Theocratic United States?

[Turtle]

What about the freedom of expression? They're citizens too.

The Constitution grants freedom of speech, not expression. ;)

Amendment I

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.

Such freedom is prefaced on not violating other Constitutional law. Having a Bible, a prayer, or any invocation of religion or its tenets in Congress is respecting those articles and so in violation of the Constitution. :evil:

[C1ay]

What about the freedom of expression? They're citizens too.

I do not expect my representative to pray as part of his/her official duties. He/she can do that on their own time. Prayers should not be part of the official start of a congressional seesion....

[Igby]

I often wonder why Bush isn't criticised more for his evangelism-***-dispensationalism, apcalyptic rhetoric and messianistic self-image. I guess calling him a stubborn cretin who would rather be certain than right is quicker and easier. Hmmm.

 

The Faith-Based Initiatives are more aimed at attracting religious voters than creating a theocracy. I read this article in Time magazine last week, and it shed some light on what's going on with the FBIs. I totally agree with what TheFaithfulStone said about Rove.

 

Someone else also mentioned the low value which seems to be given to science by the Bush administration, as far as global warming is concerned. In regards to that, I think this is a case of Bush and Cheney being from where they're from, and the careers they used to have. They are oil boys, through and through. As soon as those two are out of office, regardless of whether the GOP or Dems win in '08, energy reform will be implemented, and properly implemented.

[Turtle]

I often wonder why Bush isn't criticised more for his evangelism-***-dispensationalism, apcalyptic rhetoric and messianistic self-image.

OMGosh! Cowtowing to the fundamentalists is a good part of what got him elected in the first place.:hihi:

Someone else also mentioned the low value which seems to be given to science by the Bush administration, as far as global warming is concerned. In regards to that, I think this is a case of Bush and Cheney being from where they're from, and the careers they used to have. They are oil boys, through and through. As soon as those two are out of office, regardless of whether the GOP or Dems win in '08, energy reform will be implemented, and properly implemented.

 

If the Dems gain the majority in house and senate later this month and then they all get off their asses and do the work we pay them for, we may not have to wait for a new president. Division of powers remember? I know it's a novel suggestion, but how 'bout if the legislative branch starts legislating!?

:shrug:

[Southtown]

The Constitution grants freedom of speech, not expression. :shrug:

 

Such freedom is prefaced on not violating other Constitutional law. Having a Bible, a prayer, or any invocation of religion or its tenets in Congress is respecting those articles and so in violation of the Constitution. :hihi:

So you're saying they were forced? How?

 

I do not expect my representative to pray as part of his/her official duties. He/she can do that on their own time. Prayers should not be part of the official start of a congressional seesion....

It would be unconstitutional to ban it.

[Southtown]

As soon as those two are out of office, regardless of whether the GOP or Dems win in '08, energy reform will be implemented, and properly implemented.

This is one of my favorite types of statements. All the world's problems are the fault of one or two people? (Yes! So vote for me!)

 

OMGosh! Cowtowing to the fundamentalists is a good part of what got him elected in the first place. :hihi:

Bush is my hero. No matter what you think of his policies, you can't accuse him of seeking popularity with his decision-making. Titanium testicles, yessir.

[Igby]

In this case, the two guys in charge of the executive are to blame for the lack of progress.

 

You know my favourite kind of statement? The ones where people twist perfectly logical sequences of words, give them an entirely new meaning, then attack them with some kind of reducto ad absurdum one-liner.

 

Why hasn't energy reform been implemented, then, Southtown? And does US energy reform really mean "the world"?

 

OMGosh! Cowtowing to the fundamentalists is a good part of what got him elected in the first place.

What I mean is that I don't understand why he isn't criticised about his apocalyptic rhetoric as much as his idiotic comments. The overwhelming majority of critics are not members of the religious right who voted for him. It annoys me when he's characterised as "stupid", since he's clearly not. "Religious fundamentalist" is much more appropriate, and it's a much worse characteristic for a President who is as competitive and stubborn as Bush. Stupidity doesn't have an agenda. Religious fundamentalists do, and Bush's first veto proved that.

[Zythryn]

This is one of my favorite types of statements. All the world's problems are the fault of one or two people? (Yes! So vote for me!)

 

Southtown, that is an exageration at best and dishonest at worst.

