Free Republic

He's a lying LIEberal like Bill and Hillery and McVeigh. If he'd spent time in a uniform, he'd have respect for this coutnry. But no. He's a clueless pampered spoiled brat.

What a looozer. He won't dare have Ann Coulter on his network, because her legs are way better than Al F**ken's.

Well put. One of the opponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" in Science courses criticizes it because it cannot be examined by the Scientific Method.

So how can evolution be examined by the scientific method? Each time I try to ask scientific questions to evolutionists here all I get is rhetoric. What is the proof of evolution - scientifically wise?

Well, I don't exactly like labels, and I don't know if I fit your category of "evolutionist," but I'll try to answer. Mind you, I'm no expert on evolution or biology. But I do know something about the scientific process.

The scientific process requires that there be a testable, predictive, reproducible theory. If I had a billion years, I could rigorously test the Theory of Evolution. I could impose pressure on an ecosystem, and predict its response. For instance, I could heat the ecosystem by 10 degrees C, and expect to see an increase in hairless critters. I could do that same experiment a few times, and the theory could be supported if the results fit my prediction.

I don't have a billion years. I may not have more than a couple hundred before I shuffle off. So I can't do that experiment. On its surface, therefore, the Theory of Evolution cannot be tested.

However, that may not be true. Those involved in looking at various aspects of the large, complex Theory of Evolution, have been able to make predictions about some archeological finds which would turn up. For instance, there was a search for a "Missing Link." Many such Missing Links have been found, in fact. (With each find, the search for a Missing Link looked for one with a smaller difference between two similar species.)

Secondly, many biologists would argue, I believe, that we have seen evolution at work within our lifetimes. In response to the pressure of antibiotics, many species of bacteria have changed, to develop a resistance. That observation is entirely in line with the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. As I said, I'm no expert, but I can make a scientific prediction, based on the concepts in the Theory of Evolution: If humans continue to misuse antibiotics, bacteria will continue to change -to evolve- to the point where very few of the currently known crop of antibiotics will have any value at all.

In contrast, there is no prediction, no experimentation, no reproducibility in the "Intelligent Design" concept. Intelligent Design is a fully valid viewpoint in the field of Philosophy (which is where it was originally proposed, and which is the field in which it has been subjected to the Peer Review Process). But without the standard tests of science, it cannot be viewed as a scientific theory.

You will check back in 20 years, I hope, to view the results of my experiment? Thank you.

In the end, ID will be redefined to be something I have to admit is possible, but completely untestable and outside the bounds of science...

Well put. One of the opponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" in Science courses criticizes it because it cannot be examined by the Scientific Method. "We don't study theology, simply because nobody has invented a 'theometer,'" she pithily stated.

There is one problem with going against your own party. They try to do you in, and the other party wants their own. Trafficant is a stupid crook. He is history. He will not get teh Democratic nomination for any seat. He may run as an independant. That won't help him in the districts in which he can run. He will be an ex congressman even if he does not get convicted.

In fact, Traficant has announced that he will run as an Independent (if at all). His stated rationale is that the trial is taking so much time, that he cannot run in a Dem primary. Many of us believe that he would have the proverbial snowball's chance, in any case.

I agree with your prediction that he'll be an ex-congressman. I'll see your prediction, and raise you one: I predict that the guy will be convicted.

No harm there. The guy's an embarrassment. An embarrassment to whom? To Democrats? To Clinton's critics? To Ohio? To Unions? To guys with Big Hair? To non-lawyers who represent themselves?

Answer: All of the above.

My point is that in reading the documents from our Founding Fathers no where do I see where they stated there was to be a "separation of church and state" to the point that the Ten Commandments can not be displayed in a public building.

I realize they we are at totally opposite postions on this subject, but to me the words "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." means that the government shall make no law establishing a national or state religion.

I understand your point; however, you haven't done much to back it up. The best you've done has been to link to a website that gives a simplistic analysis, failing to consider and to rebut the Court's position.

By listing the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, the judge is asserting US governmental support for the specific religions which embrace that particular version of the Big Ten. When it gets to the Supremes, they will most likely not rule in his favor.

By the way, by posting the link to Barton's website, you have prodded me into further study of this issue than I had previously done. This study has also prompted me to look up the text of the 2000 Doe vs. Santa Fe decision, in which a 6-3 majority clarified a related Prayer issue. I sincerely appreciate that.

So, your premise is that if we "understood" the rest of the world, the terrorists would have never attacked us? Please explain.

No, that is not my premise.

