What is wrong with using moral views to lead?

[Pooeypants]

Doesn't one of your laws say something about separating government and religion?

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Pooeypants, Doesn't one of your laws say something about separating government and religion?

Contrary to popular opinion, the First Amendment to our Constitution does not say anything about the separation of Powers (Church and State).

What it does say is that Congress (the body of our government which writes the laws) cannot make a law that establishes a religion nor make a law to keep people from practicing a religion, any religion or no religion. The tenth Amendment would allow each state to regulate religion however they see fit.

It doesn't work that way though, since the Federal government has usurped states rights and has, over the years, made many laws that have to do with keeping some people from practicing their religion and allowing others the reverse.

[Suburbanite]

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
-G. W.

[Osborn F Enready]

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine

The only thing I can say, is that when Bush attempted to introduce the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment, that is blatant prejudice, and exactly the opposite of the Constitution he is supposed to be defending from all enemies foreign and domestic. But since it is not being used to control government, by the people now, it is not really relevant, because people insist on paying their taxes, supporting this system, showing up to vote, and not understanding the signs of tyranny in its early stages.

I am not gay, nor do I necessarily support gays, but if they want to practice their BELIEFS, they may do so, and I will defend that right as much as my right to bear arms, free speech, and the right to revolt should my government fail to represent the people, as intended.

[white rice]

Originally posted by VXerick,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VXerick,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Only the first paragraph was directed to you. The remainder of that post was a generalization. [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-VXerick,
You are confusing your liberal views with Bush's religious ones. Whatever you believe in that he doesn't, you find fault with and vice versa. I thought the lead post could result in an interesting discussion but then liberals bring politics into it.

So in that regard let me make a further analysis. (Mia this is my opinion, ok?)!
Liberals in general are against religion in general. It's not surprising that they would not be able to differentiate between Bush's moral values and his religious beliefs. Because liberals don't believe in capital punishment but most conservatives do, they find this odd? How so? Liberals don't mind murdering unborn babies, do they? And unborn babies have never committed a crime against anyone but their selfish mothers who don't want to bother with them. An adult who commits murder deserves to lose his life because of it. There is no incongruity there at all except the lopsidedness of the liberals morals, such as they are.

Please note that I prefaced my remarks as my opinion in the second paragraph. Since it was not directed to you personally, I find your reaction to it to be disingenuous.[/quote]

I was pointing out Bush's contradictions. A person who does that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a liberal. I also thought it was interesting that your first paragraph segued into the lopsidedness of liberal morality and touched on some of the examples I gave in the previous post. You also denied to any incongruity when the point of my reply was the contradictions Bush leads with and how unwise it is for any leader to lead in that way.

If you're including me into your general view on liberals because you assumed that in the first paragraph, then I naturally assumed that second paragraph was attempting to categorize my position as well. You weren't, so I apologize for that.

I hope that clears things up.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

In spite of the fact that I strongly believe in sepration of church and state, the constitution only states that "congress shall make no law". And since the POTUS is in the executive branch it is impossable for him to violate that, except with executive orders.

[PhanthomOps]

italiangm:

Previous post:

QUOTE (PhanthomOps)
His declaration that this is "A Christian Nation" indicates that he would consider his religious belief and durived morals in the daily execution of his life and responsibilities.

Huh? Brewer's opinion addressed something known as the Alien Contract Labor Law which prohibited the importation of foreigners to perform labor or service of any kind. By way of Brewer's opinion, SCOTUS reversed a Circuit Court's judgment and penalty of $1000 against a church, ruling the law did not apply to workers who enter the country under contract to a church as its rector.
QUOTE (PhanthomOps)
I will download the entire comment when I locate it and post it for further evaluation.

Looking forward to it. SEE BELOW

QUOTE (PhanthomOps)
Boy do you have a warped and low opinion of mankind.
Your reply-
Those are your words. I reserve this particular opinion to those of free will that actually allow themselves to be governed by fear and intimidation.

