| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 12:45:31 PM |
| Object: |
Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002557710_miers13.html
[excerpt]
Religion at forefront in Miers nomination
By Ron Hutcheson
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — President Bush and his aides yesterday defended their efforts
to inject religion into the confirmation fight over Harriet Miers,
suggesting faith is a legitimate factor in evaluating her Supreme Court
nomination.
Bush aides have cited Miers' membership in an evangelical Christian church
in urging conservatives to support her.
"People want to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet
Miers' background," Bush said. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her
religion."
Miers' religious beliefs have taken on a bigger role since Christian
broadcaster James Dobson cited her church affiliation as one reason for his
support. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, an evangelical group that
opposes abortion, told listeners last week that he learned about Miers'
faith in a conversation with presidential adviser Karl Rove on Oct. 1, two
days before her nomination.
[end excerpt]
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 04:14:59 PM |
|
|
South Carolina Constitution (currently)
Article 4, Section 2
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
office under this constitution."
Texas Constitution (currently)
Article 1, Section 4
"=2E..nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
Supreme Being."
Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002557710_miers13.html
[excerpt]
Religion at forefront in Miers nomination
By Ron Hutcheson
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - President Bush and his aides yesterday defended their efforts
to inject religion into the confirmation fight over Harriet Miers,
suggesting faith is a legitimate factor in evaluating her Supreme Court
nomination.
Bush aides have cited Miers' membership in an evangelical Christian church
in urging conservatives to support her.
"People want to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet
Miers' background," Bush said. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her
religion."
Miers' religious beliefs have taken on a bigger role since Christian
broadcaster James Dobson cited her church affiliation as one reason for h=
is
support. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, an evangelical group that
opposes abortion, told listeners last week that he learned about Miers'
faith in a conversation with presidential adviser Karl Rove on Oct. 1, two
days before her nomination.
[end excerpt]
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
Everfresh Radio and Books
http://www.geocities.com/writingken
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
14 Oct 2005 10:55:20 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|South Carolina Constitution (currently)
:|Article 4, Section 2
:|"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
:|office under this constitution."
Declared unconstitutional by SC Supreme Court in line with
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
:|Texas Constitution (currently)
:|Article 1, Section 4
:|"...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
:|religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
:|Supreme Being."
Unconstitutional in line with TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
:|Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
:|saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
:|liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
What a joke you are. First of all fool you are citign state constitutions
while the position she is being nominatd for is the US Supreme Court , a
Federal positon.
Try these one on for size, fool.
(1) U S Constitution Article VI, Sec III
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.
(2) "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when
choosing your representatives"
Excerpt from July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802.
[emphasis added]
.. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous
of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your
constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and
estimate men according to the measures they pursue. ****Never promote men
who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the
worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in
order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion
into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven
forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces
therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise
about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they
knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such
shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate
candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their
wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it.**** Let honesty,
talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men
will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come
to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .
Source of Information:
Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings
of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New
York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late
Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself,
With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. Printed
By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm
(3) U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002557710_miers13.html
:|> [excerpt]
:|> Religion at forefront in Miers nomination
:|>
:|> By Ron Hutcheson
:|> Knight Ridder Newspapers
:|>
:|> WASHINGTON - President Bush and his aides yesterday defended their efforts
:|> to inject religion into the confirmation fight over Harriet Miers,
:|> suggesting faith is a legitimate factor in evaluating her Supreme Court
:|> nomination.
:|>
:|> Bush aides have cited Miers' membership in an evangelical Christian church
:|> in urging conservatives to support her.
:|>
:|> "People want to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet
:|> Miers' background," Bush said. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her
:|> religion."
:|>
:|> Miers' religious beliefs have taken on a bigger role since Christian
:|> broadcaster James Dobson cited her church affiliation as one reason for his
:|> support. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, an evangelical group that
:|> opposes abortion, told listeners last week that he learned about Miers'
:|> faith in a conversation with presidential adviser Karl Rove on Oct. 1, two
:|> days before her nomination.
