Extremist removed from office.

I think I told you, that I believe you misunderstood my post.

Glenda

***
I don't believe our founding Fathers meant that God was not to have a place in our government, but that the law was put in to stop the State from having a government religion like England did and other countries have. - Glenda
***

***
The idea behind a strict interpretation behind the separation of church and state is that not only is a formally adopted state religion a danger, but favoratism shown towards a particular religion is a danger also. It may seem silly to make a federal case out of seemingly harmless activities, but there is no harm done by a camel's nose, either. - Dan
***

***
I believe this is what I stated that the founding Father's DID NOT want a STATE religion because of the way they were treated in other countries and wanted Freedom of religion. Not NO religion. - Glenda
***

You didn't really reply to me, you just restated your position.

Dan

Hi, Glenda.

Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the term "wall of separation between Church and State," and he's about as much a Founding Father as you can get.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Dave, a question popped into my mind. How (and why, for that matter) did this come to the state that it has. Wasn't the original suit filed by something like the Southern Porverty Law Center or an organization with some such name?
What I wondered is how their attention was called to this monument, and why not other things in this country as well. I can understand nobody ever noticing some things, like that druid monument on public property that I mentioned when this first started. But then I can't help but notice that things like the recent football huddle chant in a school rememberance ceremony that was the words of the Lord's Prayer passes without comment. Also, does not a Supreme Court session start with some old ritual routine that mentions something like may God protect this court or some such? (I only heard it once, and those may not be the exact words, but I'm cure I heard the words "may God".) Why does not some legal body address that ritual? How and why are those suit filing selections made?
Here's a funny thought on the separation of Church and State. Bush might have a bit of fun with this one for grins. In Washington D.C., there is a "preacher type" whose church has a free breakfast for the needy and homeless. Needless to say, it comes with a dose of his particular religion. What If Bush were to give them a government grant of say $50,000 or so to help them, and sit back and wait for the cries of separation of Church and State,and other objections to rise from his political opponents?
The punch line would be that Bill Clinton did exactly that a long time ago, and there were no objections. The possible humor is that the some instant "knee-jerk" objectors hoping to make an anti-Bush political attack might not remember that Clinton situation of long ago which got only limited local coverage. It could get quite funny.
Botom line: I can't help but notice a possible social and/or political smell to all of this. BTW, I don't care what somebody cares to worship, that's their business. Heck, but I even have radical thoughts that a Catholic and/or Hispanic can be considered to serve as a judge without having to go thru check to see if his religious choice is the right one for some politicians.

Hi, J.

I'm Catholic myself. The problem is that many of the pronouncements of the Church are contrary to our Constitution. The Church does not believe in pluralism, but rather seeks to impose its own views on everyone else, much as the "Christian Right" does. That is anathema to our system, which bends over backwards to avoid a "majoritarian dictatorship." The Constitutionl protections are not there for the majority (who don't need protecting), but for the minority. The vast majority of Catholic judges respect the rule of American law, and separate it from the pronouncements of the Church. Some have made it clear in their writings or lower court opinions that they don't -- those are the ones who are being blocked. And in one such case, where there isn't much of a record, the Bsh Administration has refused to turn over opinions written by a White House Counsel nominated to a bench, and he refused to discuss his views before the Committee. The Republicans insist he should be confirmed anyway -- the Dems (properly, IMCO) say "no." Scallia is a perfect example of the type of Catholic judge who SHOULDN'T be on a court -- he's a good (conservative) Catholic, but a lousy excuse for an impartial judge.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

P.S. We could have another great discussion on the morality of burning "heretics," homosexuals, and intellectual women (as "witches") at the stake, or torturing them to recant their "error."

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

That's a curious view, Dave. You used the words "And in one such case, where there isn't much of a record,". Guilty until proven innocent, Dave? Granted, the "crime" is not holding the views that the Democratic party, considers to be "proper", but it's still that same assumption of guilt idea.
We have different views in some things. You used the words "The Constitutionl protections are not there for the majority (who don't need protecting), but for the minority.". That illustrates one thing in which we differ. I hold that Constitutional protections are the same for everybody, I don't believe that some citizens are more equal than others, nor some citizens lesser.
I believe that the Constitutional protections of the majority are also worthy of protection. A good example is something I mentioned a while back in another thread about help for "poor" school kids. I don't think that poor kids should be ineligible for help because they have a particular heritage, skin color,or religion. The rights of poor kids in a remote coal mining town in Appalachia are just as worthy of protection as the rights of a poor kid anywhere else in my opinion. The rights of a Catholic are just as worthy of protection as the rights of a person who has another religious preference, or a person with no particular preference in my opinion.
You may not hold those opinions. But we are both private citizens, and different citizens have different views. We express out views at the polls, where both you and I have one vote. If we were both Senators, we would also have one vote each when it came to expressing our views while representing the people who elected us, but casting those votes is currently a different matter. In the next election, both you and I can go to the polls and cast our votes. Currently, the Senators can't go to what is in effect their work polling place and cast their votes. In effect, there is Democratic Party bunch of "Deputies" standing in the door of that polling place shutting it down.

