Ogre Forums

reptor wrote:It is not a long ago when I was reading some online sources which talked about the subject of politics and religions in the USA.

My conclusion after some reading was that it likely is unconstitutional that a President of the U.S. uses a religion in his or her speeches to make points or to boost the speeches.

I would have to do more reading to come to a more certain concusion about this, but I spent a couple of hours reading about it and that's how it looks like to me.

So it could be possible, as I see it, that the people of the USA could succesfully sue their President if the President uses any religion to boost his speeches. Or preaches about values of any religion. My conclusion was that the President of the USA cannot legally endorse any religion.

Of course he can endorse any religion he wants - that's his right.

What motivates him is none of my business.

VictorMoran wrote: Now we are considering electing a team made of a senile war monger, that is on record with his intentions toward Iran, and that also wants to start another cool war with Russia.

He is niether senile nor a warmonger.

I wish people would stop listening to what politicians say -- they will tell you whatever it is they think you want to hear at that time. There are videos of Sarah Palin spouting what would seem to be theocratical rhetoric to a religious congregation. However, what evidence is there that any of that rhetoric actually made it into public policy in Alaska? None, because we are not a theocratic society.

There is certainly truth in what you said. But...

We have evolved a peculiar set of principles about political candidates.

Since we operate in a representative democracy, we want the politicians we vote for to express opinions that match those we hold on our own.

However, if they change their position as the result of majority public opinion, we call them a flip-flopper.

<* Wes *>

warmi wrote:

reptor wrote:It is not a long ago when I was reading some online sources which talked about the subject of politics and religions in the USA.

My conclusion after some reading was that it likely is unconstitutional that a President of the U.S. uses a religion in his or her speeches to make points or to boost the speeches.

I would have to do more reading to come to a more certain concusion about this, but I spent a couple of hours reading about it and that's how it looks like to me.

So it could be possible, as I see it, that the people of the USA could succesfully sue their President if the President uses any religion to boost his speeches. Or preaches about values of any religion. My conclusion was that the President of the USA cannot legally endorse any religion.

Of course he can endorse any religion he wants - that's his right.

What motivates him is none of my business.

He can endorse any religion he wants, but not when doing his public job, as I see it.

I would say it's a 24/7/356 job to be the President. So if the President makes a public comment endorsing some religion, that's a violation, as I see it.

For example this source seems to agree with me:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state."

<snip>

The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

When the President uses some Christianity endorsing phrases in his public speeches, that's preferring one religion over another to me.

If your President uses religious phrases, refers to God, et cetera, in his public speeches, then I would say that the separation of State and Church is not happening. The President should be religion-neutral to the public, and that is clearly not happening if one religion regularly gets into his speeches.

The witch-hunting days are over for us. We are more aware of the World now. We don't need a President to guide a nation into thinking that witches still should be hunted.

Also see this:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagen ... faithbased

On June 2, 2006, Americans United won a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Iowa Corrections Department's support for Charles Colson's InnerChange, a prison program that trains inmates in evangelical Christianity. Here are some questions and answers about the litigation.

Q. How is this case related to President George W. Bush's 'faith-based' initiative?

A. President Bush was a big booster of Charles Colson's prison program while he was governor of Texas. As president, Bush has aggressively extended the "faith-based" approach into a wide array of social services. AU's lawsuit is a direct challenge to the principles involved in the Bush approach. AU asserts that the government may not use tax funds to underwrite social programs that are infused with sectarian dogma.

I think the Americans United make a very strong point there.

How is this related to Palin or McCain? As far as I know none of them are the president. Are you assuming they would voice out their religious beliefs when/if they go into office? I don't believe Palin's current job is 24/7/365, so she is free to express her beliefs, according to our rights as US citizens. You can't take some personal situations and expect said person to behave similarly when on the job...

Are you seriously suggesting that the Presidential candidates are not going to carry their religious stuff into the White House with them?

That they would suddenly stop being so strongly biased. I don't believe that. Palin is not going to drop the religious line she has chosen.

Is Palin not holding a public job currently? Oh yes she is. The Governor of Alaska. The Governor is part of a government (see constitution...) I see that so that she should also be religion-neutral in her current job. Which she has not been.

reptor wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the Presidential candidates are not going to carry their religious stuff into the White House with them?

