A president or a self proclaimed pope

I am sorry if this will get heated as some of these toics do but reading this quote in the paper made me want to share how far our president's mind has floated.

This is not about Dems Vs Republicans

This is however about how the foundations of our country are built on the seperation of church and state and should in my opinion remain that way

SO here is an excerpt from the article about Mel Gibson's crazy stint.

The Gibson tirade even drew the atention yesterday of White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, who said President Busf feels Gibson should be allowed to repair the damage he has done.
" The president believes in the forgiveness of sins for all who seek forgiveness," Snow said

In my opinion the president has a lot more pressing issues to deal with than speak on the sin forgivenss which should be left to the clergy

I honestly don't give a crap. Personally I get tired of the god stuff out of him but no more than I do anyone else.

As long as they don't start making us go to church I don't care - that crap is boring.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...VM/sigs010.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...inDVM/pope.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...VM/sigs009.gif

:smiley42: :smiley42: :smiley42: :smiley27: :smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CgarDan

I am sorry if this will get heated as some of these topics do but reading this quote in the paper made me want to share how far our president's mind has floated.

This is not about Dems Vs Republicans

This is however about how the foundations of our country are built on the separation of church and state and should in my opinion remain that way

SO here is an excerpt from the article about Mel Gibson's crazy stint.

The Gibson tirade even drew the attention yesterday of White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, who said President Bush feels Gibson should be allowed to repair the damage he has done.
" The president believes in the forgiveness of sins for all who seek forgiveness," Snow said

In my opinion the president has a lot more pressing issues to deal with than speak on the sin forgiveness which should be left to the clergy

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...VM/sigs010.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...inDVM/pope.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...VM/sigs009.gif

---

WTF?

Not cool at all. Politics aside, let's not get religious. That emoticrap - monkey pissing on a (whatever title you want to use depending on denomination) is purely out of line. Grow up, please.

Im sure Bush's quote was because someone in the press asked him about it and he responded. Its his opinion and nothing more. If he were to step in and speak to Gibson personally, then that would be different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slcraiders

WTF?

Not cool at all. Politics aside, let's not get religious. That emoticrap - monkey pissing on a (whatever title you want to use depending on denomination) is purely out of line. Grow up, please.

---

I'm with SLC.

I try to stay out of these threads - but I gotta say - desecration of any religion (or icons depicting) - is diving into troubled waters. And to go a bit deeper, people won't die for their political beliefs, but they will for their religious ones. This is just pushing the edge a little too far.

Sorry dudes ,as a catholic I dont really give a shit about some little cartoon emoticon. It aint hurting a thing except for making some of you howl. I hate to break the news to you but the catholic church is one of the most seceritive ,corrupt,richest religions in the world. Did you know the office of the inquisition still exists?

C'mon ya'll, a lot of folks would consider a cartoon emoticom bishop designed to be used to express, among other things, sarcastic frustration with others' sanctimonity on internet forums about cigars, online gaming, lesbian midgets, home cures, etc., ad infinitum, to be a desecration. Adding a couple of pissing primates doesn't really add much more irreverance. (I had too old maid great great aunts, Calvinist Presbyterians, who absolutely did not allow the use of unholy expletives, including, "good heavens," my stars," "gosh," and many others).

It's all in the context, part of which is that some of ya'll are pissed at Barry already. We already have a rope ready; all he has to do now is fart wrong and there's a mob poised above a couple dozen keyboards ready to lynch 'im.

Personally, I think everyfuckingoneofyou, Barry, Sid, CNB, friends all, are completely missing the big picture here.

More on that later, if this thread keeps breathing its vapid breath.

At any rate, there's something peculiarly amiss when we take offense at cartoon monkeys pissing on cartoon icons. jeezushit.

I thought it was fuckin' hilarious

To be honest, I like and appreciate Barry and would like to see him online infinitum. I think he's a great guy and has given me excellent vet advice aside from swapping smokes. No one's gonna lynch anyone - I like y'all too much and I'm not fond of funerals.

That being said - with the monkeys and the pope cartoon - to me it's not the actual depiction of it as much as it is the spirit (no pun, really) of what it represents. Everyone has their opinion (so I've read), I just felt stronger about this one to post.

Group hug/herf now... :smiley31:

Sidebar to K7 on the Inquisition Office - that's crazy. :smiley5:

Just for the record I'm not pissed at Barry. I don't want a lynchmob after him.

