Thread: Should Presidential Candidates have to handwrite Constitution before taking office?

Originally Posted by Fovezer

The PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001. That means it went through a Republican Congress. The bill was reauthorized in 2005 and 2006 under a Republican Congress. Yes, Democrats voted for it and Obama renewed three sections for another year, however this is all irrelevant to my point. We were talking about administrations and what happened during them. Was the PATRIOT Act passed during the Bush administration, yes or no? That's all.

Yes as well as the Obama administration. Quit trying to make him sound like he isnt as guilty. He and congress could of let it exspire by doing nothing. That isnt what happened though was it.

Originally Posted by Alundil

And I agree in that it is not science class worthy and would be better covered in philosophy, or theology. I still do not see the connection between arguing to teach it in Science class (again, I disagree with putting it in Science class as a large part of it is untestable) means that someone is trying to revoke or reduce the "holy" Separation of Church and State.

I do. Creationism, and even ID, is one religion's story creationism. To teach that as fact is, in my opinion, a blatant support for that religion. I have no problem with teaching it in history class or a world religions class.

The Right seems to agree with me (and actually go further, since this was a history class) when the religion in question is Islam.
Wellesley pupils’ prayers at mosque fuel call for policy change - The Boston Globe
Wellesley, Massachusetts public school students taken to Saudi funded Mosque and learn to pray to Allah for “field trip” | Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Ah, ok now I remember that guy. He got worked up (as did much of the country on both sides of the aisle) about the Ten Commandments in front of the Courthouse where he presided. If I am not mistaken though, there have been Ten Commandment (and other religious artifacts) in various government owned (or publicly owned if you prefer) edifices since the country was founded. I don't see that as "government sponsoring any religion" though. In many (if not most) cases, where religious symbols were present there were actual historical reasons (or attachments) for them to be there. Not too mention the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country still considers itself religious, and of those who hold religious beliefs in this country, the largest subset is denominational Christian and so there were,largely, no societal issues with having those artifacts present. The demographic of the country is changing to be sure and so Christian is slightly less prevalent today, but still the majority.
But, their simple presence does not, in any way shape or form, mean that the US Government is telling you what, or how, to believe. I found it humorous back then, as I do now, that people will pick and choose what to argue over (with no sense of scope or context). No one got up in arms until the big monument went up outside. He had a smaller wall hung version in the courthouse for quite some time without people batting an eye (or at least not making a fuss). He wasn't, to my knowledge, asked to take that one down. It was the big one outside. He disagreed. He lost. The monument was removed. Moving on?

Well, the fact that most people are Christian and not offended by it doesn't change the Constitution, nor does the fact that something has occurred in the past to violate it. When the constitution was written, that statement was even more true, and they still explicitly left it out. And no, I don't have a problem with courthouses having the ten commandments in their friezes or elsewhere among other influences for our system of law, and for the record, I do recognize that the 10 commandments, along with many other historical codes of law before and after them, have had a strong effect on ours. They have a place, but Roy Moore's placement of them, and his statements explaining them were what crossed the line, as did his practice of opening court with a prayer.

Sigh - who is Palin now again? Politically, I hope that she's washed up. Thankfully, she and McCain were not elected. She's attached herself to the Tea Party movement in a very "leech-ing" way IMO to stay politically relevant. Her statement is not well thought out and fairly ignorant. You know as well as I do why the founders left that kind of language out of the Constitution. They wanted nothing to do with a State Religion, a la Anglican Church, or the Holy Roman Empire etc etc. Theologically driven government is not a good idea. Mainly because theologies are fractious and exclusionary at their core (some malignantly so, others not so much). Either way, Palin marginalizes herself more everyday. I'd not worry about it too much.

I agree, but she's still got a following, so she's still relevant. The same goes for Glenn Beck, who has made similar statements. I think that they're both crazy, but they're both potentially powerful people.