Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics

[ConcordCowboy]

Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin


Published: October 5, 2007

In a stinging critique of Bush administration science policy, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said yesterday that if she were elected president she would require agency directors to show they were protecting science research from “political pressure” and that she would lift federal limits on stem cell research.

Mrs. Clinton, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, also committed herself to a space-based climate research project to combat global warming and pledged to spend $50 billion on fighting climate change and finding energy alternatives to foreign oil.

In a speech laying out her campaign’s science agenda, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the need for a “robust” program of human exploration of space.

But in a telephone interview afterward, she said that in the short term she would subordinate Bush administration proposals for human exploration of the Moon and Mars to restoring cuts in aeronautics research and space-based studies of climate change and other earth science issues.

Travel to the Moon or Mars “excites people,” she said, “but I am more focused on nearer-term goals I think are achievable.”

Her remarks yesterday, at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, amounted to a spirited attack on President Bush for waging what she called a “war on science” that has allowed political appointees to shape and in some cases distort science-based federal reports.

Mrs. Clinton said she would restore the office of White House science adviser to the higher status it held in the administrations of her husband and President Bush’s father. And she said she would encourage Congress to revive its Office of Technology Assessment, an advisory group that was shut down in 1995 after Republicans in Congress withdrew its financing.

In the telephone interview after the speech, Mrs. Clinton also tacitly criticized opponents of evolution. Some of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates have said flatly that they do not believe in evolution, while other Republican contenders have said they support teaching evolution, intelligent design and creationist ideas.

“I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview. “I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason.”

“I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.”

The Clinton attack on White House science policy is not especially new; Mrs. Clinton has used the phrase “war on science” frequently on the campaign trail, and it has reliably drawn applause from Democratic audiences. She has also indicated before that she would reverse the financing restriction on stem cell research and, more broadly, would stand against politicizing science.

But in her speech and the telephone interview, she sought to lay out her agenda in what one adviser called “a contest of ideas” with her Democratic rivals, who have been increasingly delivering more policy speeches in hopes of winning voters with big ideas that counter nearly seven years of Bush administration policy.

“When science is politicized, it is worse than wrong,” she said in the interview. “It is dangerous — dangerous for our democracy.”

Moreover, she said, “it is holding us back economically,” as other countries move forward in research in areas like stem cells and alternative energy, “creating high-wage jobs.”

The Bush White House has been dogged by complaints from scientists in and out of government, including some of its own appointees, that it has ignored, contorted or suppressed work by government scientists if they contradict administration views, particularly in areas like climate.

Others complain that the administration has made science policy decisions on grounds that are not scientific. In particular, critics cite the president’s decision, in August 2001, to limit federal financing for research involving human embryonic stem cells to cell lines already in use at the time.

The research is thought to have great potential in developing treatments for a range of diseases, but opponents of abortion rights object to it, because the cells are produced through the destruction of human embryos.

“We have to be steered by values and morals,” Mrs. Clinton said yesterday, and she pointed to guidelines drawn up by the National Institutes of Health during her husband’s administration as a kind of “ethical framework” through which such work could advance.

For example, she said, the use of embryonic stem cells to create tissue whose DNA is identical to that of an ailing person, a process called therapeutic cloning, “is within the ethical framework.”

Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, chided Mrs. Clinton for saying that she would take politics out of science, contending that her record is replete with political manipulations.

“Hillary Clinton says she will bring integrity to science, but on the campaign trail she manipulates basic mathematics in her attempts to explain how she will pay for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending,” Mr. Diaz said. He also noted that Mr. Bush had made federal money available for stem cell research.

[Ben_n_austin]

One issue that I like about Hillary. . . .

[jterrell]

One issue that I like about Hillary. . . .

You'd think her takes are the only possible answers; except amazingly it is in sharp contrast to the current administration.

I really wish we could stop importing scientists:(

[Ben_n_austin]

You'd think her takes are the only possible answers; except amazingly it is in sharp contrast to the current administration.

I really wish we could stop importing scientists:(

Oh, bro. I can't tell you how much the current administration irks me because it oppresses science with religion to further its political cause; and not the betterment of mankind.

It's sickening.

[AbeBeta]

someone just got my vote.

[Ben_n_austin]

someone just got my vote.

I need more rational reasons why I should vote for her. But I won't vote for her until my guy drops out of the race (if he does).

[ConcordCowboy]

Oh, bro. I can't tell you how much the current administration irks me because it oppresses science with religion to further its political cause; and not the betterment of mankind.

It's sickening.

Man are you right.

[Ben_n_austin]

Man are you right.


Yeah, but it's not about me being right. It's about doing the right thing.

[ConcordCowboy]

Yeah, but it's not about me being right. It's about doing the right thing.

Exactly and if she does what she says in the article...then the right thing will be done.

[Ben_n_austin]

Exactly and if she does what she says in the article...then the right thing will be done.

It's been a shame that not only has our evil President done evil things on an international level to hinder this country, its integrity, and its safety, but he has also done things within its borders in regards to science that, in my opinion, makes him an evil man--no matter what his "faith". :rolleyes:

[AbeBeta]

It's been a shame that not only has our evil President done evil things on an international level to hinder this country, its integrity, and its safety, but he has also done things within its borders in regards to science that, in my opinion, makes him an evil man--no matter what his "faith". :rolleyes:

He isn't evil - I don't like him but I don't see him as evil.

He's ignorant. Very ignorant.

[Hoov]

someone just got my vote.mine too, good stuff here.

[burmafrd]

http://www.junkscience.com/

[Ben_n_austin]

http://www.junkscience.com/

Stoooopid.

[ConcordCowboy]

http://www.junkscience.com/

Shouldn't you be off planning who we should nuke next?

http://ohrdev.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/nuclear_blast.jpg

[zrinkill]

http://a3.vox.com/6a00d4141dd77f685e00d09e5dff53be2b-320pi

Esqueleto - "I don't believe in God, I believe in science."

[Ben_n_austin]

http://a3.vox.com/6a00d4141dd77f685e00d09e5dff53be2b-320pi

Esqueleto - "I don't believe in God, I believe in science."

:stupid: :D

[zrinkill]

Stupid is a good word to describe atheists.

[burmafrd]

junk science points out all the holes in many politically correct areas of science. And for Clinton to make that claim is a real joke. Fact is that politics will enter into ANY decision made by any administration. For her to make that claim and the kool aid drinking Jim Jones believers take it seriously is to once again prove P T Barnum correct.

[ConcordCowboy]

junk science points out all the holes in many politically correct areas of science. And for Clinton to make that claim is a real joke. Fact is that politics will enter into ANY decision made by any administration. For her to make that claim and the kool aid drinking Jim Jones believers take it seriously is to once again prove P T Barnum correct.

You know for someone who regurgitates the Bush Administrations claims about just about everything like they were the word of God and to never be questioned...REALLY should not talk about others being Kool-Aid drinkers.

[ConcordCowboy]

http://a3.vox.com/6a00d4141dd77f685e00d09e5dff53be2b-320pi

Esqueleto - "I don't believe in God, I believe in science."

http://www.fun2forward.com/es-items/21.jpg

Creationism or Evolution?

:D

[jterrell]

junk science points out all the holes in many politically correct areas of science. And for Clinton to make that claim is a real joke. Fact is that politics will enter into ANY decision made by any administration. For her to make that claim and the kool aid drinking Jim Jones believers take it seriously is to once again prove P T Barnum correct.

It's pretty humorous but also standard fair for you that you would argue against separating science from politics while using a religious cult as an example.

[jterrell]

http://www.fun2forward.com/es-items/21.jpg

Creationism or Evolution?

:D

the real similarity would be on their iq tests.....

I don't know that George is evil but he is clearly deluded into believing only decisions which make his friends/cronies money are worth making.

Now that he has lost his neo-con base he can start admitting much of what he has denied for 6 years such as Global Warming.

[jterrell]

junk science points out all the holes in many politically correct areas of science. And for Clinton to make that claim is a real joke. Fact is that politics will enter into ANY decision made by any administration. For her to make that claim and the kool aid drinking Jim Jones believers take it seriously is to once again prove P T Barnum correct.

Junk science is a paid advertisement created by big tobacco and detailed in the memo's they released.
The author was shown to be a paid advocate of their thoughts; specifically listing the website as a paid advertisement.

Further he bashes corporations who make environmentally friendly decisions arguing they are unnecessarily hurting business.

He has argued against second hand smoke as a carcinogen, against global warming, against basically anything that results in a regulation.

