THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

It's hard to even know how to discuss this idiocy with you, ICan.

The US has always been a secular nation; there is no established religion in America, there never will be, and while our laws may have sprung from the English traditions which are in part rooted in Christianity, they do not derive their authority from any particular religion. Decisions will never be made by our government based on religious purposes. No amount of disagreement on your part will ever change this.

Cycloptichorn

I think we can reduce the effectiveness of al-Qaeda's recruitment by those of us on the cultural right openly debating with those on the cultural left what we think constitutes decency and what doesn't. I think we on the right are probably in greater agreement about that with Muslims than we are with the cultural left.

revel wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

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

Now, what about this says to you that America isn't a secular nation?

Cycloptichorn

Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's not secularism.

Secularism is "indifference to, or rejection of, or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.

The first statement in the First Amendment established the right to practice one's own religion (including a secular religion). That is certainly not an indifference, rejection, or exclusion of religion. Therefore, it makes clear America is not a secular nation.

Quote:

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

I imagine that if this were in those days you guys would have been on the side of the loyalist.

No revel, WE'RE ON JEFFERSON'S SIDE. The statement by Jefferson, that I boldfaced, does not make the United States of America a secular nation. His statement is saying that our government cannot dictate religion because the First Amendment prohibits that. The statement is clearly not expressing "indifference to, or rejection of, or exclusion of religion and religious considerations." Read again the phrase I highlighted in blue. It does not advocate that oath's of office not be taken with one's right hand on a bible or the stater of an oath not say, "so help me God." Jefferson's letter is expressing pleasure that OUR government shall not dictate religion ... PERIOD!

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson 1802

As the government of the United States of America is not in any way founded on the Christian religion, --- Tripoli 1796-97

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
- President Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

WASHINGTON -- A day after President Bush sought to present evidence showing that Iraq is now the main battlefront against Al Qaeda, the chief US intelligence analyst for international terrorism told Congress that the network's growing ranks in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose a more immediate threat to the United States.

In rare testimony before two House committees, Edward Gistaro, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said that Al Qaeda terrorists operating in South Asia are better equipped to attack the United States than the network's followers in Iraq are.

Asked which arm of Al Qaeda concerned him the most, Gistaro told a joint session of the House armed services and intelligence panels that it was South Asia.

"The primary concern is in Al Qaeda in South Asia organizing its own plots against the United States," he said. Al Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks from its bases in Afghanistan.

The top leaders of the terrorist network, Gistaro added, are "able to exploit the comfort zone in the tribal areas" of Pakistan and Afghanistan and are "bringing people in to train for Western operations."

The US administration is deeply frustrated with Saudi Arabia over its role in Iraq, accusing the Saudis of trying to undermine the Baghdad government and failing to stem the flow of volunteers joining the insurgency there, the New York Times reported on Friday.

The Saudis view Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, as an agent of Iran and appear to have stepped up efforts to weaken his government, providing funding for Sunni groups, the Times wrote, citing senior US officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

One official told the paper that there was evidence Saudi Arabia was supplying money to Maliki's opponents but declined to say if that funding was going to Sunni insurgents.

"That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not," the official said.

Officials in President George W. Bush's administration also say that of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq every month, nearly half come from Saudi Arabia and the Saudi leadership has not done enough to counter the influx.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates planned to raise Washington's concerns in a visit next week to Saudi Arabia, the paper said.

The Bush administration has refrained from publicly criticizing its long-time ally over Iraq and has instead blamed Iran and Syria for fomenting violence and sectarian divisions.

But the officials spoke to the Times with the clear intention of sending a signal to the Saudis after previous private appeals failed to produce results, the newspaper said.

As the Bush administration struggles to convince lawmakers that its Iraq war strategy is working, it has stopped reporting to Congress a key quality-of-life indicator in Baghdad: how long the power stays on.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that Baghdad residents could count on only "an hour or two a day" of electricity. That's down from an average of five to six hours a day earlier this year.

But that piece of data has not been sent to lawmakers for months because the State Department, which prepares a weekly "status report" for Congress on conditions in Iraq, stopped estimating in May how many hours of electricity Baghdad residents typically receive each day.

Instead, the department now reports on the electricity generated nationwide, a measurement that does not indicate how much power Iraqis in Baghdad or elsewhere actually receive. [emphasis added]

It will be interesting to see what Petraeus says in September. I think he's already in Bush's pocket.

Why is it that anyone that agrees with Bush is "in his pocket"?
Couldnt it be that they actually do agree with him?

mysteryman wrote:

Why is it that anyone that agrees with Bush is "in his pocket"?
Couldnt it be that they actually do agree with him?

That's a sign of idiocy - worse then just being in someone's pocket.

It also doesn't change the fact that he has been dishonest about progress for years.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Why is it that anyone that agrees with Bush is "in his pocket"?
Couldnt it be that they actually do agree with him?

That's a sign of idiocy - worse then just being in someone's pocket.

It also doesn't change the fact that he has been dishonest about progress for years.

Cycloptichorn

So if someone agrees with Bush they are an idiot,is that what you are saying

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Why is it that anyone that agrees with Bush is "in his pocket"?
Couldnt it be that they actually do agree with him?

That's a sign of idiocy - worse then just being in someone's pocket.

It also doesn't change the fact that he has been dishonest about progress for years.

Cycloptichorn

So if someone agrees with Bush they are an idiot,is that what you are saying

I said agreeing with Bush is a 'sign of idiocy.' Bush is an idiot, and spouts off idiotic and inane comments continually. Naturally, you didn't need me to tell you that.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Why is it that anyone that agrees with Bush is "in his pocket"?
Couldnt it be that they actually do agree with him?

That's a sign of idiocy - worse then just being in someone's pocket.

It also doesn't change the fact that he has been dishonest about progress for years.

Cycloptichorn

So if someone agrees with Bush they are an idiot,is that what you are saying

I said agreeing with Bush is a 'sign of idiocy.' Bush is an idiot, and spouts off idiotic and inane comments continually. Naturally, you didn't need me to tell you that.

Cycloptichorn

So you have just admitted that EVERY member of A2K that agreed with Bush about immigration has shown "signs of idiocy"?
That includes most of the left leaning members on here.

...
Its clear to anyone without an agenda that the founding fathers wanted the US to be a government where everyone was free to practice their own religion or free to not have or practice a religion but that religion should be separate from state to keep both from being corrupted.

www.m-w.com
Main Entry:
sec•u•lar•ism
Pronunciation:

Function:
noun
Date:
1851
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

...

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

...
I invite you sir to debate, for you shall lose. A close examination of the history of America will show a steady and pervasive liberalizing trend. It will continue, despite the wailing and gnashing of those who cannot abide the thought of people acting in indecent ways.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I invite you sir to debate, for you shall lose. A close examination of the history of America will show a steady and pervasive liberalizing trend. It will continue, despite the wailing and gnashing of those who cannot abide the thought of people acting in indecent ways.

Cycloptichorn

What is it you wish me to debate?

I agree that: "A close examination of the history of America will show a steady and pervasive liberalizing [i.e., permissive] trend. It will continue, despite the wailing and gnashing of those who cannot abide the thought of people acting in indecent ways."

History also informs us that the samething happened in other republics that eventually failed. If that trend is not reversed, our republic will fail too.

Want me debate that?