Not much new here. Still hovering in the 30s. Bush better get that approval rating up if he hopes to keep congress. Does anyone in the Swamp want to discuss the Mt. Soledad Cross near San Diego that Bush just transferred to federal control in order to keep it there? Seems to me like a legal mess that he's getting the administration involved in.

Bill,
You didn't expect Dubya to do somthing that's smart,did you?
Dubya has taken the GOP from a huge advantage after 9/11,to losing Osama in Afganistan,and deciding to invade Iraq with a stack of made up reasons.I hope the moderates in your party help lead the charge to impeach this guy for your sake.I've never seen so many scared republicans,running for office,trying to decide if they should stay with the "Decider",or should they run the other way.

I had not heard of this latest development, but I can't say I'm surprised.

This president comes uncomfortably close to fostering an American theocracy.

Umm... aren't we FIGHTING the theocrats?... aren't we defending our two-and-quarter century tradition of secularism? Is it not our secular system of government which guarantees and assures our freedom to practice any religion? Would not a theocracy restrict that freedom?

Or am I missing something?

There are those who say that Dubya's religiosity is a cynical political ploy.

I don't believe that, and the evidence seems to back me up. It seems to be heartfelt.

I think it might scare me less if it were just cynical politiciking.

The majority of Americans and Californians are in favor of the cross at Mt. Soledad. Whether you like it or not, this country is founded and based on Judeo-Christian principles. Practically all war memorials in this country's over 200 years in existence have featured the cross. The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights all note, mention and refer to a Judeo-Christian God.

Are we going to remove the crosses at Arlington Cemetary? Or all the crosses at any military gravesite?

Some facts regarding the Mt. Soledad controversy too. First, Bush signed the bill putting it under federal control. To sign a bill that means it passed both houses of Congress. In the House, it passed on a 349-74 vote, meaning well more than 100 Democrats voted for it in the House. Second, it passed UNANIMOUSLY in the U.S. Senate.

As usual, facts derail the nonsense dished out by folks like John E., Juanito and the rest of the crew.

So what's your point, John D?

The point is that is that you and the rest of your ilk keep saying Bush is "fostering a theocracy." Does that include COngress then? The senate UNANIMOUSLY voted for this cemetery to become under the jurisdiction of the feds. House voted overwhelmingly. That means all or nearly all Democratic senators voted to do this and more than half of the Dems in the House. Bush just signed the bill. So how is Bush fostering a theocracy?
Second, this country is based on Judeo-Christian values. The cross is part of Christianity and has been part of this country's future since before it was a country.

But if you can't get the point, then what is the point?

JohnD.
No John, Bush is not trying to foster a theocracy.
He is attempting to establish himself as the unquestioned moral leader of the country, a principal tenet of neo-conservative philosophy, and with that accomplishment, expand presidential power and authority beyond the framework of the Constitution.
Both sides of the aisle are aiding and abetting him.

Interesting argument, John D. This country was founded by devout Christians and you're correct about the documents. What strikes me about this case, is that the Bill of Rights states that congress shall make no law endorsing a religion or "abridging the free expression thereof." I'm all for keeping the cross on Mt. Soledad. Anyone who's seen it knows it's beautiful momument.

But here's the thing, now congress actually HAS made a law, one passed overwhelmingly, endorsing this very religious monument. This worries me that the lawyers will now be able to argue that it's unconstitutional on those very grounds.

Also, in these cases I often wonder why the time-tested free speech argument that the answer is more speech, not less, can be applied. For instance, if the man filing the lawsuit is arguing that the monument favors Christian soldiers and not atheists, like himself, why not simply erect a monument to those atheists who have fought and died for their country?

I certainly think there should be some way to honor the vast majority of Christian soldiers who gave their lives for this country as well as their atheist brethren.

John D,
The documents you cite, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independance, were authored principally by (the Humanist) Thomas Jefferson and (the Agnostic) Benjamin Franklin.

Neither of these men had any use for institutional religion. But more to the point, these men brought two critically important ideas to American politics:

1) They saw that America was (as now) composed of a wide variety of religious denominations -- diverse Protestants such as Calvinists, Evangelicals, Quakers, Anglicans, Lutherans; plus a large minority of Catholics; plus Jews; plus Humanists and Agnostics such as themselves; plus Atheists. They knew that the ONLY PRACTICAL system of government possible in this social crazy quilt could be a secular one.

2) They were both devoted to the liberty of the individual and justice. They knew that the only possible JUST and FAIR system of government -- wherein all citizens would be free to practice (or not) their religion -- is secular.

I suggest that you actually read the Bill of Rights (The Declaration of Independance is not a foundation of governance, it's just a well written letter). If you do, you will learn that America was, in fact founded upon universal Humanist moral principles.

The references to god that you mention are figures of speech. (God knows I use them all the time!)

I can see an argument to be made that this country is so awash with religious (almost exclusively Christian) themed public iconography that its simply impossible to get rid of it all.

And indeed many of these structures are beautiful and/or culturally significant, in which case I tend to favor tolerating them. (Chicago's painfully cheezy Daley Plaza Nativity thing is NOT such a case!)

Nevertheless, the simple fact remains that government endorsement of religion is unconstitutional. Furthermore, it's critically important that although we may often tolerate bending this principle, we must keep a watchful eye on those would impose their beliefs upon us and fight them tooth and nail when they cross certain lines.

Certainly such a line is crossed, for example, when evolution is deleted from biology textbooks or school children are required to recite a state prayer.

As for both houses of Congress, John D... well the fact that these creatures are willing to abdicate their responsibilities to win some thoughtless votes is no ringing endorsement of your position.

More clueless blatherings from members of the loony secular leftists. God mentioned in declaration of independence, constitition and bill of rights just expressions? They refer specifically to our Creator, God. The Bill of Rights is based on the Ten Commandments.
Humanists? Sorry, the country was founded and based on Judeo-Christian values and ideas. The separation of church and state was so there would be no state-sponsored church such as The Church of England. But make no mistake (actually you leftits make tons of them) but the principles of this country are Christian. Does not mean Muslims can't freely worship or Jews, or Buddhists or atheists can do their thing.

And I love how Juanito can "tolerate" some Christian culturally significant structures. Thanks Juanito for your alleged "tolerance."

For all of your sputtering, John D, you do not refute anything I've said.

Pesky things, these facts, aren't they?

Oh Juanito, you wouldn't know a fact if it clobbered you on top of you head, in your gut and landed at your feet. You put forth not one fact. I've put forth at least three: all you have to do is read them.

Juanito,

Are you surprised John D is sputtering...that's all he does on every post he's ever written...facts don't matter to neocon-jobs!

John D: I would, again, urge you to actually read the Bill of Rights. Also reading some history of the Revolution (Jefferson, Franklin, the Constitutional Convention) would be in order.

You might then understand that our systemic secularism is what protects your freedom of religion. And that undoing that secularism would necessarily endanger that freedom.

That's what I would urge, but then, well... you said it best: "if you can't get the point, then what is the point?"

John D.,
Make a decision, either the Ten Commandments are a sacred document or a civic document. It cannot be both, reducing it to a civic document should be an affront to all practicing Christians.

J-E-T-H-R-O, I will--say---this--slow--so--you--can--understand:

The Ten Commandments are a sacred document. The Bill of Rights are based partly based on the Ten Commandments. Never said the Ten Commandments are a civic document. Just pointing out, factually, that this country was founded and based on Judeo-Christian principles and all of the documents expressing our independence and stating our laws contain that Judeo-Christian belief.

Perhaps reading Run Spot Run books might be more your style though.