Seriously? I don't think the white house should even have a Christmas tree during the holidays let alone a president who says he makes his decisions based on his religious principles.
2007-09-10 03:35:30 · 11 answers · asked by brianriback 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I understand that it is not in the Constitution but it is a direct derivative of the first amendment and although it's not, "Illegal" it does, to me, demonstrate a disrespect of our constitution...there's also a lot of documentation on how no government shall impose their religious beliefs on its people...THAT is why I'm against a Christmas Tree, Menorah or anything else. I want him to make his decisions based off of what the constitution and the laws of the land tell him to do, period. I don't care that every other president has had one, it doesn't make it right.
2007-09-10 03:56:50 · update #1
I completely agree. It's very unconstitutional.
2007-09-10 03:40:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
What does this have to do with separation of church and state? If the president wants a Christmas tree in the White House, then he has just as much a right to do so as I do to put one in my house. Besides, I'm pretty sure that every president before him had a Christmas tree in the White House also.
2007-09-10 10:46:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The founding fathers created the constitution based on their christian beliefs, why can't the president mention God if they did? Most of the Presidents over the past 2 hundred years have mentioned God in one speech or another. Lincoln, Both Roosevelt's and Kennedy certainly did and no one ever thought to criticize them.
The point that was made in the constitution was defending everyone's right to worship as they choose, not to 'delete' religion. Look at the Pilgrims - they came here to be able to practice their religion as they chose, not as was dictated to them - to remove God from our Government goes against the writings of the Founding Fathers.
Personally, I don't think there's room in politics for Militant Atheists.
2007-09-10 11:44:36 · answer #3 · answered by dlil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well... the president can and should practice his faith or lack of faith as he sees fit. Christmas trees are fine, they don't offend me or infringe upon my rights! If you don't like the faith of a candidate, don't vote for them!
Now policy.. I have a HUGE problem with policy that favors certain religions! Policy should never do that it's unconstitutional and unAmerican!
If stars of david and crosses or pentagrams or other religious symbols make you feel infringed upon tough! We have free speech here, and people need to stop being so overly sensitive and instead try being more tolerant and accepting. In a court room.. probably not necessary, but in an individuals office.. i'm ok with that. Your cross doesn't affect my ability to believe what I believe in. How silly.
2007-09-10 10:57:47 · answer #4 · answered by n3utr0n 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why should it care? The amendment only is meant to stop either the establishment of a State religion or the government support of one religion over any other. No where in the Constitution is there the phrase "seperation of church and State".
2007-09-10 10:49:21 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . ."
it has been twisted and interpreted as the separation of church and state. it was supposed to mean no complete theocracies.
Christianity has been the moral compass of our country since its infancy. it is those who want to take all morality out of the picture that push the separation of church and state issue. they fear and hate christianity.
2007-09-11 03:05:47 · answer #6 · answered by Ted M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget that God told Bush to invade Iraq. Between faith in 2,000 to 4,000 year old myths and fables called the Bible and the political media fear propaganda machine there isn't much room for the rule of reason our founding fathers envisioned. Far too many Americans seem to believe that the way to defeat fanatical Muslim terrorists is with fanatical Christian terrorists, despite the fact that the most devoutly religious regions of the world and the U.S. are also the most violent and unequal in terms of wealth distribution. The current state of our public education system attests to the low priority reason has in our society. Dumb people are so much easier to control. Unfortunately, the consensus of the American people seems to be that they are perfectly satisfied to be both dumb and controlled. Unless atheists and agnostics can organize to denounce and nullify the brain killing pap dispensed by all organized religions the solution escapes me. Reading suggestions: The assault on Reason, by Al Gore, Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris.
2007-09-10 11:02:23 · answer #7 · answered by socrates 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all, show me where the Constitution states that there is a "separation of church and state". Secondly, the Christmas tree is mostly a secular symbol. If that is your biggest gripe, I think you're doing okay.
2007-09-10 10:46:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't have a problem with Christmas trees . . . however, President Bush changed accounting law . . . prior to Bush a church could not qualify for tax free status if it endorsed a political candidate . . . now it can.
2007-09-10 10:44:30 · answer #9 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I have a very serious problem with it. the fathers of the constitution are turning in their graves right now. My beloved country has become the very institution that oppressed the early colonial settlers and pilgrims. they were oppressed for their religion, or lack of religion. Now it seems like the same thing, if you dont believe in the christian god, your evil in their eyes.
2007-09-10 10:48:30 · answer #10 · answered by ron197192064 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
in that case! why we're at war.
unaccomplished agreement set into law.
how are we to help any one else if we can't learn from our own mistakes.let alone acknowledging that we have the ones that are.
2007-09-10 10:49:52 · answer #11 · answered by martinmm 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