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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7951)	12/27/2006 1:59:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15994

It is unconstitutional for the gevernment to endorse a religion. What happened in the pentagon is endorsing a resligion Directly stated its only unconstitutional for the government to establish religion, but its reasonable to consider any sort of formal official government endorsement of religion to be unconstitutional, or at the very least of dubious constitutionality. What happened in the Pentagon doesn't appear to be any such official formal act of government. Presidents, generals, senators, heads of government offices, etc. are free to have and state whatever religious beliefs they want. In fact the constitution expressly protects their freedom to do so both as free speech and free exercise of religion. And the way you have tried to defend this issue makes your religious beliefs a part of this discussion. No, it doesn't. At least not reasonably. In a certain sense anything raised during the discussion is part of the discussion, but my religious beliefs aren't relevant to the main issue. Your not disclosing it just adds to my speculation that you are going to dance around any issue I bring up. No disclosing? Dancing around?? See Message 23132553