"I don't think he's a Christian"

[GalensGhost 0]

Seriously, how can you be this fouled up in your ability to comprehend what should be a simple concept. It's NOT unconstitutional in any way shape or form.

You're going to disregard Amendment I in your attempt to apply a narrow and misguided interpretation of Article VI?

You can't pluck one segment of the Constitution out and misuse it to attempt to justify your point, when you've clearly missed the entire spirit of the document.

You also do realize that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly taking the "separation of Church and State" position, don't you? The framers of the document would be absolutely mortified to see how far away from their intent we've pushed this government. It was never the intent of the founders of this country that religion be removed from the public square, their only goal was to assure that a "church state" which would create a mandatory national religion would not spring forth. What we've done since is a complete perversion of their intent.

GG, it's really very simple. I'm not arguing that Dobson should be held legally liable or legally punished for his opinion. I simply said that his position that Thompson should have to publicly prove his "Christian-ness" goes against what the constitution says is required and that that makes it an un-constitutional opinion/principle.

I guarantee you that if I went through and started deleting posts without cause that someone would say that I'm infringing on their First Amendment right to free speech. I would be. BUT, the US Constitution doesn't guarantee their First Amendment rights on AUNation. If we allow people to post their opinions (within reason) it's only because we think freedom of speech is a pretty good idea and we allow it to happen. So, if I DID delete those posts without cause then, sadly, I AM engaging in un-constitutional behavior, but one that has no enforceability or legal consequences.

As for your interpretation of the framers intent or how they would feel today, do a little googling on the subject and I think you might be surprised. Here's a few things to get you started:

Thomas Jefferson

"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."

"The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. "

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

James Madison

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."

"If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense."

Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

Treaty of Tripoli 10 June 1797

Article 11 "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Your position does not stand a basic test of logical validity. I spoke with a sitting judge who is a friend of mine and he dismissed your claim as 'laugably preposterous'.' He said it was an incredible and indefensible stretch of the Constitution and a misguided attempt to apply rules inteened for governmet entities to the individual. as such the entire position is invalid.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the writings you posted -- when taken in context -- actually support my position on the balance between religion and government.

[Tiger Al 0]

Your position does not stand a basic test of logical validity. I spoke with a sitting judge who is a friend of mine and he dismissed your claim as 'laugably preposterous'.' He said it was an incredible and indefensible stretch of the Constitution and a misguided attempt to apply rules inteened for governmet entities to the individual. as such the entire position is invalid.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the writings you posted -- when taken in context -- actually support my position on the balance between religion and government.

Of course it's laughable if your assumption is that I believe Article VI is legally enforceable in this case. I never said it was. In fact, I've said just the opposite. But, as a principle, one that Charles Pinckney saw fit to have incorporated into our constitution, it's certainly a valid position and that position has been that if our government cannot apply a test to candidates about a subject that is completely his choice and right, then why should Dobson?

As for the quotes, I'm not sure what you believe to be the framers intentions, but, the intermingling of gov't. and religion that has occurred in the last hundred (+/-) years was not one of them and I agree with you that they would be mortified by the perversion of their intent.

[Tigermike 3,036]

Mike, Tiger Al was quoting a two paragraph bit from Elton John. The first " is above the break and the second " is after the second paragraph.

OK so Al didn’t really say it. He was using it to bolster his point but he really doesn’t believe it.

Mike, Tiger Al was quoting a two paragraph bit from Elton John. The first " is above the break and the second " is after the second paragraph.

He knew that. After all, Tigermike's reading comprehension skills are so superior that he routinely urges others to brush up on theirs.

So you can quote it in a way that supports and furthers your argument but you really don’t agree with it? No wonder you guys are called the loony left.

Someone must have been right when they said John Kerry was to nuanced for most people. I guess Al just wants to be like him.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I don't think Al was quoting it to bolster a point. He was quoting Elton John and Rosie to clarify what they actually said because he felt drewau02 was misrepresenting them.

[Tiger Al 0]

Mike, Tiger Al was quoting a two paragraph bit from Elton John. The first " is above the break and the second " is after the second paragraph.

OK so Al didn’t really say it.