Hi, J.

This isn't a legal trial, it's decising whether someone is worthy of being granted a LIFETIME appointment to the Federal Bench. You certainly have the right to say "I don't want to tell you" -- but then those who have the vote have the right to say "then I don't want to vote for you!"

And the issue at hand isn't the rights of a Catholic vs. anyone else -- it's the right of one person to impose his own moral code on another. I submit that the Constitution denies that right, within certainly widely agreed boundaries necessary to the order of society.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

statements of his on Seperation of Church and State.

JR
Christian

You cannot have it both ways.

Also, Blake's post makes sense, well reasoned, and concurs with all I've read here over the years.

It would be worth while looking at MK's inbox story about the 10 Commandments and Washington, and then the Snopes review of same.

Yes, Blake tries always to be right. So do most people. Christianity has been raising its collective head for a while now in SE, particularly as various agnostics have changed and adopted a religious affiliation.

Look at J. and Edward versus DK, for a non-religious "I must be right" approach by three parties. If DK said it was Wednesday, Ed would provide a link showing it was Thursday in Australia, J. would provide an extension that it was probably Friday on Mars and Venus, as evidenced by his extensive knowledge of the CNN reporters who visited those planets in secret in 1971, Dave would claim that Thursday was a Republican attack on the freedom of inventing your own calender in California, Ed would acuse him of refusing to read the link, J. would support Ed by providing alternate links to the Chinese calender. etc.

The fact is that your post comes very close to breaching the TOS: "I do not have a closed mind as Blake likes to portray, Just an utter contempt of him personally"

Ian

The 2 players in the doubles side must play to the reduced court size on the singles side.

Its often used by trainers.

Ian

Ian, that's interesting, especially in this thread as I don't care of a particular person choses to worship a pile of rocks, whatever rings their chimes. Of course, if someone makes a big deal out of them and their pile or rocks, I might comment on that objection with a post.
I knew (and still know some) reporters who work and have worked at CNN and other places. So what? Although I suspect that some people at CNN wish that I didn't remember some humorous things that I witnessed and sometimes relate. I dare say that Dave K. knows a lot of college professors and you know a lot of people in your line of work.
You mentioned a tennis match as an example down in this thread. I've got a lot of time to play Forum tennis. So what, it's fun to play. Why your implications, Ian, because you don't care for the way that I happen to hold the racket or may playing in a game that I happened to stumble upon on the Forum tennis courts? Wouldn't it be a boring tennis game if everybody played exactly the same way? I find it more interesting to watch the ball in play, rather than get all wound up in trying to assign a "stance" to the players themselves based on come mental category into which I might place them at the moment.
Funny thing, Ian, I don't think that in your words, "I must be right". I find it curious that you think that I do. I can't help but wonder why, because of the grip on the racket that I have at that particular moment?

.
not a criticism. I don't think Ian meant to be mean in his remarks. I found his allegory to be accurate and very humorous. Speaking for myself I usually enjoy reading the give and take between you, DK and Ed. Unless you'll get hateful toward each other. I think most of us enjoy reading about your past experiences, they certainly are varied and interesting.
.

.

Sorry you feel this way Ian. I suppose all of your fighting with Jonah is just because you are a good guy and nothing you say ever gets close to the TOS? Oh well. Enough, think whatever you like about me. Because in the long run I could care less what You & Blake's cronies think.

Glenda

And the people involved here (including me) sooner or later fail (IMO) to quailfy.

roger

Not only are we not innocent but we love the fight

.

.
wool. You know that stuff you pull over the eyes. LOL
.

if you'd removed the plank from your eye first.



Dan

I didn't notice anything in my post about me. Therefore, I didn't make any claims about whether or not I've breached the TOS a time or 5,000.

However, "in the long run I could care less what You" is just another way of saying "I'm right, so there."

We all play the "right" game, and that's the basis of suicide bombers, to whom being right means more than their life.

Ah, well. You'll think and believe as you wish. As will I. Sometimes we'll agree. Sometimes we will not agree. Such is life and Speakeasy.

Ian

.

Another way of looking at it is that the judiciary are performing their role by protecting the minority from subjegating[sp?] the minority. Just because a law has been passed and is supported by the majority of the population doesn't mean that it is right or that it passes constitutional muster, as they say. Surely there have been judicial overturnings that you agree with. Segregation, anything?

Dan