bascule

I've argued from the start that this circumstance represents an endorsement of the Christian religion by the DoD and thus fails the Endorsement Test, at least in my opinion. But IANACL

Our money doesn't say "In Jesus We Trust" now does it? I'm not a fan of "In God We Trust" but it at least covers all monotheistic religions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8059021.stm The UN intends to investigate Gaza despite not receiving permission from Israel. They say they will enter through Egypt. Both Hamas and Israel will be investigated as both perpetrated alleged war crimes throughout the conflict. It's really sad to see Israel giving the UN the finger. The UN group responsible, the Human Rights Council, has been accused of bias against Israel in the past, but that doesn't mean they should be barred from investigating. The article points out that the inquiry is being headed by Richard Goldstone, a "respected South African war crimes prosecutor who is also Jewish" which has given it some clout despite accusations of bias.

Whether this particular usage is Constitutional or not is highly debatable. These documents clearly endorse Christianity and no other religions. In my opinion that falls within the guidelines established by Everson v. Ewing. Religion in government is okay as long as special treatment isn't given to one religion in particular. That's not what's going on here. Christianity is clearly given preferential treatment. However, it's certainly less egregious than things like the government giving money to faith-based initiatives.

It's par for the course in a country where even the term "liberal" is bandied about by conservatives as an insult.

The Republican Party is showing declines in membership among all demographic groups, with a recent poll showing 21% of American voters self-identifying as Republicans (compared to approximately 35% for Democrats) Is this a good thing? A bad thing? I think this is the great thing, not just because I'm not a fan of the Republicans, but because I think this will be a boon to conservative third parties who more closely share my views, such as the Libertarian party. Hell, Ron Paul could probably go start a party on his own and attract a large following to it.

In this case, it's not "mentioning religious texts". They're juxtaposing Bible verses (and only Bible verses) which are ostensibly there in an inspirational capacity with photos of soldiers. And you accuse me of strawmen? Sheesh.

This made me laugh. So true:

Nope, which is disappointing

I believe I have an ample history here of supporting reductions in gun control, but I think it's pretty sleazy to attach it as a rider to a bill about credit cards.

Ok, why? Perhaps you can address my arguments about the Constitutionality of it directly then, rather than blindly accusing me of strawmen.

The problem that remains is that vehicles like trucks / SUVs more than swallow meager gains in increasing fuel efficiency for cars. We need a minimum fuel efficiency for all non-commercial vehicles.

Yes, this really is important. As a strict Constitutionalist I prefer the government honor its duty to eschew institutionalizing religion, as set forth by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and subsequently interpreted through SCOTUS cases like Everson v Ewing. Unless the government is religion-neutral the free expression of religion (or non-religion) is inhibited. I also think this is a systemic problem with the US military, and this is a particularly glaring case of that problem. If you don't care about the protections afforded by the Constitution, that's your business. But I do. And I really dislike you equating me to Rush Limbaugh for defending Constitutional protections. Rush Limbaugh is anything but a Constitutionalist. I'm also worried about how non-Christians outside the United States will interpret these documents. They demonstrate a religious motivation to our military actions in the Middle East, which is a hotbed of religious animosity. As far as I'm concerned, these documents wave a middle finger in the face of the Muslim world.

This isn't propaganda. This is a government organization showing favor to one religion over others. That violates the guidelines set forth by SCOTUS in Everson v. Ewing, at least imo, but IANAL...

I wonder what the existing Democratic Socialist Party thinks about this... oh wait, they don't like it: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/15/white-house-laughs-at-gop-idea-to-call-democrats-socialists/ I loved the White House press secretary's reaction: And it would appear that the Republicans have decided that resorting to preschool-like namecalling might not be the best way to express their opinions

If I had any doubts about Christianity being institutionalized by the US military, these documents put them to rest. Meanwhile, you're off claiming the verses don't even represent an endorsement of Christianity. I'm not sure what more we have to discuss. You think my argument is fallacious... I think yours is completely disconnected from reality.

I'm not typically one to paste definitions but: Endorse means "I like this", not "I like this so much I want you to do something in response"... but whatever. To me it screams "we've institutionalized Christianity" which is what I believe was the point Mokele was trying to make.

It would appear that Obama will not be able to make the promised January 22nd, 2010 closure date of Gitmo due to lack of funds: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/guantanamo.detainees/index.html?eref=rss_topstories Senate Democrats, acting to mitigate criticism from Republicans, are withholding the required funds. Would closing Gitmo not save money in the long run? I don't get it. This seems like some rather myopic penny pinching.

Wow, impressive. Yes, for some reason cars like that are rare in America. In fact I do not think that car is even available in the US.

They plastered their report with Bible verses. How is that not an endorsement? Really, I'm having an awfully hard time understanding your reasoning here.

Is your car a diesel? One of the big problems is auto makers are afraid to market high mileage diesel vehicles in America, e.g.: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/not_sold_in_the_u_s/2009_volkswagen_scirocco_mini_test_road_test There's a number of reasons for this. Diesel, despite getting you better mileage, is typically much more expensive than gasoline in America. It's used extensively by our trucking industry for long distance shipping.

There's something wrong with that statement. Let me fix it for you: There we go, fixed! Still stand by that? Nobody's asking them to give up their religion Pangloss, that's a total, complete, and utter strawman. They endorse Christianity, Pangloss. But I see you're in "lala I have my fingers in my ears" mode again so maybe I shouldn't even bother.

I think the two are correlated. If you burn less gas you're pretty much guaranteed to emit fewer pollutants. However, I can foresee a hypothetical engine that gets great mileage by first converting gasoline into HorriblePoison and emitting HorriblePoisonVapor, but I guess that's generally not how it works.

Could this legislation be the answer to life, the universe, and everything? Some context here: This would require that cars (i.e. not trucks, SUVs, etc) get 42 MPG by 2016. That's some 7 years away. If Obama gets elected again this would be at the end of his term. I don't know of any non-hybrids that get 42 MPG. The Toyota Corolla, for example, is rated at 36 MPG. I'm not sure what to think about this. I like stricter emission standards but these might be unrealistic. There comes a point where you get diminishing returns on this sort of thing, and vehicles at the lower end of the mileage spectrum (e.g. SUVs, trucks, Hummers) more than make up for any gains. What I'd really like to see is a mandated minimum MPG for all non-commercial vehicles. Something in the realm of 20 MPG on the highway.

If that were the case, it'd be a different story. If they wanted to have a smattering of inspirational verses from religions around the world (and perhaps some "Imagine no religion" --John Lennon in there for good measure) I wouldn't have a problem. However, that's not the case, these are verses from the Holy Bible, and only the Holy Bible. If these people want to express the Christian religion and faith perhaps they can find a better vehicle for doing so than official DoD documents. I agree with Sisyphus. These documents make America look like a bunch of Christians declaring war on Islam. The phrase "separation of church and state" entered the public discourse following SCOTUS's ruling in the Everson v. Ewing case, in which they gave an interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which is what I assume you're referencing when you say "Freedom of Religion". Here's the verdict: When a government actively endorses one religion over another as they are doing here, it undermines freedom of religion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere's another op-ed (WSJ) worried about the appearance of these documents to the Muslim world. It had an interesting quote from Robert Draper's original article: