Top secret DoD documents containing Bible verses released

[stereologist]

At this junction in the screaming let me tell you about an episode at a company where I worked.

 

This very religious person shows up at work. That fact was unknown to my friend, call him Ducky. Call the religious fanatic Joe.

 

So Joe is being led around the office. He comes into Ducky's office. So Ducky asks his typical cynical question, "What's your plan for this disaster we call work?"

 

Joe politely responds, "I want to do a job pleasing to God."

 

Ducky bursts out with a raucous laugh and says, "That's the best line yet!"

 

Let's just say that Joe intended to roast Ducky's ass for religious discrimination.

 

Chuck meant no harm. He was about the nicest person at the job. Joe just wanted everyone to know he was more religious than the next guy.

 

Here we had head butting over basically nothing. Sounds like this thread.

 

Does quoting a religious text constitute a problem. Sometimes, not always. The separation of church and state crew have some homework to do. The supporters have some homework to do as well.

 

I still think I'm hearing more whining and cheering on this issue than is deserved.

[iNow]

The separation of church and state crew have some homework to do.

What, pray tell, do you suggest is being missed? We have a very specific topic with very specific circumstances, so hopefully your response will be respectful, demonstrative of, and aligned with that fact.

[stereologist]

Your claim is that government cannot in any way mention religious texts. That is not correct. The limitations are not what you claim. That is why I suggest you take the time to check what are the legal interpretations instead of redefining the concept in your personal flavor.

[GutZ]

On money I really couldn't care less , it's historic or whatever. This isn't my grade 9th essay. There were important documents. The documents which are actually dangerous to "national security". It's not the end of the world but I think some of you drastically undermined the issue.

 

I can accept the fact that it's stupid for someone to be offended, but given the hostilies with the middle-east....Why is there a need to quote scripture in official documents? Sure it's just a verse...same token why do anyone feel the need to do that?

 

Even if it's stupidly harmless, it doesn't belong. As soon as it does where do you draw the line...screw the line who cares! Just don't write scripture in official documents! God has nothing to do with human politics. You guys clearly made a point way back when not to do this.

 

It's official government documents and the last time I checked it's not the governments job to start holy wars....so keep it out of there.

 

I don't clean peoples cars if I am a lawyer...

Edited May 21, 2009 by GutZ

[stereologist]

I like your post Gutz. Personally I think that the Joe in my story was way off base. He was the victor, but it should have been a draw. Ducky could have given a needless apology, Joe could have done the same. They could have hated or liked each other and still accomplished their jobs.

 

Would anybody here have cared if the quotes came from the Popul Vuh?

[iNow]

Your claim is that government cannot in any way mention religious texts.

Not really, no. Of course government can mention religion or religious texts, it is the context and location of said mention, as well as its intended purpose, which are entirely relevant here.

 

 

The limitations are not what you claim. That is why I suggest you take the time to check what are the legal interpretations instead of redefining the concept in your personal flavor.

Well sir, I must disagree, as my claim is directly supported by the Supreme Court of these United States. The legal interpretations at stake are abundantly clear, and have nothing whatsoever to do with either "personal flavor" or attempts to "redefine" anything.

 

Now...While I, and other readers here, continue to await your precise and relevant response regarding where I have failed to "do my homework" and how that failure to "take the time to check the legal interpretations" relates to the discussion at hand, I will in the meantime draw your attention to the decision put forth by the SCOTUS in Everson v Board of Education.

 

The ruling in the Everson case drew heavily on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and also James Madison (who is often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights.") In their ruling, the court provided a broad and sweeping interpretation of the Establishment Clause... an interpretation which has guided the Court's future decisions for decades (and provided an interpretation which, interestingly enough, directly supports the arguments which I, and others, have thus far put forth here in this thread).

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

 

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

The case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agree that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion.