Overall it is still a low opinion

Now to Brewer - Although the case at hand dealt with Alien Contract Labor Law. his opinion states that the belief and open recognition of/in God/The Almighty is intrinsic to our culture and heritage, and therefore must be considered in the enactment of legislation.

For the sake of brevity, below is the last two paragraphs of the decision rendered, along with a website where the entire opinion/decision can be read.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
Feb. 29, 1892

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."


SYNOPSIS
In error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. Reversed.
“If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?”
“[143 U.S. 457, 472] Suppose, in the congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country, and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil; and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however {517} broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not with the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.”
“The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.”

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm

[Samildanach]

Judging on the results of bushes morals and values so far, I would have to judge his religion as some kind of satanic plague.
Bush the Satanist...has a nice ring to it...maybe thats what he can go down in history as.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PhanthomOps)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now to Brewer - Although the case at hand dealt with Alien Contract Labor Law. his opinion states that the belief and open recognition of/in God/The Almighty is intrinsic to our culture and heritage, and therefore must be considered in the enactment of legislation.[/b]

Thanks for providing the citation.

Your use of "intrinsic" denotes some elemental basis, which does not appear in his opinion. Brewer does, however, recite a litany of evidence to establish a historical tradition, then summarizes: "These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Note the phrase "unofficial declarations". Brewer isn't claiming the United States has achieved some deity-deemed chosen nation status as many fundamentalists who quote this phrase attempt to assert. He simply provides evidence that supports an opinion that churches are exempt from the Alien Contract Labor Law and can thus reverse a lower court's ruling.

If Brewer were alive today, he could just as well describe the majority of US citizens as owning cars, having bank accounts, or any number of observations to support an appropriate opinion. <!--QuoteBegin-PhanthomOps
Overall it is still a low opinion[/quote]Again, your opinion. In reality, that opinion is reserved only for those of free will that actually allow themselves to be governed by fear and intimidation. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[PhanthomOps]

damrod:

QUOTE (Mr.Vicchio,)
Disgusting post about gays???? WTF???
Oh I see, I won't accept thier lifestyle as good moral and legitimate thus I am some evil malicious person.
I also state they are more then free to do as they please, this is after all a free country.

Your reply - In short:
"So, it would appear that you would disregard your personal morality with regard to how others act in private but would follow your personal morality to deny those others entry into the institution of marriage. Now I have argued on here that perhaps the state should limit itself to sanctioning civil unions, and get out of the marriage business altogether -- that is, provide for only civil unions, no matter what the makeup of the couple. I have argued this specifically on the basis that the state should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but should perhaps allow the label 'marriage' to be the property of religions -- i.e., be subject to personal and communal moralities. That is a far cry from having the state allow one status, married, for some but allowing others only a different status, civilly united. That is allowing the moralities of some to cause the state to discriminate against others."

In my opinion Mr.Vicchio is right on target, which by the way seems to be the opinion of the majority of Americans.

But, before we get into governmental laws concerning marriage, lets first consider what is generally recognized and accepted as the "Holy state of Matrimony - Marriage". Please correct me if I am in error, however, as I understand it, all religions state that marriage or by whatever name they use, is between man and woman - not man/man or woman/woman.

The word "marriage" is defined as - "the state of being married, the mutual relation of husband and wife, wedlock, the institution whereby men and woman are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family"
Re: Merriam Webster's Dictionary - Tenth Collegiate Edition - Reader's Digest - New York 1998.
And:
"the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children, an act of ceremony establishing this union"
Re: Reader's Digest Oxford - Complete Wordfinder - Dictionary & Thesaurus - Reader's Digest - New York 1996.

I do not see anywhere in these definitions that the joining of man/man or woman/woman is marriage.

Your comments please.


