A president or a self proclaimed pope

[mauied1101]

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.

[kevin7]

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?

[basil]

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.

[WhiteWidow]

I thought it was fuckin' hilarious

[mauied1101]

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...

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

[cigarsarge]

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.

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

[BigMacFU]

sanctimonity.

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

[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.

[nhcigarfan]

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

[jaewing]

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

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.

[SuperChuck]

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.

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.

[cigar no baka]

"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.

[bigpoppapuff]

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...

[SuperChuck]

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.

[jaewing]

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.

[WhiteWidow]

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

[cigar no baka]

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?