 

 

 

Additionally, you might consider a similar ruling about the unconstitutionality of such acts which has been set forth in the case of Webb v. City of Republic:

 

In Webb v. City of Republic, 1999 WL 529437 (W.D. Mo. July 9), plaintiff Jean Webb sued the City of Republic for including (in 1991) a Christian fish symbol in its city seal. The federal district court held for Webb, holding that the seal unconstitutionally endorsed Christianity, and thus violated the Establishment Clause; this is largely in keeping with other decisions on religious symbols in city seals.

 

... as well as in ACLU v City of Stow:

In 1998, a federal district court found that a city seal for Stow, Ohio, containing, along with other secular symbols, a Latin cross superimposed on an open book, had the primary effect of advancing Christianity and thus violated the Establishment Clause.

 

 

 

 

I strongly encourage you to review your own understanding of our history, our laws, and our constitution before again asserting that others should "do their homework."

 

Now sir, do YOU have anything more than mere "personal flavor" to support your position here?

Edited May 21, 2009 by iNow

[bascule]

I see this as a straw man argument.

 

Ok, why?

 

I don't see this as defending the Constitution.

 

Perhaps you can address my arguments about the Constitutionality of it directly then, rather than blindly accusing me of strawmen.

[Pangloss]

Allow me.

 

First a brief aside:

 

It might be different in the land of Oz, but I can tell you right now… without a shadow of a doubt that, had I put such a quote on the cover of a PowerPoint I was using at work… to share with my management and our teams… I’d have been heavily penalized, and very likely terminated immediately.

 

Since the laws which make such actions in the workplace illegal all stem from our government, I fail to see why the government itself should be exempt from such laws and allowed to engage in such practices, when those who might do so in the workplace would be penalized heavily for the exact same acts.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're saying that you work for the government and that you'd be fire, but then you talk about the government as a different entity so I guess you're saying you work for a private entity. But there's no law that I know of governing the expression of religious views as part of a private businesses' correspondence. I thought the question here was regarding a law that ONLY applies to the government?

 

Are you talking about workplace harassment, perhaps? The expression of religion in a workplace might constitute harassment, under the right conditions, but it wouldn't automatically be so. Plenty of businesses have religious themes as part of their normal workplace environment.

 

So I guess I don't really understand what you're saying here. Maybe you could clarify it for me.

 

 

Your claim is that government cannot in any way mention religious texts. That is not correct. The limitations are not what you claim. That is why I suggest you take the time to check what are the legal interpretations instead of redefining the concept in your personal flavor.

 

Wow, nicely put. And I agreed with Gutz's post and your follow-up as well.

 

I raised that other point that you mentioned in re Popul Vuh in an earlier post but it didn't get taken up. I think it's right on the mark, though.

 

 

Now to bascule's question.

 

Not really, no. Of course government can mention religion or religious texts, it is the context and location of said mention, as well as its intended purpose, which are entirely relevant here.

 

It's a bit more than that, actually. People employed by the government can express their religious views even within the context of their actions as an agency of government. This is protected, except when it is used to promote a religion or it intersects with other restrictions such as harassment. (More on this after the next quote from you below.)

 

I've always been somewhat amused by the phase "we don't have prayer in public schools". That's not true at all -- students can pray all they want. So can the teachers. It's when the teachers try to lead the students in prayer that the wall is broken.

 

If these cover sheets are wrong, then somebody had better tell President Obama to stop mentioning god in any of his speeches ever again. To quote Robert N. Bellah, "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension."

 

(I found that in the Wikipedia here, and it lists an external source, but reader beware.)

 

 

Well sir, I must disagree, as my claim is directly supported by the Supreme Court of these United States. The legal interpretations at stake are abundantly clear, and have nothing whatsoever to do with either "personal flavor" or attempts to "redefine" anything.

 

Not really. Stereologist wrote about a specific point with regard to expression, and you answered him with a point about how the state cannot establish/promote/endorse religion. The problem is this: Determining whether or not something constitutes promotion or endorsement of religion is not clear cut at all.

 

What is clear is this: These documents don't do any of the specific things listed in your quotes. They don't establish a religion. They don't represent laws. They don't instruct or force people to go to church, etc etc etc. There's simply nothing listed in any of your quotes that is directly, by definition, contradicted by these actions.

