Someone should buy an old RV, put a big sign on it that says “First Mobile Church of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism” and follow GW wherever he goes for the day, such that he’s never entirely out of earshot of a bunch of Pirate Pastafarians offering up prayers to His Noodly Appendage.
That’d learn 'im…
Oh, I know them just fine. Don’t try putting words in my mouth.
However, the reason I know rullings such as the non-taxation are bullshit is that I call them as I see them.
Y’see, Scott, for all the good that reasoned argument does, I thought that “No, it isn’t” would be more direct, more to the point, and no less likely to have a useful outcome.
I cannot believe that you are snivelling on and on about “endorsing prayer/religions invoving prayer”. You been taking lessons from… no, he’s suspended, I shouldn’t take his name in vain… over “sweating the petty stuff”? :dubious:
So you know they’re bullshit because you know they’re bullshit?
I suppose I could tare down each and every ruling at a time, but that would take to long. I find it sufficient to say that that each and every endorsement of religion IS in fact just what it looks like, and as such, they are unconstitutional.
I don’t see anyone seriously arguing that there is no concept that the gov. should not endorse religion.
Ah, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. The Jack Chick of atheism.
That’s probably an accurate statement of his beliefs, but, like I said, Washington did, as president, proclaim a national day of prayer.
That is precisely it. He is confusing what he does on his personal time with HIS FUCKING JOB. I don’t pay him to pray. I don’t pay him to lead the country to church. I don’t pay him to consult imaginary fathers for guidance or to bring a sense of false security to our nation. I pay him to pick people who can think on their feet in a crisis. I pay him to jump into action when a major city is under water. He can worship whatever he wants on his time. But when he, as president of the United States, calls on the country to partake in prayer, he’s overstepped his bounds.
You fucked up the paraphrase, big time. I’m the last person to suggest we follow Bush’s lead; I’da thought you would have gotten that from my reference to him earlier in the same post.
What I said was the it’s the **job ** of the President to do the “fluffy” stuff. That’s part of his function. He lights the National Christmas Tree, lays wreaths all over the place, and asks everybody to pray on occasion. In theory, he’s supposed to be appealing to that which elevates our spirits, our sense of National pride, etc. etc.
So when he says “me say prayer good!” that’s because, statistically, Americans think “prayer good.” He’s inviting Americans to join in a communal act, a hands-across-America Kumbaya-singing type of thing. And since his words don’t carry the force of law, he’s probably in the clear on this, constitutionally speaking.
The sandbag issue? I have thought about it - I wrote it, you know. And based on your mis-paraphrase above, I’m guessing you misread that one, too.
Related texts, as in Supreme Court Rulings dealing with this issue?
And that has what to do with the president ignoring the constitution? You have yet to justify that statement, which is all I’m objecting to.
Scott, you dance a mighty fine dance, but you can’t debate worth shit.
Mark Twain, as per usual, said it best:
This guy obviously took heed of Mr Twain’s advice: “Go Fuck Yourself, Mr. Cheney!”
Then again, there’s always resorting to the Plain Truth of The Matter.
Of course not, because you clearly reserve that right for yourself, as evidenced by…
Go back and read carefully. Genghis Bob spoke of a responsibility of the President (setting a tone, etc). He did not say that you or anybody else needed to do jack shit, much less follow anybody’s lead.
No, more like texts written by the same guy who drafted the Constitution, not the result of wishful thinking rullings you keep bringing up.
It is a case in point.
This is not a matter of a debate, but instead of getting people to acknowledge the facts, which you might notice I got Rick to do back a page ago.
Same to you. “However, what he is doing is say “Hey, you know what is nice? Prayer.” and that is what I have a problem with. Sure, it may not sound like such a big deal to you, but it is still endorsing prayer/religions invoving prayer, which is a big no-no.”
Bullshit. Plenty of people consider me unpatriotic for not believing in god. Particularly when the Head Guy feels the need to tell us every. FUCKIN’. day how we’re going to pray, he’s going to pray, he fuckin’ prayed. We need to pray next week. He can’t open his mouth without mentioning prayer. It marginalizes those of us who don’t pray. It excludes us (in his mind, anyway) and gives the appearance that we’re not quite up to snuff.
Are any of those texts written by a court of law, or voted into law by an legislative body? No, I didn’t think so. Why, then should they have the force of law?
Gibberish. You might as well have said: Dog table fly pretty.
Good for you. It’s still not a “fact” that the president is ignoring the constitution just because you say he is. He is using not only his interpretation of the constituion, but also the interpreation of every SC ruling on the subject since the begning of the Republic. That’s the fact, and it’s you who refuse to achnowledge it.
And what does this argument have anything to do with my post?
I read Genghis Bob’s post carefully and I know what he said. And I didn’t put words in anybody’s mouth. You did. That was the sole point I made.
Hell, lots of people consider me unpatriotic for the **Amnesty International ** sticker on my car. I pay 'em as much mind as you should those who give you grief for atheism.
I’m an atheist, and I don’t feel the least bit marginalized. You need to get over yourself on this one, bud. This is a religious country. Every president invokes God, and they will continue to do so as long as you live.
If the First Amendment said “Congress shall make no law violating the separation of church and state” instead of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, we would undoubtedly be having the exactly the same debates about presidential proclamations for national days of prayer and remembrance and so on. However, to say “we don’t have separation of church and state” is fatuous. Church and state are not “set or kept apart; disunited” in the sense that a library has a “separate” section for reference books? They do not “exist as independent entities”? They are not “dissimilar” and “distinct” from each other?
One could have a situation like that in many ancient societies, where the same offices are in charge of carrying out both the functions of civil government and the worship of the gods of the city or the kingdom.
One could have a situation where the church and the state are separate, but both cooperate in establishing a religion.
Or one can have a situation where the state does not establish any religion, which necessarily entails the the church (and the mosque and the synagogue and the ashram) and the state are dissimilar, distinct, and independent entities.
“No establishment of religion” is in fact a more restrictive subset of “separation of church and state”. It forbids not only a Caliphate or a Pontifex Maximus but also a situation where the separate institutions of church and state cooperate in setting up an establishment of religion.
It’s entirely possible to imagine a nation whose constitution proclaims “the Christian religion shall be the established religion of the nation, and no laws shall be passed which do not conform to the Word of God as revealed in the Bible; but the church and the state shall be separated from each other and neither shall infringe upon the legitimate sphere of authority of the other”. It would be logically absurd for a nation’s constitution to say “there shall be no establishment of religion, but there shall be an executive department of the state for religious affairs which shall be in charge of preaching the Word of God, administering the sacraments to all citizens, and doing all other things necessary for the advancement and preservation of the True Faith”.
Saying “we don’t have separation of church and state, just no establishment of religion” makes about as much sense as saying “our library doesn’t have a separate section for reference books, we just keep reference books and non-reference books in two different rooms”.