You sure can pick em Burma!!

The real question is since only people who are getting paid believe this nonsense are you getting paid or are you really just a believer?

[ConcordCowboy]

believers take it seriously is to once again prove P T Barnum correct.

Junk science is a paid advertisement created by big tobacco and detailed in the memo's they released.
The author was shown to be a paid advocate of their thoughts; specifically listing the website as a paid advertisement.

Further he bashes corporations who make environmentally friendly decisions arguing they are unnecessarily hurting business.

He has argued against second hand smoke as a carcinogen, against global warming, against basically anything that results in a regulation.

You sure can pick em Burma!!

The real question is since only people who are getting paid believe this nonsense are you getting paid or are you really just a believer?

I believe he answered your question...he just didn't know he was talking about himself.

[Eric_Boyer]

Stupid is a good word to describe atheists.

I believe we are supposed to leave religion out of the political zone?

[AbeBeta]

http://www.junkscience.com/

The guy behind this page is a former tobacco lobbyist who now works for a conservative think-tank. Science is not about agendas, and he's got one big time.

[Cochese]

Stupid is a good word to describe atheists.

Yes, because believing in a magic man in the sky really shows a persons true intelligence...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Knock off the religious stuff please.

If I can avoid it, others should be able to do so as well.:cool:

[Eric_Boyer]

Yes, because believing in a magic man in the sky really shows a persons true intelligence...

The smartest people in the world argue on this topic.

A buch of football fans on the internet calling the other side stupid for holding their position seems.. well....Kind of stupid to me.

[Ben_n_austin]

The smartest people in the world argue on this topic.

A buch of football fans on the internet calling the other side stupid for holding their position seems.. well....Kind of stupid to me.

Conclusion: It's one big circular argument that doesn't belong in politics.

[ConcordCowboy]

Yes, because believing in a magic man in the sky really shows a persons true intelligence...

:muttley:

[jterrell]

Conclusion: It's one big circular argument that doesn't belong in politics.

Amen to that!

Doh! that was almost a religious reference.

I think it is acceptable by PZ standards to argue over how religions effect politics and other subjects but bashing any religion or championing one to the exclusion of other is barred.

Again, anyone who is a constitutionalist will be for a separation of church and state; no matter the church.

No matter how religious one is or isn't everyone should be able to make an intelligent logical argument without using a belief system as a crutch; after all no one can really presume others share that belief system so the argument would be weak at best.

[ThaBigP]

Oh, bro. I can't tell you how much the current administration irks me because it oppresses science with religion to further its political cause; and not the betterment of mankind.

It's sickening.

That is funny, all you guys - coming from the same crowd that would denounce scientists who dispute global warming as you (and your kind) describe it. And to top it all off, you not only denounce, but dismiss them. In the GW forums, one would have come to the conclusion that GW is a proven fact. Hardly the case, but since it doesn't fit your "world view", you dismiss or attack the credibility of anybody pointing out those flaws. Let me read from a good book by Webster:

hypocrite
noun a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

[ThaBigP]

Might I also add that in the future, anyone debating/worrying-about/not-giving-a-crap-about the issue of politics in science might as well cross out the word "politics" and write in the word "taxpayer money", since that is ultimately what all this machination is about. People claiming this or that administration did not "support" their scientific view are making a phoney argument. The last true scientist we had as President was Carter, if I'm not mistaken (in addition to being a peanut farmer, he was a nuclear physicist), so none of the others would be qualified anyway to "support" or "dismiss" any scientific claims. The sin they committed, however, was in not handing over taxpayer money to support further research in that area. Case in point, embrionic stem cell research. Much has been made of the administration "banning" embrionic stem cess research (a lie), or banning *all* stem cell research (another lie). The issue is that this administration cut off federal funding of embrionic stem cell research for new cell lines that had not already been cataloged. Scientific studies are still permitted on the subject, only at private cost, not taxpayer cost. The global warming issue is a silly argument, too, since the federal government funds both aspects of research (man-made vs. natural vs. combination of the two, etc). It is the height of hypocracy to denounce a politician who, in effect, commits the sin of not agreeing with you, when you all (the royal "you" - "you" know who "you" are) do the same bloody damn thing.

[peplaw06]

Again, anyone who is a constitutionalist will be for a separation of church and state; no matter the church.
Please direct me to the article, section or amendment of the constitution that says "separation of church and state." Thanks in advance.

[Sasquatch]

Please direct me to the article, section or amendment of the constitution that says "separation of church and state." Thanks in advance.

Finally, the crux of the issue.

[ThaBigP]

Please direct me to the article, section or amendment of the constitution that says "separation of church and state." Thanks in advance.

Sorry, Sassy, but T H I S is the crux of the issue. The text of the 1st amendment follows:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp). Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1)
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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.

The amendment forbids Congress from establishing a state religion or preventing private citizens from practicing theirs freely. Again, you guys are attempting to build a house of cards. Card #1 = the Constitution forbids a politician from making a decision based on personal moral (read: religious for those so inclined) convictions. #2 A politician not agreeing with you is in violation of #1 - automatically. Bush cutting off federal funding of embryonic stem cell research violates the 1st amendment....how exactly? It amazes me how some people can read the words "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" but come away with "no politician who holds personal religious beliefs shall hold public office, nor any poblic official make any decision based upon personally held religious convictions". Again, you're doing the same old tired crap that the Bolshevics and Brownshirts used - create the perception that political opposition is in-and-of-itself "illegal" by any logical gymnastics that may be required.

[iceberg]

so she's going to shield science from politics and turn around and increase the political $ allowed to be spent on it.

in the rush to go "yay hilliary" anyone find that kinda ironic?

in the end i do believe science shouldn't be held back due to archiac and old beliefs and religion. but i also don't believe you attack the religion simply to grandstand a "look at me!" attitude.

let science be science and just stay out of it. did bush say you can't do stem cell research *period* or did he say not with federal funds? i really don't know here but in the end things intertwine, i suppose.

there are things hillary is saying i like. i hope that can continue. but in the end i still feel like we're looking a pack of dregs vs. legitimate leaders we so desperately need. it's as if we're simply saying "my loser isn't as big a loser as your loser!"

[iceberg]

Might I also add that in the future, anyone debating/worrying-about/not-giving-a-crap-about the issue of politics in science might as well cross out the word "politics" and write in the word "taxpayer money", since that is ultimately what all this machination is about. People claiming this or that administration did not "support" their scientific view are making a phoney argument. The last true scientist we had as President was Carter, if I'm not mistaken (in addition to being a peanut farmer, he was a nuclear physicist), so none of the others would be qualified anyway to "support" or "dismiss" any scientific claims. The sin they committed, however, was in not handing over taxpayer money to support further research in that area. Case in point, embrionic stem cell research. Much has been made of the administration "banning" embrionic stem cess research (a lie), or banning *all* stem cell research (another lie). The issue is that this administration cut off federal funding of embrionic stem cell research for new cell lines that had not already been cataloged. Scientific studies are still permitted on the subject, only at private cost, not taxpayer cost. The global warming issue is a silly argument, too, since the federal government funds both aspects of research (man-made vs. natural vs. combination of the two, etc). It is the height of hypocracy to denounce a politician who, in effect, commits the sin of not agreeing with you, when you all (the royal "you" - "you" know who "you" are) do the same bloody damn thing.


so all bush said was "not with taxpayer money?"

like high school rumors, it's amazing how it spreads and morphs over time.

[zrinkill]

I believe we are supposed to leave religion out of the political zone?

Your liberal friend AnygivenSunday brought it up pal ...... keep up.

[zrinkill]

Yes, because believing in a magic man in the sky really shows a persons true intelligence...

Yet you believe in a theory ..... what does that say about you?

[zrinkill]

Please direct me to the article, section or amendment of the constitution that says "separation of church and state." Thanks in advance.

You will not get an answer.

[zrinkill]

Conclusion: It's one big circular argument that doesn't belong in politics.

Yet it was you who brought it into this thread.

Oh, bro. I can't tell you how much the current administration irks me because it oppresses science with religion to further its political cause; and not the betterment of mankind.

"Bro" .....

[peplaw06]

so she's going to shield science from politics and turn around and increase the political $ allowed to be spent on it.

in the rush to go "yay hilliary" anyone find that kinda ironic?

in the end i do believe science shouldn't be held back due to archiac and old beliefs and religion. but i also don't believe you attack the religion simply to grandstand a "look at me!" attitude.

let science be science and just stay out of it. did bush say you can't do stem cell research *period* or did he say not with federal funds? i really don't know here but in the end things intertwine, i suppose.

there are things hillary is saying i like. i hope that can continue. but in the end i still feel like we're looking a pack of dregs vs. legitimate leaders we so desperately need. it's as if we're simply saying "my loser isn't as big a loser as your loser!"

