Hannity vs. Newdow

Does this mean you are running before you get asked to reference some of your claims in this last post?? Barack Obama is not Muslim. His grandfather was but Barack belongs to Trinity United Church of Christ.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

quote:

---

Well proof positive that you do not watch the news! Guess what, a HIGHLY PUBLICIZED race in Illinois featured a candidate that not only ran, but won: Barack Obama, a muslim.

​

I have no time for you guys who present no fact only strong opinion

---

Go look in the mirror pal -"I am a Christian," the 42-year-old Illinois state senator and Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate says, as one of the nearby customers interrupts to congratulate him on his recent primary win. Obama shakes the man's hand and says, "Thank you very much. I appreciate that," before turning his attention directly back to the question.

​

"So, I have a deep faith," Obama continues. "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition.

​

"Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion," he says. "I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law.

​

"I am a great admirer of our founding charter and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country.

​

"I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate. I don't think it's healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them."

​

Still, Obama is unapologetic in saying he has a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." As a sign of that relationship, he says, he walked down the aisle of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ in response to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's altar call one Sunday morning about 16 years ago. Or don't you believe a fellow christian?Oh I'm sorry you seem to have cut and run.strange that.

Bye.Again,if you can ever find a documented case, drop back and we'll discuss it.This message has been edited by jar, 12-18-2004 02:43 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I don't agree, first of all, that 'hijacking' a conversation by repeatedly interrupting constitutes a "decisive victory" for Newdow. Rather, it puts him in a light of being afraid to listen quite possibly due to a fear of losing a point on the issue.

---

Newdow did not hijack the conversation, a maneuver Sean Hannity often uses when "debating." What he did was correct Sean Hannity before he could tell lies he has repeated over and over. Hannity tried to use the Madison point on Newdow previously, so he saw it coming.North pointing out "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill? Was that relevant to the conversation at all? Then, Newdow informs Hannity about the Oath Act passed by Congress, his point being that if the "original intent" of the the first Amemdment wasn't to remove religion from government then Congress wouldn't have specifically removed to references to God in their oaths. Hannity's response: they should put it back in then. I mean, is it that hard for Hannity to address the point?

quote:

---

As far as red herrings go, how about when Newdow (and all other proponents of "separation of church and state" for that matter) inevitably quote the portion of the First Amendment that reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." These people are effectively changing the intent of the First Amendment to benefit them. The First Amendment actually reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." How does that fit with many of the 'anti-Christian' stances being taken today?

---

Only the first part is relevant to the convesation. What does freedom of press have to do with the religion/government debate? They are independent thoughts, and thus can be stated independently.The "free exercise thereof" is irrelevant to the discussion. Citizens in this country can worship any God or practice any religion they would like. The only stipulation is they cannot infringe on other people's rights. For instance, parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses cannot deny their children vital blood transfusions just because their religion is against it. In the same way, Christians can worship freely, but their religion cannot be "respected" by the state. No religions can be "respected by the state" as indicated by the first clause of the first ammendment.There is not a huge "anti-Christian" movement today. All that is going on is the enforcement of the first ammedment,which has been neglected all these years. It is analogous to Great Britian recognizing that the Atlantic Charter was against colonialism, or the recognition that slavery was prohibited by the constitution.

quote:

---

As a matter of fact, on the subject of red herrings, when Hannity alluded to the remaining portion of the First Amendment, Michael Newdow referred to it as "a separate clause" WHICH IS A LIE, A MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH IN A FLAGRANT ATTEMPT TO BENEFIT HIMSELF IN THE ARGUMENT.

---

I think it may technically be a separate clause. The constitution could easily read: The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

quote:

---

BTW, if you are not already aware, the term "separation of church and state" comes not from the constitution but rather from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in reply to a letter sent to him by the Danbury Baptist Association. They had, in a nutshell, requested to him that the Constitution be worded in a way that disallowed the formation of a powerful national religion...the very thing from which they had fled England. This phrase was meant to provide the Danbury Baptist with a feeling of security in this matter, a "wall of separation" had been erected in this matter by the United States Constitution in order to protect their "free exercise thereof".