:|> [end excerpt]
:|>
:|> **************************************************************
:|> Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
:|>
:|> You are invited to check out the following:
:|>
:|> The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
:|>
:|> American Theocrats - Past and Present
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
:|>
:|> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|>
:|> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
:|> Church and State in general, listed below]
:|>
:|> HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
:|> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
:|>
:|> [Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
:|> all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
:|>
:|> ***************************************************************
:|> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
:|> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
:|> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
:|> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
:|> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
:|> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
:|> . . .
:|> ****************************************************************
:|> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
:|>
:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
:|> ****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
14 Oct 2005 11:02:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Try these one on for size, fool.
(1) U S Constitution Article VI, Sec III
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.
So, then, you agree that Miers cannot be disqualified based on a test
of if she is religious or not..right?
Ken Clifton
Everfresh Radio and Books
http://www.geocities.com/writingken
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
14 Oct 2005 11:26:28 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Try these one on for size, fool.
:|>
:|> (1) U S Constitution Article VI, Sec III
:|> 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.
:|>
:|
:|So, then, you agree that Miers cannot be disqualified based on a test
:|of if she is religious or not..right?
This fool what I agree with:
(restoring that which damaged your position so you deleted it and since you
won't attem,pt to make a valid reply to this you can crawl back undere your
rock. You shuld note that you get somethign rare in part of it, my
opinion;)
You haven't a clue what the religious test ban is about
What it's purpose was, wahy it was put there.
Nor do you understand that it is the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CLAUSE
Educate yourself
* Constitutional Convention and the topic of Religion
* Article VI, Section III: The No Religious Test Ban Clause (Separation
clause)
o Part I: Introduction
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban1.htm
o Part II: The Constitutional Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban2.htm
o Part III: The Pennsylvania State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban3.htm
o Part IV: The Connecticut State Ratifying Convention and The
Massachusetts State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban4.htm
o Part V: The Virginia State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban5.htm
o Part VI: The North Carolina State Ratifying Convention
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban6.htm
o Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
* Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State.
o No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause,
Article IV Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm
o No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and
the 1st Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
* Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
(1) U S Constitution Article VI, Sec III
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.
(2) "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when
choosing your representatives"
Excerpt from July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802.
[emphasis added]
.. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous
of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your
constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and
estimate men according to the measures they pursue. ****Never promote men
who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the
worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in
order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion
into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven
forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces
therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise
about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they
knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such
shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate
candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their
wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it.**** Let honesty,
talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men
will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come
to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .
Source of Information:
Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings
of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New
York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late
Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself,
With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. Printed
By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm
(3) U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm
Hey fool. It is the adminstration who brough up her religion when
throcratic radical religious right began screaming about her nomination.
She has no judicial experience, she has never been a judge. She may have
some thoguhts on some abstract legal throry etc but has never been in a
position to have to actually apply that to cases with real facts, real
legal issues, etc.
She wasn't appointed to some munciple traffoc court, where she might
actually be qualified.
Put anothr way:
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, Dreamweaver1963@.. wrote:
In a message dated 10/12/2005 4:59:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
buckeyeelo@y... writes:
"Now Bush and Rove are touting where Miers goes to church and
using
that as a selling point," Lynn continued. "The hypocrisy is
staggering."
I read the an article saying that part of the reason Bush
nominated Miers
was because of her religious position. Has the man lost his mind
or do you
think he has another nominee waiting in the wings expecting Miers
to go down?
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, "mcurtis [delete] ..> wrote:
I think he is blindly serious.
I checked for qualifications in the Constitution and she is
constitutionally qualified for the SC.
Mike
Since there are no "official requirements a plumber is qualifed, but
let's be real here.
This is a lifetime appointment, and those nine people often times
have a greater impact over all for a longer period of time than any
moron like Bush who appointed them.
And depending exactly where they settle in on the court, they could be
the most powerful person in the country.
