What I resent MORE is when the fundamentalists are NOT "ramming their beliefs down everyone elses' throats via government.", but their position is reinterpreted by anti-fundamentalists who are so frightened of their own shadow that they yell that the country is turning into a theocracy everytime someone mentions the dreaded "G" word...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..........

This is the EXACT phrase that you claim says "separation of church and state". I say that you are not only misinterpreting the first half of it you are also entirely ignoring the second half.

__________________________________________________ ____
quote from MM

Meet the Fundies! Pat Robertson, people from Gerry Falwell's coalition and college, Dr Dobson (of SpongeBob homophobia fameA rather lame attempt to denigrate a great man of many many accomplishments and good deeds.). With a Huckabee nomination as the Republican candidate for 2008, that would look like the tail wagging the Republican dog.

Personally I resent the Republican fundamentalists holier than thou attitude and always trying to find ways to ram their beliefs down everyone elses' throats via government.
__________________________________________________

WHY? Why do you harbor such hatred of some truly humble and hard working men. I suppose you would have had the same attitude when Jesus was "teaching"? and no this is not trying to proclaim them as Jesus

So I guess you PRESUME that because they have a strong religious bent that they should not be ALLOWED to participate in THEIR government. To ask for VOTES is not "ramming it down your throat". To deny them the right to ask is entirely unconstitutional because THAT is specifically addressed in the constitution as the "right to petition". YOU have the same right and a vote therefore your paranoia is hardly justified.

As far as a "holier than thou attitude".......This is similar to that darn "smarter than thou attitude" it is usually ONLY in the mind of the one on the lower end of the spectrum from the person it is perceived to be coming from. This usually results in an emotional backlash against someone with no ill intent. This is often also the result of a guilt complex.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

It's interesting how people interpret this clause.
Some put more emphasis on the one over the other, and vice versa...

Part of the problem is that your definition of "establishment" is fairly conservative, and would ignore numerous examples of "establishment" as nothing important.
(And the amusing thing in all that is how you insist they are important to you, but demand that others not find them important...)

"Establishment" means more than just a mandatory compliance.

Furthermore, how is your "exercise thereof" inhibited?
Does your religion demand that the government adopt your religion's rules and guidelines?
Or is that more your own PERSONAL preference?


Jesus never presumed to act as brazenly as those men do on a habitual basis.

"truly humble and hard working men"?
The gripe is not on their imagined "humility", and it isn't their work ethic as much as THE THINGS THEY DO in what they proclaim is their line of work.


And out parade the straw-man arguments...

Let's put it this way...
They have a right to petition. That is undeniable.
They do not have a right to tax exempt status while doing so.
And just because they petition doesn't mean that the SUBJECT of their petition is automatically "constitutional"...


So by your logic, that would mean that your complaints about "smarter than thou attitude" would mean what about you???
< end sarcasm >

Leave your ad hoc crap at home.
JESUS HIMSELF complained about the "holier than thou attitude".
By your logic, that must have made Jesus a sinner, hmmmm....

_____________________________________________
quote/
It's interesting how people interpret this clause.
Some put more emphasis on the one over the other, and vice versa...

Part of the problem is that your definition of "establishment" is fairly conservative, and would ignore numerous examples of "establishment" as nothing important.
(And the amusing thing in all that is how you insist they are important to you, but demand that others not find them important...)

"Establishment" means more than just a mandatory compliance.
______________________________________________

I dunno......I even checked Miriam Webster online and There just wasn't any of those definitions in there. Not to mention that your meaning(mandatory compliance)was NOT in there at all.
As to more influence on first or second half. My point was that NEITHER was involved in the liberal's interpretation of "separation of church and state". That is to say that IT IS NOT in the Constitution.

