VP Choice Sarah Palin and The Blues Brothers

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ok, this woman is off her rocker. Now she has saddle the IRAQ was as a task from God. Sorry but we don't need some religious zealot working as second in command.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war;_ylt=AhWK_pKJXkdTkT.iNq33Hkhh24 cA

[bassman]

I wonder if they have SCMODS...

[DjfunkmasterG]

I wonder if they have SCMODS...

LMAO: State County Municipal Offender Data System. :p

[MikePizzoff]

I don't think I want to vote for either party... :(

[Publius]

Ok, this woman is off her rocker. Now she has saddle the IRAQ was as a task from God. Sorry but we don't need some religious zealot working as second in command.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war;_ylt=AhWK_pKJXkdTkT.iNq33Hkhh24 cA


Ho hum. That's politics in America. Obama says he prays to be "an instrument of God's will," and "I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work."


I don't think I want to vote for either party... :(

Vote Libertarian. :) I'm strongly considering either that or the Constitution Party.

[Mike70]

somehow i don't think she's trying to raise money to save a catholic home run by nuns.:p

[darth los]

If anything it's an indicment of the political process when there is, for all intents and purposes, a religious test for the Presidency, something the constitution explicitly prohibits by the way. Whether they believe in it or not they HAVE to say these things.

[Khardis]

If anything it's an indicment of the political process when there is, for all intents and purposes, a religious test for the Presidency, something the constitution explicitly prohibits by the way. Whether they believe in it or not they HAVE to say these things.

Where in the constitution does it say that? Can you quote it?

[MikePizzoff]

Where in the constitution does it say that? Can you quote it?

I think (and I'm stressing think) he might be talking about separation of church and state.

[Khardis]

I think (and I'm stressing think) he might be talking about separation of church and state.

Thats in the constitution?

[MikePizzoff]

Thats in the constitution?

Let me pull out my copy and unroll it...

[capncnut]

Let me pull out my copy and unroll it...
I wish someone would.

[Mike70]

Let me pull out my copy and unroll it...

i got you covered like a jimmy hat on this one.




Thats in the constitution?

the supreme court and several federal circuit courts have ruled several times that the first amendment puts a wall up between church and state. that freedom of religion prohibits the govt. from being involved in or endorsing one religion over another.



Widmar v. Vincent (454 U.S. 263 (1981))

Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist (1973)

Sloan v. Lemon (413 U.S. 825 (1973)


Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Engel v. Vitale (370 U.S. 421 (1962))

Busch v Marple (3rd Cir 2007).


amendment 1:

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

then there is:
Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Khardis]

Ahh, so no, then it is not actually in the constitution. And how exactly is a candidate being religious qualify as an established religious test for qualification? Last I checked people who voted for someone for whatever reason didn't actually entail a religious test. Which is something that the government cannot do, the people can vote whichever way they wat to. And if that means that an ex muslim atheist, turned Radial African faux Christian like Obama doesn't get as many votes then thats all fine and dandy. If he wasn't allowed to run for president though because he isn't really a Christian then I would definitely be against that.

[Mike70]

Ahh, so no, then it is not actually in the constitution. And how exactly is a candidate being religious qualify as an established religious test for qualification? Last I checked people who voted for someone for whatever reason didn't actually entail a religious test. Which is something that the government cannot do, the people can vote whichever way they wat to. And if that means that an ex muslim atheist, turned Radial African faux Christian like Obama doesn't get as many votes then thats all fine and dandy. If he wasn't allowed to run for president though because he isn't really a Christian then I would definitely be against that.

which part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; do you not understand? or did you just simply ignore that because it destroys the crux of your "arguement?" do you have like a 3rd grade education or something? that would explain why you utterly fail to realize that the exact words "seperation of church and state" need not be used for there to be a constitutional mandate.

the supreme court has ruled over and over again that this clause, called the establisment clause, is a direct mandate for the seperation of church and state. the words "seperation of church and state" need not be used.

silly me, for some reason i think the supreme court's opinion, backed up by decades of rulings, is rather weightier than yours.

[Skippy911sc]

I always thought of it in terms that God wanted no part of politics. Did King David offer to build a temple for the Lord and the Lord refused, because that would give an endorsement to the behavior exhibited by David?

[Khardis]

which part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; do you not understand? or did you just simply ignore that because it destroys the crux of your "arguement?" do you have like a 3rd grade education or something? that would explain why you utterly fail to realize that the exact words "seperation of church and state" need not be used for there to be a constitutional mandate.

the supreme court has ruled over and over again that this clause, called the establisment clause, is a direct mandate for the seperation of church and state. the words "seperation of church and state" need not be used.

silly me, for some reason i think the supreme court's opinion, backed up by decades of rulings, is rather weightier than yours.

