Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:22:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > Interesting that the same Amendment that you cite condemning his "endorsment"
> > of religion protects his right to do so. But I think you are applying it
> > incorrectly in this case. The First Amendment prohibits *congress* from
> > establishing religion (ie through law). Since the excutive branch is not
> > empowered to create law, it by definition couldn't "establish" religion.
>
> Hmm. Good point. Still, it's risky for the leader of the nation to take
> a stance on religion when there's a very real chance of being exclusionary
> on that basis.
>
> > I'm not sure a President of the United States *has* a private life while he is
> > in office-- just ask Willy Clinton;-)
See the following. I rather found it interesting:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5930/view/print
> Oh, he had a private life--the problem is that everyone knew about it!
>
> > Yes, I think at this point it becomes opinion, and the highest opinion in the
> > land gets to decide.
>
> (Well, that's MINE, of course...)
That's not democracy, if one opinion is higher than all others.
It may be reality, but it's anathema to the whole idea of the USA.
I'll type more, but my computer keeps cutting out. Gotta send
this before it pops again!
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