See, Tigermike, you should've just stopped right there. Re-read the post and then, using your superlative reading comprehension skills, tell me what point I was bolstering or what argument I was supporting and furthering.

[GalensGhost 0]

Your position does not stand a basic test of logical validity. I spoke with a sitting judge who is a friend of mine and he dismissed your claim as 'laugably preposterous'.' He said it was an incredible and indefensible stretch of the Constitution and a misguided attempt to apply rules inteened for governmet entities to the individual. as such the entire position is invalid.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the writings you posted -- when taken in context -- actually support my position on the balance between religion and government.

Of course it's laughable if your assumption is that I believe Article VI is legally enforceable in this case. I never said it was. In fact, I've said just the opposite. But, as a principle, one that Charles Pinckney saw fit to have incorporated into our constitution, it's certainly a valid position and that position has been that if our government cannot apply a test to candidates about a subject that is completely his choice and right, then why should Dobson?

As for the quotes, I'm not sure what you believe to be the framers intentions, but, the intermingling of gov't. and religion that has occurred in the last hundred (+/-) years was not one of them and I agree with you that they would be mortified by the perversion of their intent.

Since Article VI of the Constitution is not addressing the right of an individual or the leader of a group (religous or otherwise) to make judgements on the viability of a candidate or an elected official, your entire argument is baseless.

To borrow from the late Johnny Cochran, "if it does not fit, you must acquit."

Surely you can see that since the intent of Article VI is intended to merely to prevent a law being passed to require a candidate to declare his/her religious affliation as a qualifying condition, there is no possible situation where the opinions of an individual or even the leader of a group of individuals in this regard could even remtoely be considered unconstitutional unless that leader was acting on behalf of the government.

Your argument, flimsy as it is, doesn't pass the shred test.

As for the framers of the Constitution and the founders of this country, if you have bothered to study the entire context of this country's history instead of taking snippets of speeches here and there, you 'd understand that the intent was to prevent a soverign religion -- such as then existed in most of Europe -- where the head of state was also the head of the official national religion. Their intent was not to exclude religion from the public forum but to ensure that the government would not attempt to mandate one particular religion as the "official" state religion. It's a HUGE interpretative leap -- and one that this country has made -- to take the original position and morph it into "separation of church and state" (which is not expressly forbidden) and then to further take the phantom "separation" and extend that to all public displays or affirmations of religion.

Think, Al. If the original intent was to ban religion and religious discussion from all political discourse, why then has Congress opened sessions with prayer since 1789? Why are the Ten Commandments visually represented on the door of the Supreme Court?

I guess John Jay -- who was one of the fathers of the Constitution -- was talking about the WWE wrestler "Christian" when he wrote this to a friend:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

I didn't know ol' Jay was such a fan of WWE. I bet he had a secret crush on Lita.

If it was good enough for Jay, it's good enough for Dobson.

Case, as it were, closed. ** Insert Law and Order gavel sound here **

[Tiger Al 0]

Since Article VI of the Constitution is not addressing the right of an individual or the leader of a group (religous or otherwise) to make judgements on the viability of a candidate or an elected official, your entire argument is baseless.

To borrow from the late Johnny Cochran, "if it does not fit, you must acquit."

Surely you can see that since the intent of Article VI is intended to merely to prevent a law being passed to require a candidate to declare his/her religious affliation as a qualifying condition, there is no possible situation where the opinions of an individual or even the leader of a group of individuals in this regard could even remtoely be considered unconstitutional unless that leader was acting on behalf of the government.

Your argument, flimsy as it is, doesn't pass the shred test.

The article makes no mention of law prevention. It simply says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

As for the framers of the Constitution and the founders of this country, if you have bothered to study the entire context of this country's history instead of taking snippets of speeches here and there, you 'd understand that the intent was to prevent a soverign religion -- such as then existed in most of Europe -- where the head of state was also the head of the official national religion. Their intent was not to exclude religion from the public forum but to ensure that the government would not attempt to mandate one particular religion as the "official" state religion. It's a HUGE interpretative leap -- and one that this country has made -- to take the original position and morph it into "separation of church and state" (which is not expressly forbidden) and then to further take the phantom "separation" and extend that to all public displays or affirmations of religion.

