RE: Nominee debate

RE: Nominee debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 8:38:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 it wasn`t a debate. True, in the most common usage of the word, but I think we are going to be stuck with that label for pretty much any event where the candidates present ideas from the same venue.

Thadius -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 8:42:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nejisty Hello Thadius: If you will notice the last sentence of this paragraph. Separation of Church and State: Is it in the Constitution? It is true that the phrase ‘separation of church and state‘ does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle. More on Christianity and the Constitution http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/Church_State_in_the_Constitution_What_Does_the_Constitution_Say.htm Also the last statement in this one: The Court disagreed, in a close 5-4 vote, with Everson. In doing so, however, it wrote some powerful statements concerning the 1st Amendment: 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 from 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.' And this one The Court wrote: In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html nejisty Like I stated earlier, the position was legislated from the bench. It is not in the constitution. Even the court was divided on this issue. I do not see where: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Equates to a seperation of, only that Congress shall not create or prohibit the practice of any religion. How does this mean that a state cannot have a cross, menorah, crescent moon, or any other religious symbol on their lawn during a given holiday? The Constitutional mention was not even seen to affect state's rights to do so, it was meant to prevent the federal government from infringing on those rights. At the time of ratification, several states had even sponsored churches and official state churches. Tell me how the SCOTUS ruling was in line with the obvious position at the time of writing and ratification. Just my unlearned opinions, Thadius

nejisty -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 8:56:59 AM)
Hello Thadius: I stand corrected. In my original post I should not have mentioned State. I should have said Gov't as the nominee elected will be a Gov't employee. nejisty

Thadius -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 9:01:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nejisty Hello Thadius: I stand corrected. In my original post I should not have mentioned State. I should have said Gov't as the nominee elected will be a Gov't employee. nejisty Morning nejisty, Your statement is pretty in line with the way most folks read the SCOTUS ruling, and therefore how many folks try to apply it. They read the establishment to mean any kind of funding or even participation with. For me the answer is not to restrict religions, but rather to encourage all to express themselves, as long as it doesn't violate any other laws.

Alumbrado -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 1:37:33 PM)
quote: I am still waiting for an enlightened person to show me where the Constitution says "seperation of church and state". The same place it says 'fruit of the poisonous tree', 'exclusionary rule', 'the right to remain silent' et al. Article III, Section II, forever removes the decision as to what the Constitution does or does not grant from the fictional realm of literal readings and high school debate team sophistry.

Thadius -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 3:19:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: I am still waiting for an enlightened person to show me where the Constitution says "seperation of church and state". The same place it says 'fruit of the poisonous tree', 'exclusionary rule', 'the right to remain silent' et al. Article III, Section II, forever removes the decision as to what the Constitution does or does not grant from the fictional realm of literal readings and high school debate team sophistry. Not sure if you are poking fun, or suggesting that the Court has the ability to legislate, even though Congress has not given them such authority. In fact, I would agree with the basics saying that the supreme court could help settle disputes involving states, even with that the 11th ammendment didn't modify it enough to allow for the court to go beyond regulations that Congress deems fit to make. But what do I know, Thadius If that is not what you were pointing out, please clarify.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 3:20:56 PM)
quote: How about this? Churches CAN have political speech in their sanctuaries... IF they give up their tax exempt status, and declare all their donations to political parties publicly? (Yeah, like THAT's gonna happen...) Will you require the same of the ACLU Foundation? (FYI--I am a member of the ACLU)

Owner59 -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 3:28:53 PM)
So it degenerates/hijacks down to the ACLU/church/state thing .Yawn. How do people feel about the questions, and the candidates answers and reactions? I liked the question,"who do you think are the three smartest people you know"(para-phrasing)? Anyone?

Thadius -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 3:35:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 So it degenerates/hijacks down to the ACLU/church/state thing .Yawn. How do people feel about the questions, and the candidates answers and reactions? I liked the question,"who do you think are the three smartest people you know"(para-phrasing)? Anyone? The question was... Sorry about the caps, but that is how the transcript is written. quote: WHO ARE THE THREE WISEST PEOPLE YOU KNOW IN YOUR LIFE AND WHO ARE YOU GOING TO RELY ON HEAVILY IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION? To which he answered his wife, his grandmother, and Sen. Kennedy and Nunn (he also mentioned Dick Luger).

nejisty -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 3:38:20 PM)
That topic is on another thread. This one was about the appropriateness of the "debate" being held in a church with a Pastor as an interviewer in front of a congregation. nejisty