Example, For awhile Kennedy and O'Connor, one or the other was the
deciding vote in many church state cases. Then after Scalia delivered
a blistering attack on Kennedy, he (Kennedy) joined in lockstep with
the three goons leavign O'Connor as the most powerful Justice and one
of the most powerful people in Government.
Either way this woman, if appointed will be one of nine or one of one
if she assumes the riole of swing vote. I think the job desverves a a
far more experienced and qualified person.
This is another cronie appointment, like Brown as head of FEMA. How
did that work out? :O)
Hell, the theocrats of the radical far right are questioning her
qualificatios and the adminstration can only offer that she is
religious as her only real qualifcation
Did anyoine ever hear of the no religious test ban clause if the U S
Constituion?
How about this:
* A Baptist minister and follow warrior with Jefferson, Madison
and others in the struggle for religious freedom gave this advice
about electing public officials: "...guard against those men who make
a great noise about religion..."
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm
This woman has no real qualifications for this lifetime position.
There are far more qualifed and experienced men and woman than she is.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
14 Oct 2005 11:30:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Try these one on for size, fool.
:|>
:|> (1) U S Constitution Article VI, Sec III
:|> 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.
:|>
:|
:|So, then, you agree that Miers cannot be disqualified based on a test
:|of if she is religious or not..right?
This fool what I agree with:
(restoring that which damaged your position so you deleted it and since you
won't attem,pt to make a valid reply to this you can crawl back undere your
rock. You shuld note that you get somethign rare in part of it, my
opinion;)
You haven't a clue what the religious test ban is about
What it's purpose was, wahy it was put there.
Nor do you understand that it is the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CLAUSE
You are still divided against yourself. Make up your mind. Either
Miers cannot be discriminated against by a religious test (if she is
religious) or state laws banning atheist officials are valid. Take
your pick.
Ken Clifton
Everfresh Radio and Books
http://www.geocities.com/writingken
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
15 Oct 2005 06:17:53 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> >:|> Try these one on for size, fool.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> (1) U S Constitution Article VI, Sec III
:|> >:|> 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.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|So, then, you agree that Miers cannot be disqualified based on a test
:|> >:|of if she is religious or not..right?
:|>
:|> This fool what I agree with:
:|> (restoring that which damaged your position so you deleted it and since you
:|> won't attem,pt to make a valid reply to this you can crawl back undere your
:|> rock. You shuld note that you get somethign rare in part of it, my
:|> opinion;)
:|>
:|> You haven't a clue what the religious test ban is about
:|> What it's purpose was, wahy it was put there.
:|> Nor do you understand that it is the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CLAUSE
:|>
:|
:|You are still divided against yourself.
Liar. What does your religion say about lying and bearing false witness?
Let's do it again
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|You are divided against yourself. On one thread, you say that state
:|laws requiring belief in God is illegal based on the "no religious
:|test" rule in the Constitution. Then, here, you say that it's ok to
:|have a religious test for her.
Sorry dude, you evidently can't read.
Would you mind quoting where you said I said it was ok to have a religious
test. My exact words saying that.
You can put them right here fool ------------>
*****************************************************************************
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are divided against yourself. On one thread, you say that state
laws requiring belief in God is illegal based on the "no religious
test" rule in the Constitution.
They are.
Then, here, you say that it's ok to have a religious test for her.
He said no such thing. He said that you hadn't a clue what the
religious test ban was about, and then gave you many cites.
Make up your mind. Either she cannot
be discriminated against for religion, or state laws banning atheists
are valid.
That is a false dichotomy. She SHOULD NOT be discriminated against
for religions (but can be). State laws banning atheists are invalid.
lojbab
**************************************************************************
I am waitng for your evidecne but of course there won';t be any posted by
you seuicne I didn;t mae any such statement
So I ask again
Liar. What does youir religion say abotu lying bearign false witness?
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
14 Oct 2005 01:52:08 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are still divided against yourself. Make up your mind. Either
Miers cannot be discriminated against by a religious test (if she is
religious) or state laws banning atheist officials are valid. Take
your pick.
Miers cannot be disqualified based on a religious. Nor can she be
chosen based on a religious test.