What makes you think that any of them have in the history of the U.S.?

reptor wrote: I see that so that she should also be religion-neutral in her current job. Which she has not been.

Which you have not proven and can't, because it doesn't work that way.

I just saw a re-run of parts of the interview of Ms Palin with Charles Gibson. We know how ABC and Fox News are in the extreme right, therefore as expected he asked soft ball questions.
I guess her next inteview will be with Sean Hannity.
Speaking of a bridge to nowhere, I encourage people to see the interview.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3136.story

I believe she is going to need more than God’s will, Jesus, a baby, and or hunting a moose to explain small town America how another 4 years of the same republican ideology will make their community life any better.
The woman could no answer if she agree or disagree with the Bush Doctrine. And yet to one question she responded that “war with Russia may be necessaryâ€

VictorMoran wrote: We know how ABC and Fox News are in the extreme right

Please ... the extreme right ?

Only if your main source of information is Pravda ..

Now it is clear why the Palin/McCain campaign cannot really address issues like: the economic, foreign politic, education, health care, the environment, the war, etc

They do address these issues - you just don't like their answers.

warmi wrote:

VictorMoran wrote: We know how ABC and Fox News are in the extreme right

Please ... the extreme right ?

I would tend to agree that FOX has a serious starboard list to it...but ABC?!? Dude, they are absolutely part of that "liberal media" boogeyman that the Repubs love to hate...

xavier wrote:

warmi wrote:

VictorMoran wrote: We know how ABC and Fox News are in the extreme right

Please ... the extreme right ?

I would tend to agree that FOX has a serious starboard list to it...but ABC?!? Dude, they are absolutely part of that "liberal media" boogeyman that the Repubs love to hate...

Yeah, they do but I wouldn't call them the extreme right ... in my book that's generally reserved for people like David Duke and his ilk - they are truly extreme.

Funny that you mention David Duke and you find him very extremist,
Apparently the only criteria that makes a person an extremist in the Republican Party is if they cross the line and make an statement against Israel. Maybe that's why Ron Paul is also an extremist.
But those who makes these incendiary comments to protect Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__jVRnmm ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs
are considered Moderates.
FoxNews is a mouse piece of the neocon side of the republic party and there are no yard stick to mesasure how estremist they are.

VictorMoran wrote:Funny that you mention David Duke and you find him very extremist,
Apparently the only criteria that makes a person an extremist in the Republican Party is if they cross the line and make an statement against Israel.

Nah .. it is way more than that.
BTW ... as far as support for Israel ... there is just as much if not more on the democratic side.

FoxNews is a mouse piece of the neocon side of the republic party and there are no yard stick to mesasure how estremist they are.

Well, that easy. Fox News is extremely popular which means whatever they are trying to sell ... well, is selling pretty well.
Here is a scary thought for you ..... if they are so darn extremist then so is a very large portion of American public … which means this is no longer extremism but mainstream politics.

xavier wrote:

reptor wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the Presidential candidates are not going to carry their religious stuff into the White House with them?

What makes you think that any of them have in the history of the U.S.?

reptor wrote: I see that so that she should also be religion-neutral in her current job. Which she has not been.

Which you have not proven and can't, because it doesn't work that way.

Hmm... what?

I'm sure I have many times heard some President use religion as a springboard when giving political speeches. That, to me, is far from separation of State and Church.

And I have not proven...? Do I really have to prove to you that Palin isn't religion-neutral in her job as the Governor of Alaska? Do you think she has been?

One mention of God, to use it to justify something in her job as the Governor, that's enough to make her not religion-neutral.

Palin has a history of using religion as a political tool. I am not going to believe that she would suddenly, after possibly changing from the job of Governor of Alaska, to the President, change that behaviour and never use religion as a political tool again.

I see that in your country (in my country as well) someone who holds a public job, should not be holding one religion above others while doing his or her job. In private life yes, I don't care if they practice a religion or not, but not in the public job.

reptor wrote:

xavier wrote:

reptor wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that the Presidential candidates are not going to carry their religious stuff into the White House with them?

What makes you think that any of them have in the history of the U.S.?

reptor wrote: I see that so that she should also be religion-neutral in her current job. Which she has not been.

Which you have not proven and can't, because it doesn't work that way.

Hmm... what?

I'm sure I have many times heard some President use religion as a springboard when giving political speeches. That, to me, is far from separation of State and Church.