BaconButty:
QUOTE (Mr.Vicchio,)
I have read a number of places, not just here, that one of the biggest complaints of those that dislike Preisdent Bush, is that he uses moral views, judgements to guide his hand.
President Bush feels, however right or wrong, that he is doing the right thing, the right way based on his religious beliefs. Why I ask, is this such a terrible thing?
Secondly I ask, if his moral beliefs and judgements are so bad, what then should he base his judgements on?
Please, leave out the puppet comments and the like and play the "what if game" it you must, and please post assuming he makes his own calls. Can we do that, thanks.

Your Reply:
According to Muslims, they are doing things the right way according to their religious beliefs.

Oh boy are you out of touch with reality :).
First, your statement seems to be a blanket one including all Muslims everywhere.
I conclude that you in fact did not actually mean this as stated. So based on that premise, let's see who in fact are the Muslims who are acting in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Currently the Muslims with whom we and other countries are in conflict with, claim they are in a "Holy War" "Jihad" against the infidel (all who are not Muslim).
It is my understanding that the Jihad is primarily an "Internal" holy war within the individual who is fighting against the temptations and sins of the flesh.
The Muslims that are going all over the world, indiscriminately murdering, killing innocent men, women and children, civilians, and for the most part non-military people, are no way in hell following the true tennants of their belief. They have taken that minute portion of their holy scriptures, twisted it into their "human" meaning, created an unacceptable crusade all in the name of Allah, and recruited the finatical power-hungry clerics to support and enhance their purposes, which by the way has been rejected by the majority of Muslim clerics and population.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready, Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Thomas Paine The only thing I can say, is that when Bush attempted to introduce the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment,

On this we agree in spirit, if not the reasons. I think we already have had too many amendments added after the original 10. I would call a few of them frivolous, much like some law suits are frivolous. I am a champion of less government, the least is best. Keep adding amendments every time something comes along that creates controversy, and we will destroy the intent of the Constitution. Once again, it's the states who should be making the laws on these kinds of issues. The feds should stay out of it. However, that won't keep judges from interpreting with their prejudices. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[PhanthomOps]

Samildanach:

Quote: "Judging on the results of bushes morals and values so far, I would have to judge his religion as some kind of satanic plague.
Bush the Satanist...has a nice ring to it...maybe thats what he can go down in history as."

Is this just your opinion, or do you have some facts to back it up???


italiangm:

Quote: "Thanks for providing the citation."

You are very welcome. You did request it, and I was obliged to comply.

Quote: "Note the phrase "unofficial declarations". Brewer isn't claiming the United States has achieved some deity-deemed chosen nation status as many fundamentalists who quote this phrase attempt to assert. He simply provides evidence that supports an opinion that churches are exempt from the Alien Contract Labor Law and can thus reverse a lower court's ruling.
If Brewer were alive today, he could just as well describe the majority of US citizens as owning cars, having bank accounts, or any number of observations to support an appropriate opinion."

Yes, this was a specific case, however, this Supreme Court decision had much wider implications, in that the United States of America was declared to be a Christian Nation. As such, a part of our heritage and traditions from our founding was to accept all those who professed and practiced religion, or did not equally without discrimination.

Patrick Henry - "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

QUOTE (PhanthomOps)
Overall it is still a low opinion

Again, your opinion. In reality, that opinion is reserved only for those of free will that actually allow themselves to be governed by fear and intimidation. Nothing more. Nothing less."

Yes it is my opinion - and I recognize your right to have your's.


Pooeypants:
Quote: "Doesn't one of your laws say something about separating government and religion?"

This is a concept that has been propigated by men who wish to enhance their own personal agendas for their own enrichment and who wanted to avoid being held to a higher standard.

The Founding Fathers, and every President from George Washington to George W. Bush, have outwardly professed a belief in God. The intent of the First Amendment was to prevent laws that would prohibit and/or restrict the churches from the profession and/or practice of their religious beliefs. It provided for the general rights of citizens that the Constitution did not. However, it recognized the religious beliefs of these people, and allowed for them to use their religious convictions of morality, honesty, ethics, integrity and humanity to guide them in their decision making for the benefit of all Americans.

George Washington: - "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. .let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."