Unfortunately there is no way to stop "discrimination based on her
religion". The president can nominate whoever he wants, and the
Senate can confirm or not confirm. Neither is required to give
reasons.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
14 Oct 2005 01:51:34 PM |
|
|
The Fool wrote:
Either Miers cannot be discriminated against by a religious test (if she is
religious) or state laws banning atheist officials are valid. Take your pick.
As a legal matter, the Senate may take anything it wishes into account
in determining whether to confirm a nominee, including his or her
religion or the lack thereof (whether it should do so politically or
ethically is another matter). What it can't do is require BY LAW that
the nominee meet a particular religious qualification.
Good grief, if a nominee believed in Aztec ritual sacrifice or was a
ganja-smoking Rastafarian, do you honestly think it'd be improper
"discrimination" for the Senate to take that into account?
And please read the Torasco case if you have any doubt about the
invalidity of a state law that bars nonbelievers from public office.
Here's the link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&page=488
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
20 Oct 2005 06:29:49 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Try these one on for size, fool.
:|>
:|> (1) U S Constitution Article VI, Sec III
:|> 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.
:|>
:|
:|So, then, you agree that Miers cannot be disqualified based on a test
:|of if she is religious or not..right?
already been answered by me fool
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 10:59:45 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
South Carolina Constitution (currently)
Article 4, Section 2
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
office under this constitution."
Texas Constitution (currently)
Article 1, Section 4
"...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
Supreme Being."
Such provisions are unconstitutional since the 14th amendment.
Remember that Alabama's constitution still requires separate schools
for blacks, and forbids racial intermarriage.
The existence of an unconstitutional provision in a state constitution
is not evidence of anything.
Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
Actually, most of the complaints about Miers are coming from
conservatives who are focused on the constitutional issues, and feel
that Miers is insufficiently qualified in constitutional law.
The response from Bush has been that 1) she is personally loyal to
Bush and 2) that she is an evangelical Christian. Neither
demonstrates qualification for the Supreme Court, and the former
suggests cronyism - that Miers will be a puppet figure that will
consider her loyalty to the President before the constitution, while
the latter suggests that she will consider her faith before the
constitution.
Strict constructionists/originalists want neither. (Neither do
liberals, but they are letting the conservatives make the argument.)
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 11:36:06 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:0nauk1d3l7i1e97698kjel07g7pvhmpr89@4ax.com...
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
South Carolina Constitution (currently)
Article 4, Section 2
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
office under this constitution."
Texas Constitution (currently)
Article 1, Section 4
"...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
Supreme Being."
Such provisions are unconstitutional since the 14th amendment.
No they are not.
Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
Actually, most of the complaints about Miers are coming from
conservatives who are focused on the constitutional issues, and feel
that Miers is insufficiently qualified in constitutional law.
And as the poster has noted, those on the left are attacking her because of
her religious beliefs. So the poster is correct, the right while taking
issue with her lack of judicial experience, which I myself hold as something
in her favor, as she will not be as inclined to uphold past decisions that
have been incorrectly decided like Roe. But those on the left attacking her
religion are engaging in discrimination.
The response from Bush has been that 1) she is personally loyal to
Bush and 2) that she is an evangelical Christian. Neither
demonstrates qualification for the Supreme Court,
Being that her judicial philosophy is one of original intent or strict
constructionist, that is all the qualifications she really needs, and really
all the qualifications any judge needs. Just look at all those counties that
elect judges by popular elections.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 04:30:31 PM |
|
|
In article <1129238099.540815.109730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
South Carolina Constitution (currently)
Article 4, Section 2
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
office under this constitution."
Texas Constitution (currently)
Article 1, Section 4
"=2E..nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
Supreme Being."
Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
Actually, I know of no one who has the slightest objection to
her being religious. Can you quote me someone, anyone, who has said
"Only atheists should be considered"?
The fear is that her particular flavor of belief might cause her
to an anti-abortion position.
Not all believers are unreservedly, inaltarably, and unalloyedly
opposed to abortion under all circumstances, you know.