 

So the issue is one of judgment (i.e. opinion), which is whether or not these documents constitute unfair influence in that direction. That is, of course, why the Supreme Court has the so-called "Lemon Test", which it uses to rule in such cases (as recently as 2000) along three criteria (any of which can cause a ruling against the expression):

 

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

 

This of course is used to rule on legislation, but if it were applied here then it's not at ALL clear that this would cause a negative ruling for the perpetrators of the Cover Sheets from Hell. It might indeed be ruled to violate one of these tests, but it's not automatic at all. Not factual. Rather: A matter of opinion.

 

There is also Sandra Day O'Connor's so-called "Endorsement Test", which says that the government is guilty of endorsing a religion if it creates a perception of doing so in a reasonable person's mind. That's not ANY reasonable person, mind you, but the theoretically objective "reasonable person" used in court tests (you can read more about that here).

 

Note this interesting quote from O'Connor on that subject:

 

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

 

The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.

 

Did the government in this case intend to endorse religion in these statements? We don't know, and a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation has been offered that is, as far as any of us knows, of equal value at the very least. As I have been saying from the beginning, without context, we cannot decide.

 

That, again, renders this issue a matter of opinion. Not fact.

[john5746]

God has nothing to do with human politics.

 

This line sums it up nicely for me.

[stereologist]

iNow I think Pangloss says all I was thinking.

[JohnB]

iNow, thanks for that Treasury link, that was interesting. (A 3 cent coin? Really? Fascinating.)

 

I'm surprised the usage on paper money is so recent (1957), for some reason I thought it was much older than that. Oh well, live and learn.

 

The laws are different here. Where a "lead" quote is from is less important than it's relevence to the subject matter. Quote the Bible, Terry Pratchett or MAD magazine, so long as it is relevent to the subject at hand and those to whom the presentation is made, nobody gives a damn.

 

Perhaps a difference in attitudes towards this matter stems from the seeming fact that the "religious right" has far less pull in Oz than the US? To us they are simply wackjobs with little to no political power.

 

Ours simply aren't as dangerous as yours. We'll get some silly bugger standing outside a "Family Planning Clinic" holding a placard and singing hymns. Yours will be more direct in their disapproval.

 

So it could be a cultural thing.

 

On the SCOTUS ruling, I have to agree with Pangloss. I don't see how the usage of these quotes contravenes the ruling in the Everson case. Could you elucidate? (My "Word of the Week".)

 

The other two cases concerned City Seals, truly apples and oranges when compared to "Top Secret" internal briefings, surely.

[Sisyphus]

"God" was inserted into all sorts of things in the early Cold War as a further way to distinguish ourselves from the officially atheistic Soviet Union. Now that "terrorist" has replaced "communist" as the official bogeyman, it might be nice to see a rhetorical embrace of secular humanism in public institutions to contrast ourselves with the anti-humanist religious extremist ideology that drives our enemies. If it's just one group of religious warriors vs. another, you're not offering any real alternative, so everybody may as well just root for the home team, perpetuating conflict indefinitely.

 

That's my problem this kind of thing (well, one of them). Whether it violates the establishment clause doesn't really interest me. There are other, better reasons for not waging jihad.

[Mokele]

I was thinking about this in detail this morning, and I think I've found two major reasons (in addition to my prior point) that this information strikes me as "bad":

 

1) Foreign relations - If you recall, back when these two wars started up, and particularly with the Iraq war, a lot of time had to be spent assuring our allies in the Middle East that this wasn't a "War Against Islam", especially in light of some of the more crusade-ish quotes from the White House and pundits. This revelation basically implies that those assurances were BS, and that it was/is a war against Islam, especially given the nature of the quotes used. I'm not saying that we did start the war to crush Islam, but those that were already suspicious of our motives and only barely convinced by our assurances may find this to be a confirmation of their worst suspicions, and make diplomacy substantially more difficult.