Osborn F Enready:
Quote: "I am not gay, nor do I necessarily support gays, but if they want to practice their BELIEFS, they may do so, and I will defend that right as much as my right to bear arms, free speech, and the right to revolt should my government fail to represent the people, as intended."

No one is saying that Gays & Lesbians do not have the right to persue their lifestyle. The battle at present is what constitutes and defines the acceptable state of "Holy Matrimony / Marriage", and then how do the currently enacted laws and those in the future apply. Additionally, many of our Armed Forces have in fact died for the rights of our citizens, this being one of them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Phantom Ops said: No one is saying that Gays & Lesbians do not have the right to persue their lifestyle. The battle at present is what constitutes and defines the acceptable state of "Holy Matrimony / Marriage", and then how do the currently enacted laws and those in the future apply.

I say: You are wrong here. Do you think state, or church has the right to outline what marriage is??

If it is the church, why did the church ALLOW the state to take control of issuing "marriage licenses" to "eligible" parties? It is the churchs rights, right? Does the church say who can and can't be married? Does the bible? Which bible?

If it is the state, why does the state not want to allow gays and lesbians the same tax breaks as straight married couples are entitled too (under the FED TAX CODE)??

This entire argument is about the discrimination of the Fed in taxation to married couples, especially with kids. It is also about being EQUAL under the eyes of the law. NO CHURCH, NO PERSON, should be granted ANY rights that any other is not entitled to. SO WHY IS THE CHURCH TAX FREE? ALL TAXES ARE TO BE LEVIED EQUALLY, REMEMBER?

The church, and the fed, are both prejudiced when it suits them, and accepting when it suits them, whatever the masses will stand, is what they attempt to do to the extreme. It is called corruption, introduction of socialist ideals into a constitutionally limited democratic republic, and subversion of the system.

How do you think this is right again?

[floridian]

Maybe this is why his 'moral' theories are not seen as beneficial for the US:

The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and David's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth. Abrams attempted to assuage their concerns by stating that "the Gaza Strip had no significant Biblical influence such as Joseph's tomb or Rachel's tomb and therefore is a piece of land that can be sacrificed for the cause of peace."

Managing the Middle East peace process so that Jesus can return to Earth? Any non-religious behaviour this insane would get a person committed to an asylum.

If 'moral' means doing that which is right and promoting the health and well being of all Americans, then I assure you I favor, nay I demand Moral Leadership.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by italiangm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Note the phrase "unofficial declarations". Brewer isn't claiming the United States has achieved some deity-deemed chosen nation status as many fundamentalists who quote this phrase attempt to assert. He simply provides evidence that supports an opinion that churches are exempt from the Alien Contract Labor Law and can thus reverse a lower court's ruling. If Brewer were alive today, he could just as well describe the majority of US citizens as owning cars, having bank accounts, or any number of observations to support an appropriate opinion.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-PhanthomOps
Yes, this was a specific case, however, this Supreme Court decision had much wider implications, in that the United States of America was declared to be a Christian Nation. As such, a part of our heritage and traditions from our founding was to accept all those who professed and practiced religion, or did not equally without discrimination.[/quote]Many relgious organizations certainly aim to subvert the meaning of the opinion for their own ends and means, however, a listing of observed traditions does not "declare" anything.

[Mia]

Speaking to the origianl question asked:

After his grudging public apology for the behavior of U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, George W. Bush attended a ceremony commemorating the National Day of Prayer. His remarks there were, as we have come to expect from this President, a stirring mix of humility and certainty. "God is not on the side of any nation, yet we know He is on the side of justice," Bush said. "Our finest moments [as a nation] have come when we have faithfully served the cause of justice for our own citizens, and for the people of other lands."

The words are wonderful, but such sentiments are easily corrupted. Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced. We are humble before the Lord, Bush insists. We cannot possibly know His will. And yet, we "know" He's on the side of justice—and we define what justice is. Indeed, we can toss around words like justice and evil with impunity, send off mighty armies to "serve the cause of justice" in other lands and be so sure of our righteousness that the merest act of penitence—an apology for an atrocity—becomes a presidential crisis.

