Almost 60 percent of those polled said they thought Clinton was fit to be president. By what standard? That's the trouble. Americans have no standards -- no unchangeable yardsticks by which they measure right and wrong, truth from fiction.
By *their* standard, by their own personal judgement. There's no moral yardstick, and God help us if there is in the future. Who makes the yardstick? Who sits down and says, "This is the moral standard in this country, abide by it or suffer the consequences"?
Sorry but there are absolutes and there is a moral yardstick. Whether
this
is accepted or not is beside the point.
There has to be absolutes otherwise any action can be excused (or damned). The real cry should be "God help us to instigate Your yardstick". God doesn't change and neither does His measure.
1)Love the Lord, with all your heart, with all you soul with all your mind and all your strength 2)Love you neibour as yourself.
Everything else hangs on these.
Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of the individual? While you certainly have the right to practice your religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone else does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL faith decisions is outragous Vivek Vaidya ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Vivek Vaidya wrote:
Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of the individual? While you certainly have the right to practice your religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone > else does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL faith decisions is outragous
Vivek Vaidya
Just look around the world to see what happens when those two get together!
hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and wrong is not a religious belief (necessarily).. your religious beliefs do not affect the nature of reality. there are absolute truths by necessity... see, there is NO WAY that there could not be. Because if there were no absolute truths, then that would mean that NOTHING is absolute. That statement in itself is an absolute. now, as for absolute truths regarding the president, there may or may not be any as far as most people are concerned. people always seem to make an exception for people who agree with them... in order to be an effective president, however, one must uphold the very basis of this country, by upholding the law. Clinton perjured himself, obstructed justice, and tampered with witnesses in a grand jury investigation (which was incidentally <sp?> being conducted by a man who was praised just months earlier as unbiased and very qualified for the job). The man is supposed to be the figurehead for our system of gov't. If he cannot follow the law, then he is not fit for the office. Jaeger
Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of
the individual? While you certainly have the right to practice your religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone else does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL faith decisions is outragous
Vivek Vaidya
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
I reply to this message going point by point, within the original text... so scroll down if you care to read what I wrote..
AI recently saw a posting about right v. wrong or good v. evil. These are subjective terms as any good semanticist knows. But what is real
Neither good nor evil is subjective to anything... if something is absolutely evil, then there is nothing that will make it good... (and vice versa <SP?>)
and what is unreal is a much more difficult thing to determine. It requires rigorous thinking without prejudice or belief getting in the way.
As to law. The first of the Bill of Rights says:
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.
If you are going to quote something, do it fully and accurately. It isn't that hard and if you don't have a copy of the constitution laying around then either get one or keep your damn mouth shut until you know what you are talking about.
as to the above thing about quoting, I agree...
No, the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear but then neither does "privacy", but it is damn well implied by the 4th amendment.
I disagree with the above... I'll explain later
Those self-righteous pricks who want bible reading in the schools and
speaking of invalid arguments... might the above be an <gasp!> ad hominem (abusive) attack ?!?
rail against those who recite the 1st amendment either lack understanding of the term "reading" or are being dishonest by
ditto to my previous comment
insisting that disallowing teachers to read the bible to students is wrong and that the constitution needs to be amended. Anyone with any honesty would realize that the first amendment doesn't prohibit bible reading by students or even bible study in a historical context. It
as for the teachers reading the Bible to their classes, I would agree that that is a violation of the first amendment... however, the Bible is a useful teaching tool as far as understanding history, as much of history is influenced by the Bible or parts of it (the crusades, the inquisition, various countries' foundings/gov't systems, and, of course, the United States' history). Using the Bible in a historical context passes the Lemon test (guidelines laid out by the USSC regarding gov't attitude towards religion)
merely prohibits tax-paid teachers from "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". If I see just one more bible-thumping zealot message about "would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the constitution/bill of rights?" I will be tempted to take him out in the parking lot and pound sand into the parts which are unaccustomed to this substance.
okay, so this is a new kind of fallacy... the appeal to a physical threat as a means of winning an argument... great... you seem to be very well rounded in making a variety of false arguments...
I am all for separation of school and state. Show me where in the constitution/bill of rights everyone is entitled to a theft/tax funded education. This would solve church and state in schools
I defintiely agree with the above...
wouldn't it. If you don't like your kids getting a non-religious education from the godless state, you are free to pull them out and put them into a private school of your choice. But of course it isn't
I was homeschooled for four years...(against my will)
your kids you are worried about is it? It's all those other peoples kids that aren't getting the benefit of the word of the one true Christian god that you want to help isn't it!
no, actually it's more the insistence of the schools to present only the humanist approach (which I consider a religion), rather than presenting the facts as they are that bothers me...
Hypocrisy is the Vaseline(tm) of political intercourse!
Edwin E. Smith
how lovely.... Jaeger
Jaeger wrote:
I reply to this message going point by point, within the original text... so scroll down if you care to read what I wrote..
AI recently saw a posting about right v. wrong or good v. evil. These are subjective terms as any good semanticist knows. But what is real
Neither good nor evil is subjective to anything... if something is absolutely evil, then there is nothing that will make it good... (and vice versa <SP?>)
IYHO. You've got to admire these great leaps of intuition. Now if we could only harness them to constructive acts instead of coercive?
At 7:27 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and
Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also
item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 And while we are on the subject, nothing gets to me quite so easily as self-styled educated men who cannot spell or form a grammatically correct sentence. You attempt to flame those whose logic is faulty and come off looking like ignorant boobs. If you had done a little more reading in your past you would be able to recognize your own poor ability to communicate yet you rail on about the cluelessness of AOLers who haven't read the constitution. My question is how is it that you are able to read it? I have pity for those who are products of the public school system but they have an excuse. What excuse do computer programmers have? They are forced to think logically yet so often refuse to do so in matters of real life. They often fall back upon the constitutionality of a particular concept yet haven't tested it with the power of their own sense of truth and justice. Such is the substance of lawyers and politicians. I recently saw a posting about right v. wrong or good v. evil. These are subjective terms as any good semanticist knows. But what is real and what is unreal is a much more difficult thing to determine. It requires rigorous thinking without prejudice or belief getting in the way. As to law. The first of the Bill of Rights says: 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. If you are going to quote something, do it fully and accurately. It isn't that hard and if you don't have a copy of the constitution laying around then either get one or keep your damn mouth shut until you know what you are talking about. No, the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear but then neither does "privacy", but it is damn well implied by the 4th amendment. Those self-righteous pricks who want bible reading in the schools and rail against those who recite the 1st amendment either lack understanding of the term "reading" or are being dishonest by insisting that disallowing teachers to read the bible to students is wrong and that the constitution needs to be amended. Anyone with any honesty would realize that the first amendment doesn't prohibit bible reading by students or even bible study in a historical context. It merely prohibits tax-paid teachers from "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". If I see just one more bible-thumping zealot message about "would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the constitution/bill of rights?" I will be tempted to take him out in the parking lot and pound sand into the parts which are unaccustomed to this substance. I am all for separation of school and state. Show me where in the constitution/bill of rights everyone is entitled to a theft/tax funded education. This would solve church and state in schools wouldn't it. If you don't like your kids getting a non-religious education from the godless state, you are free to pull them out and put them into a private school of your choice. But of course it isn't your kids you are worried about is it? It's all those other peoples kids that aren't getting the benefit of the word of the one true Christian god that you want to help isn't it! Hypocrisy is the Vaseline(tm) of political intercourse! Edwin E. Smith At 08:39 PM 9/15/98 -0700, you wrote: the first the thereof..."
(from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.)
By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of church and state."
As with the clueless AOLers yakking about an "Assimov" story they read a couple of years ago in the 5th grade, you bozos need to get educated and spend a minute or two thinking before writing.
--Tim May
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNf9K10mNf6b56PAtEQLRZwCeL9bBfYwsdjQ06iTNlSu/j1YGmn0AoMTy 2U/bC+Bpmp9BlqrRXNPv0eCS =cdUv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 7:27 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and
Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also the first item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.) By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of church and state." As with the clueless AOLers yakking about an "Assimov" story they read a couple of years ago in the 5th grade, you bozos need to get educated and spend a minute or two thinking before writing. --Tim May (This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.) ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:
At 7:27 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and
Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also the first item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.)
By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of church and state."
Also check out the text of the Virginia law involving seperation of church and state written by Thomas Jefferson. (Should be required reading for those who insist that the country is based on "Christian values".) Any good collection of the writings of Thomas Jefferson should have it. (My copy was borrowed and never returned a few years ago... Argh!) alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
well, the first amendment is what I expected to be used... unfortunately, the phrase "...wall of separation between church and state" is not taken from the first amendment. It is taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson... and the meaning is not that church shouldn't have an effect on the state. The state CAN support one religion over another. In context, the phrase simply explains that the government can't make laws that RESTRICT religious practice or doctrinal issues. The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of other religions. Making people uncomfortable isn't a constitutional reason to overturn a law. btw, notice the wording in the first amendment...it only restricts gov't restrictions on religion. Jaeger
Gee, check out the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also the first item in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
(from memory, so don't bother me with minor wording corrections.)
By standard convention, this is also referred to as "separation of church and state."
As with the clueless AOLers yakking about an "Assimov" story they read a couple of years ago in the 5th grade, you bozos need to get educated and spend a minute or two thinking before writing.
At 9:09 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
well, the first amendment is what I expected to be used... unfortunately, the phrase "...wall of separation between church and state" is not taken from the first amendment. It is taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson... and the meaning is not that church shouldn't have an effect on the state. The state CAN support one religion over another.
Ah, it's the appearance of a new ranter arguing for some bizarre, idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bill of Rights and suchlike. Mr. Jaeger, meet Mr. Choate. Your notion that the state can support one religion over another so long as it does not "restrict" the other will surely be news to the many who have studied this issue for centuries. In particular, all those legal decisions which got Christian manger scenes removed from public buildings, and which got "Jesus Loves Sinners, Even Jews" removed from our coinage, will surely now have to be reversed.
The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of other religions.
Bizarre. Try Ritalin. This has helped some list members cope. --Tim May (This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.) ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
Indeed. There are two types of freedoms at issue here: establishment and free exercise, which the Framers thought were complementary and the Supreme Court has said "occasionally overlap." There were three ideological positions that drove the clause forward: those who wanted to prevent corruption of the church, those who wanted to prevent corruption of the state (such as Jefferson), and those who wanted to protect the church from the state. I haven't come across documents written by the Founders or cases that say the "state CAN support one religion over another." Cites, please? The cass I'm familiar with suggest exactly the opposite. The Supremes believe in "the established principle that the Government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." Supporting one religion over another violates the rule against "forbidden effects." As Tim said, our new friend's interpretation is somewhat bizarre. -Declan On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:
At 9:09 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
well, the first amendment is what I expected to be used... unfortunately, the phrase "...wall of separation between church and state" is not taken from the first amendment. It is taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson... and the meaning is not that church shouldn't have an effect on the state. The state CAN support one religion over another.
Ah, it's the appearance of a new ranter arguing for some bizarre, idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bill of Rights and suchlike. Mr. Jaeger, meet Mr. Choate.
Your notion that the state can support one religion over another so long as it does not "restrict" the other will surely be news to the many who have studied this issue for centuries. In particular, all those legal decisions which got Christian manger scenes removed from public buildings, and which got "Jesus Loves Sinners, Even Jews" removed from our coinage, will surely now have to be reversed.
The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of other religions.
Bizarre. Try Ritalin. This has helped some list members cope.
--Tim May
(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.) ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
participants (8)
-
Alan Olsen -
Declan McCullagh -
Edwin E. Smith -
Jaeger -
Michael Motyka -
Soren -
Tim May -
Vivek Vaidya