 

2) Command decisions - Whether or not it's constitutional, having people high up in the chain of command viewing a war from a religious perspective is a bad thing. And not because it's religion. It'd be just as bad if they viewed the war as some sort of personal vendetta for the same reason: it's likely to result in command decisions made out of desire to fulfill some personal, secondary objective rather than to actually accomplish what needs to be accomplished. At best, this could compromise mission success, at worst, lives could be lost out of a desire to push forward and fulfill prophecy or in a refusal to retreat and let the forces of evil have even a momentary success. Whether it's religious, personal, political, or otherwise, if you have an axe to grind in a combat situation, you'll make bad moves, and the influence may be too subconscious for you to counter. I'm not saying we need to force officers to abandon their faiths, but rather that we should not be encouraging *any* sort of framework which puts the situation in anything beyond the most calculated, tactical perspective.

[iNow]

Stereologist wrote about a specific point with regard to expression, and you answered him with a point about how the state cannot establish/promote/endorse religion. The problem is this: Determining whether or not something constitutes promotion or endorsement of religion is not clear cut at all.

 

What is clear is this: These documents don't do any of the specific things listed in your quotes. They don't establish a religion.

 

I suggest you read more closely the broad and sweeping decision laid down in the Everson case, with which all nine justices agreed:

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0001_ZS.html

 

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

 

 

There was no "wall of separation" in those briefing documents. It was instead a wide open passageway with a huge, "Come on in, Y'all... Biblical quotes and ideologies are welcome here" neon sign hanging directly above.

 

 

Also, since you raised the Lemon Test, please explain to me what relevant secular purpose placing such quotes on the covers of military briefings had. This should be cute. I know precisely what the Lemon Test is, its origin, and its application... having repeatedly leveraged it myself in my arguments in the gay marriage threads.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

iNow, thanks for that Treasury link, that was interesting. (A 3 cent coin? Really? Fascinating.)

You're quite welcome. There are similar references about the insertion of "One Nation, Under God" in our pledge of allegiance which all school children recite (although, they can opt out and choose to remain silent without consequence if they so choose, but are still forced to be surrounded by others who do not).

 

 

 

Perhaps a difference in attitudes towards this matter stems from the seeming fact that the "religious right" has far less pull in Oz than the US? To us they are simply wackjobs with little to no political power.

 

Ours simply aren't as dangerous as yours. We'll get some silly bugger standing outside a "Family Planning Clinic" holding a placard and singing hymns. Yours will be more direct in their disapproval.

 

So it could be a cultural thing.

Very likely. There is tremendous religious influence in our country, despite its founding as a secular nation. It's both disturbing and distasteful, and I, for one, cannot wait until my fellow citizens wake up and realize how important it is to COMPLETELY separate their belief/faith from their governing body and principles. However, for the time being, the reliotards wield the most power, which is why some of us consistently fight so passionately against them.

 

 

On the SCOTUS ruling, I have to agree with Pangloss. I don't see how the usage of these quotes contravenes the ruling in the Everson case. Could you elucidate? (My "Word of the Week".)

Good word. The basic issue here is that, in ALL cases where questions of establishment clause breaches are raised, the courts have consistently erred on the side of declaring any and all questionable practices invalid and unconstitutional. This is demonstrated in cases regarding crosses on city seals, or disallowing schools to openly support prayer (or do so over the loud speaker), for example. For this reason alone (the abundant precedent and clarity with which that precedent has been offered), I posit that their ruling regarding having this type of religious information and/or quotes on official military/government documents (documents which don't have... and should not have... any direct connection to religious policy or issues in our country) invalid and deemed unconstitutional. (What I mean is, if the issue at hand were directly related to religion or our religious policies, then it might be relevant... but that's not the case, since these were Department of Defense briefings related to ongoing wars, and hence religion should be the LAST thing intertwined with them).

 

 

From a link I shared previously:

In general, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down

any

practices that

might be likely to be perceived

either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion.

