An atheist president (or even a polite Christian one) could refrain from saying “God bless America” and so forth (other politicians wouldn’t necessarily follow suit), but it would take an act of Congress to remove “In God We Trust” from the money.
OR buddhist, jainist, hindi, jewish, scientologist et al…
Do you think a divorced female non white atheist would ever stand a chance to become president of the USA?
Salaam.A
Or Belgium?
Belgium is a federal state in the form of a constitutional monarchy.
Therefore the prime minister of the federal government is in practice the one who leads the State. Of course this position is open for everyone who is adult, Belgian and in position of his/her legal rights, like all political and non political positions are.
Other then is the case in the USA, the private life of politicians isn’t discussed nor is it in the focus nor plays it any role in the person’s political carreer.
When it comes to the monarchy: In Belgium the king is white, so is his wife, so are their children. The daughter of the crown prince comes after him for succession. She is just a baby but let’s think a bit further and she mareries a man of colour. Then their firstborn child, male of female, comes after her for succession.
To give you an example of what I said above about private life: a few years ago some journalist wrote a book on the monarchy in which he referred with a few lines to an illigimate child of the present king.
All of a sudden the worlds pulp media were on that… Except for the Belgian media who gave it a few informative lines. It was commonly known that in a certain period of their marriage the current king and queen had difficulties and thus if he had at the time a relation, it was perceived as a result of this.
Nobody mentioned that such was reason to attack them on their private affairs or to even insinuate that his could possibly have made him suddenly someone not able to furill his obligations as king.
Americans seem to focus on private life and relgions thousand times more then on a persons ability to do their job.
Salaam. A
And Belgium has had how many divorced female non white atheist prime ministers? Thought so.
Well, ithere can only be one prime minister. Or how many do you think there are in a country?
You obviously have no intention to get informed. You have the intention to come up with a question as cover up for pushing through and stubbornly sticking to a prejudiced uninformed twisted opinion about the state structure and politics of a country you have no clue about.
If that makes you happy, why not.
But don’t count on further replies coming from my side. I don’t waist my time on people with intentions like you display here all too clearly.
Salaam. A
Come now, “a generalized statement”? That most certainly was not a “generalized” statement, it was a statement that specifically addressed and defined the “general welfare” phrase of the Constitution. And on top of that, made by the one person most qualified to define the phrase.
Regarding you assertion of what Madison would consider a proper role of the FedGov 200 years into the future, let’s examine another quote.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Forgot to say:
You also seem to think that Belgium is the USA where former slaves form a huge part of the overall still - be it silently in the form of poverty and related problems- discriminated population.
And where gay people still confront prejudices and where a lesbian mother gets insulted by a Christian fundamentalist who is elected a judge and displays the christian symbols in his courthouse.
If you want to draw comparisons then come up with some real and realistic issues instead of projecting the situations and problems of the USA onto other nations as if they also happen overthere.
Salaam. A.
Oh, puhlease. You, once again, hijack a thread about a specific legal topic to spout off again about how horrible America is and how this is a travesty that is unthinkable in other countries. You further hijack it to raise a completely unrelated topic about how a certain kind of person is unelectable in the United States and when I highlight this hijack by pointing out that the same kind of person has never been elected prime minister in Belgium, you answer with a non-sequiter (yeah, I’m pretty sure there can be only one prime minister at a time. Thanks for clearing that up.), and then start with the personal insults. That’s not how it is done in Great Debates, and it’s not how it is done in civil discussion. But I don’t want to ruin your view of all Americans as ignorant, ill-mannered jerks, so feel free to ignore this post as well.
I don’t understand your point of contention.
Is it not true, that many of those who object to perceived violations of the First Amendment, find no objection to violations of the Second Amendment?
Well, you certainly present yourself to be one.
I give you an informative reply on your question.
You come up with a reply that makes no other sense then sticking to you wrong idea that what you asked (a question that isn’t a question worth askinf for every Belgian since what you ask is only normal to be possible) is not a question but a statement.