Exactly.

How is giving federal funds to science for research "shield[ing] science from politics?" Seems to me that refusing to fund science with federal/taxpayers money would do more for shielding science from politics.

[Danny White]

so she's going to shield science from politics and turn around and increase the political $ allowed to be spent on it.

in the rush to go "yay hilliary" anyone find that kinda ironic?

in the end i do believe science shouldn't be held back due to archiac and old beliefs and religion. but i also don't believe you attack the religion simply to grandstand a "look at me!" attitude.

let science be science and just stay out of it. did bush say you can't do stem cell research *period* or did he say not with federal funds? i really don't know here but in the end things intertwine, i suppose.

there are things hillary is saying i like. i hope that can continue. but in the end i still feel like we're looking a pack of dregs vs. legitimate leaders we so desperately need. it's as if we're simply saying "my loser isn't as big a loser as your loser!"

You nailed it there!

Any time federal funs are brought into play, the issue is going to be politicized. The best way to keep politics out is to keep federal dollars out -- especially with the controversial stuff. Same goes for the arts.

Let me get this straight... from Hillary's perspective, "keeping politics out of science" basically means that she gets to spend tax dollars on science that supports her political worldview (abortion, cloning, global warming, etc).

How about this for a campaign slogan? "Let's keep politicized science out of the taxpayers' pockets."


Can anyone here get behind that?

[AtlCB]

I'll believe this when I see it. The AGW crowd has been under attack by the Repub's and the skeptics have been under attack by the Dem's. This science has been become so political that whenever new evidence comes out either way, politicians and people on this forum immediately attack the source instead of the science itself.

[iceberg]

well that's because people say their tax dollars are being used for XYZ and they're against it. at this point you can either:

1. use it anyway and let people be mad
2. not use it and let people be mad cause they're for it

you can't remove politics from something by saying you're going to allow funding for it - that only *increases* the amount of politics you must go through. it's an empty message in the end that's actually doing what she says she's trying to stop. but if you're *for* stem cell research then you think this is a good move.

but what about when she wants to use public funds for something you're against?

what it's used for should never be more important than *should* we use it at all? yes i'm sure there are extremes you can paint but the general picture is the same.

global warming as thabigp pointed out - politics all across the board.

is the world getting warmer? i do believe most people would say yes.
is mankind evil the the cause?

we simply do not know.

that said, should be study it and work to advance within our ecology vs. outside of it? sure. but no one ever argues that way. we're too tied up in blaming ourselves for being alive to actually work to a conclusion.

[Sasquatch]

Any time federal funs are brought into play, the issue is going to be politicized.

The idea that tax payer money should only fund non-politicized issues is chimerical since no such issues exist.

AGW is the consensus position of the majority of the scientists working in the relevant fields. Even the staunchest opponents of the theory acknowledge it as the conventional wisdom. The only people claiming that it is "politicized" are those who for whatever reason oppose mobilizing federal resources to try to combat the problem. Funny, these same people have no problem with wasting much more of our money on a politicized war whose premises have been demonstrated to be utterly FALSE and whose outcomes and benefits are even murkier than any of the proposed programs for reducing AGW.

[Danny White]

The idea that tax payer money should only fund non-politicized issues is chimerical since no such issues exist.

Good, I'm glad we agree.

By definition, anything that is taxpayer funded is politicized in that it has now become a part of the political process.

Your argument, Sasquatch, appears to be with Hillary Clinton, who claims that she can somehow "remove politics from science."

The very idea that this is possible is farcical, as I'm sure you will agree. It's just a matter of whose ox is being gored.

The only honest way to shield an issue from politics is to remove it from the political process altogether... and I certainly don't hear Hillary proposing to do this.

[jterrell]

Good, I'm glad we agree.

By definition, anything that is taxpayer funded is politicized in that it has now become a part of the political process.

Your argument, Sasquatch, appears to be with Hillary Clinton, who claims that she can somehow "remove politics from science."

The very idea that this is possible is farcical, as I'm sure you will agree. It's just a matter of whose ox is being gored.

The only honest way to shield an issue from politics is to remove it from the political process altogether... and I certainly don't hear Hillary proposing to do this.

The problem here Danny is that you are refuting a poorly worded article title and not addressing what Hillary actually stated.

She is stating scientists should record and report their findings without worry of political backlash or interference.

Science and Art are too very different things.

Reagen vetoed bills that would have pushed science in areas that would have been useful to himself. He suffered severe dementia and loss of cognitive skills after being shot and it progressed until his death.

If a painting can reverse that level of dementia then we darn well should fund it.

[Danny White]

The problem here Danny is that you are refuting a poorly worded article title and not addressing what Hillary actually stated.

She is stating scientists should record and report their findings without worry of political backlash or interference.

Science and Art are too very different things.

Reagen vetoed bills that would have pushed science in areas that would have been useful to himself. He suffered severe dementia and loss of cognitive skills after being shot and it progressed until his death.

If a painting can reverse that level of dementia then we darn well should fund it.

Look at the section I bolded and show me where she said words to that effect. Because I've re-read the article several times and I can't find them, but maybe I'm missing something.

Here is what she definitely did say, though: “When science is politicized, it is worse than wrong,” she said in the interview. “It is dangerous — dangerous for our democracy.”

That is the clearest and most bold quote of the article, and I think the article title rather accurately reflects it.

I think you are taking your own personal feelings (the bolded line from your post) and reading them into Hillary's statement. Even if that were what Hillary was saying, though, I'd say that that hope is somewhat naive.

When you talk about "backlash" and "interference" what you're really talking about is "loss of public funding." And that's the crux of the whole matter. Scientists aren't dumb... they know where their bread is buttered. They're going to be far more interested in the research money than the ethical questions behind the research itself... and when public funds are going to be used for research that is ethically questionable, then politics are going to come into play.

As for global warming, forgive me for not buying into the black-and-white worldview that one side is trying to save the planet while the other side is just out to turn a profit, and that the only thing standing in the way of a "cure" are evil Republicans and oil companies.

Hillary and Al Gore and the like aren't looking to save the planet, they're looking to promote their worldview and their agenda... and before you can blink, they'll be exploiting science for their purposes as bad as the Republicans have. Now maybe you share their worldview and their agenda, and if so, then you should be pushing it for them.

But don't make it sound like her poo doesn't stink.


Edit: I hope this didn't come across in a hostile fashion, because it isn't intended as such. You took a very polite and agreeable tone with me in your earlier post, and I'm certainly not trying to turn up the heat here.

I stand by everything I said above, but in re-reading it, it maybe sounds more confrontational than I meant it to be.

[jterrell]

Look at the section I bolded and show me where she said words to that effect. Because I've re-read the article several times and I can't find them, but maybe I'm missing something.

Here is what she definitely did say, though: “When science is politicized, it is worse than wrong,” she said in the interview. “It is dangerous — dangerous for our democracy.”

That is the clearest and most bold quote of the article, and I think the article title rather accurately reflects it.

I think you are taking your own personal feelings (the bolded line from your post) and reading them into Hillary's statement. Even if that were what Hillary was saying, though, I'd say that that hope is somewhat naive.

When you talk about "backlash" and "interference" what you're really talking about is "loss of public funding." And that's the crux of the whole matter. Scientists aren't dumb... they know where their bread is buttered. They're going to be far more interested in the research money than the ethical questions behind the research itself... and when public funds are going to be used for research that is ethically questionable, then politics are going to come into play.

As for global warming, forgive me for not buying into the black-and-white worldview that one side is trying to save the planet while the other side is just out to turn a profit, and that the only thing standing in the way of a "cure" are evil Republicans and oil companies.

Hillary and Al Gore and the like aren't looking to save the planet, they're looking to promote their worldview and their agenda... and before you can blink, they'll be exploiting science for their purposes as bad as the Republicans have. Now maybe you share their worldview and their agenda, and if so, then you should be pushing it for them.

But don't make it sound like her poo doesn't stink.


Edit: I hope this didn't come across in a hostile fashion, because it isn't intended as such. You took a very polite and agreeable tone with me in your earlier post, and I'm certainly not trying to turn up the heat here.

I stand by everything I said above, but in re-reading it, it maybe sounds more confrontational than I meant it to be.