You make quite a few assumptions, both about me as well as historical context. The desire to not have an "official" religion was only part of the intent. Every state already had an official religion. Your buddy John Jay was vehemently anti-Catholic and tried several times to get legislation passed requiring New York's Catholic citizens to take oaths that they would disregard the papacy. In many states, heresy was a capital offense punishable by burning under the common law. Quakers fled religious persecution in England only to find religious persecution New England from the Presbyterians. Quaker parents were forced to have their children Baptized and it was unlawful for them to refuse. It was unlawful for them to assemble and it was a crime for the captain of a ship to bring them into Virginia.

Sadly, what caused many of the first settlers to flee England was reproduced here; religious domination by the majority over the minority. The framers of the Constitution sought to reverse that.

Think, Al. If the original intent was to ban religion and religious discussion from all political discourse, why then has Congress opened sessions with prayer since 1789? Why are the Ten Commandments visually represented on the door of the Supreme Court?

I never said I thought the original intent was to ban religion or religious discussion from all public discourse. The original intent was a government that was religiously neutral. The Constitution, at the time it was adopted, had the formidable task of wrenching power away from the church and returning it to the citizens.

Prayer in Congress didn't come without a fight.

James Madison: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov."

The Ten Commandments aren't on the door of the Supreme Court. The Roman numerals I-V are on one and VI-X are on the other. Many assume that they imply the Ten Commandments but they are actually representative of the Bill of Rights, of which there were...ten. This would make sense because that is one of the few areas that the Supreme Court adjudicates. I don't know of a Supreme Court case involving someone not honoring their parents or coveting their neighbors property. Moses is depicted on one of the friezes inside holding a tablet. Oddly enough, it is the more secular, 6-10, of the Commandments. There 17 other "givers of law" in the court, Muhammed being another one.

I guess John Jay -- who was one of the fathers of the Constitution -- was talking about the WWE wrestler "Christian" when he wrote this to a friend:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Actually, Jay was not involved in the writing of the Constitution, nor, did he sign it. But, he is considered one of our founding fathers and he did help to get it ratified in New York. He was one of the more religiously outspoken of the fathers. As I stated earlier, he was also one of the more religiously intolerant of the fathers, so, this snippet you've supplied doesn't surprise me.

I'll leave you with a dillema that faced the Convention of 1787:

Mr. President

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-

Mr. SHARMAN seconded the motion.

Mr. HAMILTON & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, I. [FN14] bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. [FN15] lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. SHERMAN & others, that the past

omission of a duty could not justify a further omission-that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to do good as ill.

[GalensGhost 0]

Since Article VI of the Constitution is not addressing the right of an individual or the leader of a group (religous or otherwise) to make judgements on the viability of a candidate or an elected official, your entire argument is baseless.

To borrow from the late Johnny Cochran, "if it does not fit, you must acquit."

Surely you can see that since the intent of Article VI is intended to merely to prevent a law being passed to require a candidate to declare his/her religious affliation as a qualifying condition, there is no possible situation where the opinions of an individual or even the leader of a group of individuals in this regard could even remtoely be considered unconstitutional unless that leader was acting on behalf of the government.

Your argument, flimsy as it is, doesn't pass the shred test.

The article makes no mention of law prevention. It simply says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

As for the framers of the Constitution and the founders of this country, if you have bothered to study the entire context of this country's history instead of taking snippets of speeches here and there, you 'd understand that the intent was to prevent a soverign religion -- such as then existed in most of Europe -- where the head of state was also the head of the official national religion. Their intent was not to exclude religion from the public forum but to ensure that the government would not attempt to mandate one particular religion as the "official" state religion. It's a HUGE interpretative leap -- and one that this country has made -- to take the original position and morph it into "separation of church and state" (which is not expressly forbidden) and then to further take the phantom "separation" and extend that to all public displays or affirmations of religion.

You make quite a few assumptions, both about me as well as historical context. The desire to not have an "official" religion was only part of the intent. Every state already had an official religion. Your buddy John Jay was vehemently anti-Catholic and tried several times to get legislation passed requiring New York's Catholic citizens to take oaths that they would disregard the papacy. In many states, heresy was a capital offense punishable by burning under the common law. Quakers fled religious persecution in England only to find religious persecution New England from the Presbyterians. Quaker parents were forced to have their children Baptized and it was unlawful for them to refuse. It was unlawful for them to assemble and it was a crime for the captain of a ship to bring them into Virginia.