I don't like the political crap he posts but I defend his right to post it...As long as it's in the proper forum and does not bleed into other sections here. You don't have to read it...Just like you don't have to watch a TV channel that you find offensive.

By the way I took him off ignore...He is funny when he melts down.:smiley8:

Anybody got a pic of a squirrel pissing on a atheist? :smiley36:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basil

sanctimonity.

---

C'mon Basil, you can flash better English skills than that, sanctimoniousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...VM/sigs010.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...inDVM/pope.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...VM/sigs009.gif

---

hummmmmmmm when I saw this I thought he meant that the pope was really Bush. I got that based on the article and knowing how he feels about the President. I did not take it that is was peeing all over Catholics. Anyhow this place is mild compared to most boards in the way of over all offensive. One thing this is done with out question is you guys make fun of fat woman a lot and you do not see me whining! LMAO :smiley27: Just thought a throw that in:smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinda

hummmmmmmm when I saw this I thought he meant that the pope was really Bush. I got that based on the article and knowing how he feels about the President. I did not take it that is was peeing all over Catholics. Anyhow this place is mild compared to most boards in the way of over all offensive. One thing this is done with out question is you guys make fun of fat woman a lot and you do not see me whining! LMAO :smiley27: Just thought a throw that in:smiley2:

---

Are you gonna take me home tonight?
Ah, down beside that red firelight;
Are you gonna let it all hang out?
Fat bottomed girls,
You make the rockin' world go round.

Hey
I was just a skinny lad
Never knew no good from bad,
But I knew life before I left my nursery,
Left alone with big fat Fanny,
She was such a naughty nanny!
Heap big woman you made a bad boy out of me!
Hey, hey!

I've been singing with my band
Across the wire, across the land,
I seen ev'ry blue eyed floozy on the way, hey
But their beauty and their style
Wear kind of smooth after a while.
Take me to them lardy ladies every time!

(C'mon)
Oh won't you take me home tonight?
Oh down beside your red firelight,
Oh and you give it all you got
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round

Hey listen here,
Now I got mortgages on homes
I got stiffness in my bones
Ain't no beauty queens in this locality. (I tell ya!)
Oh, but I still get my pleasure
Still got my greatest treasure.
Heap big woman you done made a big man out-of me!
Now get this!

Oh, you gonna take me home tonight (please)
Ah, down beside that red firelight
Oh, you gonna let it all hang out
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round
GET ON YOUR BIKES AND RIDE!

Oooh yeah oh yeah them fat bottomed girls
Fat bottomed girls
Yeah yeah yeah
all right
ride 'em cowboy
Fat bottomed girls
Yes yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slcraiders

WTF?

Not cool at all. Politics aside, let's not get religious. That emoticrap - monkey pissing on a (whatever title you want to use depending on denomination) is purely out of line. Grow up, please.

---

My post was completely apropos. It adequately expressed my disdain for dumbya, as well as his religious bullshit. He needs to keep his fantasy life to himself.

I admit that I oversensitized things. Come to think of it, I have album covers that could be considered more offensive.:smiley2:

Damn, I missed all the fun... :smiley2:

The separation of church and state is probably one of the most misunderstood parts of the US government. The church and state are separate entities, as in segregated, as in separate but equal. As in not the same.

Consider the situation in England, who previously ruled over the American Colonies. In England, the church is run by the monarch.
(Side note: if you want a good laugh, stand outside Westminster Abbey on a Sunday morning and watch the brothers try to explain to American Catholics that the Church of England is not Roman Catholic)

In this new nation, they didn't want to end up in the same mess. So, they made sure they were separate. As kind of a side-effect, we get more free religion. "Freedom of religion" is not explicit in the Bill of Rights, but if the government is not allowed to meddle in the affairs of the church, it's implied.

Without getting into the effect of Freemasonry on the formation of the United States, you find pseudo-religious stuff all over in government. The formation documents are littered with references to God or Providence. On the obverse of the Great Seal, we find the Eye of Providence. When George Washington takes the oath of office, his response is "So help me God" (this has since been added to the oath). Bibles are still used for oaths.

The founding fathers in no way envisioned a secular state, but they didn't envision a nation ruled by religious whim, either. They envisioned a rational state in which the two are balanced. (Notably, this is where the issue of the Ten Commandments comes complicated; is it religious law or a legal basis?)

