|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 12, 2008 19:36:07 GMT -5
Erick, If you believe in it then you should acknowledge that the statement, separation of church and state, is not there nor is it even implied. Our founders never intended to remove religion from America. They did not want to have a state religion like England had. In fact what has been happening is just the opposite. So if you object to our Government giving money to Israel then you are just like the rest of us who object to a whole host of things that our Government spends its money on. The prohibition to establishing a religion is pretty clear as is the next words which prohibits the government from not letting us practice our religion. That does not mean that there cannot be religion in our Government.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 12, 2008 20:14:30 GMT -5
Erick, If you believe in it then you should acknowledge that the statement, separation of church and state, is not there nor is it even implied. WRONG. It is ABSOLUTELY implied. That's what is meant by the First Amendment. The government will not in any way, shape, or form impose religious beliefs on anyone. When our government bases its actions on religious beliefs that differ from mine, and then uses MY taxpayer money to fund them, that is breaking the First Amendment. True and true. The First Amendment should not discourage or remove religion from America. In fact, it should encourage it. It should encourage EVERY religion by allowing people to openly and freely practice their faith, even if that faith is different from yours. You're right that our country is struggling to keep religion and faith (and, moreover, the underlying morals) strong, but our society should be capable of practicing its various faiths without Big Brother getting involved. If Americans are struggling with their faith that's their problem, not the government's. Absolutely. I am against the deal we make with Saudi Arabia. I'm against the fact that we have a 500k troops stationed around the world for no good reason. I'm against the interest we pay to the Federal Reserve for the money they print and lend to us. I'm against a lot of things that our government does...things that have become afterthoughts (or, neverthoughts) by most Americans. It means the government cannot force religion on you. See my above comment. When you base your political decisions on religious premises and then spend the taxpayers' money on the endeavor, you are breaking the First Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Mat Helmer on Jun 12, 2008 21:11:04 GMT -5
I wonder how true this is? 1941: President Roosevelt takes America into the second world war by refusing to sell Japan any more steel scrap or oil. Japan was in the midst of a war against China and without that scrap steel and oil, Japan would be unable to continue that war. Japan was totally dependent upon the United States for both steel scrap and oil. Roosevelt knew this action would provoke the Japanese to attack America, which they subsequently did at Pearl Harbor. REFERENCE: iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Jun 12, 2008 21:24:46 GMT -5
Japan was with the enemy though Mat. So why not cut off their supplies. Thats just like if we got into a war with China right now we could quit buying from them. If our economy goes down big time it will effect the entire world.
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 12, 2008 22:50:42 GMT -5
Erick you are again putting words into the constitution that are not there. They very simply said that the government cannot form its own religion. Period. Nothing about separating out religion from the government. There is no such thing as separation of church and State.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 13, 2008 19:20:31 GMT -5
I wonder how true this is? 1941: President Roosevelt takes America into the second world war by refusing to sell Japan any more steel scrap or oil. Japan was in the midst of a war against China and without that scrap steel and oil, Japan would be unable to continue that war. Japan was totally dependent upon the United States for both steel scrap and oil. Roosevelt knew this action would provoke the Japanese to attack America, which they subsequently did at Pearl Harbor. REFERENCE: iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htmConspiracy theorists have long felt the U.S. provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. I don't know how believable it is, but these theories aren't new.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 13, 2008 19:24:50 GMT -5
Erick you are again putting words into the constitution that are not there. They very simply said that the government cannot form its own religion. Period. Nothing about separating out religion from the government. There is no such thing as separation of church and State. Leonard, just because the premise of the First Amendment has been simplified to the phrase "separation of church and state" over the years doesn't mean those exact words have to be in the Constitution. The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jun 13, 2008 23:31:19 GMT -5
I wonder how true this is? 1941: President Roosevelt takes America into the second world war by refusing to sell Japan any more steel scrap or oil. Japan was in the midst of a war against China and without that scrap steel and oil, Japan would be unable to continue that war. Japan was totally dependent upon the United States for both steel scrap and oil. Roosevelt knew this action would provoke the Japanese to attack America, which they subsequently did at Pearl Harbor. REFERENCE: iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htmConspiracy theorists have long felt the U.S. provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. I don't know how believable it is, but these theories aren't new. Not sure where I heard it, but I thought they proved that Roosevelt knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and did nothing to get the support of the American people so we would enter the war. Lucky for me and my family, my grandpa was on another island, not sure which one though. According to "conspiracy theorists", this is not the only time the government has sacrificed innocent American civilians for some hidden agenda of theirs.
|
|
|
Post by Mat Helmer on Jun 14, 2008 0:34:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 14, 2008 7:22:30 GMT -5
Odd, considering republicans always sucker voters into supporting them by running on a platform of fiscal conservatism. Yet we always find ourselves deeper in debt by the time they're done.
P.S. It's only truly "odd" if you never ask "WHY" this is the case. And nowadays, it seems few Americans actually care to dig deep enough to find out "WHY" a supposedly conservative administration seems to always put us deeper in debt than we were to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Jun 14, 2008 17:43:22 GMT -5
I want to see that graph with the stats on who controlled the congress. The President does not spend any money that congress does not approve. The President gets way to much credit and blame when it comes to a balanced budget and the deficit.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jun 14, 2008 18:02:24 GMT -5
I want to see that graph with the stats on who controlled the congress. The President does not spend any money that congress does not approve. The President gets way to much credit and blame when it comes to a balanced budget and the deficit. I was able to find these:
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 14, 2008 18:13:35 GMT -5
Republicans controlled congress during Reagan's first term but dems took it over in his second. George Herbert Walker Bush had a democratic congress. I'll remind you he agreed to raise taxes after getting elected with the infamous "read my lips, no new taxes" catch phrase. President Clinton had a democratic congress for his first two years but a republican one for the remaining 6 years. G.W. had a republican congress for six years before this past election.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 14, 2008 18:14:36 GMT -5
^While typing all that I see we've added another couple of charts that show the same thing, only with pretty colors.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 14, 2008 19:52:39 GMT -5
Another example of Israel not being the friendliest neighbor in the world... Rice: Jewish housing plan undermines peace talksThe United States took Israel to task Saturday for a planned expansion of Jewish homes in the portion of Jerusalem that Palestinians claim for the capital of a future state. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said such moves undermine the U.S.-backed peace talks. "This is simply not helpful to building confidence," she told reporters before arriving in the Israeli capital. Rice and other U.S. officials have publicly scolded Israel over housing before, but her frustration was evident Saturday. Over the year and a half that Rice has been making regular peace missions, there has been a pattern of provocative Israeli housing announcements just before or just after her visit. "Unfortunately there have been a few whether I'm coming or not," Rice told reporters. Her clipped tone and arched brows revealed annoyance. "Look, it's a problem, and it's a problem that we're going to address with the Israelis," she said. Rice also said Israel has not fully honored its pledge to make practical improvements in the daily lives of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, where as a security precaution the Israeli military restricts Palestinian movement and controls details of ordinary life. There are a few small success stories, such as demonstration projects in which Palestinian security forces are operating with some autonomy, Rice said. "But it's not enough, and there certainly and clearly needs to be more," she said. "I understand the security considerations as well as anyone but the obligation was undertaken to improve the lives of the Palestinians, and we're going to have to work very hard if we're going to make that true in a broader sense." news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice
|
|