Sadly, what caused many of the first settlers to flee England was reproduced here; religious domination by the majority over the minority. The framers of the Constitution sought to reverse that.

Think, Al. If the original intent was to ban religion and religious discussion from all political discourse, why then has Congress opened sessions with prayer since 1789? Why are the Ten Commandments visually represented on the door of the Supreme Court?

I never said I thought the original intent was to ban religion or religious discussion from all public discourse. The original intent was a government that was religiously neutral. The Constitution, at the time it was adopted, had the formidable task of wrenching power away from the church and returning it to the citizens.

Prayer in Congress didn't come without a fight.

James Madison: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov."

The Ten Commandments aren't on the door of the Supreme Court. The Roman numerals I-V are on one and VI-X are on the other. Many assume that they imply the Ten Commandments but they are actually representative of the Bill of Rights, of which there were...ten. This would make sense because that is one of the few areas that the Supreme Court adjudicates. I don't know of a Supreme Court case involving someone not honoring their parents or coveting their neighbors property. Moses is depicted on one of the friezes inside holding a tablet. Oddly enough, it is the more secular, 6-10, of the Commandments. There 17 other "givers of law" in the court, Muhammed being another one.

I guess John Jay -- who was one of the fathers of the Constitution -- was talking about the WWE wrestler "Christian" when he wrote this to a friend:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

Actually, Jay was not involved in the writing of the Constitution, nor, did he sign it. But, he is considered one of our founding fathers and he did help to get it ratified in New York. He was one of the more religiously outspoken of the fathers. As I stated earlier, he was also one of the more religiously intolerant of the fathers, so, this snippet you've supplied doesn't surprise me.

I'll leave you with a dillema that faced the Convention of 1787:

Mr. President

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-

Mr. SHARMAN seconded the motion.

Mr. HAMILTON & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, I. [FN14] bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. [FN15] lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. SHERMAN & others, that the past

omission of a duty could not justify a further omission-that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to do good as ill.

Are you a Bama fan? You appear to be just as doggedly delusional as the majority of them. BTW, your convenient story about the representation on the door of the Supreme Court is a convenient lie crafted by those who wish to remove all reference to religion from the government. It's an "after the fact" lie.

What part of **insert Law and Order gavel sound** did you miss? The case was closed. You lost. Move along, there's nothing else to see here.

[Tiger Al 0]

Are you a Bama fan? You appear to be just as doggedly delusional as the majority of them.

What part of **insert Law and Order gavel sound** did you miss? The case was closed. You lost. Move along, there's nothing else to see here.

Then I would suggest that, if you can't or won't engage in the discussion, it is you who should move along and let the thread take the course that it will. You don't get to declare who the "winner" or "loser" is, especially in a discussion that you are a part of. That's a very arrogant, childish tactic.

[GalensGhost 0]

Are you a Bama fan? You appear to be just as doggedly delusional as the majority of them.

What part of **insert Law and Order gavel sound** did you miss? The case was closed. You lost. Move along, there's nothing else to see here.

Then I would suggest that, if you can't or won't engage in the discussion, it is you who should move along and let the thread take the course that it will. You don't get to declare who the "winner" or "loser" is, especially in a discussion that you are a part of. That's a very arrogant, childish tactic.

You're beating a horse that died a long time ago. You don't have an argument, your position is baseless. You've been told this countless times by a variety of people yet you continue thumping the same dead drum.

It's over, Al. There is no 'discussion' because you don't have a point. Time for you to concede. You don't have to admit that you are wrong -- despite the fact that you clearly are -- but you do have to concede.

** Gavel sound from Law & Order **

(in case you were wondering, this is an audible representation of the door being slammed. I was hoping you'd pick up on it. )

[Tiger Al 0]

Are you a Bama fan? You appear to be just as doggedly delusional as the majority of them.

What part of **insert Law and Order gavel sound** did you miss? The case was closed. You lost. Move along, there's nothing else to see here.