DW,
You do not owe any apologies.
I actually strive to be as well-spoken and topic-oriented as you.

As to the above she is criticizing Bush for ...
Her remarks yesterday, at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, amounted to a spirited attack on President Bush for waging what she called a “war on science” that has allowed political appointees to shape and in some cases distort science-based federal reports.

She stated one of her first acts would be to ask her advisers to insure the scientists were not bowing to political pressure.

She is for re-instituting a White House Science adviser and considers this an area where our country is falling woefully behind.

And this is not meant to insult anyone or the institution of religion itself but you can essentially draw that the more religiously based the country the lower they rank in terms of scientific achievement. When she speaks of keeping politics out of science she means this attempt to use religion to say science is bad.

I continue to maintain that it is a more religious position to state we will use science to solve our oil/fuel problems than it is to say we'll use military resolve to rule by proxy someone else's land.

[Danny White]

DW,
You do not owe any apologies.
I actually strive to be as well-spoken and topic-oriented as you.

As to the above she is criticizing Bush for ...


She stated one of her first acts would be to ask her advisers to insure the scientists were not bowing to political pressure.

She is for re-instituting a White House Science adviser and considers this an area where our country is falling woefully behind.

And this is not meant to insult anyone or the institution of religion itself but you can essentially draw that the more religiously based the country the lower they rank in terms of scientific achievement. When she speaks of keeping politics out of science she means this attempt to use religion to say science is bad.

I continue to maintain that it is a more religious position to state we will use science to solve our oil/fuel problems than it is to say we'll use military resolve to rule by proxy someone else's land.

Thanks, I appreciate that!

To the issue, color me skeptical that her "advisers" are going to bastions of objectivity. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think they're going to simply promote "science" that supports her agenda.

I'm all in favor of our country supporting scientific advances and research, but I get the feeling that a lot of this is boiling down to two issues: global warming and embryonic stem cell research.

These are two extremely politicized and controversial issues, and I don't believe for one second that Hillary intends (or is even capable of) de-politicizing them.

I think there's a lot we can agree on, like energy independence, alternative fuels, energy efficient technology, encouraging science in the schools, etc.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sorry, Sassy, but T H I S is the crux of the issue. The text of the 1st amendment follows:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp). Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1)
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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.

The amendment forbids Congress from establishing a state religion or preventing private citizens from practicing theirs freely. Again, you guys are attempting to build a house of cards. Card #1 = the Constitution forbids a politician from making a decision based on personal moral (read: religious for those so inclined) convictions. #2 A politician not agreeing with you is in violation of #1 - automatically. Bush cutting off federal funding of embryonic stem cell research violates the 1st amendment....how exactly? It amazes me how some people can read the words "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" but come away with "no politician who holds personal religious beliefs shall hold public office, nor any poblic official make any decision based upon personally held religious convictions". Again, you're doing the same old tired crap that the Bolshevics and Brownshirts used - create the perception that political opposition is in-and-of-itself "illegal" by any logical gymnastics that may be required.

The very letter that was the "genesis" of what we are talking about.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[peplaw06]

The very letter that was the "genesis" of what we are talking about.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen....

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Thanks for posting this BP.

Here Jefferson states what I think was his, and the other framers', primary concern.... having an executive who was the figure head of a "national church."

Still IIRC, this "separation of church and state" idea was drawn from the Virginia constitutional convention. Jefferson wrote this letter, giving his personal interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. He was a member of the convention that created the Virginian Constitution, so his interpretation was likely taken from that. It doesn't mean that the other framers (aka those outside of the Virginia convention) shared this same idea.

The SCOTUS, when interpreting the 1st Amendment themselves, borrowed this idea from this letter.

Over the years, this idea has been twisted by those who are anti-religion to basically mean that the government should pretend that religion doesn't exist. The President shouldn't be making decisions according to his religious views. There should be no hint of religious influences in public. Any reference to a higher power should be discouraged.

Many of these same framers drafted the Declaration of Independence, which makes reference to "our creator." How is it possible that the same people referenced a creator in such an important document, yet intended that no reference to a higher power should be encouraged in public??

The thing about democracy, is that the government is a government of citizens or, "of the people, by the people, and for the people." People who serve in the government are elected there mainly because of their personal opinions and worldviews.

However, when they get into office, the militant "separation of church and state," anti-religion crowd, expect those in office to completely disconnect themselves from any religious influences whatsoever.

From a simple reading of the 1st amendment, along with this letter by Jefferson, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, other than a twisting and perversion of the original sentiment.

[Ben_n_austin]

Sorry, Sassy, but T H I S is the crux of the issue. The text of the 1st amendment follows:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp). Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791.Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1)
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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.



^^^^^^^^^

Consider yourself directed. ;)



Please direct me to the article, section or amendment of the constitution that says "separation of church and state." Thanks in advance.

Not to mention one of the founders was quoted as saying, "to erect a wall of separation of church and state". It's not in the Constitution word for word, verbatim... but, Mr. "law guy", the definition is clear. You just don't want to see it.

[Ben_n_austin]

That is funny, all you guys - coming from the same crowd that would denounce scientists who dispute global warming as you (and your kind) describe it. And to top it all off, you not only denounce, but dismiss them. In the GW forums, one would have come to the conclusion that GW is a proven fact. Hardly the case, but since it doesn't fit your "world view", you dismiss or attack the credibility of anybody pointing out those flaws. Let me read from a good book by Webster:

hypocrite
noun a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives


:stupid:

Arguing for science to further the betterment of mankind is not hypocrisy. You're really stretching there--terrible analogy.

[Ben_n_austin]

Your liberal friend AnygivenSunday brought it up pal ...... keep up.


It's ok, bro. The Cowboys will win this week. You'll snap out of that sour pus mood. Come Sunday, you won't be this moody any more.

Jeez. Ever tried rational discussion?

[Danny White]

Thanks for posting this BP.

Here Jefferson states what I think was his, and the other framers', primary concern.... having an executive who was the figure head of a "national church."

Still IIRC, this "separation of church and state" idea was drawn from the Virginia constitutional convention. Jefferson wrote this letter, giving his personal interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. He was a member of the convention that created the Virginian Constitution, so his interpretation was likely taken from that. It doesn't mean that the other framers (aka those outside of the Virginia convention) shared this same idea.

The SCOTUS, when interpreting the 1st Amendment themselves, borrowed this idea from this letter.

Over the years, this idea has been twisted by those who are anti-religion to basically mean that the government should pretend that religion doesn't exist. The President shouldn't be making decisions according to his religious views. There should be no hint of religious influences in public. Any reference to a higher power should be discouraged.

Many of these same framers drafted the Declaration of Independence, which makes reference to "our creator." How is it possible that the same people referenced a creator in such an important document, yet intended that no reference to a higher power should be encouraged in public??

The thing about democracy, is that the government is a government of citizens or, "of the people, by the people, and for the people." People who serve in the government are elected there mainly because of their personal opinions and worldviews.

However, when they get into office, the militant "separation of church and state," anti-religion crowd, expect those in office to completely disconnect themselves from any religious influences whatsoever.

From a simple reading of the 1st amendment, along with this letter by Jefferson, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, other than a twisting and perversion of the original sentiment.

Excellent post.

It'd have been nice if Ben would have read it (and Brain's before it) before making his post.

What's clear is that the founders never intended religious thought to be banned from the public sphere... the very concept would have been anathema to them.

They obviously had some concerns about the conflation of Church and State -- particularly with regard to the establishment of a national religion -- but I think they'd be terribly troubled by how those concerns have been distorted and perverted in this day and age.

[peplaw06]

^^^^^^^^^

Consider yourself directed. ;)

Not to mention one of the founders was quoted as saying, "to erect a wall of separation of church and state". It's not in the Constitution word for word, verbatim... but, Mr. "law guy", the definition is clear. You just don't want to see it.If it's not in the Constitution, then how is it that a "Constitutionalist" (I'm assuming JT meant strict constructionist) is expected to be for "separation of church and state"??

A strict constructionist doesn't go off what one guy was quoted as saying. They go off what the document says... and that's all.

And even if you argue that the Establishment Clause creates this separation (which it doesn't on a strict reading, since you have to look outside the document), then how do you square that with the next clause... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"??

[Ben_n_austin]

If it's not in the Constitution, then how is it that a "Constitutionalist" (I'm assuming JT meant strict constructionist) is expected to be for "separation of church and state"??

