The US Constitution.

Why should I be interesting into answering your question if you refuse to read the U.S. Constitution?

BBB

The first two clauses of the first amendment to the constitution read: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

These are known, unsurprisingly, as the "no establishment" and "free exercise" clauses. Nothing in them prohibits anyone from holding public office based on religious affiliation.

I would be interesed to know what public office you allege Jesse Jackson holds. Keeping in mind, of couse, that nothing in the constitution would prohibit him from holding public office.



This doesn't surprise me. My experience is that bald ignorance has never inhibited you from loudly expressing your uninformed opinions.

Jesse Jackson, Jr. was in the news this week. He is a member of the House of Representatives. His father, Jesse Jackson, Sr. is a religious minister.

Many of his constituents are asking the same question.

Do you keep up on the political fundaments of Tonga? No. Why? because you likely couldn't care less about Tonga - being neither an inhabitant of, or having any links to.

Likewise with myself and the US.

Have a great day you moron!
Mark...

Given that Tonga is half a world away, no i don't keep up with their constitution. However, i do keep up with the news from Tonga by listening to ABC's Radio Australia service.

The United States is a hell of a lot closer to nasty little England than it is to Tonga. And i know a hell of a lot more about the Westminster style of government and how your unwritten constitution has been assembled over the centuries than you apparently do about the U.S. constitution.

My comment was inspired by this tripe:

A political friend of mind tells me that the US constitution is hypocritical of itself.

Is it correct that state and church are to be kept seperate?

And, if so, what is Jesse Jackson doing in office?

As you admit, you are ignorant of our constitution, yet you are willing to make two uninformed comments about the constitution.

And that's why i have the pleasure of once again expressing my contempt for you, you witless pig-******.

Wanker

Clown.

Have you heard of the Internet; do you know what a library is? And how many times have you read Tonga's constitution, Set?



So take that, Mark Noble.

Your friend is right, Mark. There are aspects of the US constitution that are incredibly hypocritical.

There is nothing that prevents an ordained minister, rabbi or priest from being elected to Congress or the Presidency. "Separation of Church and State" isn't explicitly in the Constitution, it was coined by Jefferson in a letter to a group of Baptists that the State would not involve itself in the dealings of the Church -- a wall of separation.

Jessie Sr ran for President in '84 and '88 as a fully viable candidate.

If, as you say,I haven't read your constitution, nor ever intend to, then why are you curious about this subject that came up recently? If I'm curious about a subject I usually try to research it by some means other than posting a dotty and somewhat insulting query on a public website.

That there may be elements of hypocricy in the US Constitution is undeniable. However, the election of an ordained clergy person to political office has no relevance of any sort whatever to the doctrine of separation of church and state. You -- or your 'political friend' -- are probably thinking more along the lines of the historical precedent in Merry Ol' Blighty where the Archbishop of Canterbury customarily was also a minion of the Crown, hence held political office. No such condition is possible in the USA. There has been at least one ordained Roman Catholic priest who served for a number of years in the US House of Representatives but he was told to gerroffit by his church, not by the secular government which couldn't have cared less if he wore a mitre into the halls of Congress. The point is that the good Father was elected by his constituency of qualified voters who have a right to elect anyone they choose, as long as their choice is a US citizen and meets age qualifications. The fact that the person elected professes a particular faith has no bearing whatever on his/her qualifications.

When you think about it, that's really the whole point of separating Church from State.

De jure, yes, de facto, no.



De facto, not always, Merry.

You just couldn't resist being snide, could you, JTT? The original version of your post would have been quite sufficient. It must be frustrating as hell for you that I try hard not to rise to your bait.

Not snide at all, Merry. I see you haven't contested the facts. I was just setting the record straight. You wouldn't want Mark to think that your statement,

If I'm curious about a subject I usually try to research it by some means other than posting a dotty and somewhat insulting query on a public website

was a completely accurate representation, would you?

i'm with you mark

**** knowledge and **** facts

uninformed opinions rule

oh yeah, **** j jackson sr too, i know nothing of j jackson jr, so he gets a pass

although JTT would say i should have stopped at, i know nothing

<snort>

Who are you, Sgt Shultz?

And we haven't read YOUR constitution because you AIN'T GOT ONE.

You heard of Bagehot? The British Constitution? He says it's unwritten and nobody contradicts him. Get a grip.

Why would we need one? We sent all our crud to Australia and all the subversives and monkeys accross the atlantic a while back. You must know them - They begat you.

LOL!

Mark...