What I am asking, is where in American history has any President initiated some foreign or domestic action because "God told them to"? Political speech is just that -- speech. It's meaningless, so if you actually pay attention to what someone says, you've got the wrong end of the gun.

And I have not proven...? Do I really have to prove to you that Palin isn't religion-neutral in her job as the Governor of Alaska? Do you think she has been?

The burden of proof here is on the accuser. You have tossed out some vague intimations, but nothing else. See above about political speech.

One mention of God, to use it to justify something in her job as the Governor, that's enough to make her not religion-neutral.

Which isn't true, but if you don't understand that, then you're not going to understand anything else I tell you on the topic.

"In God We Trust". It's on every single piece of currency printed in the United States. I guess that makes us a theocracy, by your definition.

[quote="VictorMoran"]The woman could no answer if she agree or disagree with the Bush Doctrine. And yet to one question she responded that “war with Russia may be necessaryâ€

xavier wrote:

reptor wrote:

xavier wrote: What makes you think that any of them have in the history of the U.S.?
Which you have not proven and can't, because it doesn't work that way.

Hmm... what?

I'm sure I have many times heard some President use religion as a springboard when giving political speeches. That, to me, is far from separation of State and Church.

What I am asking, is where in American history has any President initiated some foreign or domestic action because "God told them to"? Political speech is just that -- speech. It's meaningless, so if you actually pay attention to what someone says, you've got the wrong end of the gun.

And I have not proven...? Do I really have to prove to you that Palin isn't religion-neutral in her job as the Governor of Alaska? Do you think she has been?

The burden of proof here is on the accuser. You have tossed out some vague intimations, but nothing else. See above about political speech.

One mention of God, to use it to justify something in her job as the Governor, that's enough to make her not religion-neutral.

Which isn't true, but if you don't understand that, then you're not going to understand anything else I tell you on the topic.

Thanks a lot for that smart comment.

I think that being religion-neutral in a public job means that no religion can be endorsed. It is endorsing when a public job holder regularly uses a religion to boost up his or her speeches. It is advertizing a religion. A political decision need not to be based on the religion for religion-neutrality to be broken.

"In God We Trust". It's on every single piece of currency printed in the United States. I guess that makes us a theocracy, by your definition.

How did that get there (I recommend you read about it, I already did)? It shouldn't be there, is my opinion. But you guessed it, didn't you. To me separation of State and Church means also "don't write GOD into your money bills". If it is there, any argument that the government is religion-neutral is laughable. How can it be, when they have GOD written all over them?

reptor wrote:If it is there, any argument that the government is religion-neutral is laughable. How can it be, when they have GOD written all over them?

Like I said, there is no talking to you on this -- you have your opinion and it won't be changed no matter how I try to explain that you're wrong, so let's agree to disagree and move on.

xavier wrote:

reptor wrote:If it is there, any argument that the government is religion-neutral is laughable. How can it be, when they have GOD written all over them?

Like I said, there is no talking to you on this -- you have your opinion and it won't be changed no matter how I try to explain that you're wrong, so let's agree to disagree and move on.

Yes, great, let's just agree that I don't understand because I don't understand.

[quote="reptor"][quote="VictorMoran"]The woman could no answer if she agree or disagree with the Bush Doctrine. And yet to one question she responded that “war with Russia may be necessaryâ€

xavier wrote:What I am asking, is where in American history has any President initiated some foreign or domestic action because "God told them to"? Political speech is just that -- speech. It's meaningless

I don't think it's "meaningless" as you put it. On the contrary, when someone uses the "will of God" and "plan from God" line of reasoning, this is a strong indication that this person will not enter a debate with rational thinking, based on facts.

For example, consider global warming (whether you think it's fact or fiction is irrelevent to the argument I'm making here). If the person thinks that global warming is "the will of God", no matter how many scientists with scientific facts you put in front of them to justify that it's man-made, it won't do a thing to change that person's mind.

Zool wrote:

xavier wrote:What I am asking, is where in American history has any President initiated some foreign or domestic action because "God told them to"? Political speech is just that -- speech. It's meaningless

I don't think it's "meaningless" as you put it. On the contrary, when someone uses the "will of God" and "plan from God" line of reasoning, this is a strong indication that this person will not enter a debate with rational thinking, based on facts.

I'd say it can be very rational from a Cadidate's POV to talk about god. Actually it was stupid if they didn't.