government involved, either. Money from the government and especially tax breaks like these always come with strings attached, and nobody wants to imagine the inevitable outcome of their taxes supporting some Wiccan Coven's weird homeless outreach program. Big government needed to stay out of this one, and didn't. Want to help the poor? Help the poor directly. "Policy" never works anyway or it would have worked by now.
JMR
"some Wiccan Coven's w
April 25, 2007 - 11:17 ET by MightyMouth"some Wiccan Coven's weird homeless outreach program"
By Golly you have a way with words. :-) But in this seperation of God and state country we live in, we can't really distinguish between good and bad religions. Therefore I am of the opinion that ministers should pay income taxes like the rest of us, but churches should not pay taxes on donations. However, funds derived from other than donations should be subject to the same taxes as corporations, because that revenue is in effect, profit.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
the end of church
April 26, 2007 - 22:08 ET by m1xramYou can't do that. It would be the end of most Christian churches. I've worked for many ministers and it's a rough life. Most make poverty level wages and are on call 24/7.
Most churches don't collect much either. The Bible tells us 1/10 of all we receive is God's. That leaves us 90% and assumes you don't want to really give anything. From what I have seen the average donation is 2%. You try to fund ministries for your congregation on 2%, it's tough.
m1xram
"It would be the end o
April 26, 2007 - 22:38 ET by MightyMouth"It would be the end of most Christian churches"
I rather think God would have some say in that. Does the spread of the gospel really depend on the generosity of two income families who live paycheck to paycheck? I heard somehwere it was the Holy Spirit that spreads the gospel.
And by the way how in this Godless world, do ministers get away with not paying income taxes? Doesn't that violate the seperation of Church and state myth of the constitution?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
once again church and state
April 27, 2007 - 13:18 ET by m1xramMaybe "end" was a bit drastic. Churches would have to go underground like they do in other countries. It just wouldn't be helpful.
The Holy Spirit works though people.
The Bible tells us we get 90% and 10% is God's. Freewill lets us decide if we want to keep it all. There's no competition and I don't want to know how much anyone gives. Please do what you think best.
For more information about the Separation of Church and State you can read what Jefferson had to say. Paraphrased, he stated that our Biblical foundation was not to be interfered with.
m1xram
evangelism not prohibited
April 25, 2007 - 22:32 ET by m1xramThe US Constitution does not prohibit evangelism. In the past Congress has commissioned and distributed Bibles. The Capitol was used as a church. State sponsored evangelism has occurred many times.
In the context of Jefferson, the Separation of Church and State means that the government must not interfere with religion. Also the government should not endorse one denomination of Christianity over another, i.e. there shouldn't be a Church of the U.S.
See comment above.
m1xram
See comment below. "
April 26, 2007 - 05:52 ET by kafkakaeferSee comment below.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Twisting it again.
April 25, 2007 - 10:51 ET by c5thenIf the key part of someone's religion is that they must tell other people about it, then the State cannot deny them the opportunity to do so, or the State is actively trying to supress that religion.
The State is supposed to be neutral, not hostile to religion. Allowing the practice of a religion is not support for it, unless there is another religion that is not allowed.
Yes but sponsoring evangeli
April 25, 2007 - 10:54 ET by kafkakaeferYes but sponsoring evangelization is not being neutral.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
A card is not evangelism, t
April 25, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Matthew SheffieldA card is not evangelism, though, especially if it's not religious at all. Many people celebrate Christmas and despite not being Christians or even religious.
That's the point, where the
April 25, 2007 - 10:57 ET by kafkakaeferThat's the point, where the line gets blurred.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Who said evangelism was the t
April 25, 2007 - 13:05 ET by mattmWho said evangelism was the task of the state? What the hell are you arguing????
When the Left prohibits prayer in public, say at a commencement speech or in classrooms, they use the BOGUS excuse that to allow it would be state-sponsorship of religion, when in fact, the prohibition of prayer is a violation of the free-exercise clause.