I believe that, by acting as though we were an island, our society failed to appreciate what was going on in the rest of the world. Because of that, we failed to do the following:

1. Take seriously what was happening in Afghanistan, and relate it to a threat to our country's security;
2. Pay attention to complaints against America in the Arab world, and take steps either to address those complaints or to anticipate the consequences of the rage that some were expressing; and
3. Allocate necessary resources to sectors like INS and to airport security.

...Among other things. One or more of those steps might have prevented the outrage of Sept. 11. We could blame politicians for not allocating the resources to INS, but they were responding to the will of the electorate...and, therefore, we failed to do what was necessary to prevent it.

This is not "blame the victim." If some sleazeball steals my car, he is a sleazeball, and he should be caught and prosecuted. But if I fail to learn from it -- if I fail to lock my car, for instance, then I haven't learned any lessons from the event, either.

Perhaps we were too closed, too preoccupied to see it coming.

When he says "we" who is he talking about?

Probably the majority of Americans.

Did you see it coming? If so, why did you not warn your compatriots?

We Americans were too self-absorbed to see it coming. We were too sure of our own virtue, and of our own strength. In response to the terrible attacks, many Americans have renewed our efforts to understand the rest of the world. Most of us now understand that we ignore the rest of the world at our peril.

We enlist Pakistan's help in driving the Taleban out of power in Afghanistan. That's a good thing. Musharraf is turning out to be an insightful and wise leader of that country. But various events, including the killing of Daniel Pearl, terrorist attacks against doctors in that country, and terrorist attacks against Americans in Pakistan, have shown that the job is not done yet--and it is not easy. Part of getting the job done, is understanding what's going on over there, and how to ensure that the mullahs are marginalized in their own land.

We, in America, need to focus our educational efforts on the rest of the world. We need to understand other peoples and other cultures. Since a failure to understand will lead to more terrorist attacks, it's simply in our selfish interest to make the effort.

Isn't that cute. They take two paragraphs out of Redford's letter, give no context, and excoriate him for their own exaggerated assumptions about what he wrote.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. CNS does not report News.

"Pardon me, Sir; your bias is showing!"

I don't think it's fair to say that Jefferson's words "became the sole authorization for a national policy." Barton's website conveniently doesn't reference the text of the Everson v. Board of Education decision.

If you click on the link I provided in #10, the first paragraph states as follows:

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

Of course I clicked on the link you provided (to Barton's site). (For good measure, I also read the author's bio. The man is hardly a match for Justice Black, or any other SCOTUS justice!) My point is not that Barton doesn't mention the Everson decision; my point is that he fails to either provide a link to it or to quote any significant portion of it. The reader is apparently expected to believe Barton's summary of the decision. As I showed in my previous post, that would be a grave error on the reader's part.

Your response suggests that you did not read the text of the Everson decision, since the Everson text effectively refutes Barton's glib summary of it. Rather than gaining your "insight" into SCOTUS decisions from websites with an agenda; I'd encourage you to go the source itself.

Yes, the phrase, "separation of church and state," comes from that famous Jefferson letter. However, as the link that I provided (to Black's two most important decisions on the issue, in #50 in this thread) proves, Jefferson's letter was not "the sole authorization for a national policy." Barton disingenuously did not reference the original source, but it shows that Black's decision, and subsequent decisions which have invoked and solidified the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, were based on a much more comprehensive reading of the law and of American history.

There's lots of good writing in Barton's website, but it's fatally flawed by its strategy of picking and choosing facts to fit its agenda. His argument and his website are not to be trusted. By linking to it, you may gain temporary ground for your position--until someone comes along to expose the weakness of Barton's argument.

It is then that the "Wall" that Barton builds, between his too-trusting audience and the truth, crumbles.

I know of no one, conservative or liberal that supports zero tolerance. I taught for 15 years and have many teachers for friends. Not one teacher that I know supports zero tolerance. So WHY do we have these mindless laws?

I think it's because legislators get rewarded for voting for "tough-on-crime, tough-on-drugs" laws. Despite the obvious stupidity of these zero-sense laws and regulations, I guarantee you that no rep will lose a re-election campaign by voting for them! In contrast, if you vote against a zero-sense law, on the grounds that it's a stupid feelgood measure, someone will challenge you. The TV ad will say "he wants your kids to bring guns and drugs to school!"

The legislators may be stupid; more likely, they understand that the people who they represent, and answer to, are stupid.