So WTF is my point?

The President is free to have his own religious beliefs. He is free to express them. He should express them as his personal beliefs. He is not trying to impose his religious beliefs on the people, nor is he trying to run the church from the oval office. Church and state are separate and we can all go home.

Since I rambled on and on about the Bill of Rights, I might as well entertain with a trivia question...

How many states were represented at the Constitutional Convention?

At least the monkey's weren't pissing on Mohammed. I would hate to see any of you get your head cut off over a cartoon.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

How many states were represented at the Constitutional Convention?

---

All 13 colonies except Rhode Island, who didn't have an appointment at the convention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

All 13 colonies except Rhode Island, who didn't have an appointment at the convention.

---

We were quite happy with a loose confederation of states, thank you. :smiley4:

Texas could legally be its own state. It is the only one that joined the Union by treaty rather than annex. So Texas came on its own terms and could leave on its own as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

C'mon Basil, you can flash better English skills than that, sanctimoniousness.

---

ouch ouch ouch. You right. Ok, so I picked up the ditchinarry next to my desk and sniffed it. There are two forms of the noun - sanctimoniousness, and sanctimony. I think I was trying to splice in equanimity or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

Texas could legally be its own state. It is the only one that joined the Union by treaty rather than annex. So Texas came on its own terms and could leave on its own as well.

---

Actually, the last time someone tried, they sent in a bunch of ATF, FBI, CIA, and such other acronymical agents and shot those bastards to pieces.

Sorry man, I just finished a Tom Robbins novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basil

Actually, the last time someone tried, they sent in a bunch of ATF, FBI, CIA, and such other acronymical agents and shot those bastards to pieces.

Sorry man, I just finished a Tom Robbins novel.

---

Ya that was those Republic of Texas idiots. But technically, if the state govt. decided it wanted to it could leave. Probably wouldn't be a good idea though.

"Separation of Church and State" never appears in the Constitution but rather in the dicta of a Supreme Court Decision.

That being said, the so-called doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" does not mean that the President (or any other government official) cannot be a religious person or make religious references in speeches or statements.

Here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The first part is generally referred to as the "Establishment Clause" and merely states that the government cannot establish a "government religion". The second part is generally referred to as the "Free Exercise" clause and allows for everyone (even the President of the United States) to freely practice and believe in any religion he or she chooses.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was contained in a Supreme Court decision and it was even commented on by a Justice that it was likely a poor choice of words and that it would be misunderstood. Today if you asked 1000 people where that phrase was found 999 of them would say with conviction that it is found in our Constitution. Today this phraase is being used as a tool to remove all aspects of religion from our government, schools, and any other public area. You may recall the recent attacks on our Pledge of Allegiance, the removal of the Ten Comandments in many courthouses, and now a renewed attack on the phrase "In God We Trust" printed on all of our money.

There is no difference between these attacks to remove ALL religion or reference to God and the establishment of a government sanctioned religion. The interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" has become so mired in politics and misunderstanding that the actual words of the Constitution have been forgotten.

Go read the Constitution and you will be surprised at what you will find.

someone either has some down time or got an 'A' in ConLaw.:smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaewing

There is no difference between these attacks to remove ALL religion or reference to God and the establishment of a government sanctioned religion.

---

Amen. Wait, bad choice of words.

Quote:

---

The interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" has become so mired in politics and misunderstanding that the actual words of the Constitution have been forgotten.

---

Including by me.
Thanks for picking up my slack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nhcigarfan

someone either has some down time or got an 'A' in ConLaw.:smiley2:

---

Close, but they hardly ever give out A's in Law School. As it happened though we had a First Amendment question both in my Con Law final and Bar Exam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basil

ouch ouch ouch. You right. Ok, so I picked up the ditchinarry next to my desk and sniffed it. There are two forms of the noun - sanctimoniousness, and sanctimony. I think I was trying to splice in equanimity or something.






Actually, the last time someone tried, they sent in a bunch of ATF, FBI, CIA, and such other acronymical agents and shot those bastards to pieces.

Sorry man, I just finished a Tom Robbins novel.

---

Yep but those were just a few yahoos. If the majority made up its mind, it would be completely different. We'd send those fuckers packing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaewing

"Separation of Church and State" never appears in the Constitution but rather in the dicta of a Supreme Court Decision.

