K Hughes: "Our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

[stopbush]

Yep, she really said that in response to a question an Egyptian opposition leader asked on her tour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1581335,00.html

[Clark2008]

1. It does?

Where?

What a maroon! :crazy:

No wonder the rest of the world thinks Americans are stupid. Even those who advise those who are supposed to uphold the Constitution don't have a clue what's in it. Geesch.

[Dr. Death]

5. I believe the correct spelling is Moran

[Brother Buzz]

47. 'What's up Doc?'

You are correct on the speilling, but the jocular mispronunciation is indeed, maroon - a la Bugs Bunny circa 1940.

[Dr. Death]

63. I did not know that

thanks for the info.

[ashling]

101. I think he meant

macaroon . . . you know, the cookie with cocanuts

[Clark2008]

123. I meant maroon... a la Bugs Bunny, like the poster

above said.

[ashling]

129. I should have made

it clear that I didn't really think you meant macaroon, but that the lady is nuts: cucko for cocanuts.

[buddysmellgood]

171. I believe the term is "ultra maroon" or Gullabull

[wryter2000]

102. Welcome to DU

:hi:

I wonder what version of the Constitution she's been reading. The one on the back of the milk carton?

[ashling]

105. No, No . . . she is quoting from

the King James version of the Constitution. . . the one that says that Congress shalt bow down unto the annointed president.

[never_get_over_it]

128. I've never really cared for the King James version of the Constitution

I really prefer the Declaration of Independence version of the Constitution

Now two questions

1. is that your cat - OMG she/he is BEAUTIFUL/HANDSOME

and

2. should we really have a stupid woman roaming the earth making us look like bigger ass holes than we already do in hopes of improving our image - Jesus you couldn't make this shit up

[ashling]

140. That is my daughters' cat,

but as she is currently away at college being President of the Sweetbriar College Young Democrats, the custody of the parents goes to the cat.

In this picture, file name "huntress" she was stalking a mouse or grasshopper or some other creature. She waslooking down into the grass when the aforementions grashopper or mouse or whatever suddenly took off. I got the shot the split second she looked up. It is properly captioned "WTF?!"

As to your other question/comment, Patches and I wholeheartedly agree.
This is, indeed, unintelligent design in its finest hour.

All Glory be to the great unintelligent designer.

:bounce:

[IntravenousDemilo]

116. That would be SO appropriate...

given that your Constitution is currently "missing", or at least some of the rights therein. I hope you find it soon, in good shape, not raped and murdered and hidden under a pile of leaves in some secluded area. We hope for the best, but fear the worst.

[Boo_Radley]

148. Just have to want it to

I think some people believe what they want to believe, regardless of reality. She really wants it to say that, so she'll believe it does.

[Greylyn58]

152. Amen Clark2008

How can the rest of the world have any respect for us if our representatives doesn't even know what is written in one of our countries most treasured documents?

She is such an asshat and totally clueless!!!! :grr:

[Crunchy Frog]

170. Well, it will once they're done with it.

And then it always will have, once they're done with the history rewrites.

[LynnTheDem]

2. Yes, being a rightwingnut, she really is one of the...

STUPIDEST MFers on the planet.

[redqueen]

6. Amen and hallelujah!

Just when you think they can't be any dumber...

[ElectroPrincess]

72. I have to add ...

Although it's "covered up" by the USA Media, her sheer bravada, snappy one liners, profound lack of humanity is playing out POORLY FOR US DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS in the real world of The Middle East. well Hughes' trip is so damn "twilight zone" FREAKY on so many levels.

That is, watching Karen Hughes flit and flirt around "the little brown people" :sarcasm: is like watching a slow train wreak. I feel awfully sad and depressed for Our Country but I'm in no position to stop this destructive movement.

Sincerely - Karen Hughes you ARE one starkly scary and bizarre behaving kind of gal!?!

[leftchick]

83. hi Lynn!!

Where have you been girl?? You have been missed! As have your bold LARGE Posts!! (I still can't do that)

:hi:

[LynnTheDem]

124. Hiya! Hubby had his retirement papers in hand -literally- and WHAM

backdoor drafted until 2007.

So I've been curled up in a wee ball of misery the past while.