A strict constructionist doesn't go off what one guy was quoted as saying. They go off what the document says... and that's all.

And even if you argue that the Establishment Clause creates this separation (which it doesn't on a strict reading, since you have to look outside the document), then how do you square that with the next clause... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"??

You're deriving an ought from an is here. And I have done a strict reading. I see the black and white for what it is. Not for what any faith obligates me to see it as.

The majority of law, English, philosophy and various other areas of study agree with my interpretation.

Additionally, if you can't interpret the last part, I feel for you.

That basically says, in English, that Congress shall be prohibited from imposing laws regarding what people can and can't believe in--said without using the R word. ;)

How are you tonight, pep?

Nothing like good discussion to cure the angst of boredom. :)

[Ben_n_austin]

- but I think they'd be terribly troubled by how those concerns have been distorted and perverted in this day and age.

Darn those scientists. :bang2:

[zrinkill]

I
Jeez. Ever tried rational discussion?

Try it all the time .... but you just continue your Hate Bush rants.

[peplaw06]

You're deriving an ought from an is here. And I have done a strict reading. I see the black and white for what it is. Not for what any faith obligates me to see it as.

The majority of law, English, philosophy and various other areas of study agree with my interpretation. BS... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is the clause in black and white. It says nothing about separation of church and state. A strict reading only leads you to the conclusion that Congress can pass no law saying that Christianity -- or Protestantism to be more specific, since the English religion was the Catholic Church -- is the national religion. Or any other religion for that matter.

How is allowing prayer in schools, or a moment of silence, a congressional law establishing a particular religion? I'll give you a hint: It's not.

There was no law on the books allowing it. It was just done.

A strict reading doesn't get you there. Like I said you have to go outside the document to even come up with the idea, and that is primarily taken from Jefferson's letter.

Additionally, if you can't interpret the last part, I feel for you.

That basically says, in English, that Congress shall be prohibited from imposing laws regarding what people can and can't believe in--said without using the R word. ;) Is this in response to the free exercise portion? If so, that's not what it says at all. It says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion ("thereof" refers to religion in the prior clause).

So if your interpretation of the Establishment Clause leads you to "Separation of church and state," then how do you square that with the "Free Exercise" clause? If "separation of church and state" requires that congress pass a law prohibiting prayer in schools, is that not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

How are you tonight, pep?

Nothing like good discussion to cure the angst of boredom. :)I'm doing okay... this discussion has taken my mind off of a pretty bad week at work.

I love Constitutional debates. Even though I wasn't a huge fan of Con Law.:D

[Danny White]

Darn those scientists. :bang2:

It's not the scientists... it's the Humanists.

There is nothing wrong with science. Science doesn't seek to nullify God. Secular Humanists, often use science to try to accomplish that end, but that's not sciences' fault.

[zrinkill]

It's not the scientists... it's the Humanists.

There is nothing wrong with science. Science doesn't seek to nullify God. Secular Humanists, often use science to try to accomplish that end, but that's not sciences' fault.

Sweet .... :bow:

[Danny White]

Sweet .... :bow:

I just don't get how this is so hard for people to grasp.

The Founders clearly had a deep respect for God, and the Judeo-Christian tradition influenced them greatly as they were laying the foundation for our country.

At the same time, they had some understandable concerns about "merging" religion and state.

But today, Humanists are distorting and hiding behind these concerns to advocate the banishment of religion from the public sphere... and then they're claiming this is what the Founders had in mind from the beginning.

Listen, if you don't want church and state to mix at all, fine. You are free to believe that and work towards that end. But don't make believe the Founders set it up that way when a huge preponderance of the evidence supports the contrary position.

[iceberg]

I just don't get how this is so hard for people to grasp.

The Founders clearly had a deep respect for God, and the Judeo-Christian tradition influenced them greatly as they were laying the foundation for our country.

At the same time, they had some understandable concerns about "merging" religion and state.

But today, Humanists are distorting and hiding behind these concerns to advocate the banishment of religion from the public sphere... and then they're claiming this is what the Founders had in mind from the beginning.

Listen, if you don't want church and state to mix at all, fine. You are free to believe that and work towards that end. But don't make believe the Founders set it up that way when a huge preponderance of the evidence supports the contrary position.

i'm with you on this one.

God gave us the ability to learn adapt and grow, yet when we do it tends to be the most relious the most afraid.

[AbeBeta]

I just don't get how this is so hard for people to grasp.

The Founders clearly had a deep respect for God, and the Judeo-Christian tradition influenced them greatly as they were laying the foundation for our country.

At the same time, they had some understandable concerns about "merging" religion and state.

But today, Humanists are distorting and hiding behind these concerns to advocate the banishment of religion from the public sphere... and then they're claiming this is what the Founders had in mind from the beginning.

Listen, if you don't want church and state to mix at all, fine. You are free to believe that and work towards that end. But don't make believe the Founders set it up that way when a huge preponderance of the evidence supports the contrary position.

Hmm, so you are saying the Constitution is not a literal document?

That is pretty much this same "context" argument that has been used by gun control advocates as well

[Ben_n_austin]

BS... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is the clause in black and white. It says nothing about separation of church and state. A strict reading only leads you to the conclusion that Congress can pass no law saying that Christianity -- or Protestantism to be more specific, since the English religion was the Catholic Church -- is the national religion. Or any other religion for that matter.

No, BS, to you. You're biased interpretation is telling about your stubbornness in regards to your faith.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of "beliefs".

It's saying that the government should not impose or make its citizens ahere to the majority's "untested, unproven set of beliefs" or make a law that imposes or respects an (any) establishment of (any) "set of beliefs" or make any laws regarding an established "set of beliefs" and its doctrine--whatever that may be.

And for the latter part, it's really easy if you know how to read in English. It's saying that it also won't prohibit INDIVIDUALS from practicing "beliefs".

In other words, by law, the government won't make you believe or not believe anything. That is left up to the individual... that's the crux of the United States' founding philosophy.

You can't possibly be this slow. So, I'll just chalk up your ostrich analysis to being biased about the issue.

Again, you're deriving from it what you want it to read, not what it actually says.

[jterrell]

Excellent post.

It'd have been nice if Ben would have read it (and Brain's before it) before making his post.

What's clear is that the founders never intended religious thought to be banned from the public sphere... the very concept would have been anathema to them.

They obviously had some concerns about the conflation of Church and State -- particularly with regard to the establishment of a national religion -- but I think they'd be terribly troubled by how those concerns have been distorted and perverted in this day and age.

I have to disagree here DW.

The letter in and of itself is written to a Church group.
It is phrased delicately, respectfully, but also explicitly.

The separation was meant to insure we did not have religious arguments for laws or Religious leaders ruling our government.

The first amendment has been referred to many times in the Supreme Court and by the early framers.
It's honestly NEVER been vague at all what they meant.

As time has passed people have determined religion is good and not the enemy and in fact that we should encourage our particular religion for all....
That is EXACTLY what the framers did not want.

They were not battling Islam they were fleeing from the Catholic Church and/or Church of England.

We saw many sects of various types present in early Americana; much more so than today in fact.

Jefferson has it right, imho; Leave what's between a man and his God out of the law books.

There are legitimate debates over specific areas but all in all there is little in the way of intelligent debate doubting that the framers meant they wanted a separation of Church and State.
-------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[1]

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to popular and political discussion of the concept, including criticism that it overstates the limits created under the Constitution. However, it originated much earlier, and was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.

Although the term is primarily discussed in the context of United States constitutional interpretation, the concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, religious pluralism and laïcité.

[Danny White]

Hmm, so you are saying the Constitution is not a literal document?

That is pretty much this same "context" argument that has been used by gun control advocates as well

I'm not sure how you're inferring from my argument that I'm making a statement on the literalness of the Constitution one way or the other.

I will say, very clearly, that the Constitution does not specifically establish a "wall of separation" between church and state. And then, in addition to that, I'm stating that attempts to read into the Founders' intent that such a wall was desired is an exaggeration and an outright distortion.

So basically, the "wall" argument fails on two levels.

1) It fails on a "constructionist" level in that it specifically isn't in the text.

2) It fails on a "original intent" level where you try to extrapolate what the founders would have reasonably intended.

[Ben_n_austin]

I love Constitutional debates. Even though I wasn't a huge fan of Con Law.:D

I can see why. . . .

[jterrell]

Try it all the time .... but you just continue your Hate Bush rants.

Bush deserves hate.
He has been the worst President of my lifetime.

