Who voted for such a :[ president!!!

ORIGINAL: loveukaykay


Its the law of Separation of Chruch and State.  Its a long debated topic, but basically is derived from freedom of religion. 

But you said "rule that said religion and state shall be kept separate..."  I wonder what rule you are talking about AND what makes you think the dems follow this "rule" better than the reps?

Great site! Yes! My father was a Republican of just that sort. He was killed in a plane crash back in 1972 and I'm sure is rolling in his grave over what's happened to the GOP!

Yeah, my dad is an old school republican (even though he claims to be independent).  He was really at a loss this last election.  Bush is driving him mad with this spending, but I'm afraid he'll never bring himself to vote for a dem. 

I myself am drawn to Lincoln-esq republican ideals as well.  Perhaps I even lean toward libertarianism...but regardless...I would be happy to see the repubs return to some of the cornerstones of the party.  A great read for anyone interested.  "What's the Matter with Kansas"    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FTWB6C/sr=1-1/qid=1150752697/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1499930-5839045?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

Def. a liberal book, but it presents an interesting view of the republican party and the inherent paradoxes within modern iterations of it.

ORIGINAL: tashakota

I firmly believe the President should not make choices based on his religious beliefs.
 

 
Trust me when I say I am not especially religious either, but if one is, I believe that religious belief becomes a fundamental part of who they are.  I am not sure it is reasonable to expect one to make decisions ignoring a fundamental part of who they are.
 

ORIGINAL: tashakota
 
  And  no one can convince me that his decisions on marriage and abortion and the like, are in no way NOT based on his religious beliefs.  Marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman does not disintegrate the *sancitity* of marriage any more than the divorce rate.
 

 
Of course it is based on religous beliefs, as are many laws.  A man can legally have only one wife, for example.  What possible justification could there be for such a law, other than a religious objection?
 
Many people believe that marriage should signify a legally binding union between a man and a woman.  I believe that and I don't believe it because of any religious impression.  To me, it is tradition.  I will agree though that MOST people probably do have a religious objection to same sex marriage.
 

ORIGINAL: tashakota
 
  IMHO, the divorce rate in this country does more to violate the sanctitiy of marriage then letting 2 individuals of the same sex get married. 
 

 
Two individuals of the same sex, to my knowledge, can't get married, so obviously you would be right again.

That's one of the points, Billy.  Two people of the same sex SHOULD be able to get married if they so choose. Everyone should be free to make that kind of choice for themselves and no *law* should be in place to prevent that. If a president wants to live his own life according to his religious beliefs, so be it. In no way should he even try to inflict that on someone else.

Joyce

You know, I'm not going to quote whom said it (I'm feeling lazy []), but for Rep being the only one's pushing things down said people's throats... Well... let's just say, I've been indirectly called an idiot more than once in a public (*ahem* school) setting because I would have voted for Bush. I keep my trap shut about politics because it's my business, but then I get that *shoved* down my throat.  I also see SOOOO many Bush hating bumper stickers it's not funny... another shove. This thread title... there's another. Democrats and Republicans are EQUALLY guilty in the shoving department. They are EQUALLY guilty in the twisting facts, numbers, and science to suit their own needs.  Let's face it, politics brings out the worst in people, especially when they make a career out of it.
 
As for same sex marriages. Well, I guess I am a traditionalist with the term "marriage" being between a husband and a wife. However, Vermont's system of Civil Unions works for me. My opinion is not based in my religion, but rather my morals and what I feel the term "marriage means. Yet again, I can say the same about abortion. I literally torn... but in the end, there should be no law dictating if a woman can or cannot bring a child onto this planet if she so chooses (and by that, I mean early pregnancy abortions). That is based on my morals, not my religion.
 

A Canadian perspective...

Personally, I really do not care for Bush. Seeing as its not my country, it's not too much my concern, but I do find the "you're either with us or against us" (not sure if thats the exact wording) offensive. So because the country is against killing innocent people, we're officially an enemy of the U.S? 