I tell you the Belgium isn’t the USA.
There is no huge “coloured” population to begin with.
There is a variety of political parties.
There arte people of all religious and non religious convictions members of those political parties.
There are people elected in government coming from this variety of people form all religious or non religious conviction.
It you are black, white, brown, yellow, orange, has nothing to do with your place within the political game.
If you were born in Belgium or not has nothing to do with your right to be on a voting list for no matter which political party.
You need to be adult, you need to be Belgian and you need to be in posession of your legal rights.
If you live together with a person of oppostie or same sex, are married, divorced, single, have twenty mistresses or lovers, have hundred children or none has nothing to do with your political succes or lack thereof.
Now is that clear enough for you or is a drawing needed.
Salaam. A.
Another personal attack. Classy. You got exactly what you expected and wanted out of my posts, regardless of whether it was there or not. I fear the problem here is in the reader and not the poster.
As to the rest, it’s still a hijack, so I suggest you start a new thread. And include the drawing in the first post, so I can follow along. I may be too busy cleaning my gun, oppressing minorities, and taxing my brain by reading TV Guide to read it, but I’ll be there in spirit.
Oh, come on! Reading? I don’t believe any true American would be doing more than looking at the pictures! 
The contention is that you’re trying to change the subject. “Two wrongs don’t make a right”, and whether or not little Timmy is eating paste doesn’t get Johnny off the hook for shooting spitballs.
Is it not true, that many of those who object to perceived violations of the Second Amendment find no objection to violations of the First Amendment?
In truth, I don’t think the National Rifle Association has an official position on SOCAS issues, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State doesn’t have an official position on Second Amendment issues. If you want to start a thread on the various positions of the ACLU, go ahead. But that still won’t alter the rightness or wrongness of any particular case involving the Bill of Rights. Or is your contention “Well, heck, they’re violating my Second Amendment rights, so let’s violate all the other rights too, just to make up for it!”?
Hamlet
Forgot: you hijacked my question to make it a point of discussion with yourself and your prepared answer in the center.
Next you twist my question as if I make a statement that the type of person I refer to in my question is “unelectable” in the USA.
To me a question is a question and not a statement.
You reply on my explanation that because until now there was no such prime minister in Belgium it is inherently impossible for such a lady to become one.
I tell you that if such a lady is appointed by the king (read: government) to be prime minister, she shall be prime minister.
As far as I know there was until now nobody fitting the description withing the Belgian politics.
So you tell me how someone who was isn’t even present on the political field - seen the fact that non white divorce atheist women are an sich a little minority in general, let be that they are interested in politics - can ever have been prime minister?
Are you going to import someone or what?
Salaam. A.
So, you’re saying that Belgium is superior to the U.S. because Belgium doesn’t have a large “colored” population?
Hmmm…
Yes, it’s certainly much better to keep the people you viciously exploit away down in the Congo where you won’t have to deal with them afterwards.
I asked the moderator if I should start a seperate topic and where.
I must have missed it if there was answer.
So if you see it, kindly point it out to me.
If not: then I presume it is OK with his judgement that we go on in this topic.
And I’ll ignore your remarks about “insults” and the likes.
These suggestions alone are for me extreme insults but I’ll write them on the account of cultural differences.
Salaam. A
MEB,
May I ask you where this remark comes from?
I have the impression people here willfully insert intentions in posts of others just to have a ground for a time consuming yet ridiculous fight.
I can’t follow…
Salaam. A
About Congo… That is indeed an interesting subject. But as you surely know, the colonialistic adventure of Belgium ended already in 1962.
Now if you want to go debate on colonialism…
mmmm… What about the Americans still occupying the very ground they live on…
Not to speak about the little colonialistic adventure going on right now in what I could consider the remoted spot of my backyard.
We can open debates on such issues… I have two backgrounds who are both involved in colonialism, be it from opposite sides.
Salaam. A