Burger was a Presbyterian.
Blackmun was a Methodist.
Brennan was Catholic.
Douglas, Presbyterian.
Marshall was Episcopalian.
Powell was Presbyterian.
Stewart was Episcopalian.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 04:49:10 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1129238099.540815.109730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
South Carolina Constitution (currently)
Article 4, Section 2
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
office under this constitution."
Texas Constitution (currently)
Article 1, Section 4
"=2E..nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
Supreme Being."
Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
Actually, I know of no one who has the slightest objection to
her being religious. Can you quote me someone, anyone, who has said
"Only atheists should be considered"?
The fear is that her particular flavor of belief might cause her
to an anti-abortion position.
Not all believers are unreservedly, inaltarably, and unalloyedly
opposed to abortion under all circumstances, you know.
Burger was a Presbyterian.
Blackmun was a Methodist.
Brennan was Catholic.
Douglas, Presbyterian.
Marshall was Episcopalian.
Powell was Presbyterian.
Stewart was Episcopalian.
-- cary
Almost every news story about her today has been about her faith, not
her judicial philosophy, has being the problem.
Ken Clifton
Everfresh Radio and Books
http://www.geocities.com/writingken
http://www.lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
14 Oct 2005 10:54:38 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|Cary Kittrell wrote:
:|> In article <1129238099.540815.109730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
:|> > South Carolina Constitution (currently)
:|> > Article 4, Section 2
:|> > "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
:|> > office under this constitution."
:|> >
:|> > Texas Constitution (currently)
:|> > Article 1, Section 4
:|> > "=2E..nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
:|> > religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
:|> > Supreme Being."
:|> >
:|> > Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
:|> > saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
:|> > liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
:|> >
:|>
:|>
:|> Actually, I know of no one who has the slightest objection to
:|> her being religious. Can you quote me someone, anyone, who has said
:|> "Only atheists should be considered"?
:|>
:|>
:|> The fear is that her particular flavor of belief might cause her
:|> to an anti-abortion position.
:|>
:|> Not all believers are unreservedly, inaltarably, and unalloyedly
:|> opposed to abortion under all circumstances, you know.
:|>
:|> Burger was a Presbyterian.
:|>
:|> Blackmun was a Methodist.
:|>
:|> Brennan was Catholic.
:|>
:|> Douglas, Presbyterian.
:|>
:|> Marshall was Episcopalian.
:|>
:|> Powell was Presbyterian.
:|>
:|> Stewart was Episcopalian.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> -- cary
:|
:|Almost every news story about her today has been about her faith, not
:|her judicial philosophy, has being the problem.
Hey fool. It is thew adminstration who brough up her religion when
throcratic radical religious right began screaming about her nomination.
She has no judicial experience, she has never been a judge. She may have
some thoguhts on some abstract legal throry etc but has never been in a
position to have to actually apply that to cases with real facts, real
legal issues, etc.
She wasn't appointed to some munciple traffoc court, where she might
actually be qualified.
Put anothr way:
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, Dreamweaver1963@.. wrote:
In a message dated 10/12/2005 4:59:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
buckeyeelo@y... writes:
"Now Bush and Rove are touting where Miers goes to church and
using
that as a selling point," Lynn continued. "The hypocrisy is
staggering."
I read the an article saying that part of the reason Bush
nominated Miers
was because of her religious position. Has the man lost his mind
or do you
think he has another nominee waiting in the wings expecting Miers
to go down?
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, "mcurtis [delete] ..> wrote:
I think he is blindly serious.
I checked for qualifications in the Constitution and she is
constitutionally qualified for the SC.
Mike
Since there are no "official requirements a plumber is qualifed, but
let's be real here.
This is a lifetime appointment, and those nine people often times
have a greater impact over all for a longer period of time than any
moron like Bush who appointed them.
And depending exactly where they settle in on the court, they could be
the most powerful person in the country.
Example, For awhile Kennedy and O'Connor, one or the other was the
deciding vote in many church state cases. Then after Scalia delivered
a blistering attack on Kennedy, he (Kennedy) joined in lockstep with
the three goons leavign O'Connor as the most powerful Justice and one
of the most powerful people in Government.
