Palin: America is a Christian nation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How are you guys so delusion? Especially those of you from the UK. Banning anything and everything religious in nature from anything government is pushing one religion.

That is only true if you're actively trying to curtail or stamp out religious practices. Removing a cross from a government building is a far cry from closing churches, mosques and syangogues and fining people for practicing their beliefs.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

DAMN... this really hurts.. I think I need to see a doctor...

I am forced to agree with you.... AGAIN....

the 'official' BS of "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" did not come to light until the 1950's for those afraid of the commies and that they would eliminate Christianity.

In all honesty it's unconstitutional by any and every means and should be removed from all legal documents and no one should ever have to place their hand on the bible to give testimony.

[Peikko 1,575]

How are you guys so delusion? Especially those of you from the UK. Banning anything and everything religious in nature from anything government is pushing one religion.

So which approach or model is better for equality then? A government that celebrates, endorses and encourages its citizens and residents diverse beliefs. Or a government that must have no participation in religion whatsoever - status quo of the US. One approach is used by most other first world countries, they other approach is not.

Nevertheless, I'm still waiting to see exactly where separation of Church and State is in the Constitution. Spare me with the letters.

No, it really isn't. To 'push' a religious view there has to be an attempt to persuade and endorse a particular belief. Preventing all promotion of beliefs on government property is not endorsing or persuading anyone of anything.

[Peikko 1,575]

What do you understand by the phrase 'separation of church and state'? I would suggest you are misinterpreting what that means.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Apparently it means the abolishment of Church and the promotion of State!

[Heracles 417]

No, it really isn't. To 'push' a religious view there has to be an attempt to persuade and endorse a particular belief. Preventing all promotion of beliefs on government property is not endorsing or persuading anyone of anything.

As I asked before, in your opinion which approach is better. Allowing a council and school to put up a Christmas tree, celebrate Hanuka and Diwali etc or the US approach of nothing.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

One of the things about life on this planet that I find most interesting, is a phenomenon that some would call a "coincidence". That, from an observer on Earth, the moon is proportionally the same size as the sun based on their distance from each other and also the distance from Earth.

For those that are slow (or drunk) I'm referring to a solar eclipse of the sun.

So? Whats your point? Its not always been that way.

The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hit the nearly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around the proto-Earth, which accreted to form the Moon. Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system, and the small size of the lunar core; they also show that most of the Moon came from the impactor, not from the proto-Earth. However, meteorites show that other inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions to the Earth, while the Earth and Moon have near-identical isotopic compositions. Post-impact mixing of the vaporized material between the forming Earth and Moon could have equalized their isotopic compositions, although this is debated.

Every year the moon is about an inch (3.8cm) farther away so about the time the sun moves into its red giant phase, the moon is expected to be lost from the earth.

[Heracles 417]

What do you understand by the phrase 'separation of church and state'? I would suggest you are misinterpreting what that means.

I am trying to find where it is, as we are in a country that eats, sleeps and breaths the Constitution.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Booyah!

[rsn 135]

I am trying to find where it is, as we are in a country that eats, sleeps and breaths the Constitution.

If you are looking for the exact words "separation of church and state" then you are, yet again, using a ridiculous argument, which you commonly do when you have no facts to back up your opinion. Plenty of our laws come from judge's interpretations of the constitution. I have mentioned this fact before but you choose to ignore it since it does not support your "argument". You are, I think, a subscriber to strict constitutionalism. While there are judges who rule in a similar manner, there are also originalists on the bench as well. This isn't as simple as you make it out to be. In fact, you seem to do that with a lot of issues, that is assert that they are simple, you have the answer, and there is nothing else to discuss. You clearly don't understand much about this country, even though you criticize it often.

[Peikko 1,575]

As I asked before, in your opinion which approach is better. Allowing a council and school to put up a Christmas tree, celebrate Hanuka and Diwali etc or the US approach of nothing.

Better for what?