To do the BIG FONTS ignore the space between the bracket and the word "font", and type;

< font size = 10> your message < /font>

[leftchick]

165. fuck!

I was afraid that was why. :(

Do you know where he will be yet? I hope it isn't over there.

:hug: :loveya:

[LynnTheDem]

166. 4th ID leaves for Iraq sometime over the next few weeks.

I DESPISE STUPID MFing LIAR bush, and ONLY STUPID MFers don't.

Ta for the hugs! :hug:

[fleabert]

159. if I could, I would nominate that post! nt

[spotbird]

3. They say this shit and people

believe it because of who they are.

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. When in fact, no one should believe them PRECISELY because of who they

are. :banghead:

[redqueen]

4. Oh for Pete's sake!

:eyes:

x(

[Sydnie]

7. Is she going to blame that on bad translation too? n/t

[baldguy]

167. German into English?

[marmar]

8. She would do herself and the world a great favor...

if she would just shut the fuck up. This Goodwill tour has been a complete disaster. She'll be lucky if they don't put her on terrorist watchlists all over the Mideast.

[rfranklin]

14. Now, now...she represents the POTUS* perfectly...

He couldn't have said it better himself.

[all.of.me]

67. lol - thanks for the laugh!

where will they post that watchlist?!

[FreedomAngel82]

180. Sometimes I highly think

they want people to hate us so they do this. To this country they say they're trying to make "peace" or whatever but in reality could they be doing this on purpose to make things worse? I think so.

[liberal N proud]

9. I don't even believe people like that are allowed to work for the govt.

:wtf:

[Olney Blue]

190. I would guess that most federal employees in the trenches...

are more familiar with the Constitution than she is.

[Connie_Corleone]

10. Confusing the constitution with the revised pledge of allegiance.

This country is run by a bunch of idiots.

[Serial Mom]

44. Exactly!

[Cocoa]

164. does she think kids are reciting the Constitution every day?

what an idiot

[Inland]

11. Image of US with middle east handled by person w/o knowledge of either.

Another Bushian clusterfuck.

[rkc3]

36. Clear and concise analysis of this admin.

Brownie is another perfect example. What a bunch of stupid fucks.

[sniffa]

12. she must be a citizen of some other country then

:shrug:

[PegDAC]

178. And the Name

of that country is Bushworld!! Actually, it's more of a parallel universe than just a country.

:eyes: :shrug:

[stopbush]

13. BTW - here's the money quote from the linked article:

"It is stunning to the extent Hughes is helping bin Laden," says Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist who has conducted extensive research into the motives of suicide terrorists and is the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. "If you set out to help bin Laden," he says, "you could not have done it better than Hughes."

[imperialismispasse]

21. Wow that is some quote.

The stunning ineptitude of the appointees of this administration really should be compiled into a book because I dont think future generations will actually believe it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. She was refering to Bush, wasn't she?

She's another world-class jerk.

[lateo]

16. What a hugh moran...

Jeebus H. Chrispies.

[Olney Blue]

191. and Jeebus H. Rice Chrispies too. n/t

[leeroysphitz]

17. Praise Je$u$ nt

[truebrit71]

18. Um, no it doesn't....

Stupid, stupid fool.... :eyes:

[CottonBear]

19. I know people who believe that. It's scary.

They, just like *, don't read. :(

[Realityhack]

114. Something I do.

In the winter when my coat has room I carry a pocket copy of the constitution... If you do that you can just hand it to them and say "show me".

If done somewhat politely it can open them up to realizing that perhapse not all they beleive is correct.

I also carry a copy of the Universal decloration of Human Rights (printed in the back of some Chomsky pamflet).

[thinkingwoman]

158. I carry a copy in my purse

I've got an extra though...maybe I should send it to Karen Hughes.

[NYC]

154. I'll bet the Egyptians read.

I wonder if they'll print a newspaper article explaining how she was wrong. Dead wrong.

[FreedomAngel82]

183. That would be funny

and quite sad.

[NYC]

193. Someone said they'll all be laughing at us over coffee

while reading their morning newspapers. So, approximately 24 hours ago now, it's likely a large percentage of the Egyptian population was indeed laughing at us. Think about that. It has a good chance of being true.