As I said before, word up, or shut up....
prayer
April 25, 2007 - 22:41 ET by m1xramYou are certainly correct about prayer. Every time prayer is prohibited in public our rights are violated.
State sponsored evangelism is also allowed and has occurred many times in the past.
See comment above.
m1xram
That this has happened befo
April 26, 2007 - 05:51 ET by kafkakaeferThat this has happened before, doesn`t mean it's constitutional.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
evangelism was is constitutional
April 26, 2007 - 21:07 ET by m1xramAt the top of this thread you said you wanted context. Now that it has been provided, via Congressional precedents and historical facts, we know it is constitutional.
How could a Christian nation, based on the Bible, not support evangelism? The two things are inseparable.
m1xram
The U.S. is not a christian naton.
April 27, 2007 - 10:04 ET by kafkakaeferThe only institution which can tell you if something that has happend was constitutional is the supreme court. On the basis of your reasoning you wouldn`t have a problem finding slavery to be constitutional. So think again.
The U.S. is not a Christian nation, just because you think it is.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
The majority of the foundin
April 27, 2007 - 10:21 ET by JerryThe majority of the founding fathers were devout Christians. The primary text book used in public education was the Bible. George Washington prayed to God for guidance multiple hours of each day. Much more proof that it IS a Christian nation than it is not, at least in it's inception.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Still as far as I know, the
April 27, 2007 - 10:30 ET by kafkakaeferStill as far as I know, the word bible is not mentioned once in the constitution, establishing this nation. That the first people were overwhelmingly christian, doesn't mean that the term Christian nation is still matching the reality, even if the majority of Americans are christians. This country has changed a lot from those days (for example that the bible is not used in public education anymore).
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
We were not explicitly crea
April 27, 2007 - 10:41 ET by JerryWe were not explicitly created as a Christian nation, but I don't think Saudi Arabia was explicitly created as an Arab nation. Sometimes things are so obvious they don't need explicit definition.
The left has used "separation of church and state" to have all things Christian removed from public schools, when OBVIOUSLY that was not the intent. If they made the Bible the primary textbook, most assuredly they did not mean that God should not be mentioned in schools.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Insanity
April 27, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Mr. BishopYou cling to the words of the US Constitution, when it suits you, eh? You think that because the Constitution does not expressly acknowledge Christianity, it was not founded on Christian principles. Yet, you say, just a bit ago, that the US Supreme Court has the power to declare things unconstitutional -- yet you cannot find that power granted them anywhere in the Constitution.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
kafka: Leaving out the whole
April 27, 2007 - 10:22 ET by QueenMumkafka: Leaving out the whole "separation of church and state" argument, can you give us your understanding of the early history of America. That is, tell us about the Pilgrims, the Magna Carta, and the Church of England.
You are correct in that America is not a Christian nation in the same way as Britain once Henry VIII established a state church. However, I'd argue that America was founded by people who were predominantly Christian and that their particular religious tenets influenced what sort of values were to be the basis for the new government. I think one must avoid concentrating on the certain individual beliefs and doctrines of the various denominations of Christianity and instead consider how the country would be different if the founders were Orthodox Jews, Muslims, or Hindu.
If you want to talk about t
April 27, 2007 - 10:32 ET by kafkakaeferIf you want to talk about the values they meant, you should look at the mostly european writers of Enlightment and their attitude towars religion. These values were at least as important for the founding fathers as christian ones.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
european values
April 27, 2007 - 13:40 ET by m1xramYou wish us to look at what the European's wrote about us rather than what the Founding Fathers wrote and believed? Next idea please.
Are you a U.S. citizen?
m1xram
German
April 27, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Mr. BishopFor some reason... I seem to recall Kaf as being German, but I am not sure.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
the foreigners are coming
April 27, 2007 - 14:17 ET by m1xram<groan>
That's disappointing. I'm not about to suggest that there be a 65mph (104kmh) limit on the Autobahn because it's none of my business.