"This is not the America I know," Bush said of the torturers, as if U.S. soldiers were exempt from the temptations of absolute power that have plagued occupying armies from the beginning of time.


As the nation suffered the disgrace of Abu Ghraib last week, I traveled through Turkey and Jordan—our staunchest Islamic allies in the region—and talked with moderate politicians, businesspeople and military officials. Most found Bush's moral talk either duplicitous or fatuous.

"Liberate Iraq? Rubbish," said a prominent Jordanian businessman. "You occupy Iraq for the strategic and economic benefits. You are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. Halliburton and Bechtel are running everything, at enormous profits. And then I watch Bush on Al-Arabiya and all I see is his sense of moral superiority. He brings democracy and freedom to the barbarians. But who are the barbarians? Even before the Abu Ghraib pictures, we saw male soldiers searching Iraqi women and humiliating Iraqi men by forcing their heads to the ground."


The President's moral convictions are, no doubt, matters of true faith—and the Jordanian businessman is a member of an authoritarian establishment with much to lose if Islamic radicals or, faint chance, democrats take charge. But Bush's moral certainty almost seemed delusional last week in the vertiginous realities of Iraq. A distressing, uninflected righteousness has defined this Administration from the start, and it hasn't been limited to the President.

Bush's overheated sense of good vs. evil has been reinforced by the intellectual fantasies of neoconservatives like I. Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, who serve Bush's two most powerful advisers, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It was neoconservatives who provided the philosophical rationale for the President's gut response to the evildoers of Sept. 11: a grand crusade—yes, a crusade—to establish democracy in Iraq and then, via a benign tumbling of local dominoes, throughout the Middle East. Those who opposed the crusade opposed democracy. Those who opposed the President coddled terrorists (according to recent G.O.P. TV ads). They were not morally serious.

But democracy doesn't easily lend itself to evangelism; it requires more than faith. It requires a solid, educated middle class and a sophisticated understanding of law, transparency and minority rights. It certainly can't be imposed by outsiders, not in a fractious region where outsiders are considered infidels. This is not rocket science. It is conventional wisdom among democracy and human-rights activists—and yet the Administration allowed itself to be blinded by righteousness.

Why? Because moral pomposity is almost always a camouflage for baser fears and desires. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives share a primal belief in the use of military power to intimidate enemies. If the U.S. didn't strike back "big time," it would be perceived as weak. (Crushing the peripheral Taliban and staying focused on rooting out al-Qaeda cells wasn't "big" enough.)

The President may have had some personal motives—doing to Saddam Hussein what his father didn't; filling out Karl Rove's prescription of a strong leader; making the world safe for his friends in the energy industry. The neoconservatives had ulterior motives too: almost all were fervent believers in the state of Israel and, as a prominent Turkish official told me last week, "they didn't want Saddam's rockets falling on Tel Aviv." At the very least, they were hoping to intimidate the Palestinians into accepting Ariel Sharon's vision of a "state" without sovereignty.

Abu Ghraib made a mockery of American idealism. It made all the baser motives—oil, dad, Israel—more believable. And it represents all the moral complexities this President has chosen to ignore—all the perverse consequences of an occupation.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/a...,634641,00.html

[Samildanach]

I would have thought that actions speak louder than words. Forget sacrificing chickens. Bush is sacrificing entire nations.

[PhanthomOps]

Osborn F Enready:
Quote: "I say: You are wrong here. Do you think state, or church has the right to outline what marriage is??"

Whether you or I agree or disagree, it has been all throught history, whether civil or church that marriage is between men and women. If I am not mistaken the US recognizes "Common law marriage", however, this is also between men and women.

Also, in-as-much as the political representatives of the people have accepted this, what is your problem??

Quote: "If it is the church, why did the church ALLOW the state to take control of issuing "marriage licenses" to "eligible" parties? It is the churchs rights, right?"