He has incurred more debt than Reagen plus Jimmy Carter put together and been able to accomplish the double whammy of making the rest of the world hate us.

It was one thing when under Reagan the world feared and respected us but now they feel sorry for us that we have a president who couldn't make it past round one of a local elementary school spelling bee. In short they think we beat people up because we are stupid. That's just embarrassing.

[jterrell]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.


quotes from ...1819 letter to Robert Walsh and 1811 letter to Baptist Churches

[AtlCB]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.


quotes from ...1819 letter to Robert Walsh and 1811 letter to Baptist Churches
Whether it is written in the Constitution or not, religion should not be the basis for any laws. I'm still peeved about the local laws here stating that you cannot buy beer on Sunday. The only rationale for this law is that of religion. If I don't share your religious beliefs, why should I be subject to your religious laws?

[jterrell]

Whether it is written in the Constitution or not, religion should not be the basis for any laws. I'm still peeved about the local laws here stating that you cannot buy beer on Sunday. The only rationale for this law is that of religion. If I don't share your religious beliefs, why should I be subject to your religious laws?

I am a Christian, though not necessarily by xyz's definition of one but by my own.

I also really dislike the crazy blue laws. I would be ok if the law said 11:30 but games start at 12:00 uuuggghhhh!!!

That's just wrong!!

I also do not go to churches that do not have at least one service that lets out by 11:30am but you gotta have priorities:)

The reason for the wall of separation is made painfully clear by the middle east and their 'government is religion' creed's. If you are a Christian than you have to believe the world is gonna end after a political leader of large magnitude also claims to be the spokeman or God; i.e. in reality the anti- .

[Ben_n_austin]

I have to disagree here DW.

The letter in and of itself is written to a Church group.
It is phrased delicately, respectfully, but also explicitly.

The separation was meant to insure we did not have religious arguments for laws or Religious leaders ruling our government.

The first amendment has been referred to many times in the Supreme Court and by the early framers.
It's honestly NEVER been vague at all what they meant.

As time has passed people have determined religion is good and not the enemy and in fact that we should encourage our particular religion for all....
That is EXACTLY what the framers did not want.

They were not battling Islam they were fleeing from the Catholic Church and/or Church of England.

We saw many sects of various types present in early Americana; much more so than today in fact.

Jefferson has it right, imho; Leave what's between a man and his God out of the law books.

There are legitimate debates over specific areas but all in all there is little in the way of intelligent debate doubting that the framers meant they wanted a separation of Church and State.
-------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[1]

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to popular and political discussion of the concept, including criticism that it overstates the limits created under the Constitution. However, it originated much earlier, and was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.

Although the term is primarily discussed in the context of United States constitutional interpretation, the concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, religious pluralism and laïcité.

Yeah, I'm more interested in what the document actually says. If you know their educational backgrounds, then you know the dangers they saw with government imposing "an untested, unproven set of beliefs" onto its citizens.. and the ramifications that could carry over time.

They studied a lot of philosophy--a lot of it. So they understood that beliefs of their current age would change, as they have changed, and with those changes of beliefs in mind.. people's will would change and the interaction between the elements of time, sets of beliefs relevant to time and the passing of time thereof, would be hostile if the government were to oppress its beliefs onto its citizens.

The founding fathers were well aware that the Greeks had believed in Zues, Apollo, Hades, Aphrodite and the likes.

And they were aware that as time went on that the masses of subsequent ages deemed those beliefs to be false and absurd.

Just because they carried the faith of the time, doesn't mean that they lacked the intellect to be objective about it.

The words are clear as day. They weren't out to offend their fellow countrymen. But they were trying to set the stage to make the world safer for various beliefs and things like science.

[iceberg]

Bush deserves hate.
He has been the worst President of my lifetime.

He has incurred more debt than Reagen plus Jimmy Carter put together and been able to accomplish the double whammy of making the rest of the world hate us.

It was one thing when under Reagan the world feared and respected us but now they feel sorry for us that we have a president who couldn't make it past round one of a local elementary school spelling bee. In short they think we beat people up because we are stupid. That's just embarrassing.

and yet no one could beat him.

twice.

he may not be as bad as you imagine.

[jterrell]

and yet no one could beat him.

twice.

he may not be as bad as you imagine.

his ability to win elections i begrudgingly offer respect.
his actual on the job performance sucks.

i worked with a guy who was extremely good in interviews but extremely bad at his actual job. he was often under influence of various drugs.

the fact he could land jobs others did not merely demonstrated for me the lack of skill the hiring folks had at identifying successful candidates.

i use the same theory for bush.

the fact bush has been the worst president of my lifetime in and of itself admits he was/is president.
the fact hillary waited 4 years while he floundered in a second term before running abhors me; but politics is about winning, not being good at the job.

and fwiw i have been saying for a long time bush would be our worst president so i am no johnny-come-lately.

and i am a definitely democrat now(thanks to bush, gingrich and delay) but i would have voted mccain in 2000.

[peplaw06]

No, BS, to you. You're biased interpretation is telling about your stubbornness in regards to your faith.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of "beliefs". Why would you use quotes when you clearly aren't quoting?

My interpretation has no bias whatsoever. it's obvious to anyone who has ever heard of www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com).

It's saying that the government should not impose or make its citizens ahere to the majority's "untested, unproven set of beliefs" or make a law that imposes or respects an (any) establishment of (any) "set of beliefs" or make any laws regarding an established "set of beliefs" and its doctrine--whatever that may be.It doesn't say anything of the sort. You are again adding words "untested" and "unproven" -- and in quotes no less, where there are no such words in the 1st A. "Set of beliefs" isn't in there either.

All I have done is quote specific words of the amendment, and translate them for you. You are the one making words up.... or interpreting.

Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's as plain as day. You haven't answered my questions, because you can't square that clause with a strict "wall of separation of church and state" theory.

Until you can do so, consider this my last response to you. If you can't stay on topic, I'm not going to waste my time trying to keep you there. That and I'm not fond of the personal insults.

And for the latter part, it's really easy if you know how to read in English. It's saying that it also won't prohibit INDIVIDUALS from practicing "beliefs". So how would prohibiting prayer in school be compliant with that clause? I already told you that is what it does. It doesn't square with the separation of C and S idea.

In other words, by law, the government won't make you believe or not believe anything. That is left up to the individual... that's the crux of the United States' founding philosophy. The free exercise clause doesn't say that government won't make you believe or not believe anything. That could be an acceptable interpretation of the Establishment clause. But the free exercise clause clearly states that Congress won't STOP you from practicing whatever religion it is you should choose to practice, if you do so.

You can't possibly be this slow. So, I'll just chalk up your ostrich analysis to being biased about the issue.

Again, you're deriving from it what you want it to read, not what it actually says. My derivations are simple, there is no spin at all. You're the one adding words and quotes where no such words exist.

Yeah, I'm more interested in what the document actually says. If you know their educational backgrounds, then you know the dangers they saw with government imposing "an untested, unproven set of beliefs" onto its citizens.. and the ramifications that could carry over time.That sentiment is exactly opposite of the rubbish you're advocating. Separation of Church and State is a theory taken directly from documents OUTSIDE the Constitution.

They studied a lot of philosophy--a lot of it. So they understood that beliefs of their current age would change, as they have changed, and with those changes of beliefs in mind.. people's will would change and the interaction between the elements of time, sets of beliefs relevant to time and the passing of time thereof, would be hostile if the government were to oppress its beliefs onto its citizens. Exactly... that is why they did what they did. To protect two sets of people. The religious AND the non-religious. Congress can't establish a state-sponsored religion, or force you to believe something, but at the same time they also can't stop me from practicing how I choose to practice. You are worried about the government telling you what to believe, I'm worried about both. I don't tell you what to believe, but you don't tell me how I can practice.

[Ben_n_austin]

Why would you use quotes when you clearly aren't quoting?

My interpretation has no bias whatsoever. it's obvious to anyone who has ever heard of www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com).

Those are quotations meant to implicate what it is that we're actually talking about--a set of beliefs. In trying to follow the guidelines of the board.

Beliefs is a sufficient and necessary term in regards to what we're actually talking about. Can you follow?

Save your dictionary references, English/Philosophy double major here... ;)

It doesn't say anything of the sort. You are again adding words "untested" and "unproven" -- and in quotes no less, where there are no such words in the 1st A. "Set of beliefs" isn't in there either. Given that the types of belief that we're talking about, whichever denomination you are... you faith consists of an untested and unproven set of beliefs. That goes for the non-believers, too, my friend.