Sanity -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 6:15:36 PM)
quote: To which he answered his wife, his grandmother, and Sen. Kennedy and Nunn (he also mentioned Dick Luger). Sen. Kennedy isn't exactly known for his clear ethical thinking. <cough> Mary Jo Kopechne <cough> <cough>

thishereboi -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 6:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber The thing about this debate, when people say, "oh, we were founded as a Christian Nation" it just makes me want to bitch slap them! America was NOT founded by a bunch of religious people crossing the Atlantic to build churches. It was founded by a bunch of people who got on a boat TO GET THE FUCK AWAY from a church that wanted to dictate to them how they should be worshiping God. (The Puritans) [Quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_church The Pilgrims sought to establish at Plymouth Colony a Christian fellowship like that which gathered around Jesus Himself. Congregationalists include the Pilgrims of Plymouth, and the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which were organized in union by The Cambridge Platform in 1648. These settlers had John Cotton as their most influential leader, beginning in 1633. Cotton's writings persuaded the Calvinist theologian John Owen to separate from the Presbyterian church, after which he, among others, became very influential in the development of Congregationalist theology and ideas of church government. Jonathan Edwards, considered by some to be the most important theologian ever produced in America, was also a Congregationalist.

Alumbrado -> RE: Nominee debate (8/17/2008 7:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: I am still waiting for an enlightened person to show me where the Constitution says "seperation of church and state". The same place it says 'fruit of the poisonous tree', 'exclusionary rule', 'the right to remain silent' et al. Article III, Section II, forever removes the decision as to what the Constitution does or does not grant from the fictional realm of literal readings and high school debate team sophistry. Not sure if you are poking fun, or suggesting that the Court has the ability to legislate, even though Congress has not given them such authority. In fact, I would agree with the basics saying that the supreme court could help settle disputes involving states, even with that the 11th ammendment didn't modify it enough to allow for the court to go beyond regulations that Congress deems fit to make. But what do I know, Thadius If that is not what you were pointing out, please clarify. The Constitution give the courts, not the state or federal legislatures, or the President, the absolute authority to adjudicate... 'all cases' means 'all cases', not 'just the cases where where I like the outcome'...even the 11th amendment's belaboring the obvious does nothing to grant another branch of the government, or individual people's opinions, control over what the Constitution 'says'... (in the absence of an amendment of course). Calling court rulings 'legislation' is ineffectual, and debating the matter is moot. The Constitution isn't a 1788 cookbook to be followed only to the letter, and only in the context of what was available in it's time. Neither is it Scripture to be only followed in whatever parts certain sects agree to follow. It is a charter, and a grant of various types of authority. In the current reality, the only thing that has the power to say what is or isn't 'in' the Constitution is a final court ruling. And since Marbury, the courts have gone on about their business as they see fit, in response to real world issues not specifically named in the original document, creating concepts like the expectation of privacy, the right to remain silent, jury nullification, and separation of church and state. Once they rule on a concept their words become part of the Constitution by definition and by extension.

Archer -> RE: Nominee debate (8/18/2008 6:10:16 AM)
The location was appropriate for the purpose the event had. To interview in as fair a way possible the candidates (both of which are considered freinds by the pastor) and allow them to put forth their ideas on the ideas that are of interest to the constituentcy that they are seeking votes from. The fact that it got airplay on TV was not the only reason the event was held. It was held so the candidates could be interviewed as they courted the vaotes of evangelicals. Now I'm no evangelical, I haven't been inside a christian church more than a dozen times in the past 10 years for any reason, but they certainly have a right to vote and they have a right to question the candidates. No advanced knowledge of the questions. List of questions were the same for both candidates. Bot candidate had a strong showing overall. Obama had a more conversational tone; McCain had more decissive answers. Obama actually reminded me alot of Regan in his ability to speak and make you feel the vision he has for the country. But the slower and more difficult answers he gave on several questions that obviously he didn't see comming and had not stump speach to fall back on did not make him look as good as McCain in this forum. McCain had an advantage in that he's been faceing these direct evenagelical questions already. His replies where quick and decissive but at the same time came off sounding much more like material frrom his stump speaches. McCains life experience also gave him an advantage, Toughest decission (tailor made question for him) Name a time when you went against your party and personal interests and voted in a way that was "Best for the nation". (again tailor made) By being quicker and more decissive inhis answers McCain also got the advantage of answering more questions from the list. This was by far the most fair forum design I have seen in presidential poilitics in a long time. It was not a debate it was a set of back to back inteviews for the job of president. Not perfect but certainly a forum design that could be replicated by various segments of the country and give the voters a much better idea of who these guys are. A Small business forum A Big Business forum A Labor forum A Women's forum A Men's forum Same design of forum for each just a different list of questions.

Thadius -> RE: Nominee debate (8/18/2008 6:19:51 AM)
Alumbrado, All I am suggesting is that if one reads the Constitution that the claims that there was to be a complete "seperation of church and state" is not accurate. Yes the SCOTUS ruling is now the law of the land, I even stated so earlier in this very topic. I argue that the change that occured because of the SCOTUS ruling was very much legislation by the court. They read that it prevented state and local governments from providing any funding to a church or churches, and even went further in recent positions about removing and preventing certain "faith" monuments and displays. Many of the SCOTUS rulings can be read that way, and that includes some that have gone in favor of my thoughts. I would even suggest as it relates to the topic at hand, that threatening the loss or keeping of tax exempt status is a clear violation of first ammendment rights, and the establishment clause itself. It does limit what a religious leader can or cannot talk about from their own pulpit, how is that not a restriction?

