I think this threads and other threads like it has proved that it is you, Gtech, mia,.. who are ignorant about U.S. Constitution. Or May be you just don't care.
Either you are trying to be funny or you are just dumb. I didn't think anyone could be so dumb after stating how smart they are and how literate they are, but can't read....
Who cares what you accept? Hell, you support and defend terrorists. Even men that slit their daughter's throats.
Still didn't find "separation of church and state" in our (not your) constitution? I didn't think so What was that about being ignorant?
mia, it is wrong for you to blame an entire religion for the actions of a few fundamentalists. How many Christians here in the US have done terrible things in the name of their religion? This doesn't make all Christians or Christianity bad, and just because a few fundamentalists muslims kill their daughters doesn't make all of Islam or Muslims bad. Fundamentalism and extremism are bad no matter what religion it is.
It's not something related to religion it's because of their culture and how people in these cultures determine when honour of a family or individual is been damaged.
Article I. - The Legislative Branch Note Section 1 - The Legislature All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Unless you claim that Bush is really a priest in disguise and there is no law in USA, except the Bible then I think it is very obvious that State and Church are separated. Did you find the word "enemy combatant" mentioned in the Constitution. The same word that according to you magically removes the rights that are guaranteed to AMERICAN CITIZENS in the Constitution? Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Unless you have spiderman glasses that afford you a different view of reality, the words "separation of church and state" are not in our (not your) constitution. Are you having trouble finding it, gworld? I can't imagine why!
Thank you gworld, that's awfully nice of you! Coming from you, it provides me with a warm and sincere sense of pride and accomplishment. I will treasure your gift, always Still no luck in finding "separation of church and state" in our (not your) constitution?
I will elaborate on this some more Debunked, Vengeance in honor is a phenomenon that derives from the country and from traditional societies. In these societies family honor plays a very important role. For instance in Turkey this honor is called ''Namus''. Male and Female have Namus. To women this means chastity and to men and boys it means having female family members that uphold the morals of chastity. Namus is something you can only lose. A potential candidate for marriage...a girl is a constant danger to her father and brothers, early arranged marriages and to marry quickly has the advantage the responsibilty for the Namus is in hands of the husband. A bride is by preference from their own family then you know the Namus is not breached. You either have honor or you don't, you can not lose it partially when for instance a girl kisses with her boyfriend or goes to bed with him, what counts is if people are gossiping about her (this is where the danger is) if so? she loses her Namus. That is a outright disaster and in Extreme cases this can lead to Revenge/killing for honor. Other then ''Namus'' there is also ''Seref'' that is equal with status and prestige. In contradiction with Namus Seref is variable, when you lose honor (seref) your prestige is lowered in level but not reduced to zero. Prestige is not only derrived by upholding Namus but also from independence therefor you see a whole lot (at least in my country) independant grocers, kebbab store owners or video strore owners. Or it is derrived from courage, wealth and sons who show respect. It's always about the way the family/individual portraits them/it self to the outside world. Someone with a lot of prestige/respect will when losing honour resort less likely to revenge/killing for honour in comparisement to someone that hardly enjoys any prestige or status/respect. Honour plays a leading role in homogeneous societies where everybody knows each other, where everybody is dependant on each other and from wich escape is impossible. One is at the same time neighbours and colleges at work and family. Combined with an tradition of hospitality and alot of unespected visits leads to gossip and as primary meachanism to apply social control. Who ever can not control his daughter or wife is going to be rediculed and is not able to show himself anywhere anymore. So who ever this person is going to be will do everything in his power to contain the damage that comes from the behaviour of one single person. In the early days Namus played a very leading role in the country and since people are migrating more and more to the cities the chance that these killings in honour or more lightly to occur. People tend to think they are more free and take more risks. Because social control is less then in smal country villages where everybody knows exactly what the other does. If you would stay in such a village and would go out for a second everybody starts to ask you ''where you going?'' or when you return ''where have you been?'' It's impossible just to go out somewhere without someone knowing. In the city people have more chances to escape this kind of control. Girls go to work, school and in a big flat there is less social control. But the morals and values have stayed the same, so when unlawful contact is occuring there is a big problem. How honour get lossed The rule (for Turkish people) for vengeance in honor is that the person that is the cause of loss of honour (Namus/Seref) gets killed. Is a girl going to be raped then it's not the girl that is the cause but the rapist and is therefor going to be the victim. If a women/girl behaves like a prostitute she gets killed. In case of Adultery both ''deserves'' to be killed. The husband gets killed by the family of the wife he cheated on and the wife gets killed by her own family. But in practice