Either way this woman, if appointed will be one of nine or one of one
if she assumes the riole of swing vote. I think the job desverves a a
far more experienced and qualified person.
This is another cronie appointment, like Brown as head of FEMA. How
did that work out? :O)
Hell, the theocrats of the radical far right are questioning her
qualificatios and the adminstration can only offer that she is
religious as her only real qualifcation
Did anyoine ever hear of the no religious test ban clause if the U S
Constituion?
How about this:
* A Baptist minister and follow warrior with Jefferson, Madison
and others in the struggle for religious freedom gave this advice
about electing public officials: "...guard against those men who make
a great noise about religion..."
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm
This woman has no real qualifications for this lifetime position.
There are far more qualifed and experienced men and woman than she is.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 11:03:06 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Almost every news story about her today has been about her faith, not
her judicial philosophy, has being the problem.
That is because Mr Inept, AKA George Bush, has not been talking about
her judicial philosophy, but about her faith. He is driving the news
cycle, not "liberals".
Nobody has a clue about her judicial philosophy, because she has never
written or spoken on the matter of judicial philosophy, and Bush seems
to have chosen her in part BECAUSE she has no such record to examine.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 11:36:40 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:7abuk19kbogh9ufn4vl3nmdvf975idg15d@4ax.com...
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Almost every news story about her today has been about her faith, not
her judicial philosophy, has being the problem.
That is because Mr Inept, AKA George Bush, has not been talking about
her judicial philosophy,
He sure has, where have you been.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 05:21:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1129240150.648563.65440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1129238099.540815.109730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
South Carolina Constitution (currently)
Article 4, Section 2
"No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any
office under this constitution."
Texas Constitution (currently)
Article 1, Section 4
"=2E..nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a
Supreme Being."
Quite a switch from where we are with Miers, huh? There, they were
saying that someone MUST believe in the Creator to hold office. Now,
liberals want to say someone MUST NOT believe to hold office.
Actually, I know of no one who has the slightest objection to
her being religious. Can you quote me someone, anyone, who has said
"Only atheists should be considered"?
The fear is that her particular flavor of belief might cause her
to an anti-abortion position.
Not all believers are unreservedly, inaltarably, and unalloyedly
opposed to abortion under all circumstances, you know.
Burger was a Presbyterian.
Blackmun was a Methodist.
Brennan was Catholic.
Douglas, Presbyterian.
Marshall was Episcopalian.
Powell was Presbyterian.
Stewart was Episcopalian.
-- cary
Almost every news story about her today has been about her faith, not
her judicial philosophy, has being the problem.
Well, I have yet to hear or read a story about all this which does
not mention the fact that people on all sides of the question
want to know her likely stance on abortion.
I confidently predict that if she were to publicly endors a woman's right to
choose, not one further word about religion would be heard from liberals.
And I predict with equal confidence that if she publicly announced
a strong aversion to Roe v. Wade, all the conservatives who have
so surprised Bush, blindsiding him, would suddenly withdraw
all objections.
So I think that this is the chief topic on everyone's mind.
As for the rest of it, it was Bush himself who, unasked, brought
up the topic of her religion. And it was Bush who, while
confiding in no one else left nor right, publically summoned
James Dobson for a private briefing session. This being the
Dobson who then made a public show of I Koow Something You Don't
Know. It sounds to me as if the President is playing her
religiousity for all it's worth.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 11:37:33 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Almost every news story about her today has been about her faith, not
her judicial philosophy, has being the problem.
Well, I have yet to hear or read a story about all this which does
not mention the fact that people on all sides of the question
want to know her likely stance on abortion.
I've actually seen very little of that.
The Post has published the following in recent days. The first is
especially good on why conservatives are offended by the nomination.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100602069.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801459.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301917.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301728.html
only one brief paragraph mentioning abortion.