Lets try to bring this all back on topic since I know how long you can drone on when you think you are being clever. What does your wrong opinion on the subject have to do with a religious test in order to become president?

[Kaos]

I agree with Khardis on this one. In America, there is a de facto religious litmus test even though a de juris test would be ruled unconstitutional. There is no open atheist candidate who would become president in the US from any party. Maybe someday, but not today.

[DubiousComforts]

I agree with Khardis on this one. In America, there is a de facto religious litmus test even though a de juris test would be ruled unconstitutional. There is no open atheist candidate who would become president in the US from any party. Maybe someday, but not today.
So you're saying is that when seeking the office of the Presidency, better to be an openly religious looney than an anti-religious looney?

I suppose the "Devil made me do it" wouldn't be a very good campaign slogan.

[Kaos]

So you're saying is that when seeking the office of the Presidency, better to be an openly religious looney than an anti-religious looney?

I suppose the "Devil made me do it" wouldn't be a very good campaign slogan.

You got it. It is better to pretend to be religious than to be an atheist if you want to be president of the United States. There has never been an openly atheist candidate in the Republican or Democratic parties, and you will not see one now, or in the near future. I will not see one in my lifetime, and it is likely you won't see one in your lifetime either.

America puts too much stock in the belief in god, although every explanation I have ever read as to why this is necessary is totally unsubstantiated bunk as it relates to the presidency.

[Mike70]

Lets try to bring this all back on topic since I know how long you can drone on when you think you are being clever. What does your wrong opinion on the subject have to do with a religious test in order to become president?

are you really this big of an idiot? i have suspected this for some time and now i know for sure. the first amendment has everything to do with what is being discussed here - you know the seperation of church and state that you questioned as being in the constitution. how convienent for you that are simply ignoring that part of my original post on this subject.

again you are going straight to article VI and ignoring the first amendment because it destroys your position.

the establishment clause in the first amendment provides for the seperation of church and state even if the words are not used in the document. i have provided reference to several supreme court and federal circuit court cases where this has been decided over and over again for decades.

again which part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; do you fail to understand? that is a mandate for the seperation of church and state if there ever was one. sorry that you don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to understand that.

since i have to break this down for the uncouth among us:In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), justice hugo black writing for the majority opinion held:



The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."


in In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962):


The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government

now i hope that is clear enough.

you may think you are king turd on sh*t mountain but the truth is, you just plain stink. now please return to your nursery and do some coloring or something else a little more your speed.

oh, and this isn't simply my opinion about what the establishment clause means, it also happens to be the opinion of the supreme court but i guess you know more about constitutional matters than they do...

as for article VI, clause 3 goes - if you cannot understand that the words "no religious test" are intended to seperate religious activities and the activities of the state, i cannot help you. this is another one that the supreme court has ruled on:


In 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court held that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The Court unanimously ruled that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause and Article VI., Clause 3, of the US Constitution.


I agree with Khardis on this one. In America, there is a de facto religious litmus test even though a de juris test would be ruled unconstitutional. There is no open atheist candidate who would become president in the US from any party. Maybe someday, but not today.

that is almost beside the point of what i am trying to get across.

article VI, clause 3 is a mere appendix to this discussion. the real crux of seperation of church and state hinges on the establishment clause in the first amendement. i can read that and understand what it means and apparently so can the federal courts.

[Marie]

And yet, every session of Congress starts with a prayer.... and even the Swearing in of the President usually has a prayer first, and includes the phrase "So Help Me God"

M_

[darth los]

which part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; do you not understand? or did you just simply ignore that because it destroys the crux of your "arguement?" do you have like a 3rd grade education or something? that would explain why you utterly fail to realize that the exact words "seperation of church and state" need not be used for there to be a constitutional mandate.

the supreme court has ruled over and over again that this clause, called the establisment clause, is a direct mandate for the seperation of church and state. the words "seperation of church and state" need not be used.

silly me, for some reason i think the supreme court's opinion, backed up by decades of rulings, is rather weightier than yours.


You know very well that reps ignore parts of the constitution that they don't like and hinders their ability to do as they see fit. It doesn't matter what article it's in, the point is that it's in there. It's like saying because it's not in the old testament it's not in the bible.

[Publius]

again which part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; do you fail to understand? that is a mandate for the seperation of church and state if there ever was one. sorry that you don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to understand that.

Maybe it's the part that says "Congress shall make no law." The First Amendment prohibits the government from doing things that can be construed as an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't do anything to restrict the voters. You're free to vote your conscience, whether your conscience dictates that you vote only for Christians, vote only against Christians, vote only for Wiccans, whatever.

[darth los]

Maybe it's the part that says "Congress shall make no law." The First Amendment prohibits the government from doing things that can be construed as an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't do anything to restrict the voters. You're free to vote your conscience, whether your conscience dictates that you vote only for Christians, vote only against Christians, vote only for Wiccans, whatever.