This is also just a personal belief, but I think that if Bush hadn't been elected, the terrorist attacks would not have happened. I believe he (directly or indirectly) caused the attacks to happen. I have seen some compelling evidence that there is a lot more going on than the U.S. government is allowing their citizens to believe.
I also am greatly against this war he has started, and I want to rear-end all the people I see who have the "support our troops" sticker on the back of their vehicles. I believe all those people (from both countries) are dying for some political scheme that is completely unnecessary. 
But thats just me. []

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again... I do NOT support Bush. I live in the United States now but I am not a citizen (although a legal resident []) and his choices do directly affect me but that's a whole other story.... let's just say I don't care for him AT ALL!
 
I don't agree with what you said about the "support our troops" bumper stickers!
I support ALL of the troops fighting in our Iraq 1000%! They are doing a great job, I do not understand how people can say they are not. That would mean that all of the very dear friends I lost down there died for nothing and that's just not true! I am sorry but having a bumper sticker on your car that says "support our troops" does not indicate (in the slightest) how you feel about the president that sent them down to Iraq. It means that you support all these brave and awesome men and women that do a da#$# good job (and they really do and all the "bad" media is very discouraging to them, tons of them still die every day and I cry everytime I see it on the news but they are doing a ton of good down there every day!)

ORIGINAL: nadinetreadway


 That would mean that all of the very dear friends I lost down there died for nothing and that's just not true!

That is, unfortunately, what I believe. I belive that we should NOT support those troops, and that they should come home and live the peaceful lives they are supposed to lead. And not be killed for (what I believe to be) a corrupted govenment.

I don't wanna cause too much trouble, so maybe it's time to bow out []

I agree with Nadine.  I support our troops 1000%...that does NOT mean I support their commander in chief.

Don't worry, everybody has their own opinion []. It's just something I feel very strongly about, we've went through a lot. DH is still trying to work through all of this and I still look at their pictures every day and it hurts me to know what happened! Each and every one of our soldiers down there does an awesome thing and they believe in what they're doing (and no not every one of them supports their president), that's what keeps them going for months and years in 130 degree weather, getting shot at every day, seeing their friends die. They need our support and I'll keep my "support our troops" sticker on the car... mmmmhhhh, maybe that's why I got rear-ended twice in the last six months? [] just kiddin...

Wow,  this is some thread going on here isn't it.  Presidents come and go and is anyone ever happy with them ?  NO  Will anyone be happy with the next one? NO
I have a brother in Iraq and it hurts me to hear that someone would not be supportive of him.  Whether or not you agree with why they are there those men and women deserve our thoughts and prayers.  I don't think that their being there will ever do any good.  Read the book of Genesis in the Bible.  There will never be peace there.  Also, while your reading the Bible please check out what it says about marriage too.  Marriage is clearly to be between a man and a woman.   Don't know exactly but I think its in Corinthians.  Check your concordance. I commend the president for bringing out his religous beliefs.  Christians are losing more and more of their rights every day.  Gotta go stop the war in my own house right now.
 
 
 
 
 
'

I respect your right to your opinion, but.... My father fought in Vietnam. Yes he was drafted versus elective enlistment, but HIS government sent him to Vietnam.  He was FOLLOWING orders. He may or may not have agreed with the politics at that time, but he did what was required of him by HIS COUNRTY. Did he get any respect from the people when he came home? NO And all I have to say is that I have seen the hurt in his face and the pain in his voice louder than any megaphone could amplify it. And he doesn't speak of it hardly at all, but it has made one heck of an impression on me.

No this isn't Vietnam or men sent to war by draft, but regardless of whether we agree or disagree with our government - our soldiers (and their familiet) deserve our FULL and unconditional support of love and gratitude for what they are doing.  Just because you hate the government's decisions, don't hate the men. You have NO IDEA the impact that type of attitude has on the soldiers or their families for the rest of their lives.

And the attack on NYC on 9/11 was planned way before Bush took office in Jan. 2001.

Billy I addressed your question of "what rule" in my previous post. 