The Post blog, with numerous samplings from a variety of sources, only
mentions abortion in connection with the comment on Dobson's "secret
knowledge"
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/
I confidently predict that if she were to publicly endors a woman's right to
choose, not one further word about religion would be heard from liberals.
jalison and the separationists would want to know about her thinking
on the pledge, the ten commandments monuments, and other crunch
issues. Scientists want to know whether she will allow intelligent
design to be taught.
And I predict with equal confidence that if she publicly announced
a strong aversion to Roe v. Wade, all the conservatives who have
so surprised Bush, blindsiding him, would suddenly withdraw
all objections.
This one I think is false. The first article above points out that
conservatives want a sea change in the approach of the court to
issues, not merely to win on one issue.
So I think that this is the chief topic on everyone's mind.
It was pointed out somewhere that a reversal of Roe vs Wade would
probably destroy the Republican coalition. It is probably the only
issue they agree on.
In the meantime, it would thoroughly energize the majority of
Americans who support the right to choose.
As for the rest of it, it was Bush himself who, unasked, brought
up the topic of her religion. And it was Bush who, while
confiding in no one else left nor right, publically summoned
James Dobson for a private briefing session.
Actually, it apparently was Rove, the loose cannon behind the loose
cannon.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
27 Oct 2005 01:08:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:37:33 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <4ibuk1prbshdct058vf1vicf41adfilno1@4ax.com>):
As for the rest of it, it was Bush himself who, unasked, brought
up the topic of her religion. And it was Bush who, while
confiding in no one else left nor right, publically summoned
James Dobson for a private briefing session.
Actually, it apparently was Rove, the loose cannon behind the loose
cannon.
Rove's brain = Bush43's brain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
24 Oct 2005 01:59:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:21:07 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote:
As for the rest of it, it was Bush himself who, unasked, brought
up the topic of her religion. And it was Bush who, while
confiding in no one else left nor right, publically summoned
James Dobson for a private briefing session. This being the
Dobson who then made a public show of I Koow Something You Don't
Know. It sounds to me as if the President is playing her
religiousity for all it's worth.
The heck with her views on anything.
Whyever would anyone vote for someone whose main claim to fame is that she
was head of the Texas gambling outfit or that she handled President Geo W C
Bush43's communications?
As nominees to the US Supreme Court go, she's a non-entity.
Has our President started blowing [again] what's left of his brain with more
booze and "thing go better with"?
Vote "No" because there is no reason to vote "Yes".
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion at forefront in Miers nomination |
13 Oct 2005 11:13:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:30, Cary Kittrell wrote:
[major cleavered]
Burger was a Presbyterian.
[carved out with a filet knife]
Douglas, Presbyterian.
[The same thing all over again.]
[beavered cleavered]
Yeah, well, Ike was a Presbyterian, too, ya know,
'cept before that he was one or the other or both
and didn't like to talk about it too much.
And, then, and, of course, one has the wackos
of the lunatic fringe who believe that because
Eisenhower was called a "Swedish Jew" in his
college [West Point] yearbook, he musta
been Jewish.
As a matter of fact, I have a message right here
at my fingertips that "John Knight" pecked out in
August of 2002:
Who did this? Why, the jew Eisenhower, who was
known at West Point as "the Swedish jew", who
was mysteriously elevated from anchor man of
his Class to Supreme Commander of the Allied
Forces, who starved to death 1.7 million German
soldiers AFTER the end of the war when he
changed their classification from "POW"s to
"DEF"s, who is suspected of killing another 15
million German civilians AFTER the war, who
wrote to his wife Mamie "God, I hate the Germans".
That was in a message to you, btw.
Of course, "anchor man" is a Naval Academy phrase and Eisenhower
did not graduate at the bottom of his class but, rather, /near/ the
bottom of his class.
The low man we've heard of was George Armstrong Custer who /did/
graduate at the bottom of his class.
I don't think that Knight tells the truth but - one the other hand
- I don't think he would recognize it if it bit him on the David
Duke.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Shockley's Exception to Godwin's
Law: When someone is quoting
hitler and his sycophants,
Godwin's Law is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