Then I would suggest that, if you can't or won't engage in the discussion, it is you who should move along and let the thread take the course that it will. You don't get to declare who the "winner" or "loser" is, especially in a discussion that you are a part of. That's a very arrogant, childish tactic.

You're beating a horse that died a long time ago. You don't have an argument, your position is baseless. You've been told this countless times by a variety of people yet you continue thumping the same dead drum.

It's over, Al. There is no 'discussion' because you don't have a point. Time for you to concede. You don't have to admit that you are wrong -- despite the fact that you clearly are -- but you do have to concede.

** Gavel sound from Law & Order **

(in case you were wondering, this is an audible representation of the door being slammed. I was hoping you'd pick up on it. )

I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on Dobson. You opened a totally different door about the supposed attitudes of the framers with a third-graders kumbaya, "we're just escaping an "official" religion" postulation. I've responded to each and every one of your assertions.

[GalensGhost 0]

Are you a Bama fan? You appear to be just as doggedly delusional as the majority of them.

What part of **insert Law and Order gavel sound** did you miss? The case was closed. You lost. Move along, there's nothing else to see here.

Then I would suggest that, if you can't or won't engage in the discussion, it is you who should move along and let the thread take the course that it will. You don't get to declare who the "winner" or "loser" is, especially in a discussion that you are a part of. That's a very arrogant, childish tactic.

You're beating a horse that died a long time ago. You don't have an argument, your position is baseless. You've been told this countless times by a variety of people yet you continue thumping the same dead drum.

It's over, Al. There is no 'discussion' because you don't have a point. Time for you to concede. You don't have to admit that you are wrong -- despite the fact that you clearly are -- but you do have to concede.

** Gavel sound from Law & Order **

(in case you were wondering, this is an audible representation of the door being slammed. I was hoping you'd pick up on it. )

I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on Dobson. You opened a totally different door about the supposed attitudes of the framers with a third-graders kumbaya, "we're just escaping an "official" religion" postulation. I've responded to each and every one of your assertions.

Let me rephrase for you:

You're happy to be wrong on Dobson.

And you're happily drowning in the heathenistic liberal "total separation of church and state" theory by selectively quoting some of the founding fathers and completely twisting their intent.

Perverting the ideals of the men who founded this country isn't "progressive" or "enlightened," Al. Pretending it is either is merely one of the oldest dodges in the book and most often used by those whose aim is to twist things to suit their own amoral objectives. It really angers me for liberals and the so-called progressives to dismiss the greater majority as dull or unintelligent because they still adhere to the basic moral tenets that are the foundation on which this country was built. It's that "believers in God are dumb" philosophy that's been around since before you and I were born and used by the media, by the entertainment industry and by politicians to chip away at the moral fiber that was once the backbone (and greatest strength) of this nation.

If anyone is looking at this issue like a third-grader (or a myopic doctoral student) it is yourself. Forget the larger theme, forget the primary emphasis, you find one tiny piece of ppurported evidence that somewhat supports your argument, take it out of context if the occasion warrants and then ride it until it bleeds to death. That's what kids do, Al. It's not what rational thinking adults with the ability to process a variety of complex data and arrive at a conclusion based on the entireity of the evidence do. That's what Bama fans do. They repeat the number 12 over and over and over until some people start to accept it as truth -- when anyone willing or able to do the research will know that it's an unadulterated lie.

Let's look at the basic argument you first espoused. Under duress, you finally admitted that the intent of Article VI didn't apply to Dobson since he wasn't a government entity nor was he attempting to deny a potential candidate the right to run for office. But rather than acknowledging that your entire argument was foolish and baseless, you clung to it and continued to rattle the same already debunked cage. It's a very typical thing for liberals and the current democratic party to do: It doesn't matter that their argument has no merit, nor that they agree that it has no merit, they stick with it anyway because they don't have any other ideas and they're not about to abandon their position -- no matter how ridiculous it is.

I saw this comic strip today and thought immediately of you.

An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it

That should become your mantra, Al. It would help you greatly in the long run. Stop substitution opinion for thought.

[Tiger Al 0]

Let me rephrase for you:

You're happy to be wrong on Dobson.

Ahh...so, when I want my opinion you'll give it to me, huh?

And you're happily drowning in the heathenistic liberal "total separation of church and state" theory by selectively quoting some of the founding fathers and completely twisting their intent.