 

 

 

The challenge, of course, is that these religious groups tend to ignore our constitution and the SCOTUS rulings when it suits them. This is part of the reason I keep mentioning how unlikely it is that all of these "tolerant Christians" would hold and be defending these actions if the text in question were from Islamic texts. It's only because it's their own personal brand of hooey that they find it to be "a-okay." If it were "Allah Ackbar" on our currency, or if it were quotes from the Koran on these high level military briefings, I suggest that they would be livid and "fit to be tied," but that's sort of a side issue so I'll consider my point made on that.

 

 

The other two cases concerned City Seals, truly apples and oranges when compared to "Top Secret" internal briefings, surely.

I completely understand that those are separate issues. I shared those to illustrate the tendency of the court when dealing with matters such as this, and to demonstrate how they would likely rule in this case. Those references allow us to gain insight into how the courts have interpreted similar issues in the past, and how they regularly deal with questions of constitutionality on issues which even SEEM to appear to mix government documents and practices with religion. Their interpretations of the Establishment Clause are clear and consistent, and my references DIRECTLY rebut those who continue to claim otherwise.

Edited May 21, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Also' date=' since you raised the Lemon Test, please explain to me what relevant secular purpose placing such quotes on the covers of military briefings had. This should be cute. I know precisely what the Lemon Test is, its origin, and its application having repeatedly referenced it myself in the gay marriage thread arguments.

[/quote']

 

Several people already have (motivation for the troops), but my point was that the Lemon test would be applied, a fact that you (since you know all about it) specifically chose to avoid in order to imply that there would be no subjective ruling, but rather a simple application of fact.

 

I guess you're admitting now that that's not the case, and that this is in fact a gray area subject to the Lemon test, so I guess we agree on that issue. Glad to hear it.

[The Bear's Key]

Your claim is that government cannot in any way mention religious texts. That is not correct. The limitations are not what you claim. That is why I suggest you take the time to check what are the legal interpretations instead of redefining the concept in your personal flavor.[/quote']Wow, nicely put.

How on Earth did you got "nicely put"? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? stereologist's post can be summed up as follows...

 

Your claim is wrong. I suggest you look up the facts instead of giving us your version.

 

Opinions differ I guess. But where most everyone's been quoting references and providing links, I really fail to see how the above is better.

 

 

I'm surprised the usage on paper money is so recent (1957), for some reason I thought it was much older than that. Oh well, live and learn.

And the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance happened in the 50s as well, an era of highly religious conservatism.

 

Perhaps a difference in attitudes towards this matter stems from the seeming fact that the "religious right" has far less pull in Oz than the US? To us they are simply wackjobs with little to no political power.

Bingo.

[SH3RL0CK]

How on Earth did you got "nicely put"? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? stereologist's post can be summed up as follows...

 

Your claim is wrong. I suggest you look up the facts instead of giving us your version.

 

Opinions differ I guess. But where most everyone's been quoting references and providing links, I really fail to see how the above is better.

 

I would surmise the "nicely put" was because Stereologist managed to condense this thread into a single paragraph.

[iNow]

I would surmise the "nicely put" was because Stereologist managed to condense this thread into a single paragraph.

 

The value of a concise reply is completely lost when that succinct response is inaccurate, non-representative of the actual discussion, and completely vacant of supporting evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Opinions differ I guess. But where most everyone's been quoting references and providing links, I really fail to see how the above is better.

Thanks for that. I was having a bit of a "WTF!?!" moment myself.

[bascule]

Your claim is that government cannot in any way mention religious texts. That is not correct.

 

In this case, it's not "mentioning religious texts". They're juxtaposing Bible verses (and only Bible verses) which are ostensibly there in an inspirational capacity with photos of soldiers.

 

And you accuse me of strawmen? Sheesh.

[Pangloss]

The value of a concise reply is completely lost when that succinct response is inaccurate, non-representative of the actual discussion, and completely vacant of supporting evidence.

 

Nope. It was accurate, representative of the actual discussion, and reflected supporting evidence previously offered in the thread.

