4/22 Quote going around the blogs today:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should
he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his
parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is
granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an
America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on
public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any
other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose
its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the
public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy
\_ Why did JFK hate America?
\_ JFK was the first Catholic President, he had no choice but to
come out strong against religion, since he was a religious
Minority. And there were wingnuts in the red states who
actually thought the vatican might have sway over US policy
It is similar to why Clinton had to be so hard on drugs during
his presidency as a known pot-smoker. -phuqm
his presidency as a known pot-head. -phuqm
\_ phuqm, it's hard to take anything you say seriously after
reading the last sentence in this paragraph. There is a
kernel of truth in what you say, in that Clinton indeed
expanded the war on drugs more than any other president
before him in part to appear as a Democrat that was
"tough on crime." However, calling him a "known pot-head"
just makes you sound like a Freeper. That's okay, one more
motd crank we don't have to pay attention to.
\_and one more humor impaired whiner. Here, I'll give you
the bland version: "Because Clinton took so much heat
over his (admitted) marijuana use, he could not afford
to appear soft on drugs." (Does that make it easier
for you to parse oh humorless one?). Also, you or
someone editing at the same time as you stepped on
two of my posts, punk.
\_ So?
\_ and he is wrong. The 'separation' metaphor is a 20th century
contrivance by Justice Black in Everson that completely distorts the
original intent. Time to put this absurd notion in the trash
bin of history.
\_ the wall of seperation metaphore was taken from a letter by
Jefferson in 1802. However, you are right that Kennedy is
wrong above. And right in general that it is a bad metaphore
which does not capture the actual intent of the 1st amendment.
-phuqm
\_ Jefferson was in France during the time the Bill of Rights
was ratified. He later collaborated with Madison to
write the Religious Freedom act in Virginia, which was
explicit about a separation. At the writing of the
Bill of Rights almost every colony had a State church.
Jefferson himself as President funded Christian missionaries.
This type of Federal support for Christian institutions
continued until the beginning of the 20th century.
In another letter, to Rev. Samuel Miller on
Jan. 23, 1808 Jefferson stated, "I consider the
government of the U S. as interdicted by the
Constitution from intermeddling with religious
institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or
exercises. This results not only from the provision
that no law shall be made respecting the establishment,
or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which
reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the
U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious
exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline,
has been delegated to the general government. It must
then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any
human authority."
Lastly, it is someone ironic that Pres. Kennedy uses
invokes this decision since Justice Black was
radically anti-Catholic and even a former member of
the KKK.
\_ umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
not sure why this is a response to me. Do you think
you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
Who cares where Jefferson was when the Bill of Rights
was ratified? Why is that relavent to this
conversation? -phuqm
\_ Umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
unclear on why this is a response to me. Do you
think you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
Who cares where Jefferson was when the BofR was
ratified? How does that impact anything that has
been said? -phuqm
\_ JFK's statement cannot be wrong. The statement 'I believe
in an America where []' is very different from 'I believe
that in America []'. JFK's statement is an expression of
what America OUGHT to be rather than what it is (or is
required to be under the establishment clause). There is
nothing wrong with his belief that America should have
more religious separation than the constitution requires.
\_ There is more than one way to be wrong. One can be
wrong headed. Obviouly I am not suggesting that he
is wrong about what he believes (though, I don't know
that he did believe that). I am saying that what he
believes in (allegedly) is wrong. -phuqm
\_ There is more than one way to be wrong. One can, for
example, be wrong headed. I obviously did not mean to
suggest that he incorrectly stated his beliefs (though
he may well have). -phuqm
\_ Perhaps I was not clear. JFK statement indicates
that he knew what the 1st amd required and was
arguing that this was not enough: the policy
of America ought to be complete separation
despite the fact that the framers didn't require
that. One can disagree w/ his assessment, but the
assessment cannot itself be wrong.
\_ Side note: wouldn't it be nice to again have a president
that could speak in complete sentences?
\_ Wouldn't it be nice to have a well spoken liberal
candidate that could actually win the election?
\_ Hell, liberal or conservative, it's fine with me.
Anything would be better than the leader of the
free world giving us all the sneaking suspicion
that he can't even tie his shoes.
\_ You mean like Reagan? Yes.
\_ reagan was very charming, regardless of whether
or not you agreed with what he said. |
http://csua.com/feed/