I'm just saying that your interpretation IS biased, for that's exactly what the R word is...

All I have done is quote specific words of the amendment, and translate them for you. You are the one making words up.... or interpreting.I was trying to simplify it for you... the adding words were to suffice for the R word. You really aren't very good at noting similarities in words. The mere definition of R is basically a set of beliefs... i was trying to put it in terms that you could understand without actually breaking the board guidelines that you continue to whine about, yet push the limits of...

Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's as plain as day. You haven't answered my questions, because you can't square that clause with a strict "wall of separation of church and state" theory.Yes, there are believers. There are also non-believers. Congress shall make no law prohibiting either. Non-believers are protected under this clause, just as believers--and equally so.

Free exercise' means that you're free to practice your religion. But given that, it won't prohibit the free exercise of any beliefs or non-beliefs.

You're entitled to not believe; and you're also entitled to be free from having to practice other's beliefs.

"No law prohibiting free exercise". Mandatory higher power meditating in school doesn't allow for free exercise of the non-belivers. Get it?

Until you can do so, consider this my last response to you. If you can't stay on topic, I'm not going to waste my time trying to keep you there. That and I'm not fond of the personal insults. Basically, you're getting head handed to you. I wouldn't wanna keep it up either. I've been through this same debate before with another poster.

I'm not insulting you. I'm just taken back by the level of insight that you have if you are what you claim you are....




So how would prohibiting prayer in school be compliant with that clause? I already told you that is what it does. It doesn't square with the separation of C and S idea.Prohibiting the free exercise thing again... the non-believers aren't exercising their freedoms when others are mandating that have to take part, no matter how minutely, in such rituals.

The free exercise clause doesn't say that government won't make you believe or not believe anything. That could be an acceptable interpretation of the Establishment clause. But the free exercise clause clearly states that Congress won't STOP you from practicing whatever religion it is you should choose to practice, if you do so.Right... but let me guess, you want to go around the room and say prayers for all the people with different "sets of beliefs"?

And then have the people who don't hold those sets of beliefs to be true to to feel like they've been prohibited from exercising their set of beliefs.

No law prohibiting free exercise of religion: Meaning some one can exercise, freely, not to believe...

My derivations are simple, there is no spin at all. You're the one adding words and quotes where no such words exist.There is much spin. You're trying to justify prayer in classrooms. This has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.;)

Who is spinning?

That sentiment is exactly opposite of the rubbish you're advocating. Separation of Church and State is a theory taken directly from documents OUTSIDE the Constitution. Not at all... That's my interpretation, and the majority's I might add.

Exactly... that is why they did what they did. To protect two sets of people. The religious AND the non-religious. Congress can't establish a state-sponsored religion, or force you to believe something, but at the same time they also can't stop me from practicing how I choose to practice. You are worried about the government telling you what to believe, I'm worried about both. I don't tell you what to believe, but you don't tell me how I can practice.We agree here. I just don't want your practice necessitating me having to take time out of my day so that you can "meditate". That's not giving me the free exercise of religion... as a 'non-believer' as you say.

Got it yet?

[peplaw06]

Those are quotations meant to implicate what it is that we're actually talking about--a set of beliefs. In trying to follow the guidelines of the board. This is not a religious debate. It is a constitutional one. The forum rules don't prohibit the mere mention of the word "religion."

Beliefs is a sufficient and necessary term in regards to what we're actually talking about. Can you follow?

Save your dictionary references, English/Philosophy double major here... ;)You can save your bragging about your education. I'm neither intimidated nor impressed.

BTW if you are what you say you are, you should know that if you're substituting your own words for others when quoting a document, you would use brackets ( i.e. [set of beliefs]), rather than quotation marks. Quotation marks are typically only used when lifting exact words out of a document. No charge for the English lesson, English major.

I'm just saying that your interpretation IS biased, for that's exactly what the R word is...Fair enough... there may be an amount of bias in my words... simply because I've studied the 1st amendment extensively and I have already formed an opinion about it long before you came along. But my interpretation is a lot closer to the actual language of the text than yours is. You're a S of C and S guy, and that's not in the text.

"No law prohibiting free exercise". Mandatory higher power meditating in school doesn't allow for free exercise of the non-belivers. Get it? When has Congress ever passed a law mandating "higher power meditating in school?" Another hint: They haven't.

Basically, you're getting head handed to you. I wouldn't wanna keep it up either. I've been through this same debate before with another poster. :laugh2:

You can't possibly be following the same argument I am. You have failed miserably in performing the most menial of tasks, you have refused to answer the most pointed of questions, yet you puff yourself up by saying I'm getting my head handed to me??

Whatever you have to tell yourself bud.

Prohibiting the free exercise thing again... the non-believers aren't exercising their freedoms when others are mandating that have to take part, no matter how minutely, in such rituals.Have you ever been mandated to take part in any religious ritual? Was there a law passed by Congress telling you to do so. I won't hold my breath waiting for an affirmative answer.

Right... but let me guess, you want to go around the room and say prayers for all the people with different "sets of beliefs"?

And then have the people who don't hold those sets of beliefs to be true to to feel like they've been prohibited from exercising their set of beliefs. A safe assumption, but it remains an assumption. I have yet to say anything of the sort, because this isn't a religious debate. You keep trying to take it there, but I'm not interested in going that way.

No law prohibiting free exercise of religion: Meaning some one can exercise, freely, not to believe... Yes, but it goes both ways, does it not? Yet again, you only choose to see one side of the issue.

There is much spin. You're trying to justify prayer in classrooms. This has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.;)

Who is spinning?Another generalization. I'm assuming you think I'm asking for mandatory prayer in the classroom. I'm not. I haven't spent one word trying to "justify prayer in classrooms." I have said over and over that the Establishment Clause prohibits Congressional mandating of prayer in classrooms. But the free exercise clause prohibits Congress from telling me that I can't pray in the classroom. Subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. I'm not surprised you didn't catch it. You're only seeing what you want to see.

Not at all... That's my interpretation, and the majority's I might add.The majority of what? A panel of 9 Supreme Court Justices from the mid 1900s? Oh well.

We agree here. I just don't want your practice necessitating me having to take time out of my day so that you can "meditate". That's not giving me the free exercise of religion... as a 'non-believer' as you say. I've never once even intimated such a thing.

[Danny White]

This thread has gradually gone in one of those directions where we're arguing an issue where both sides are equally entrenched and no one is going to change their mind (no matter how convincing peplaw's arguments are :p: )

[Ben_n_austin]

This is not a religious debate. It is a constitutional one. The forum rules don't prohibit the mere mention of the word "religion."

When you can't win an argument, change the premises/rules, eh?

The R word is in the clause we are speaking of. It's the crux of our argument--and it's about your interpretation vs. mine--regarding R=C vs. the S, or non-S, of C and S.

But that is neither here nor there, the matter at hand in regards to the topic is that your interpretation steers you one way because you hold certain beliefs. I don't hold those sorts of beliefs, so I am able to see it for what it is and what it was meant to be understood as.

I don't want to take away anyone's rights, including your right to pray to whatever entity it is that you pray to with my (correct) interpretation.

You can save your bragging about your education. I'm neither intimidated nor impressed. Interesting, "peplaw". :o:

BTW if you are what you say you are, you should know that if you're substituting your own words for others when quoting a document, you would use brackets ( i.e. [set of beliefs]), rather than quotation marks. Quotation marks are typically only used when lifting exact words out of a document. No charge for the English lesson, English major.No, it was more like "set of beliefs" from a sociological standpoint. As in saying something like that person is "black" or this person is "religious". This is an informal forum. I'm not getting graded on my English.

And thank the Lord ;) you're not getting graded on your logical or comprehensive abilities.

There are various functions for quotation marks; not just one of them. Someone has heard too many beer commercials.

Fair enough... there may be an amount of bias in my words... simply because I've studied the 1st amendment extensively and I have already formed an opinion about it long before you came along. But my interpretation is a lot closer to the actual language of the text than yours is. You're a S of C and S guy, and that's not in the text.Yes, it is in the text as far as what the meanings of the definitions and definitions of the meanings within the amendment actually are.

You just don't want it to be a S of C and S. I understand. I've had opportunity to debate many who come from your line of thought. You admit here, like most do sometime along the way, that your mind is made up.

Further, there really isn't much to be debated in the minds of most scholars. Even when I was more of a believer, I still felt that this principle held strongly. Separation of Church and state is what it is... and the concept is alive and well within the amendment.

