Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Angler who wrote (7884)	11/27/2001 9:00:28 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

That governors, presidents, heads of state or generals mention God does not worry me at all in our society. Generally, I would agree. But there are some very fuzzy lines. Most US law is based in some fashion on Judo-Christianity morality [skipping the jay-walking stuff]; and true, the Founders weren't shy about using the word God. We could also point out that the original Constitution didn't include a Bill or Rights, in part, because some members in the north east were concerned that Jews might expect equal rights. But they were also adamant that there should be no State sponsored church. So the balance to be found is somewhere between shared religious values as a moral basis of law and having a State sponsored church. In a large population we shouldn't be surprised that an individual officholder will make their own personal interpretation to the extreme of either side and attempt to enforce it. This doesn't concern me much, the system will generally declare the person to be a fanatical idiot and return things to reasonableness. On the other hand, it's difficult to gauge when the mention of God and certain specific values associated with a particular denomination crosses over that fuzzy line towards a defacto state-sponsored church, or the beliefs of a particular church. jttmab

To: Angler who wrote (7884)	12/1/2001 5:47:32 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

"Body and spirit come together during horrible tragedies when the bereaved are too struck to carry on. Thousands of widows, widowers, mothers and fathers cannot. At a time of such sorrow it is a function which the leader of the nation must perform." The President might make a short speech but it was not necessary to turn the occasion into a showcase for the Republican party, and I believe that the occasion was used for that purpose. Consider the funeral for Princess Diana. The British people grieved. The British PM, Tony Blair, helped organize the ceremony. I thought it was a done with decorum and beauty. Certainly, it was a ceremony that people will remember. Yet, British politicians did not participate. The events were organized to celebrate the life and tragic death of a dead Princess. The Memorial should have been organized to commenatore, in a non-political way, those who died from the September 11 tragedy. JMOP Cheers, Mephisto PS: I want to apologize for the late response. It's been a very busy week.