The church performed marriage on the premise that the man and woman would act honorably toward each other, and in accordance to the tennants of their particular faith. The church did not abdicate control, it was because of subsequent fights over property, real estate, etc., that laws were developed to protect the rights of the individual - that was a civil problem and not one of the church.

Quote: "Does the church say who can and can't be married? Does the bible? Which bible?"

Check the various religions and their Holy Scriptures. If you want I can quote mine - FYI I am a Born-Again Christann Pentacostal.

As for the tax codes and legalities, that I am sure is being considered as some of the states legalize Gay and Lesbian marriages.

itaniangm:
Quote: "Many relgious organizations certainly aim to subvert the meaning of the opinion for their own ends and means, however, a listing of observed traditions does not "declare" anything."

Oh?? In-as-much as all peoples in the world today, in whatever country they live in have a righ heritage and traditions that have been passed on generation to generation to generation, that have influenced their culture, and actions I think speaks for itself.

Mia,
Please do not just single our President Bush to express you ire, don't forget all the elected politians that we put in office, that support the President. So who are all the others that should be added to this list???

[Osborn F Enready]

Phantom said: Whether you or I agree or disagree, it has been all throught history, whether civil or church that marriage is between men and women. If I am not mistaken the US recognizes "Common law marriage", however, this is also between men and women.

Also, in-as-much as the political representatives of the people have accepted this, what is your problem??


I say: My problem, which I have often stated at length, is that I like a large portion of this country are NOT being represented by MY PAID REPRESENTATIVES. My constitution is not being enforced, my rights are not being respected, and most importantly, the truth is almost completely buried under lies and rhetoric that each major party launches like a mini-gun into the media. You asked what my problem is, as though I am WRONG because I disagree. That should say most of it right there.


Phantom Ops said: Check the various religions and their Holy Scriptures. If you want I can quote mine - FYI I am a Born-Again Christann Pentacostal.

As for the tax codes and legalities, that I am sure is being considered as some of the states legalize Gay and Lesbian marriages.


I say: Considered? This is the main fuel of the fire, only taking second stage to the plain fact that it is WRONG for the government to advocate ANY particular religion, or use any religious beliefs to affect the treatment of anyone under the auspice of the law.

Phantom Ops said: Please do not just single our President Bush to express you ire, don't forget all the elected politians that we put in office, that support the President. So who are all the others that should be added to this list???

I say: How about an investigation of at least the last 154 years(the length of time it has been since a party OTHER than republican or democrat has seen office of the white house. How about the investigation into which laws blatantly violate the writings of our constitution, that clearly states and was ratified as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Anyone provably subverting the constitution by will or directive of a higher official, should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, period.

[PhanthomOps]

Osborn F Enready:
Quote: "I say: My problem, which I have often stated at length, is that I like a large portion of this country are NOT being represented by MY PAID REPRESENTATIVES. My constitution is not being enforced, my rights are not being respected, and most importantly, the truth is almost completely buried under lies and rhetoric that each major party launches like a mini-gun into the media. You asked what my problem is, as though I am WRONG because I disagree. That should say most of it right there."

So, vote them out of office - that's your right


Quote: "I say: Considered? This is the main fuel of the fire, only taking second stage to the plain fact that it is WRONG for the government to advocate ANY particular religion, or use any religious beliefs to affect the treatment of anyone under the auspice of the law."

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment I

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.

In what way does the government "advocate" one religion orver another??? Do you have any idea how many religions are active in the US today?????


Quote: "I say: How about an investigation of at least the last 154 years(the length of time it has been since a party OTHER than republican or democrat has seen office of the white house. How about the investigation into which laws blatantly violate the writings of our constitution, that clearly states and was ratified as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Anyone provably subverting the constitution by will or directive of a higher official, should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, period."

As far as who served as President is concerned, yes have an investigation, by all means, ask all the people presently living, and resurect the dead and ask them who they voted for.
And if you feel as you do that the Constitution is being so blatently violated, you have the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Sue