____________________________________________
quote/
1.Furthermore, how is your "exercise thereof" inhibited?
2.Does your religion demand that the government adopt your religion's rules and guidelines?
3.Or is that more your own PERSONAL preference?
_____________________________________________

1.It is inhibited any time someone says I can't use it to help me decide an issue.
2.No. However my government does not demand that I do not use my religious values and in case you haven't noticed MANY "sins" are NOT illegal. By the way "my religion" does not even have a "church"(other than wherever I am) so it certainly doesn't demand much of anything other than respect for a "higher authority" than me and a realization that there is a right and a wrong in regards to many things.
3.No. Your indictment of my motive is entirely out of context. My religion is extremely tolerant to the point of just plain "not caring" about whether someone else is moral or whether they will survive into the "afterlife" or not. However my compassion for others demands that I try to make things "right" for those in need including especially those that "don't know better". This is not to force any of my views on them but to only try to help them understand "why" I have such a view and that they might want to consider it themselves.

____________________________________________
quote/
Jesus never presumed to act as brazenly as those men do on a habitual basis.

"truly humble and hard working men"?
The gripe is not on their imagined "humility", and it isn't their work ethic as much as THE THINGS THEY DO in what they proclaim is their line of work.
_____________________________________________

Could you give me the example for "the things they do" that so offends you to make you try to demonize people that have devoted their lives to helping others.

_____________________________________________
quote/
And out parade the straw-man arguments...

Let's put it this way...
They have a right to petition. That is undeniable.
They do not have a right to tax exempt status while doing so.
And just because they petition doesn't mean that the SUBJECT of their petition is automatically "constitutional"...
_____________________________________________

The "tax-exemption" comes from their CHARITY work and the fact that if government taxes religion then they are in fact RESTRICTING it.
The "SUBJECT" could however BECOME(and definitely NOT automatically)Constitutional so put away your scarecrow.

____________________________________________
quote/
By your logic, that must have made Jesus a sinner, hmmmm....
___________________________________________

You misrepresent "my logic".
Your logic had you leap from Jesus said.......to Jesus was a sinner. The same logic would take me from someone complaining that the good reverend was "holier than thou" to that statement making them a sinner. I don't see that.
But a couple of ideas on your Jesus was a sinner line.
ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
On the cross Jesus absorbed "all of the sins of mankind".

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

Conservatives want to change the constitution and Liberals want to change the constitution. I don't think either in today's messed up world should fiddle with it at all! After all it is MY constitution. It is YOURS, yes.
And the men who fashioned this miracle we call America, had more knowledge and true wisdom in each of their pinky fingers than any of the bozos up there today.
Thing is, when someone wanted to amend it for mandatory fiscal responsibility, where was everyone's outrage?
When whoever it was proposed adding sexual orientation, where was the aghast citizen?
Each of us has a clear idea of the country we would like to see.
But changes to our founding document should come slowly if at all.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

Straight from an informed citizen and a "Great American".
You are helping to make my point. It IS very difficult to amend the Constitution and purposely so. That is exactly why It is not bad to TRY to change it because the system IS designed to temper impulses and has many ways to STOP anything that is improper. Unlike COURT decisions that bring division upon our country with NO way to stop it. That damn "stare decisis"("settled law" doctrine).


Please note: That headline was designed to "pull people in". It as most headlines do, had little to do with what was actually said much less what the person meant. "Deliberate misrepresentation" comes to mind.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

After reading these posts I have determined that religion is divisive. You can have it.

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

Let me try to be a little more explicit.

My issue is not over whether or not liberals or conservatives have more validity in changing the constitution. I agree that they have equal opportunity and capability, and having one political leaning should not denigrate the issue.

My issue is over whether or not RELIGION should be able to change the constitution. And please note that transcends political leaning, as BOTH conservative and liberal based religion (exclusively for the sake of religion) should not exert control over the constitution.