---

Well aware of this fact. What better way is there to guage the original intent of Founding Fathers than to see what they say regarding the constitution. Jefferson, the main writer of the Declaration of Independence, clearly states the first ammendment is analgous to a "wall of separation", i.e, a separation of church and state. The supreme courts have also interpreted it this way, so it is not dishonest to state the intent of the first ammendment is to separate the church and state.You also mention the ignorant statement in another post that all the Founding Fathers were Christian. Go to Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church » Internet Infidels to check out a compilation of quotes by some of the Founding Fathers regarding their religious beliefs, and their views regarding the relationship between government and religion. Note that a majority of the most influential Founding Fathers were deists.

quote:

---

As a matter of personal opinion, I believe that the Christian majority should begin quoting the First Amendment as "Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" until the athiests begin to quote this Amendment in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

---

They should. They can quote any clause in the ammendment without mentioning the entire ammendment. But, they should realize that when the constitution says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" it does not mean that religions can infringe on other citizens rights or the laws of the land. There "free exercise" can be restricted in these instances.

quote:

---

You guys need to study this stuff BEFORE coming here.

---

I think I can safely say that everyone who posts on this site has done their studying regarding this issue, as well as other issues. These are some of the most learned, informed, and intelligent people you will talk to. (Where else can I ask a random quantum interference question that has been bugging me and get a highly detailed answer?) The cumulative knowledge on this site is staggering.As pointed out by other posts, it is you who should do your studying before debating these subjects.

quote:

---

I present fact and you guys rebut with opinion or only portions of facts, leaving off anything that might not suit you. And any facts that you guys attempt to pass (no muslims in office) I have to correct.

---

You have presented cases in which the First Ammendment is being enforced. Those are the only facts you have presented. You have mentioned the Foudnding Fathers were Christian. Wrong. You have stated Barac Obama was a muslim, which is obviously false if you know only a little information about the guy. There are other examples.

quote:

---

You guys have been presented with fact (one mistake-corrected), do with it what you will. But do it as a whole, not as part...it makes all the difference. I'm moving on to a brighter forum. You guys are gonna die from anger issues.

---

What ignorant garbage. The only anger I am feeling is due to your ignorance and hypocrisy.

ckelly33 writes:

quote:

---

Recently a man (a public school teacher) was in the news for passing out literature to his students that contained references to God to his students.

---

Come, now. Tell the whole story.This was not just a simple, inoccuous "reference to god." This was a full-scale preach that claimed that the only true religion was the Protestant religion.

quote:

---

The materials he was supplying his students? All were founding documents of the United States of America! Among others, a copy of the United States Constitution and Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' are now banned from being provided to students in this Arizona(?) school.

---

That's a lie. The packet did, indeed, include the DoI and the Constitution, but that was not the only thing that he was passing out.And, in fact, the school did not ban the teaching of the DoI nor the Constitution. They are, in fact, part of the curriculum. Instead, he got brought up because he was trying to preach about god. Remember, the packet included material claiming that the only true religion is Protestantism.Your claim that Common Sense is banned in this school is a lie. Is lying not a sin when you lie for Jesus?

quote:

---

How's that for an anti-Christian stance?

---

No good. All the stories you told contained some lie in them. You need to tell the whole story. Take the recent claim by Pat Robertson about the kids who were handing out candy canes that had religious sayings on them. They were, indeed, brought before the principle and a lawsuit was filed.But here's the part Pat leaves out: It was the ACLU that filed the lawsuit on behalf of the children and they won. Was it bad that the students had to go to court? Yes. But they won their case. And horror of horrors! the ACLU was the one championing their cause! How can this be?Oh, by the way? It is inappropriate to plagiarize someone else's work. You did not write the material you presented as your own.

Although I have no doubt about your statement (far be it for the likes of me to argue with Rrhain... ), this is a relatively serious allegation. Do you have a link to the original work that was plagarized?

Quetzal responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you have a link to the original work that was plagarized?

---

Just do a search on any of the text. Search for Missouri and "Raymond Raines" and see what comes up: ShopNetDaily.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!: Compare this to ckelly33's text:

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

"Internet search"? Apparently you still don't get it - I'm more familiar with the US Constitution than you are. How could it be, when the document doesn't mention the Christian God? One more document, I guess, that you're simply not familiar with. Oh, you were serious about that? You mean to say that you really don't think that a government putting up a sign that says that you shall have no God but the Abrahamic one is an endorsement of religion?I mean, how could it get more obvious than the government saying "no gods but the God of the Bible?" Does the First amendment prohibit the government from establishing religion, or does it not? That's the issue. Don't avoid the question. I doubt it. You're the one, after all, who's storming off in such a big huff. Me, I'm much more worried about waking up to an American Christian theocracy.

Not to mention, he ran practically unopposed; after Jack Ryan dropped out, the best they could find to replace him was Alan Keyes, who is largely a self-parody.

Thank you.