I'm sure they feel sorry for those of us who are not bombastic jackasses. They know we're stuck with these people.

[FreedomAngel82]

182. Yep

I was in a little while back in an argument about whether or not we're a Christian country and I asked where in the Constiution does it mention God. Someone (I think they're from another country) mentioned how God is in the Constiution and they read it. I posted the whole thing in this forum and nowhere did it mention God. Here's a link where you can read the whole thing online: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

[Betsy Ross]

20. Here is a link to the text

Let's all email K. Hughes a copy.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

On edit:

HA HA HA, can't do a search for Hughes email on the State Department website. Overloaded maybe.

[tabasco]

23. Stupid asses take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Don't even know what the fuck it says.

[sam sarrha]

33. check all elected/appointed peoples Oath.. they dont sign it.. Reason>>>

because when they get caught breaking the law, they were only impersonating a Judge/attorney general/councilman.. and it is a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

[mwooldri]

174. Are we possibly talking about the British constituion?

Now that one has references to God in it; only problem is that someone forgot to write it down.

The American constitution doesn't even mention the word 'God' anywhere.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Oh really? Where, pray tell?? n/t

[skypilot]

24. I'm far from being any kind of Constitutional scholar...

...but even I know that the Constitution doesn't say that. Is she really that stupid or does she just assume that an Egyptian wouldn't know what our Constitution says, so what the hell, might as well just make this dumbass claim?

[FreedomAngel82]

184. Anyone can read it online

So I'm sure the Egyptians could know just as well as she could what it says. Now days I make sure to know my rights in the Constiution with nutcases powerhungry asses running around.

[annabanana]

25. incredibly, exasperatingly, exhaustingly, staggeringly,

jaw-droppingly, head-hangingly, overwhelmingly, unutterably

STUPID

[htuttle]

26. Is she really that stupid? Or is she just lying?

I honestly can't tell anymore most of the time, since they are both mind-bogglingly stupid AND pathological liars.

[sam sarrha]

27. compulsive liars reach a point where it al gets very fuzzy, they believe it

[Catrina]

31. I think she is that stupid

She and this administration may be the reason why Sen. Byrd introduced legislation that requires Federal employees know the Constitution before being employed. The legislation went into effect this year, I believe.

According to that legislation, and judging by that statement, this stupid, ignorant woman needs to be fired.

Even the few among them who may know the Constitution see it as 'quaint' and a hindrance to their 'take over the world' plans, and set out to shred it with the Patriot Acts.

It's no surprise that she has no knowledge of her own Constitution while hypocritically touting the Iraqi Constitution, which I have no doubt she has no interest in either.

When will this national (no, international) nightmare be over? :-(

[ProfessorGAC]

58. Except These Are The Same People Who Insist On. . .

. . .strict interpretation and original intent. So, how can it be a "quaint" document, and be so important to take is exactly as written?

Answer: It can't

Reason: They're dumbass liars.
The Professor

[FreedomAngel82]

185. Good for Byrd

Everyone should know the Constiution. I learned it in US Government class in high school! We had tests on it and everything. Now days I'm very thankful of that.

[KyndCulture]

28. well then mystery solved...

now we know why *'s speeches are so fucking stupid...

UNREAL how stupid these people are.

[spanone]

29. Dumber than a steaming pile of horse manure.

[mmonk]

30. !

:rofl:

Whew! Where do they get these people?

[Skidmore]

32. I hope this is on Countdown and the Daily Show tonight.

[Mr_Spock]

34. Stupid ass hole

Someone recall her before she makes a bigger fool of herself and our reputation. What an ass hole. x(

[berni_mccoy]

35. BWHAHAHAHAH... What a DUMB ASS!

Holy shit... we've got so many dumb asses in charge it's actually pretty scary...

Now I don't know if I should laugh or shit my pants!

:rofl::scared:

[The Magistrate]

37. What An Ignorant Notion, Sir

And these wretches proclaim themselves patriots, and pretend to instruct us on the "original intent" of out Constitution....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[charlie]

40. Her protege learned well

Pose a question and get an unasked-for explication of the obvious and irrelevant. Delivered with a 3rd-graders pride for having mastered "the facts."