My issue here is over whether or not we should change the constitution to CONFORM to religion, as Huckabee has stated:

"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

And as a side issue, you'll note how Huckabee SHIFTED THE EMPHASIS in the second half of the sentence.
He starts off talking about amending the constitution so it is in "God's standards".
But in the second half, he doesn't try to claim that God's standards are "changed" to conform to the constitution.
He complains about God's standards being changed to "line up with some contemporary view". In other words he doesn't like how the CONGREGATIONS change their interpretation of God, which has nothing to do with the Government.


haha.
I like that.
Unfortunately terribly true.

At times, I think we're not even speaking the same language.
You don't give a definition of establish, so I will.

establish:
1: to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
2obsolete : settle 7
3 a: to make firm or stable b: to introduce and cause to grow and multiply <establish grass on pasturelands>
4 a: to bring into existence : found <established a republic> b: bring about effect <established friendly relations>
5 a: to put on a firm basis : set up <establish his son in business> b: to put into a favorable position c: to gain full recognition or acceptance of <the role established her as a star>
6: to make (a church) a national or state institution
7: to put beyond doubt : prove <established my innocence>

My point in mentioning "mandatory compliance" is that some people often try to take a limited view of "establish" whereby it is not violating "establishment" unless the government mandates that everybody has to comply with a religion.
Obviously, if the government did mandate that everybody had to comply with a religion it would meet SEVERAL of the definitions above.
It would be an example of "establishment".

THAT was my point.


"separation of church and state" is a euphemism to make more plain an interpretation of the first amendment.
The fact that the precise phrase is not found there is meaningless. Nobody claims it is.

To move this towards more concrete grounds and eliminate your spurious statements, Definition 5B is the definition often utilized for explaining "establishment" in legal interpretation by the courts.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Congress shall make no law which puts religion in a favorable position...

It's the whole theory behind "secularity" that religion is treated NEUTRALLY.


I think you fail to appreciate the reality of the situation.
Nobody says that you can't use whatever you like in making a decision.

BUT, if the only justification for a law is "religion", then that law fails constitutionally.


Again, nobody is saying that you can't use your religious values.

Furthermore, the fact that "many" sins are not illegal is not a defense against the constitutional issue that NO law should be based solely on religion.
That's like saying "there were many cars in the dealership that I did not steal". Stealing even one car is a violation.



Very vague.
Based on that description, one would wonder why somebody would have to fight to make the constitution comply with God's standards in the first place.
By your description, people should talk about "fighting to make the constitution make things *right* for others".
But that's NOT what Huckabee said.
If Huckabee had ACTUALLY said the second, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
If Huckabee had ACTUALLY said the modified quote, it would have no violation of first amendment.

And on another front, your quote of "However my compassion for others demands that I try to make things "right" for those in need including especially those that "don't know better"." reeks of what some might think is "liberalism"...


This is one example:
Praying For Supreme Court Shake Up, Pat Robertson Asks For Prayers For Exit Of 3 Supreme Court Judges - CBS News
Interesting how Robertson uses the illness of these people, and doesn't pray that they be healed but rather hopes that it be used as a reason to leave office.

This web-site includes many other examples.
Bozo Speak in Black

You complain about me "demonizing people" when all I am doing is pointing out that these people DEMONIZE OTHERS.


So, to tax churches LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IS TAXED is to "restrict" them?
That's absurd!
It no more "restricts" them than it restricts the rest of the population that is taxed.


My logic took YOUR leap from *foundit66 said .... to he must feel guilty about his sins*.
I took the fact that Jesus had SIMILAR COMPLAINTS about "holier than thous", to your explicit conclusion that Jesus must have felt guilty about his sins for him to complain...

I misrepresented nothing of yours.
You made a lame allegation based out of convenience, and you don't like how it is applied to others.
Not my problem...

That's one of the problems with Huckabee's statement.
WHOSE interpretation of "God's standards" are going to be used?

The Evangelicals? The Baptists? The Lutherans?
The Muslim? The Jew? The Hindu?

I guess we can automatically discount the "atheists" and the "agnostics" as obviously their position on "God's standards" are not going to be used...