Typical Washington Post. Drag a dead man's personal conversation through the muck. Are they breaking down the doors to find Clinton's private moments? With all the naughty sex stuff not released by Ken Starr, Clinton's police serving as personal pimps, the dragon lady witch using her connections for her own her power moves, the dragging down of national defense, etc., you would think they could sell more papers exposing their stinking heros.

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. The Trickster's conversations on tape are just now becoming public. The Post (and other media outlets) are reporting this now, simply because this is the first time that the story is available.

If Tricky didn't want to be embarrassed posthumously, I'll offer, gratis, two prongs of post-facto advice:
1. Don't tape your own conversations; and/or:
b. Since you know your conversations are being taped, don't say stupid, bigoted, hateful things on tape.

Not too tough, I'd figure. The guy made his own bed.

Gee.....even murderers at least get the benefit of the doubt. Where are the ALCU when they are really needed?

I don't know where or who the ALCU is :-) , but the ACLU is actively involved in this issue. A search of their website (keyword: "zero tolerance") turned up 41 hits. I especially liked the one about the "Tweety Bird" key chain. I also liked the one about the girl whose brains were addled by Tylenol.

The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton

* * * Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. * * *

I don't think it's fair to say that Jefferson's words "became the sole authorization for a national policy." Barton's website conveniently doesn't reference the text of the Everson v. Board of Education decision.

In fact, a short few paragraphs of the document indicate that, while the court borrowed Jefferson's phrase, the court consulted several sources in order to determine the meaning of the First Amendment:

The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it [p*15] was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. [n21] The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. [n22] There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the "establishment of religion" clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, [n23] quoted with approval by this Court in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730:

The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.

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 [p*16] 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." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

I realize this, in SCOTUS legalese, is more than a little opaque, but it's clear that Justice Black and his colleagues weren't at all the judicial lightweights that Barton, and some "pro-ten-commandments" people, think them to have been.

See also Engel v. Vitale.

Excuse me, sir, < slappity-slap with a full twist >...the true arbiter of Truth, Justice, and the Merkin Way is and shall be Frank Zappa.

These people don't understand what "Free Exercise Clause" is and instead unite everything under the false banner of "separation of church and state" which does not exist.

The exact words do not appear in the Constitution, but the doctrine is certainly contained in the words of the First Amendment.

The words, "Separation of Powers," also do not appear in the Constitution. You wouldn't try to argue that the concept and doctrine of Separation of Powers isn't an integral part of the Constitution, would you?

There is no good reason for a judge to use his courtroom (and public monies) to advertise his religious beliefs.

In the first place, employers have the right to restrict what their employees publish.

We as news and information consumers also have the right to question the "objectivity" and "sincerity" of news organizations like CNN.

No question about that!

This news outlet is NOT as fair and balanced as some would like us to believe. Progressive viewpoints ARE NOT neutral.

Well...I'll reserve judgment until I've seen either the memo or reporting about the book on CNN.

Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment cry? CNN is stifling information and thereby abusing their employees first amendment rights.

Cute.

In the first place, employers have the right to restrict what their employees publish. That should go without saying. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

Secondly, Drudge hasn't posted the whole memo as yet. It makes no sense to judge the memo on the basis of a couple of quotes, possibly taken out of context. He doesn't yet quote anything in the memo which warns employees to "hold off" reporting on the book.

My suggestion: reserve judgment 'til you've seen the facts.

Now, although it seems to have taken a few days to sink in, Feinstein's challenge has made a profound impression on Republicans. "The Constitution gives the president the mandate to choose judges," says a White House source. "If the Democrats see the need to change the Constitution, that's something they need to take up with the American people."

When a Republican is president, they feel that the president has the sole authority to appoint judges, and the Congress should get out of the way. When a Democrat was president, they pulled out all stops to torpedo his appointments.

Constitutionally speaking, the president appoints judges "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." That's what it says. It's part of that pesky ol' Separation of Powers.

Goldberg is batting .1000 on this one.

Possibly true. Batting .1000 will get you sent back to the minor leagues right quick.

Not to suggest that the Union Leader is minor-league, or anything...

It's even worse than that.

On Wednesday night's episode, there were all sorts of inaccuracies about the game of chess:

• Bartlet referred to the "Fibonacci Opening." There is no such thing.
• Bartlet referred to the "Stanton" chess set. Of course, he should have been referring to the "Staunton" pattern chess set.
• Bartlet called the game against Toby an "Evans Gambit." Though it became an Evans, there was no way to determine that for three more moves.

  There were more errors. It was a travesty. I'm gonna boycott all their sponsors, starting with the SOBs at Disney.