[ClintonTyree]

161. It's important that they appear stupid........

it makes their supporters feel like they're on par with them. It's extremely important for the Republicans to keep the general population ignorant, dependent upon a dubious supreme being and to inflate their sense of nationalism. If they don't achieve those goals, who will they have to fight their present and future wars? All of the above Republican "skills" are required to keep a certain section of the population ignorant enough to fall for their "god and country" lies. Our soldiers aren't dying for "god and country", they're dying for profits and power. However they can never be allowed to know that or the entire facade crumbles, America becomes "just another country" and not the divinely hand picked model of truth and justice that serves as a beacon for all other countries lost in the fog of godlessness.
The Republicans are the keepers of, The Lie. It becomes harder and harder for them every day to perpetuate, The Lie. Information is at the fingertips of more human beings every day as the "internets" become available to recently primitive or uneducated people. The Truth is our there for all to see and The Lie becomes harder to sell every day. This is why the Republicans want to turn back the hands of time and return to a day when people believe what their government is telling them is the unvarnished truth, always. They want to create a place and time that exists only in their backward looking minds where people will trust them, and only them, for what they define as the truth. This is why Republicans hate Science.
Karen Huge's "mission" is bound to fail. The truth is closer to the surface than in any other time in history and this genie cannot be put back into the bottle. They will fail. All of them. Truth will not have it any other way.

[FreedomAngel82]

187. Yep

They have to dumbdown people to sound bites and everything. "Oh I didn't vote for John Kerry cause I didn't understand anything he said". :eyes: Why not go to the website and read what he says? Ugh. Duh. And I got so tired of this Kerry is an elitist crap when Bush is too. This is one reason why I stopped watching talk shows and "news" shows. I want to think and be more educated even though I'm now in college. I'm tired of living in a country where people are easily duped and fall for shit.

[fleabert]

160. OT, if you will excuse the intrusion..OMG! The Magistrate cursed! OMFG!

:wow:

(lounge lizard scurries back to lurk mode...)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

38. These ChimpCo people have impressive titles

but they are really no more knowledgeable or capable than any person I would pass on the sidewalk on the street. Karen Hughes could perhaps perform as well as a receptionist in a typical insurance company. George Bush could perhaps meet the intellectual requirements for a janitor's position in that same company. Cheney might be able to master middle management. Cheney only rose to the level of CEO at Halliburton because of his government connections and his ability to acquire government business based on those connections.

These people are ordinary and average and in many cases well below average. There is nothing special about them that you might expect from individuals representing the most powerful nation on earth. Strip them of their titles and they are 'Joe Schmo' from down the street.

[opihimoimoi]

60. I couldn't agree more....mega dufusses...all for the 30 pieces of Billions

[cdeca2005]

143. Naaaaaa!

'Joe Schmo' could make correct change.

These people are on the VERY Short Bus

[PinkyisBlue]

172. Chimpco people

I agree they are average in many ways, but they have all have HUGE egos, an insatiable hunger for power and money, inability to distinguish fact from fiction, inability to empathize with others, etc. Basically, they are a greedy, selfish Joe Schmo on a power trip.

[FreedomAngel82]

188. Exactly

You said it all.

[cassiepriam]

39. Using sheeple propaganda in the arab world? Not smart.

That crap works on Joe Six Pack, but not with the rest of the world.

[FreedomAngel82]

189. Of course

They have actual journalists I'm sure. Why else do you think Rumsfeld hates Al-Jazeera so much?

[Rose Siding]

41. Another incompetent crony

Suddenly, I'm pro-standardized testing...for all Senate confirmations.

[PegDAC]

181. Didn't Sen. Byrd say

that he'd take a drug test when BushCo took an IQ test?

[NNN0LHI]

42. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition because with this nut running...

...around Islamic countries we are surely going to need it.

Don

[MadHound]

43. Well you must excuse her,

After all, good fascists aren't encouraged to read the Constitution, it might actually result in them having a conscience.

[onenote]

45. SUGGESTION: E-mail Condi with a link to the text of the Constitution and

ask her to forward it to Karen. WOuldn't it be great is Condi got a few thousand emails like that?