[rsn 135]

I am trying to find where it is, as we are in a country that eats, sleeps and breaths the Constitution.

If you are looking for the exact words "separation of church and state" then you are, yet again, using a ridiculous argument, which you commonly do when you have no facts to back up your opinion. Plenty of our laws come from judge's interpretations of the constitution. I have mentioned this fact before but you choose to ignore it since it does not support your "argument". You are, I think, a subscriber to strict constitutionalism. While there are judges who rule in a similar manner, there are also originalists on the bench as well. This isn't as simple as you make it out to be. In fact, you seem to do that with a lot of issues, that is assert that they are simple, you have the answer, and there is nothing else to discuss. You clearly don't understand much about this country, even though you criticize it often.

[Heracles 417]

If you are looking for the exact words "separation of church and state" then you are, yet again, using a ridiculous argument, which you commonly do when you have no facts to back up your opinion. Plenty of our laws come from judge's interpretations of the constitution. I have mentioned this fact before but you choose to ignore it since it does not support your "argument". You are, I think, a subscriber to strict constitutionalism. While there are judges who rule in a similar manner, there are also originalists on the bench as well. This isn't as simple as you make it out to be. In fact, you seem to do that with a lot of issues, that is assert that they are simple, you have the answer, and there is nothing else to discuss. You clearly don't understand much about this country, even though you criticize it often.

Of course, thus me asking if anyone knew where this term was.

You are right. I come from a country where the government elected to represent the people makes the laws, rather than solely rely on a judiciaries interpretation of it. After all, judges (aka lawyers) are pretty-much the smartest people on the planet so if they interpret a law to be X, surely an entire society should live by it.

Better for what?

There are two approaches to this. Most other first world countries use a similar aforementioned approach towards religion and government, the US uses their own. In your opinion, which of the two is better for a society and for diversity?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I come from a country where the government elected to represent the people makes the laws, rather than solely rely on a judiciaries interpretation of it. After all, judges (aka lawyers) are pretty-much the smartest people on the planet so if they interpret a law to be X, surely an entire society should live by it.

So what is this then?

The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and interprets the Constitution of Australia.

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course, thus me asking if anyone knew where this term was.

You are right. I come from a country where the government elected to represent the people makes the laws, rather than solely rely on a judiciaries interpretation of it. After all, judges (aka lawyers) are pretty-much the smartest people on the planet so if they interpret a law to be X, surely an entire society should live by it.

There are two approaches to this. Most other first world countries use a similar aforementioned approach towards religion and government, the US uses their own. In your opinion, which of the two is better for a society and for diversity?

Only two? Seriously BY, from a purely personal point of view, religious symbolism does not affront me if it is used merely as an announcement for a religious event or season, christmas trees, divali lights, hanukkah candles none of that stuff bothers me one bit. However, I do not really see why such symbolism must be allowed on government property for public display, and I don't see how if a state or city chooses not to allow any symbolism on their property for public display that could/should have any effect on the effective celebration of that religious holiday, or send any signal that the government per se frowns on any or all religious events, seasons or holidays. All that says to me is that for whatever reason, some have decided that in their opinion the interests of inclusiveness are best served by not allowing government property to be used as a vehicle for the public display of any religious symbolism.

Now, if government suddenly tried to prevent religious symbolism from being displayed on private property...well, that would be a problem but I don't see any evidence that that is likely to happen.

I might get upset if government decided that Christmas day should not be a mandated holiday, unless they chose an arbitrary date to replace it with

[Heracles 417]

So what is this then?

I do have to wonder about the caliber of various posters in OT. The most unreasonable of them all - like yourself - have the same tactics - fill in the gap.

I didn't realize I ever said they don't have a judicial system. What I did say is that their Judicial system is not the commander and chief of every decision. Ambiguity is passed back to the parliament to be discussed and be debated. Over here, such decisions are usually made by the supreme court period.

Now is probably a good time for you to bring up the Aborigines.