Posted on 07/02/2002 2:11:50 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
In a free society you should be free to associate, or not associate, with whomever you wish.
If somebody believes in the founding principles of our government, but is an atheist, do you believe he'd get the job?
Argumentum ad Hominem.
Truth can stand on its own merit. Only lies need the force of government for their advancement.
I love this line of reasoning. Because Jefferson owned slaves, there's no such thing as liberty? Is that your point?
Here's a challenge. Tell me why slavery is wrong, without citing the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence -- namely, that rights come from the Creator, and not from other people or governments.
The single most important political idea in the last 2 million years, and you are willing to dismiss it because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves?
Even if I were to agree with you I don't really see how this is relevant.
There are other places they can serve in government, but as GW Bush said, we need judges that "understand our rights are derived from God." This is plain natural law and is hardly a religious test.
What we need are judges that understand the concept of rights. I don't know how GWB can appoint such judges when he has a profound misunderstanding of the concept himself. Obviously he believes the right to keep and bear arms is an arbitrary thing to be determined by government since he promised to enforce unconstitutional gun-control laws. It's reasonable to assume he'll appoint judges with the same profound misunderstanding.
It wasn't necessary for GWB to make any kind of comment as to how he intended to choose judges. He made the comment to gain favor with a certain group of people.
Who? What groups want the U.S. government to force ppl to participate in a certain religion? Could you be referring to the religious zealots of evolution, atheism, abortion, tax theivery, homosexuality, socialism, liberalism?
Would deny my child to speak of Jesus Christ in a public classroom?
The crafters of the Constitution understood that rights were unalienable and granted by the creator. Bush has the same understanding. Whats the problem?
[Should there be coerced participation in prayer-time at the beginning of each school day? Suppose other children in the class don't ascribe to the same religion. Is that just too bad in your view?] -- AC
Yes. -- Texasforever (link)
How many people advocating prayer-time, Bible-study clubs, graduation prayer, and the 10 Commandments on the walls in government schools think the same way as Texasforever?
Would deny my child to speak of Jesus Christ in a public classroom?
If I had my way there would be no income, SS, property, capital gains, death tax, or government school. You'd be able to keep your hard-earned money and send your child to a school which advocates values consistent with your own. And your child would be free to talk about Jesus as much as (s)he wants.
That may be true but it isn't relevant.
Bush has the same understanding. Whats the problem?
That unless one believes in the same god that GWB believes in one is disqualified from serving on the bench.
The question shouldn't be asked as to the belief or disbelief in a god. If I was the president my test of prospective judges would look something like this:
But, like I said before, the statement was made to win political points. It was said to gain favor with a particular group of people. Just look at the reaction it's generating on this forum. People actually believe that GWB understands the concept of rights (even though he intends to continue subjugating them).
Prove this statement or withdraw it. You don't have a right to conjure up words and insert them in another's mouth.
I would like to see a quote from Bush stating that unless you believe in the same God he does, you are disqualified from serving on the bench.
Good luck, you'll need it.
>The single most important political idea in the last 2 million years, and you are willing to dismiss it because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves?
My point (had you bothered to read my post) was only that the DoI is not a law, because it has no legal force. I like the DoI. I love what it stands for. But, it's not a law. And (before somebody else gets bent out of shape), yes, I agree, it has had a formative influence on the laws of this country.
But, it is not a law.
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.