That being said, the so-called doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" does not mean that the President (or any other government official) cannot be a religious person or make religious references in speeches or statements.

Here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The first part is generally referred to as the "Establishment Clause" and merely states that the government cannot establish a "government religion". The second part is generally referred to as the "Free Exercise" clause and allows for everyone (even the President of the United States) to freely practice and believe in any religion he or she chooses.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was contained in a Supreme Court decision and it was even commented on by a Justice that it was likely a poor choice of words and that it would be misunderstood. Today if you asked 1000 people where that phrase was found 999 of them would say with conviction that it is found in our Constitution. Today this phraase is being used as a tool to remove all aspects of religion from our government, schools, and any other public area. You may recall the recent attacks on our Pledge of Allegiance, the removal of the Ten Comandments in many courthouses, and now a renewed attack on the phrase "In God We Trust" printed on all of our money.

There is no difference between these attacks to remove ALL religion or reference to God and the establishment of a government sanctioned religion. The interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" has become so mired in politics and misunderstanding that the actual words of the Constitution have been forgotten.

Go read the Constitution and you will be surprised at what you will find.

---

The "living consititution" crowd doesn't care what the words in the Constitution say. They believe you can "interpret" it any way you want as long as you have enough power and can enforce it. That's working out well for them now, but that pendulum can swing the other way, and then they will wish they had stuck with the strict interpretation crowd all along. The Constitution means exactly what it says, not more or less. You want to add more or less, get an amendment passed, don't get tyrannical judges to make constituional changes for us.

Quote:

---

Sid and Barry sitting in a tree.
S-U-C-K-I-N-G...

---

verrry classy...i'm supposed to be on ignore....hey baka...the war is on and you'll lose...

respond to this you spineless girl...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cigar no baka

The Constitution means exactly what it says, not more or less. You want to add more or less, get an amendment passed, don't get tyrannical judges to make constituional changes for us.

---

Partially correct, but to paraquote President Clinton, "That depends on what your definition of is is".

Like anything that's written down, it's subject to interpretation. The authors are dead and buried, so we can't ask them what they meant.

In the United States, the job of interpreting the Constitution and its amendments is the job of the Supreme Court. We hope that Presidents assign fair and knowledgeable judges and that they do a good job of interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

Partially correct, but to paraquote President Clinton, "That depends on what your definition of is is".

Like anything that's written down, it's subject to interpretation. The authors are dead and buried, so we can't ask them what they meant.

In the United States, the job of interpreting the Constitution and its amendments is the job of the Supreme Court. We hope that Presidents assign fair and knowledgeable judges and that they do a good job of interpretation.

---

You are correct in that the Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the Constitution. However, it has gotten way out of control and they have been stretching the meaning of interpret to the limit.

At least in this Strict Constructionist's view.

My favorite is how EVERYTHING falls under federal jusrisdiction because of interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court taking their interpretations of the US Constitution too far?

I think it really depends on your particular position pertaining to the decision at hand. If you agree with the decision, you think they were doing a fantastic and fair job. But, if you are on the other side, you think they are pushing the envelope.
Same thing with the bullshit term, "Activist Judges".
Obviously, they're only "activists" if you don't like their decision.

In reality, it's all business as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaewing

You are correct in that the Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the Constitution. However, it has gotten way out of control and they have been stretching the meaning of interpret to the limit.

At least in this Strict Constructionist's view.

---

Agreed. Right to privacy and separation of church and state are two of the most egregious "interpretations" inserted into the constitution without the will of the people being heard through the legal means of amending the constitution.

And show me where in the constitution does it give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution? I remember that being a power they asserted for themselves by "interpreting" the constitution which makes it double damned. The interpreted the Constitution to say that they have the power to "interpret" the Constitution, didn't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cigar no baka

Agreed. Right to privacy and separation of church and state are two of the most egregious "interpretations" inserted into the constitution without the will of the people being heard through the legal means of amending the constitution.

And show me where in the constitution does it give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution? I remember that being a power they asserted for themselves by "interpreting" the constitution which makes it double damned. The interpreted the Constitution to say that they have the power to "interpret" the Constitution, didn't they?

---

Not too sure about that, I always remember learning that was basically their "check" in the check and balance system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

Not too sure about that, I always remember learning that was basically their "check" in the check and balance system.

---

Yes I believe that is true.