Archer -> RE: Nominee debate (8/18/2008 6:20:08 AM)
Given the choice between more of these events and the stuff we are going to get in the debates that the parties put together and the TV media puts out. I'll tkae 2 or 3 of these over 873 of the type of debates we usually get, and have a much better idea of what each candidate is better suited to the job.

Musicmystery -> RE: Nominee debate (8/18/2008 12:15:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: How about this? Churches CAN have political speech in their sanctuaries... IF they give up their tax exempt status, and declare all their donations to political parties publicly? (Yeah, like THAT's gonna happen...) Will you require the same of the ACLU Foundation? (FYI--I am a member of the ACLU) Hi celtic, The ACLU is not at all equivalant in tax status. It explicitly exists to defend the Constitution---whether it does so well is another matter. But it doesn't claim tax-exempt status as a religious organization. Tim

celticlord2112 -> RE: Nominee debate (8/18/2008 5:26:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: How about this? Churches CAN have political speech in their sanctuaries... IF they give up their tax exempt status, and declare all their donations to political parties publicly? (Yeah, like THAT's gonna happen...) Will you require the same of the ACLU Foundation? (FYI--I am a member of the ACLU) Hi celtic, The ACLU is not at all equivalant in tax status. It explicitly exists to defend the Constitution---whether it does so well is another matter. But it doesn't claim tax-exempt status as a religious organization. Tim The ACLU Foundation is a non-profit entity, contributions to which are fully tax deductible under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code--the same section that grants tax exempt status to churches.

Alumbrado -> RE: Nominee debate (8/18/2008 5:29:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Alumbrado, All I am suggesting is that if one reads the Constitution that the claims that there was to be a complete "seperation of church and state" is not accurate. Yes the SCOTUS ruling is now the law of the land, I even stated so earlier in this very topic. I argue that the change that occured because of the SCOTUS ruling was very much legislation by the court. They read that it prevented state and local governments from providing any funding to a church or churches, and even went further in recent positions about removing and preventing certain "faith" monuments and displays. Many of the SCOTUS rulings can be read that way, and that includes some that have gone in favor of my thoughts. I would even suggest as it relates to the topic at hand, that threatening the loss or keeping of tax exempt status is a clear violation of first ammendment rights, and the establishment clause itself. It does limit what a religious leader can or cannot talk about from their own pulpit, how is that not a restriction? Interesting argument... let me know when you win it in the only place that counts.

lordquantum -> RE: Nominee debate (8/20/2008 5:18:23 AM)
The discussion has drifted away from the original post: Was it appropriate to have a political discussion in a church? The answer to that question is an unequivocal -YES. The place, like the clothes and the words do not make the man. It is his actions...That event in itself was flawed (technically; one candidate may have had the opportunity to preview the questions.) We need to get back to the tradition of the Lincoln and Douglas debates in which positions where well staked out and we did not have 30 seconds ads and sound bites defining the agenda for the next four/eight years. The last time in 2000, we voted against our best interests for a candidate whose only virtue was that we went to bed at 9 with his wife and had no interest in the rest of the world. The fact that we find in myriad of problems stems from our lack of self reflection; lack of holding our politician accountable for their words and deeds. Washington is broken… It is in a grid lock state. Ironically, the 1994 Republican victory and arguably, the biggest ideologue – Newt worked with the Democratic administration on economic matters to place the country in a solid or at least, it appeared at the time to be, a solid economic footing – The start of the housing bubble and dot com bust were in process at the time which eventually buffeted the economy. The point is that they worked together to create a surplus. How long it would last; we cannot say. In 2000 as Thomas Franks aptly asserted: We voted against our best economic interests and voted on social issues – Gay marriages and Roe v Wade – which have not been resolved and have placed us in the current position of $4 a gallon for gas…(Yes, a stretch but remember – casue affect relationships do necessarily have to be linear.) I would like to remind the community that irrespective of any litmus tests; there is no predictable way over the long run, to determine the voting record of the Supreme Court justices. I will remind you Justice Douglas; was a KKK member, yet during the Warren court; he was one of most eloquent proponent of social equality. With the exception of morons/ideologue like Terrance Davis – everyone is likely to change and grow over time. So, this talk about which judges to appoint to the supreme court is a best a smoke screen, assuming that you will find the best qualified men. We need to get back and hold our politicians accountable for issues of war and peace, and the economy; and let our conscience shape our moral precepts… I would suggest that morality, and ethical conduct is not absolute but determined by the world and knowledge that we have…Remember (FDR and JFK did not necessarily walk down the center lane).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02