I don't know much about German history. What is their form of government and how should it be changed, Kaf? What part of German history do you wish to ignore most? Please feel free to post away and I will not say anything, because it's none of my business.
m1xram
Obviously you have a readin
April 30, 2007 - 06:51 ET by kafkakaeferObviously you have a reading problem. What I said was, that as much as the founding fathers were influenced by christianity and the bible, they shaped their ideas in the context of enlightment (which btw was pretty much french buisness at the time). The whole idea of checks and balances is afaik a french mans one. So if you want to portray the founding of the U.S. as independent of the rest of the world you are utterly wrong.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
we are independent
May 8, 2007 - 23:57 ET by m1xramI'm pretty sure the Bible and Christianity are older than the "context of enlightenment" and I know we are an independent nation. That's why the Forefathers created the "Declaration of Independence". No foreign government can make U.S. Law and we find interference to that process, from foreigners, offensive, as you would if we tried to change laws in your country.
As you are not a U.S. citizen you can not vote in our elections or serve as a government official. Therefore, any arguments you put forward will carry absolutely no weight on U.S. matters. Your time would be better spent addressing issues pertaining to your own government where you have influence.
m1xram
was Christian nation
April 27, 2007 - 13:32 ET by m1xram"not a Christian nation"
Wait a second, I provided the historical facts that prove that this country started out as a Christian nation. It wasn't my opinion, it's what happened.
The U.S.A. continued that way for approx. 175 years before things changed. Then in the 1940s the Supreme Court decided to ignore hundreds of precedents and our historical heritage, like you are now.
m1xram
You're wrong...
April 27, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Mr. BishopFirst off, the US Supreme Court has no authority, no power, and no ability to determine the constitutionality of anything. It's not in the Constitution, they don't have that power. They have usurped that power, and made it their own, but they do not have it. Yes, that does mean that the last 200+ years of Supreme Court rulings are, for the most part, illegal, and hold no standing.
Second, you are wrong to assume that the US is not a Chrisitan nation -- it was founded on the beliefs of Christianity, and the majority of people in this country are Christians. This country is, in every sense of the word, a Christian nation -- no matter how much you want it not to be.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Mr Bishop --Supreme Court
April 27, 2007 - 14:31 ET by misterbillMr Bishop --Supreme Court -- unfortunately their rulings are not "illegal". The Supreme Court was created to find opinions about Constitutional issues. They were created as the Judicial branch. Neither the Executive or Legislative branches have to support those OPINIONS. They are (supposed to be) free to ignore them. You are correct when you say that some of the aforementioned has been bastardized (and by the SC itself), but that is how it supposed to be. So by legislating them the Congress made them "legal".
" it was founded on the beliefs of Christianity"-- absolutely--the bible was to be the "moral" compass for America and the Constitution was based on Judeo-Christian principles as the "civil" compass of America.
Ah, and therein lies it...
April 27, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Mr. BishopActually... the Supreme Court rulings are, in fact, illegal (we could discuss this further, but legality in this case, is based upon them having authority spelled out in the document that created it -- the US Constitution). The Supreme Court was created to provide oversight into the actions of the legislative and executive branches, this much is true. However, their oversight was always limited to merely being the very last court to decide any case -- as much is said in the US Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution, is there any mention, or anything close to a mention of, judicial review, or ruling on the constitutional basis of a law or action.
The idea of Constitutional Review was a power usurped by the US Supreme Court in its very first case, Marbury v. Madison. No more, no less.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
But nowhere the present fun
April 30, 2007 - 07:00 ET by kafkakaeferBut nowhere the present function of the court is explicitly outruled, is it?
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
kafka--- you should read---
April 27, 2007 - 13:43 ET by misterbillkafka--- you should read -- "The Rise of America" by John Diamond if you want to know what was written, not only including the Constitution but letters by the framers expressing their intent in the creation of the Constitution.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
The supreme court repeatedl
April 26, 2007 - 05:49 ET by kafkakaeferThe supreme court repeatedly declared, that the free-exercise clause is no absolute right. Accordingly they tried to find the balance of church-state seperation vs. free exercise and found in many cases the first one to be more important. So the prohibition of prayer is in certain situations of course constitutional.
