| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2008 05:55:58 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by marttila:
Imagine someone perfectly qualified in every other way, but he/she is an atheist. According to the latest poles, that person lost at least half the country just on religion alone. |
I can think of at least one president that sneaked in with less than half of the popular vote...
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 07:59:49 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There isn't even a passage in the constitution which declares a "separation of church and state". |
There's that other whole can of worms (again). It's like saying that the line "Play it again, Sam" is not in the movie Casablanca! Technically correct, but the intent is there. Thomas Jefferson believed in that separation.
So did John F. Kennedy:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute --
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice --
Imagine one of today's candidates speaking so strongly! |
So don't you just back up my point that while it isn't there in writing, it may be there in interpretation? What does Ron Paul say about this? If he is a strict constitutionalist, then he may say it isn't there. If he does say it is there, how is he any different from anybody else interpreting the constitution? |
Here is what Ron Paul thinks about this:
"The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression."
Edit: Here are more of his writings concerning religion.
Message edited by author 2008-02-25 20:02:46. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 08:09:07 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Don't get me wrong - I'm completely on board with much of the Libertarian thinking. My point is that people vote for people based on "non-presidential" reasons IMO much of the time -
Meaning that if Ronn Paul doesn't directly appeal to these voters, he won't get their vote as unfortunate as that is. I'm certainly not saying this is the ideal situation. Personally, I would love to have Ronn Paul and Dennis Kucinich be the last 2 and those debates would be trippy to be sure.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Meaning, he's there to represent everyone, not just those who share his views. |
|
The irony of this is that I have questioned everyone who is willing to discuss politics with me. Most of them want what Ron Paul is trying to deliver, yet when I say "You sound like a Ron Paul supporter" they either ask "Who is Ron Paul?" or say "I agree with his message, but I don't think he is electable".
I credit the corporate media with keeping Ron Paul's message such a good secret.
Message edited by author 2008-02-25 20:09:47. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 09:01:39 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by marttila:
Imagine someone perfectly qualified in every other way, but he/she is an atheist. According to the latest poles, that person lost at least half the country just on religion alone. |
I can think of at least one president that sneaked in with less than half of the popular vote... |
Bill Clinton?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 09:07:53 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by marttila:
Imagine someone perfectly qualified in every other way, but he/she is an atheist. According to the latest poles, that person lost at least half the country just on religion alone. |
I can think of at least one president that sneaked in with less than half of the popular vote... |
Bill Clinton? |
The initials GWB come to mind. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 09:57:03 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by marttila:
Imagine someone perfectly qualified in every other way, but he/she is an atheist. According to the latest poles, that person lost at least half the country just on religion alone. |
I can think of at least one president that sneaked in with less than half of the popular vote... |
Bill Clinton? |
The initials GWB come to mind. |
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992
|
|
|
|
02/25/2008 10:07:22 PM · #82 |
| I was thinking John Quincy Adams in 1824, but feel free to toss out other examples. |
|
|
|
02/25/2008 10:37:18 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I was thinking John Quincy Adams in 1824, but feel free to toss out other examples. |
LOL, sure you were,  Gordon. You make a salient point that the 2000 election debacle wasn't the first time confusion ensued following elections. Imagine the chaos following the passage of the 12th amendment, where the prez and veep ran on separate tickets and didn't necessarily have to be from the same party.
And speaking of amendments, here's some food for thought - for strict constructionists, is any part of the constitution written after the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) considered relevant, or is it just the part written by the sacred coterie of "our forefathers" (usually meaning Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the circle that made up the Continental Congress and drew up the constitution). It's rather tricky to know where to draw the line, no? |
|
|
|
02/26/2008 12:40:44 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by marttila:
Imagine someone perfectly qualified in every other way, but he/she is an atheist. According to the latest poles, that person lost at least half the country just on religion alone. |
That's assuming the atheist isn't gay, ugly or both. :P
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 06:00:27 AM EDT.