Here's the State Dept Link for sending a message to Condi:
http://contact-us.state.gov/ask_form_cat/ask_form_secretary.html

onenote

[annabanana]

48. HA - done

I asked her to send Karen a copy so she won't embarass America too much over there..

[AValdoux]

103. Man, that felt good

One line of my email suggested that they shouldn't send spin specialist on good will missions, making stuff up on the fly about our very constitution doesn't look good in the world press.


AValdoux

[mattclearing]

46. She's an idiot. I wonder if anyone called her on it.

Doubtful.

[Michigander4Dean]

50. Hmmm... Looking, looking,looking...

Nope, not in Article 1.

Maybe Article 2 has it... Yeah, there it - oh no, tha's not it.

Article 3? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I don't see it.

Article 4 doesn't have it either, unless 'republican form of government' translates to 'one nation under God.'

Article 5 ain't got it either. But let me re-read it. It's a short article... but I don't see it.

Article 6 ought to have it... and yet, somehow it doesn't.

Article 7? That's just people signing their names.

[PurityOfEssence]

51. There is no mention of a supreme being in the entire Constitution

period.

The only mention of anything pertaining to religion is in article 6, section 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The only other glancing reference is in Article One of the Bill of Rights:

"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."

Washington (who was not a Christian) added "so help me god" to the end of the oath of office by choice; tradition has kept it there. Until Lincoln fucked us with adding god language into the oaths for Senators and Representatives--as he did with "in god we trust" on our money--we were in compliance with the constitution.

Such pernicious encroachments are illegal and set the stage as precedents for other uglinesses.

She's a liar and an asshole.

[onenote]

61. minor quibbles

First, the Constitution ends with the following declaration:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...

So there is a slight, non-substantive reference to a supreme being.

Second, while it is true that Washington added the words "so help me God" to the oath of office, the fact that the Constitution provides that one can either "swear" or "affirm" implicitly recognizes a religious component since the distinction between an oath and an affirmation is that the former involves a statement, promise etc. made by express or implicit reference to something the speaker regards as "sacred". Indeed, under an Act passed by the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War, the oath that was required of officers (but not enlisted men),contained the words "so help me God" which may help explain why General Washington appended that to his oath.

My point is that a reference to "God" is not in and of itself unconstitutional, so long as the constitutionally mandated alternative of an affirmation is available.

onenote

[stopbush]

73. I'm sure you'vre just supplied what was going through K Hughes'

mind when she made her "under god" statement.:sarcasm:

[onenote]

78. I wasn't supporting Karen Hughes, as is pretty clear from my other post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4935437#4936079

I was just making the point that it is not completely accurate to say that there is no reference to a supreme being in the Constitution. I was also trying to make the point that while it is clear from the Constitution's "no religious test" clause and its allowance of affirmations, that the founders regarded the imposition of religious doctrine to be anathema, it also is true that the concept of swearing an oath to God was an accepted part of official life at the time of the Constitution.

onenote

[stopbush]

74. "The Year of Our Lord" is nothing more than a convention

of those times, like saying "Greenwich Mean Time."

I doubt that there is even a slight reference to a SB to be implied here.

Besides, Hughes specifically said "one nation under god" - a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, not the Constitution.

[onenote]

80. not a terribly historically supportable view

Whether or not it was a "convention," its a sizable overstatement to suggest that the reference to "the year of our Lord" doesn't imply even a "slight reference" to a supreme being. On its face, of course, it does not merely imply a reference to a supreme being, it is one. And the idea that it was just hollow words doesn't really hold up when you consider other relatively contemporaneous documents prepared by the founders of the natiion, such as the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."....

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

My point: our argument shouldn't be that the founders never referenced a supreme being, it should be that the founders went out their way to ensure that there is no religious test allowed in this country and that the constitution itself enshrined the option of nonreligious affirmations as equal with religious "oaths".

onenote

[stopbush]

81. You've managed to assemble every reference to god

in the DoI.

BTW - when the Founders wrote "their Creator," I think they were referencing the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :)

[onenote]

82. which was my point...