 

 

In this case, it's not "mentioning religious texts". They're juxtaposing Bible verses (and only Bible verses) which are ostensibly there in an inspirational capacity[/b'] with photos of soldiers.

 

Which is permitted under the constitution. Whether it is also an example of harassment is a judgment call which would have to be proven in court. You feel it is, great, I respect your opinion on this. Others disagree. Way it goes.

[bascule]

Which is permitted under the constitution.

 

Whether this particular usage is Constitutional or not is highly debatable. These documents clearly endorse Christianity and no other religions. In my opinion that falls within the guidelines established by Everson v. Ewing. Religion in government is okay as long as special treatment isn't given to one religion in particular. That's not what's going on here. Christianity is clearly given preferential treatment.

 

However, it's certainly less egregious than things like the government giving money to faith-based initiatives.

[iNow]

Nope. It was accurate, representative of the actual discussion, and reflected supporting evidence previously offered in the thread.

 

Let's explore that bolded bit for a moment, shall we?

 

 

Was the supporting evidence in this post?

I didn't waste much time reading the literature. I looked over a few slides. Are we talking thousands, dozens, or less than 10 pages here?

 

Nope.

What about here?

 

Geez guys this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Bascule et al don't take this too wrong, but you sound like Rush Limbaugh. Now don't flame me, but think about it. Is this really that important? My guess is that the info after the cover page is more interesting and worthy of debate.

Darn... Not there either.

What about here?

 

Look bascule I knew up front that using Rush Limbaugh or another polarizing name like Nancy Pelosi would draw attention.

 

I see this as a straw man argument. I don't see this as defending the Constitution.

 

I do buy your arguments about inflaming Islamic viewpoints. You say non-Christian, but are you really talking about Jains, animists, Hindus, or others? Say what you mean.

Gosh... I still don't see any supporting evidence, but I like you, Pangloss...

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and keep going. What about here?

At this junction in the screaming let me tell you about an episode at a company where I worked.

 

This very religious person shows up at work. That fact was unknown to my friend, call him Ducky. Call the religious fanatic Joe.

 

Wow... That was completely irrelevant, and still no supporting evidence. Maybe I'm missing something, though. You SURELY would not be standing up so unwaveringly if you were not absolutely certain that he'd offered supporting evidence of his position, or debunked the position of others which has been strongly reinforced by references, precedent, and citations. I'd better keep going, and review the rest of his posts. I'm just sure that his evidence or quality counter-arguments will be in one of them...

 

 

Your claim is that government cannot in any way mention religious texts. That is not correct. The limitations are not what you claim. That is why I suggest you take the time to check what are the legal interpretations instead of redefining the concept in your personal flavor.

Well, that's a bald assertion, and I've dealt with it pretty forcefully already. Still no supporting evidence. I'm sure it's here somewhere...

 

What about this post?

iNow I think Pangloss says all I was thinking.

 

Nope. Nothing. Nadda. Zip...

 

However, at least now we have some insight why you're supporting him. He openly stated he agrees with you. What more do we need in an argument based on reality, eh? As long as Pangloss agrees with you, there's no need to rebut the SCOTUS precedent shared in support of the opposing side, or to make an argument for your own. Winning Pangloss is MUCH more important that supporting ones arguments and abiding by the standard rules of debate and intellectual exchange.

 

 

BTW... I just quoted every one of his posts. No supporting evidence... None whatsoever. Please pull your head out of your ass and uncover your ears/eyes, will ya, please?

[GutZ]

*dances naked to ease tension*

[iNow]

Okay. I'll calm down if you promise to PLEASE put your pants back on. Seriously, I'll give you money... just put your clothes on.

 

 

Can somebody please tell me where the argument I've put forth is not valid, or why the SCOTUS precedents and cases I've noted don't support my points?

 

Can somebody please use evidence and precedent to support claims that there is no problem with having quotes from the Christian bible displayed as a prominent message on the covers of DoD military briefings to the President of the US regarding active wars?

[GutZ]

*Gyrates*

 

Fine....