most of the times the family of the daughter protects their daughter. The husband that is her lover is suddenly being labled as a rapist, if it's true that doesn't matter. It's all about the reputation that is being portraid to the outside world, in this manor it's stays intact. Even a extramarital child can be the victim of honour killings. A alternative is to leave the baby somewhere to be found. In it's most ideal case a honour killing will occur in a public place, at daylight and with a lot of witnesses. There would be lot's of stab wounds or lot's of gun shots, wounding is not enough...the victim must die. The killer wants to be seen by the victim...does his act calmly and cool and commits his crimes. After the event he will turn himself directly in with the police and by saying ''i have cleansed my honour''. The killer does not show remorse, most of the times it's carefully planned. In advance a family meeting would even be held to discuss the matter of when and how and who will do it. To prevent the provider of the family going to be put in prison it regularly occurs a minor will take the task upon. That's the way it goes. But there are also unplanned cases of honour killings such as when a husband capture his wife redhanded when cheating on him and will execute her or both on the spot. To prevent family members being hold as an accomplice the killer will take full blame on him. Honour killing is an extreme measure. These are extreme cases, the rule is that honour matters will not end up in blood spillage. For this there are diverse possibilities, if it is possible a unmarried girl that lost her Namus will be married immediately to the boy who put her in this position or to a other man. In the case of a other man a older or handicapt man will be used as the fallguy so to speak. A divorce can also be a solution sometimes but the husband will always regard his former wife as his Namus and will mean that the wife can not get a boyfriend. Other solutions will be to move as a family, act like nothing happend, accept the disgrace, suffice with a excuses, making a scene, beat up the wife, or start a lawsuit (all depending on the situation of course) When alternatives fail and when things have been escalating because there are always special factors that can cause this (such as pressure of the community) In turkey when living as an unemployed you would always live in the turkish context, in the Netherlands you are cutt of from society, most Turks from certain generations will only come to the coffeehouse or sit o nthe couch watching turkish television and visit the Mosk. When their honour get's disgraced by their wife that cheats on them the little prestige that he had compels him to regain this loss by force if necessary. Wanting to regain his loss even more because gossip will reach his home village very fast and also because he wants to return to his village in some point of time and having Namus upon return. Honour killing will not give you any more prestige ,your honor may be cleansed but nothing changes furtherless, it will not make them a hero. What i described above applys to cases such as you described on CNN and this is not related to Islam, it's a culture thing. My Appologise to you Mia if you have seen whom i adressed before, i had made a mistake by refering to you but since Debunked made the comment that i needed to do some research on this... i of course ment to address this to debunked...the post i made above
It is quite clear, even to about.com, that the words "separation of church and state" do not exist in our constitution. There is no question the debate on it can be taken much further past that simple fact, as to the "interpretation" of Thomas Jefferson's reply to a letter from the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. But the bottom line, and my contention, is that the words do not exist in our constitution. Sometimes the simplest of concepts are the hardest to grasp.
Gtech - if someone is trying to rewrite history- they don't really care what it was - what matters to them is what it will be.. History shows that the seperation was to keep government from messing in the affairs of a religion (this will include all religions that do not breach the constitution.) and to keep a religion from ruling the government. But what people like gworld want is no religious aspect left in the government including the writing on the dollar bill or having a standard from which to base all rulings on in court. But I don't think I am telling you (gtech) anything new, but some others who have no clue to the historical context from which our constitution was written.
Is that why you can't grasp it? . You have absolutely no reading comprehension. Nobody said those exact words were in the constitution, the only fact that matter is that the constitution IMPLIES THOSE WORDS
Just like the fact that Yo Yo is stupid in most of our readings of his words. I wonder if Yo Yo looked at the color purple long enough, it would eventually seem blue? Clinton sure screwed up the minds of his goose step followers. Gworld and Yo Yo cannot think for themselves. And I am sure (if he was alive) they would tell Ben Franklin what he meant whenever he wrote something. D
That's real valid coming from a guy who's admittedly been an asshole his entire life including catching STDs, being a drug addict and a prison convict - who now wishes to force his narrow-minded idea of religion down everyone elses throats because he had no self control throughout life and now clings to that religion for all his answers. Funny thing is I didn't know anything about clinton or politics the entire time he was in office. I didn't care. I really still don't care because Clinton didn't create the largest debt , or start unwinnable wars.. As for followers, the way you babble on all day about your religion and how right it is, I'd say you're the follower who can't think for himself Why don't you tell us the one again, what was it - where condoms are evil because animals don't use them!?