Igby's statement was that the lack of work on the issue of the enviornment has a root cause of Bush. Not that all the world's problems are due to Bush.

[Southtown]

Yes. I have to exaggerate to illustrate the absurdity hidden in subtlety. I am asserting that the logic is similar. By doing so, I am inviting Igby to prove me wrong by backing his claim.

[Igby]

Her claim.

 

The claim is that the leaders of this administration are not committing themselves to energy reform because of their belief in the supremacy of fossil fuels above all others.

 

In 2004 the Pentagon sent this analysis of the potential implications of global warming to the White House in response to Bush's claims that climate change was a hoax. That the Pentagon would send such a document to the White House shows that certainly the "root cause" is in the top of the executive, as Zythryn aptly put it. This document is a plea to Bush to act on global warming, and a warning of what will happen if no action is taken.

 

Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol was due in part to pressure from Exxon-Mobil, as this article asserts.

 

Despite pleas from energy companies to Bush to overhaul energy policies in the light of global warming, Bush refuses to do so (link). The most likely changes I can see making to energy policy would be sharing technologies with other countries and massive subsidies for nuclear power and ethanol. I know that on some air force bases they've asked staff if they would use E85 in their cars if it was available on-base, and maybe some big ups for hydrogen. Chances of a carbon tax: zilch.

 

With the scientific evidence for global warming, the assurances from industry that clean energy will be worth big bucks, the majority of Americans supporting cutting carbon emissions, and Bush's own words and history regarding energy and global warming, what other possible conclusion could I draw?

 

Australia and the US have the worst energy use reputations in the developed world. Australia didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol because our Prime Minister can't bear to agree with the Opposition or Greens party on any issue. The US didn't because the two heads of the executive are convinced oil is still the way of the future.

[Zythryn]

Yes. I have to exaggerate to illustrate the absurdity hidden in subtlety. I am asserting that the logic is similar. By doing so, I am inviting Igby to prove me wrong by backing his claim.

 

So you mislead the reader of your argument in order to show them the truth:confused:

 

Is it your position that the president of the USA, who appoints people to head the various departments of our government (such as the enviornmental protection agency) does not have the influence to shape and direct our policies?

[Southtown]

In this case, the two guys in charge of the executive are to blame for the lack of progress.

 

You know my favourite kind of statement? The ones where people twist perfectly logical sequences of words, give them an entirely new meaning, then attack them with some kind of reducto ad absurdum one-liner.

 

Why hasn't energy reform been implemented, then, Southtown? And does US energy reform really mean "the world"?

I guess it was an out-of-place, cynical comment. Sorry. And I was wrong to think that you were arrogantly accusing a pair of people for causing global warming.

 

What do you mean by energy reform, exactly?

 

Her claim.

Sorry about that, also.

 

The claim is that the leaders of this administration are not committing themselves to energy reform because of their belief in the supremacy of fossil fuels above all others.

I don't see how you can substantiate that presumption.

 

In 2004 the Pentagon sent this analysis of the potential implications of global warming to the White House in response to Bush's claims that climate change was a hoax. That the Pentagon would send such a document to the White House shows that certainly the "root cause" is in the top of the executive, as Zythryn aptly put it. This document is a plea to Bush to act on global warming, and a warning of what will happen if no action is taken.

That document addresses the effect of global warming (gw), not the cause. How can it suggest where action is needed if no causes of gw are laid out? It's simply a scare tactic meant to provoke an uncalculated response.

 

Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol was due in part to pressure from Exxon-Mobil, as this article asserts.

1) That article doesn't show that letter from Exxon-Mobile. How do we know what it meant. It could have been a completely objective analysis of Kyoto repercussions to their business. How is coersion evidenced?

 

2) The government works for the citizens (even business owners) and we have a constitutional right (even an obligation) to petition our government. Again, the fact that a letter was sent is not by itself undesirable.

 

Despite pleas from energy companies to Bush to overhaul energy policies in the light of global warming, Bush refuses to do so (link). The most likely changes I can see making to energy policy would be sharing technologies with other countries and massive subsidies for nuclear power and ethanol. I know that on some air force bases they've asked staff if they would use E85 in their cars if it was available on-base, and maybe some big ups for hydrogen. Chances of a carbon tax: zilch.

