fromtheright

That would be the best day to celebrate it, kind of like celebrating National Celebrate Freedom Day on the anniversary of the Dred Scott decision.

Toto

It was widely reported after Pat Robertson resigned from the Christian Coalition that Bush was the defacto head of the religious right. He worked up to this by building liasons to them when he worked in his father's presidential campaign, and relied heavily on the religious right in his own election. He rewarded them by appointing John Ashcroft as AG.

Are you implyng that Bush is a friend of church state separation? That he is not a conservative Christian who shares Robertson's agenda?

fromtheright

Widely reported? By whom? Sounds to me more like "widely assumed". So he built liaisons, relied heavily on them, and named one of their/our own as Attorney General--are all of his cabinet members of the religious right? These things do not produce the logical broad jump of making him "head of the religious right".

He may not be a friend of your notion of church state separation but I haven't heard any of you yet state that the debate should be closed on what is meant by that term.

I am implying nothing but it is more than a simple implication, more like a leap of imagination to suppose that even if he shares Robertson's agenda he is then head of the religious right any more than William Sloane Coffin or Bishop Spong is head of the religious left.

Toto

FTR - the term "head of the religious right" was used by the Washington Post and the New York Times. I don't think it's worth my effort to track it down.

I am not sure what you think there is to debate about the definition of separation of church and state. You may debate whether it is a good idea, or carried to far for your liking, or how it should be applied in some case or another. But I'm not sure what you are trying to argue except that you are very outraged about it.

fromtheright

By this logic, was G.H. Dubya head of the religious right because his campaign had connections to the religious right, relied on them in his election, and appointed Clarence Thomas?

fromtheright

And those are a couple of authoritative mouthpieces of the Christian right who have elected Dubya to that position.

You sure are reading alot into my statements; I think I've been pretty calm throughout. You seem much more outraged that I should question some applications of the doctrine. Yes, I think that the Supreme Court has taken the concept too far in many cases, and yes, I think it is open for debate (the fact that there is no end to the litigants over this issue seems to confirm this) how it should be applied.

Krieger

This Nation was founded upon the belief that every human being is endowed by our Creator with certain "unalienable rights." Chief among them is the right to life itself. The Signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their own lives, fortunes, and honor to guarantee inalienable rights for all of the new country's citizens. These visionaries recognized that an essential human dignity attached to all persons by virtue of their very existence and not just to the strong, the independent, or the healthy. That value should apply to every American, including the elderly and the unprotected, the weak and the infirm, and even to the unwanted.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "[t]he care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." President Jefferson was right. Life is an inalienable right, understood as given to each of us by our Creator.

President Jefferson's timeless principle obligates us to pursue a civil society that will democratically embrace its essential moral duties, including defending the elderly, strengthening the weak, protecting the defenseless, feeding the hungry, and caring for children -- born and unborn. Mindful of these and other obligations, we should join together in pursuit of a more compassionate society, rejecting the notion that some lives are less worthy of protection than others, whether because of age or illness, social circumstance or economic condition. Consistent with the core principles about which Thomas Jefferson wrote, and to which the Founders subscribed, we should peacefully commit ourselves to seeking a society that values life -- from its very beginnings to its natural end. Unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.

On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life. The terrible events of that fateful day have given us, as a Nation, a greater understanding about the value and wonder of life. Every innocent life taken that day was the most important person on earth to somebody; and every death extinguished a world. Now we are engaged in a fight against evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life. In so doing, we are standing again for those core principles upon which our Nation was founded.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2002, as National

more

(OVER)

2

Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to reflect upon the sanctity of human life. Let us recognize the day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship, rededicate ourselves to compassionate service on behalf of the weak and defenseless, and reaffirm our commitment to respect the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

GEORGE W. BUSH


ROFL! Shrub is a fucking-Xian-fundie-assed-nut.

atheist_in_foxhole

I love this part of Bush's proclamation: "...in the year of our Lord two thousand two."

bonduca

The term is fetus. The term is also labor pain, episiotomy, c-section, etc. all of which I am sure he would welcome if he could only experience it.

My right to not spawn offspring that I do not want and cannot support or care for properly is not protected under law. I am, after all, primarily meant to breed, whether I wish to or not.

hezekiah jones

They're deliberately mimicking the Constitution with those phrases. It concludes in exactly the same manner.