I provided many quotes and twisted nothing. It doesn't fit your romanticized, grammar school notion of how our country came about so it must be twisted.

Perverting the ideals of the men who founded this country isn't "progressive" or "enlightened," Al. Pretending it is either is merely one of the oldest dodges in the book and most often used by those whose aim is to twist things to suit their own amoral objectives. It really angers me for liberals and the so-called progressives to dismiss the greater majority as dull or unintelligent because they still adhere to the basic moral tenets that are the foundation on which this country was built. It's that "believers in God are dumb" philosophy that's been around since before you and I were born and used by the media, by the entertainment industry and by politicians to chip away at the moral fiber that was once the backbone (and greatest strength) of this nation.

Again, you assume to know much more about me than you actually do. Clean up the straw when you're done.

If anyone is looking at this issue like a third-grader (or a myopic doctoral student) it is yourself. Forget the larger theme, forget the primary emphasis, you find one tiny piece of ppurported evidence that somewhat supports your argument, take it out of context if the occasion warrants and then ride it until it bleeds to death. That's what kids do, Al. It's not what rational thinking adults with the ability to process a variety of complex data and arrive at a conclusion based on the entireity of the evidence do. That's what Bama fans do. They repeat the number 12 over and over and over until some people start to accept it as truth -- when anyone willing or able to do the research will know that it's an unadulterated lie.

Then I must assume that you are unwilling or unable to do your own research because I answered all of your "points" (Yes, I've seen the e-mail, too) and showed them for what they were.

Let's look at the basic argument you first espoused. Under duress, you finally admitted that the intent of Article VI didn't apply to Dobson since he wasn't a government entity nor was he attempting to deny a potential candidate the right to run for office. But rather than acknowledging that your entire argument was foolish and baseless, you clung to it and continued to rattle the same already debunked cage. It's a very typical thing for liberals and the current democratic party to do: It doesn't matter that their argument has no merit, nor that they agree that it has no merit, they stick with it anyway because they don't have any other ideas and they're not about to abandon their position -- no matter how ridiculous it is.

Well, since you bring it up again, a review of this thread will show you that I said I was arguing the principle and, without any duress, admitted that in Dobson's case it was unenforceable. My point all along has been that given the principle and the spirit of Art. VI, if no test can be required then why can't that be good enough for Dobson. You seem to be hung up on the legality of it, which I've never said Dobson had no legal restriction from questioning Thompson's faith. I'm actually standing in defense of Thompson's First Amendment right to practice his religion however he sees fit and not be compelled to explain it to anyone. You've chosen to defend Dr. Dobson's right to question something that's, frankly, none of his business. As I've said before, I like it when zealots like Dobson, Coulter, et al speak because it illuminates the roaches and it appears I've found another one.

[GalensGhost 0]

Let me rephrase for you:

You're happy to be wrong on Dobson.

Ahh...so, when I want my opinion you'll give it to me, huh?

And you're happily drowning in the heathenistic liberal "total separation of church and state" theory by selectively quoting some of the founding fathers and completely twisting their intent.

I provided many quotes and twisted nothing. It doesn't fit your romanticized, grammar school notion of how our country came about so it must be twisted.

Perverting the ideals of the men who founded this country isn't "progressive" or "enlightened," Al. Pretending it is either is merely one of the oldest dodges in the book and most often used by those whose aim is to twist things to suit their own amoral objectives. It really angers me for liberals and the so-called progressives to dismiss the greater majority as dull or unintelligent because they still adhere to the basic moral tenets that are the foundation on which this country was built. It's that "believers in God are dumb" philosophy that's been around since before you and I were born and used by the media, by the entertainment industry and by politicians to chip away at the moral fiber that was once the backbone (and greatest strength) of this nation.

Again, you assume to know much more about me than you actually do. Clean up the straw when you're done.

If anyone is looking at this issue like a third-grader (or a myopic doctoral student) it is yourself. Forget the larger theme, forget the primary emphasis, you find one tiny piece of ppurported evidence that somewhat supports your argument, take it out of context if the occasion warrants and then ride it until it bleeds to death. That's what kids do, Al. It's not what rational thinking adults with the ability to process a variety of complex data and arrive at a conclusion based on the entireity of the evidence do. That's what Bama fans do. They repeat the number 12 over and over and over until some people start to accept it as truth -- when anyone willing or able to do the research will know that it's an unadulterated lie.