It's a little more complex than two people deciding to overhaul power production. A cheap road to better fuels is only part of it. A company will only profit as fast as people like me can buy new hydrogen cars. And both have to make their bills in the mean time. The transition cannot bankrupt either companies or consumers without crashing the industry. And the power industry will take every other industry with it.

 

Furthermore, alternatives aren't really alternatives. Hydrogen must be produced. That takes fossil fuels. Fossil fuels->electricity becomes fossil fuels->hydrogen->electricity. And you can't completely substitute with hydrogen because energy out = energy in - overhead. Ethanol farms that run on ethanol use about 60% of what they produce and require large amounts of land. Same with wind and solar. They both take a lot of real estate which must be factored into any practical energy reform. Do we even have enough land to satisfy the country's energy appetite?

 

Back to the tax solution. How is a tax supposed to reform anything? The gw scare could be manipulated as a financial conduit by the less-fiscally-conservative politicians. Remember that letter from the Pentagon? What motivated them if they had no cause for gw outlined? Taxes don't inherently fix anything, nor do they constitute energy reform.

 

With the scientific evidence for global warming, the assurances from industry that clean energy will be worth big bucks, the majority of Americans supporting cutting carbon emissions, and Bush's own words and history regarding energy and global warming, what other possible conclusion could I draw?

I'm not convinced that we cause gw. Perhaps you could help me with that.

 

So you mislead the reader of your argument in order to show them the truth:confused:

 

Is it your position that the president of the USA, who appoints people to head the various departments of our government (such as the enviornmental protection agency) does not have the influence to shape and direct our policies?

You ask if the pres and vp have influence? Of course. Autonomy? Hell no.

[Turtle]

So you're saying they were forced? How?

 

Hardly. I'm saying that the congress people (clumsy but necessary gender inclusive phrase;) ) are in effect 'the government' and so in that capacity only secondarily citizens. By having religious articles in use by 'the government', particularly for the purpose of establishing the moral authority for making laws is a direct violation of the Constitution . No Bible, no Koran, no Egyptian Book of the Dead, no such things belong in those hallowed halls. Trot them out and thump them all they like on their spare time outside, but not in. :doh: Don't tread on me.

[Freddy]

Hardly. I'm saying that the congress people (clumsy but necessary gender inclusive phrase;) ) are in effect 'the government' and so in that capacity only secondarily citizens. By having religious articles in use by 'the government', particularly for the purpose of establishing the moral authority for making laws is a direct violation of the Constitution . No Bible, no Koran, no Egyptian Book of the Dead, no such things belong in those hallowed halls. Trot them out and thump them all they like on their spare time outside, but not in. :doh: Don't tread on me.

 

Agreed, God, prayers, and religion of any persuasion has no place in government. Nowhere in the Constitution is it specified that the oath of office has any connection to religion. Therefore, the any reference to religion and God violates the Constitution. Any additions or subtractions from the oath of office violate the Constitution.

[C1ay]

Agreed, God, prayers, and religion of any persuasion has no place in government. Nowhere in the Constitution is it specified that the oath of office has any connection to religion. Therefore, the any reference to religion and God violates the Constitution. Any additions or subtractions from the oath of office violate the Constitution.

The unfortunate truth is this:

 

Senate Oath of Office:

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

 

See history here.

 

Congressional Oath of Office:

 

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

 

See Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

 

Unlike the oath for President, which is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, oaths for the other branches are not spelled out in the Constitution :doh:

[Freddy]

The unfortunate truth is this:

 

Senate Oath of Office:

 

 

Congressional Oath of Office:

 

 

Unlike the oath for President, which is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, oaths for the other branches are not spelled out in the Constitution :)

 

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

[TheBigDog]

I wonder if these two oaths created by Congress have been challenged for violating the First Amendment?

They don't violate the 1st Amendment. Oaths have traditionally been taken in the United States by invoking God. The word "God" in and of itself, even in the context of an oath of office in no way establishes a religion, which is the restriction of governmental power outlined by the First Amendment.

 

The only place that I have seen what would constitute a breach of the 1st Amendment is with people being sentenced to complete AA and the like as part of their sentencing in court.

 

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptlym admitted it.

11. Sought though prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

5. Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.

6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.

7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.

8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional, but our service centers may employ special workers.

9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.

10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.

12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

I would say that compelling people to participate in this program would be public enemy number one in the fight to separate church and state.

 

Bill