Posted on 03/21/2006 12:35:33 PM PST by duckln
There's an argument.
Actually, Vatican City is a Theocracy which works fine. That is probably why so many democratic republicans hate it so.
The question shouldn't be how soon can we leave, but how long should we stay. They are not capable changing by themselves, they don't have, due to their 1400 yr solidified culture, enough people with the mental framework and courage to do it.
Whatever you call it, what those gentlemen cooked up after WWI for terms of surrender (The Versailles Treaty) became the sure path to WWII. As predicted by Keynes who was present at the proceedings.
"enough people with the mental framework and courage to do it."
***** You got the ticket. One thing I've found interesting on other forums, is the "connection" between Islamic fundies online and U.S. Extremist who are anti-Zionist or whatever. The two groups will attack you online, due this this one common thread, they both are "anti-Zionist". Two enemies bound together due to this common agenda.
I guess we have to be fair, basically the same mind bending methods are used by the American Nazi party, KKK and Skin Head cultures. They are not as organized, but use some of the same methods.
Thank you..........for the response.
Tom
I don't think he says this at all: he is against an all out war, we didn't take on the Soviets after WWII, we fought the effects of Soviet expansion. We never declared war on them or in Viet Nam as you may recall. He obviously DOES think we should do what we can to save this man.
It's incredible to me that people on this forum willingly distort Buchanan's words so they can feel more self-righteous. He does not compare ancient biblical sources with modern political history to show moral equivalency, he does it to show that violence, war and oppression have always been part of human nature and always will be. The labels change but whether for religious or political reasons everyone justifies it.
My God, if I'm ever in a fight, and Buchanan turns up on my side, I'm switching sides.
Good, I hear he's pro-life, go out and kill someone.
I don't see it as an all out war, as in Korea and in Vietnam. There the enemy army fought and did not run, and the casualties were humongous. We may not have taken on the USSR, but we fought their surrogates around the world.
Pat didn't want to get involved in both Bosnia, to his credit as we were on the wrong side, or in 'Palestine', where we are lukewarm but on the right side.
If Pat's thinking does not contain a military component, then that's not enough. What saved the 3 peace makers recently rescued in Iraq, was not yak yak, but the military.
No, You posted the least meaningful fragments of article because you wanted to make harder for people on FR to read what Pat Buchanan wrote (knowing that posting instructions do not allow duplicates).
Quite a nasty trick. Shame on you!
Go back and read the sequence of posts before you go putting words in my mouth.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened 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 nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
BACKGROUNDER ON THE VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
In Virginia, the American Revolution led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, which had been tied closely to the royal government. Then the question arose as to whether the new state should continue to impose taxes to be used for the support of all recognized churches. The proposal had a number of supporters who, even if they no longer accepted an established church, still believed that religion should be supported by the public purse.
For some Virginians, however, imposing religion on people smacked of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom would later be president of the United States, argued that religious beliefs should be solely matters of individual conscience and completely immune from any interference by the state. Moreover, religious activity of any sort should be wholly voluntary. Not only did they oppose taxing people to support an established church, but they also objected to forcing people to pay taxes even for their own church. To Jefferson, a high wall of separation should always keep church and state apart.
Jefferson drafted the following measure, but it was Madison who skillfully secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia.
For further reading: William Lee Miller, The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic (1985); Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause and the First Amendment (1986); Merrill D. Peterson and Robert C. Vaughn, eds., The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Its Evolution and Consequences in American History (1988).
Unfortunately, we have gone too far in the other direction from the days of Jefferson. Now the so-called wall of separation has come to mean banning religion from the public square. Our Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
We don't have a state religion, which is what our founders meant by "an establishment of religion." It is interesting to note that a number of US states still maintained state religions after the Constitution and public monies were used to support it.
"It is interesting to note that a number of US states still maintained state religions after the Constitution and public monies were used to support it."
Not true.
The US Constitution was ratified in 1787, by 1786 and as a result of the passing of Jefferson's "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia, the link between Church and Religion had been broken most places, with the exception of Massachusetts, where it wasn't broken until 1832. Here are some interesting links on the subject:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/remon.shtml
I don't understand what you are referring to as being BS. I asked you, "Do you believe churches should be given tax exemptions? Should we have USG paid chaplains in the Armed Forces? Should we have any reference to God on our currency, the oath of allegience, or in our courts (swearing on the bible)? " You didn't respond.
Thanks for the resources. Have you read Mark Levin's, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America? Mark does a good job of explaining the Constitution's establishment clause, placing it in the context of times, and its evolution through Supreme Court decisions, which have distorted its meaning and intent. It is interesting to note that Washington called for a national prayer to God within days of the vote on the Bill of Rights.
As Levin notes, "Government interference with religion was relatively modest until the twentieth century. There were few, if any, significant court decisions regarding the religion clauses of the First Amendment for the first 150 years of the Republic. During this period, the federal goverment actually provided direct funding to religious organizations."
"As Rehnquist has noted:'As the United States moved from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian [religious] Indian education carried out by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church. It was not until 1897, when aid for sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools."
This so-called wall of separation is an example of SC overreach, which Rehnquist said is "a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
...the link between Church and Religion had been broken most places, with the exception of Massachusetts, where it wasn't broken until 1832.
What link was that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.