Then I must assume that you are unwilling or unable to do your own research because I answered all of your "points" (Yes, I've seen the e-mail, too) and showed them for what they were.

Let's look at the basic argument you first espoused. Under duress, you finally admitted that the intent of Article VI didn't apply to Dobson since he wasn't a government entity nor was he attempting to deny a potential candidate the right to run for office. But rather than acknowledging that your entire argument was foolish and baseless, you clung to it and continued to rattle the same already debunked cage. It's a very typical thing for liberals and the current democratic party to do: It doesn't matter that their argument has no merit, nor that they agree that it has no merit, they stick with it anyway because they don't have any other ideas and they're not about to abandon their position -- no matter how ridiculous it is.

Well, since you bring it up again, a review of this thread will show you that I said I was arguing the principle and, without any duress, admitted that in Dobson's case it was unenforceable. My point all along has been that given the principle and the spirit of Art. VI, if no test can be required then why can't that be good enough for Dobson. You seem to be hung up on the legality of it, which I've never said Dobson had no legal restriction from questioning Thompson's faith. I'm actually standing in defense of Thompson's First Amendment right to practice his religion however he sees fit and not be compelled to explain it to anyone. You've chosen to defend Dr. Dobson's right to question something that's, frankly, none of his business. As I've said before, I like it when zealots like Dobson, Coulter, et al speak because it illuminates the roaches and it appears I've found another one.

You've said repeatedly that Dobson's stance is unconstitutional. it has been clearly illustrated that it is not. You're "arguing" a principle that doesn't apply. If you can't even be honest about that anything else you have to say is just so much flotsam. Whether or not it can be enforced isn't the question at all. The point is that the constitutionality of it simply does not apply. It's like you continuing to attempt to discuss which tampons are best at stemming menstrual flow in men and refusing to understand why such a discussion is utterly frivilous.

Several times, Al, you've said I'm making assumptions about you. Read carefully so that you might understand what is being said as opposed to what you want to hear (and do the same in regard to your selective memory position on the intent of the founding fathers). I've characterized your arguments not you personally. There's a tremendous difference there. I can say you fight like a girl and that doesn't mean that I've branded you a female.

In your responses, you countered no points. All you did was provide an alternate explanation that has no basis in reality. You spouted the liberal mantra and bandied around their talking points -- points that, like your Dobson position -- have been discredited time and time again by historians. Again you're doing exactly what Bammers do and trying to rewrite history. You look back in time and take selective passages here and there and force it into an agenda that fits what you want to believe. Just like Bama claiming a NC in 1941 when they finished third in the SEC because one retroactive poll gave it to them, you reach back in to history and pull out a handful of comments and use them as the basis to create an entire theory of what actually happened while you discount anything that doesn't fit the narrow agenda. In doing so, you ignore the 800 lb gorilla that's sitting in the middle of the room. (I have no idea what email you're talking about, btw. I didn't get one).

It's absurd for you to claim it's "none of Dobson's business." It's entirely his business to inform the people who look to him for leadership and guidance if he thinks that a particular candidate does not meet the standards to which he feels that candidate should subscribe. It's just as much his business as it is that of Barbara Streisand or Natalie Maines to use their pulpit to denounce a sitting president or a presidential candidate because they disagree with their views. It's just as much his business as is that of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to use thier pulpit to rally behind candidates who come the closest to fulfilling his agenda. It's just as much his business as it is that of the New York Times or the Tuscaloosa News to endorse candidates that they feel will be the most "progressive". You're talking out of both sides of your mouth -- another leftist trait.

If there's a roach here, perhaps you should look in the mirror to find it. I'm not the one scuttling around in the dark leaving poop trails and befouling things that were once good. I find it amusing that whenever a leftist is confronted with facts that do not fit his/her agenda their response is always to attack the messenger with buzzwords like "hate" and insults to their intelligence. You dismiss them as "zealots" (another word often used by leftists to refer to anyone who uses religion as a base for action). It only shows their weakness, as yours has been exposed here.