As I stated in my OP its not a "rule" but rather a sentiment of what the whole country was founded on.  Go read up on why we left England.  Too much power, we wanted freedom of religion, and founded this place with the concept of keeping church and state separate to avoid that exact situation we left.  Seems to be lost in the mix somewhere.

I dont want to sound disrespectful by telling you to go read up on it... hope you dont take it that way... but I really feel its an interesting read.  And its about the "rule" or more accuratley a "general guideline" that we were founded on.

I agree with you that it will always "influence" the decisions of the lawmakers and that to an extent is fine.  But when you want to start enforcing your beliefs such as Bush, you are going too far.

Oh, and same sex marriage is leagal in some areas as of recent.  [linkhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-16-gay-marriage-main_x.htm]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-16-gay-marriage-main_x.htm[/link]

Copy and Pasted: link below -
United States of America
*The early colonies, although many of them were founded as a result of religious persecution, were not tolerant of dissident forms of worship. For example, [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29]Roger Williams[/link] found it necessary to found a new colony in [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island]Rhode Island[/link] to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts.
It was not until the 18th century that [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment]Enlightenment[/link] concepts of freedom of individual worship gained ground both in Europe and America.

[linkave_freedom_worship.jpg]>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imageave_freedom_worship.jpg][/link]

[linkave_freedom_worship.jpg]>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imageave_freedom_worship.jpg][/link]"Save Freedom of Worship". American World War II posterThe modern legal concept of religious freedom as the union of freedom of belief and freedom of worship with the absence of any state-sponsored religion, originated in the [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America]United States of America[/link].
This issue was addressed by [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine]Thomas Paine[/link] in his pamphlet, [linkCommon>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29]Common Sense[/link] (1776):

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith . . .
The [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom]Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom[/link] was written in [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1779]1779[/link] by [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson]Thomas Jefferson[/link]. It proclaimed:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
In [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._law]U.S. law[/link], freedom of religion is codified in the [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment]First Amendment[/link] to the [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution]United States Constitution[/link], which declares:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Consequently, the USA has become a nation of many religious institutions which flourish under the freedom of legal protection by local, state and federal governments. This protection is, though, not to be used as cover for illegal activities, as in the case of a defendant who claimed smoking marijuana was part of her religious beliefs and practices:

"Those who seek constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms that this special sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in anti-social conduct that otherwise stands condemned." (U.S. v. Kuch 288 FSup. 439 (196)
In the USA, many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret "freedom of religion" as including the freedom of long-established [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communities]religious communities[/link] to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy]democracies[/link] interpret "freedom of religion" as the right of each individual to freely choose to [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion]convert[/link] from one religion to another, [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism]mix[/link] religions, or [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism]abandon[/link] religion altogether.
[linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion#History]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion#History[/link]

Separation of Church and State:
[linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#History]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#History[/link]




* My argument is soley that Bush is trampling over these values by pushing his own beliefs into the law making process and atempting to control the actions of the country's population based on them.  Not fair and NOT what America was supposed to be about. 
 
ETA :  I bolded and underlined the specific quotes written by our founders in relation to church and state.

just for fun, go to Google and type in:  failure
 & then hit    I'm feeling lucky....

I don't care if people are supporters of fighting the war on terrorism or not. I am thankful that I live in a society where we are free to express our opinions. And I am thankful we have soldiers who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect those freedoms.
I have a son in Iraq, and a son-in-law who spent 14 months in Iraq and is now in Afghanistan.  They both are following the orders of their commander-in-chief, and doing a hell of a good job at what they do. They, thier wives, their children, and their entire families need all the support they can get to get.
Since we do live in a society where it is acceptable to express one's feelings, I will say: When you say you don't support our troops, you are saying you are against my family.  When you say you would like to rear end cars that have bumper stickers on them, you are saying you would like to cause me harm.  I can't imagine why you would feel this way.  I have never wished you a moment's harm.
Please think of how your words might affect people before you post.