The spirit of the law is that no matter what religion you are it will not factor in to a bid for political office. If people don't want to vote for a Jew for intance it's their perogative. But it's at the point where you have to believe in Jesus to get elected and other legitimate religions such as Islam and Mormanism are out of the question. Sounds like a test to me.

[Khardis]

are you really this big of an idiot? i have suspected this for some time anblahblahblahblahblahblahand state hinges on the establishment clause in the first amendement. i can read that and understand what it means and apparently so can the federal courts.

Just so you know I didn't bother to read your verbose screed, it was too boring and self promoting. What does any of your wrong opinions have to do with a religious litmus test for becoming the POTUS? There isn't one.


You know very well that reps ignore parts of the constitution that they don't like and hinders their ability to do as they see fit. It doesn't matter what article it's in, the point is that it's in there. It's like saying because it's not in the old testament it's not in the bible.

Yeah, I guess both parties are kind of into ignoring the constitution in their own ways. For example, the Republicans want to wire tap incoming phone calls form foreign black flagged countries. Oh crap wait so did FDR.

Well at least the Democrats are good at adding fake stuff to the constitution when its politically expedient, like the right to murder unborn children, the right to gay marriage, the right to healthcare etc. Oh except that pesky right to bare arms amendment. Thats old and out dated and needs to go!


Maybe it's the part that says "Congress shall make no law." The First Amendment prohibits the government from doing things that can be construed as an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't do anything to restrict the voters. You're free to vote your conscience, whether your conscience dictates that you vote only for Christians, vote only against Christians, vote only for Wiccans, whatever.

STOP USING LOGIC Pub! Knock it off! How dare you interrupt his straw man and red herring argument!


The spirit of the law is that no matter what religion you are it will not factor in to a bid for political office. If people don't want to vote for a Jew for intance it's their perogative. But it's at the point where you have to believe in Jesus to get elected and other legitimate religions such as Islam and Mormanism are out of the question. Sounds like a test to me.

Yeah, except that its not a test any more than being a "good person" is a test.

[darth los]

FDR wanted to go as far as stacking the supreme court so that they would be garaunteed to decide his way on the reforms he was trying to enact. That was wrong as well. I'm an independent and if someone's wrong i'll call em' on it. It would just be a breath of fresh air if republicans would do the same. :cool:

[Khardis]

FDR wanted to go as far as stacking the supreme court so that they would be garaunteed to decide his way on the reforms he was trying to enact. That was wrong as well. I'm an independent and if someone's wrong i'll call em' on it. It would just be a breath of fresh air if republicans would do the same. :cool:

Yeah you're an "I" but its all those pesky republicans right? Speaking of wrong, how do you feel about Obambi and his corrupt buddies like Ayers? It was funny when Obama made fu of McCain for not knowing how many houses he and his wife owned, when Obama got his house from a convicted criminal, Tony Rezko. Just more stuff you wont hear in the liberal elite media.

[MikePizzoff]

OMGz0r!!!11!!1
The republican doesn't know how many houses he owns!
The democrat bought a house that was once owned by a criminal!

STOP THE PRESSES! THESE ARE TRUE MEANS OF DECIDING YOUR FINAL VOTE!!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

YES Mike... exactly it shouldn't be based on a house.

To me I want to vote for the person least likely to try to turn my country into a facist communist regime, and that would be McCain and 4 more years f Bush policy doing that.

I am not for the patriot act, anytime the government at will can snoop on my email, phone or text messages, I have a huge problem with that. The countries founding fathers are probably rolling and sitting up in their graves for how this country has turned out.

We haven't gotten ebtter in the last 8 years, 16 years, 24 years, 32 years. It has all slowly gone downhill with each new politician that has sat in the white house. the thing is some are a lesser evil than others.

Believe me, if I had the money I would run for office, My background is so checkered my opponent would have a blast with me, but I will tell it to people as it is, I am not going to sugar coat ****, and I sure as **** would definitely be honest with people and try to restore this country to the greatty all countries around the world.

[Publius]

The spirit of the law is that no matter what religion you are it will not factor in to a bid for political office. If people don't want to vote for a Jew for intance it's their perogative. But it's at the point where you have to believe in Jesus to get elected and other legitimate religions such as Islam and Mormanism are out of the question. Sounds like a test to me.

I disagree. You think in the late 18th century the American people intended the spirit of the Constitution to be giving Muslims an equal shot at public office? I doubt it. A legal test is prohibited, but I'm sure most people who ratified the Constitution expected that voters would generally tend to vote for candidates with values like themselves.

[Kaos]

Surprise, surprise. A thread filled with vitriolic nastiness by a number of members is closed. I suspect we'll see more of this in the next few months due to the election. I can't say that folks on either side of the aisle can claim any kind of moral superiority based on their behavior, at least in these forums anyway.