My guess is that your interpretation would not be the same interpretation if Islam suddenly, or even slowly, became the dominant faith of our culture.

When has Congress ever passed a law mandating "higher power meditating in school?" Another hint: They haven't.

:laugh2:Yeah, it was sort of a metaphorical joke my friend... to lighten the "mood" of the argument, if you will.

You can't possibly be following the same argument I am. You have failed miserably in performing the most menial of tasks, you have refused to answer the most pointed of questions, yet you puff yourself up by saying I'm getting my head handed to me??

Whatever you have to tell yourself bud.What question haven't I answered? You asked how the establishment clause squared with the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

And I gave you a logical response....

What?

Aristotelian Logic?

Do you want it in formalized format? I'll give you an O for the particular negative premise.... Congress shall make no law, etc.

Or can you follow, in plain English, what it is I'm saying without repeating the same question over and over as if I haven't given you a valid, if not sound argument.

I'm not the one pushing my chest out, peplaw. The menial task of exposing your biased interpretation of legal principles has shown to a simple one.

Have you ever been mandated to take part in any religious ritual? Was there a law passed by Congress telling you to do so. I won't hold my breath waiting for an affirmative answer.Yes, at a football game during high school.

No, Congress actually past a law against it.

In my opinion, it'd be a lot more rampant and a lot more divisive if the law weren't in place however.

So, you have a particular affirmative answer a for your first question, and a universal negative or a particular negative (depending on your definition of Congress and its function; not to mention its possible numeric make up--aka "indefinite x") for your second answer. :)

Square enough?

You may now exhale, blue boy. lol



A safe assumption, but it remains an assumption. I have yet to say anything of the sort, because this isn't a religious debate. You keep trying to take it there, but I'm not interested in going that way.O, you're interested...

Your "interest" is peppered throughout your inquiries about prayers and classrooms as well as your statements about how your mind is made up.

Yes, but it goes both ways, does it not? Yet again, you only choose to see one side of the issue.It's interesting that you ask me this. I once was a "believer", and still felt strongly about S of C & S as a principle. It's just always been my interpretation of what it says.

Another generalization. I'm assuming you think I'm asking for mandatory prayer in the classroom. I'm not. I haven't spent one word trying to "justify prayer in classrooms." I have said over and over that the Establishment Clause prohibits Congressional mandating of prayer in classrooms. But the free exercise clause prohibits Congress from telling me that I can't pray in the classroom. Subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. I'm not surprised you didn't catch it. You're only seeing what you want to see.No, I agree. I think we're actually a little closer on the issue than you think. You actually seem like a S of C and S guy....

You're just under the impression that you're not. lol

The majority of what? A panel of 9 Supreme Court Justices from the mid 1900s? Oh well. Yes... as well as the majority of scholars.

I've never once even intimated such a thing.Good. Then you don't scare me as much as some of the other anti S of C and S people. :)

[jterrell]

just a few notes here:

1. I was also an English/Philosophy major with a minor in PolySci.

I dropped Philosophy because they did not offer enough courses to actually get the needed credits for a major. They would offer courses required for graduation one in four semesters.... ughhhh. I loved philosophy courses however.

2. The documents are outside the constitution which we are discussing but they are written by the framers and describing the meaning of the amendment they published. It's hard to disavow them without disavowing the constitution itself. If Thomas Jefferson knows less about what was meant by the constitution then us we ought to just tear it up and start over.

3. There are lots of standards of writing and anyone who ever took any English courses would understand they are mostly arbitrary. I detest typing though instead of tho for instance. Linguistically, I would argue tho is perfectly appropriate.

4. For the most part these are common sense debates not big brain debates.

5. As DW asserted these questions have been brought up for centuries. People way smarter than any of us have argued on both sides of the fence.

All that said the issue did not appear early on except with the framers explaining to Protestants why this separation of Church and state was necessary. To me that is not only telling, it is the directive from the framers as to their meaning.

Did you know that mail could be delivered in Sundays for somewhere near 80 yards after the constitution. It was not made to be respecting of the Sabbath under the laws of the original framers or under the watch of the first few Presidents.

As we grew away from colonialism and settled into a more established Protestant base then religion became more involved in government.

At the same time, we have recognized a God exists as a country since its inception; the Supreme Court begins each session with an ask for God's blessings. The framers did belief it to be the case but also understood it was a belief. And they have made it abundantly clear beliefs are not the basis for the constitution.

Our United States Constitution was the first government to separate Church from state and essentially in doing so set us up for the freedoms we hold dear.

[peplaw06]

I'm only going to respond to one point for a couple of reasons...
1) We're actually finding quite a bit of common ground, and
2) Where we aren't, like DW said, we are both so entrenched, we're not going to give up any ground.

But I wanted to mention this, because of something you pointed out. I was asking you if you had ever been mandated to pray (or perform some other religious ritual) at school before.

And you said this....

Yes, at a football game during high school.

No, Congress actually past a law against it.

First of all, I doubt you were actually forced to pray (or whatever it was). Someone may have strongly suggested that you do it, but as far as mandating it, I doubt that was the case. but that's beside the point.

You went on to say that Congress passed a law AGAINST it.

Well, if your suggestion is that "the R word" is merely a set of beliefs, and your particular set of beliefs is that you don't choose to perform these rituals, then wouldn't a law backing up your set of beliefs violate the Establishment clause?

I only ask because I think that contradicts your definition of "the R word."

[jterrell]

I'm only going to respond to one point for a couple of reasons...
1) We're actually finding quite a bit of common ground, and
2) Where we aren't, like DW said, we are both so entrenched, we're not going to give up any ground.

But I wanted to mention this, because of something you pointed out. I was asking you if you had ever been mandated to pray (or perform some other religious ritual) at school before.

And you said this....



First of all, I doubt you were actually forced to pray (or whatever it was). Someone may have strongly suggested that you do it, but as far as mandating it, I doubt that was the case. but that's beside the point.

You went on to say that Congress passed a law AGAINST it.

Well, if your suggestion is that "the R word" is merely a set of beliefs, and your particular set of beliefs is that you don't choose to perform these rituals, then wouldn't a law backing up your set of beliefs violate the Establishment clause?

I only ask because I think that contradicts your definition of "the R word."

Not to jump in here but I have been told every head bowed, every eye closed.
I have also had coaches tell us to pray after practice and games.
It wasn't like they'd kick you off the team but you would have been ostracized for it. Its conjecture since no one complained.

Since I often lead us in the Lord's prayer it obviously didn't even occur to me to be wrong. I don't think any kid there was not protestant or catholic. If they were they didn't advertise the fact. Kids got beat up for far less.

As we become less and less isolated and more and more global than this is going to be an even bigger issues imho.

In elementary school we said the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer.
My kiddoes pray at school as well but I am sure it is handled differently now.
My 7 year old said she "didnt like islams because they want to kill us" the other day so rhetoric is not all that open at her school.

[Ben_n_austin]

I'm only going to respond to one point for a couple of reasons...
1) We're actually finding quite a bit of common ground, and
2) Where we aren't, like DW said, we are both so entrenched, we're not going to give up any ground.

But I wanted to mention this, because of something you pointed out. I was asking you if you had ever been mandated to pray (or perform some other religious ritual) at school before.

And you said this....



First of all, I doubt you were actually forced to pray (or whatever it was). Someone may have strongly suggested that you do it, but as far as mandating it, I doubt that was the case. but that's beside the point.

You went on to say that Congress passed a law AGAINST it.

Well, if your suggestion is that "the R word" is merely a set of beliefs, and your particular set of beliefs is that you don't choose to perform these rituals, then wouldn't a law backing up your set of beliefs violate the Establishment clause?

I only ask because I think that contradicts your definition of "the R word."


Yeah, similar to what JTerrell has mentioned. I remember someone having to run laps while we prayed....

I'm pretty sure that laws against mandated prayer is legislation that is in place and was at the time of this incident. In other words, public schools can't mandate prayer now; nor could they then--S of C and S.

I think our definitions of S of C and S might be more different than our definitions of R.

But to answer your question no... a law backing up my beliefs or non-beliefs doesn't violate anything. It pretty much says that the gov. will stay out of it... Once again, you're deriving an ought from an is.

This is hard for you. I know. But I really don't think that there is as much subjectivity here, as JTerrell suggests.

It's cut and dry in my mind. And R symbols have been removed from government buildings in recent times BECAUSE this concept IS still very much alive in our government--as much as people with your set of beliefs would like to deny it as law.

[AikmanRulz]

Hilary got my vote.