BTW: "As I said before, word up, or shut up...." This line is really annoying, but that's probably its intent.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
balance of church and state
April 26, 2007 - 21:42 ET by m1xramThis whole issue would not be in discussion now if the Supreme Court had followed established law and the hundreds of historical precedents.
You are completely incorrect about prayer. Government interference of prayer violates Separation of Church and State, as per Thomas Jefferson (the guy who came up with the phrase)!
Now, I'd like to ask you, do you live in the U.S.A. and are you a citizen here? The reason I ask is because I would not presume to discuss French law with a citizen of France because it is none of my business.
m1xram
Thomas Jefferson is not the
April 27, 2007 - 10:24 ET by kafkakaeferThomas Jefferson is not the last in line to discuss separation of church and state. So please modernize your reasoning a little bit.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
modernizing Jefferson
April 27, 2007 - 13:47 ET by m1xramWhat for? The reasoning is historically correct. Do you wish for me to use incorrect reasoning, ignore historical data, disregard hundreds of precedents?
m1xram
So please modernize your reasoning a little bit.
April 27, 2007 - 13:53 ET by misterbill"So please modernize your reasoning a little bit."
By doing so, one then enters the phase where the seculars have tried,(succeeded in some cases), to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution.I cghallenge that modernizing is to defy the inent of the constitution. Further, I hold you, from what I have read here to be one of those who would remove the freedoms and rights granted us by the Constitution and the amendments.Also:
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are Constitutional and what are not.. would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
..... "TheConstitution has erected no such single tribunal."
Thomas Jefferson
"Screw Jefferson, I am the one who knows what is right."
Kafkakaefer April 27, 2007
So the U.S. is a dictatorsh
April 30, 2007 - 06:58 ET by kafkakaeferSo the U.S. is a dictatorship of courts? I don't get it. And now it's enough of this lingering around. The intent of the founding fathers was not to abolish slavery. So the present state is unconstitutional? The founding fathers did not intend and I guess did not wish, to give women the right to vote. Is the present state unconstitutional, therefore?
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
kaf you don't get it
May 9, 2007 - 00:07 ET by m1xramThat is correct, "[you] don't get it." You take things out of context, get upset when context is provided, wish us to ignore our history, and use faulty reasoning.
You are not a U.S. citizen, why do you continually comment on issues that are none of your concern? I do not wish to interfere with your government, that would be improper.
m1xram
In my opinion the enemy withi
April 25, 2007 - 11:48 ET by bigtimerIn my opinion the enemy within is allowing the enemy that wants us all dead whose goal it is to take over the world, inside our great country, forcing PCness and laws down our throats incrementally, this is just the beginning that is visible now, it has been going on for years and years.
Far more to come, everywhere, unless we stand up and fight this.
Be afraid, very afraid.
I swear the liberals have com
April 25, 2007 - 12:17 ET by NazarethI swear the liberals have completely lost hteir minds- It seems they just can't be content with living in freedom and good times- it's like they have a sadistic need to inflict as much pain and misery on all of us as they can. I guess they feel guilty about luxury and freedom or something and want to put us under one of the most intolorant, dangerous religions ever devised by evil men.
http://sacredscoop.com
An observation
April 25, 2007 - 12:37 ET by goldenthroatWhat else would anyone expect from the state that elected a former pro wrestler as their governor?
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
Of course it is inconsistent.
April 25, 2007 - 12:58 ET by bassndudeOf course it is inconsistent. The diffrence is, if they make those who belive Islam is a false religion or a cult, angry we will not run out to the Tribune and start beheading or blowing up people. On the other hand, anger the Islamists, then get ready for "Alla Akbar!" chants. There in lies the explination. The Tribune fears Islam.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!