[stopbush]

85. But the DoI isn't the Constitution.

[onenote]

89. didn't say it was

said it was a contemporaneous document that undermines your suggestion that "in the year of our Lord" was a meaningless construction bereft of any implied reference to a supreme being. Not only is it an express reference, but its clear from its historical context that those who used it regularly made reference to a supreme being.

This is kind of a silly argument, since we agree that Karen Hughes comment that the constitution talks about one nation under God was utter BS. My only point is that we don't need to overstate what the constitution does/doesn't say to rebut her. While the framers of the constitution made reference to a supreme being, more importantly they also made clear that there were no religious tests and that even the President was not required to believe in a supreme being.

onenote

[PurityOfEssence]

157. I think you're quibbling out of true sincerity, but it's misguided

Rousing prose though it is, the Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a glorified press release done under the stress of a divisive war. Think of it as a position paper.

The LAWS of the land, hammered out in peacetime are another thing entirely. Not only does the spirit of the Constitution give religion no place at the table, it goes out of its way to do so, and the letter of law is pretty unarguable.

Remember, too, that there was endless and vigorous effort to cram god into the Constitution, and the fact that it's not there reveals the extreme importance that secular government had to so many of the drafters.

[onenote]

163. I'll try again

My reference to the Declaration was in response to the suggestion that the use of the phrase "year of our Lord" does contain even an implied reference to a supreme being. My point being is that it is an express reference and one consistent with the beliefs of many of the framers as reflected in other relatively contemporaneous documents.

The reason I pointed out the year of our Lord reference was in response to the claim that the Constitution does not contain any reference to a supreme being. It contains at least one, albeit in a non-substantive provision. It also contains references to both oaths and affirmations.

And the reason I pointed that out was not in any to suggest that the framers sought to create a religious nation, but rather to make the point that the framers went out of their way to create a nation whose fundamental law was neutral -- neither supportive nor hostile -- to religion. Thus, when George Washington, on his own, added the words "so help me God" to his oath, he was not violating the spirit of the Constitution, which gives him the right to choose to express his religion or not.

onenote

[PurityOfEssence]

176. Yes, you're right...to a point

Sadly, I worded my fatuous statement incorrectly. (I already knew about the date reference, by the way.)

I don't think that Washington was violating the intent of the Constitution by swearing as he did, and I wouldn't want to take the odd ritualistic flourish away from anyone at that point. (Hell, if Dennis Hopper were being sworn in, I wouldn't complain if he ended it with "man".)

You bring up a very salient point which few seem to be able to grasp: there are three positions on religion in government: pro, con and NEUTRAL. Judge Roy Moore needs to have it pointed out to him that the opposite of a big honkin' statue that demands fealty to the only true god isn't a lack of a statue, but a crucifix with a red circle around it and a slash through it. I have yet to hear anyone promoting anti-religion and demanding agreement that there is no god, yet that's how the maniacs constantly paint it.

Neutrality is the issue, and the founders were very aware of this. Twist concepts as theists may, Article One wasn't about picking one religion over another, it was about endorsing the very concept of a supreme whatever or supernatural worldview.

What I should have said is that IN THE BODY of the governmental framework set up in the Constitution, there is no reference to a supreme being. The only reference to religion in the body of the document is in Article 6, section 3 where it specifically says that there's to be no religious means test for employment or having a position of trust within the governnment.

Remember: the Bill of Rights was an afterthought when it didn't look like the states would pass the thing, and the very first issue brought up in these amendments pertained to religion and keeping it out of government. It hardly gets much more obvious than this.

So, yes; I miswrote and you are factually correct. Still, much as the format for the date in a formal document can be read as a cipher for the true intent of the framers, I still contend that this is an incredible stretch and the alternate description of the date stands as proof to the contrary.

[mcg]

118. Religious affiliations of Presidents, founding fathers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations

Early on there were many Deists and Unitarians amongst U.S. Presidents.

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_founding_fathers
(this web page shows many difference viewpoints regarding the founding fathers)

So no, they were not referring to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". That sounds more like a god believed in by those who have faith in the power of Chance and Necessity (lots of 'spaghetti' and rather monsterous).

[underpants]

90. "... and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth"

They put a different time frame on it too. Yes the word "Lord " is used but they also set it in secular terms.

[PurityOfEssence]

156. If you're going to quibble, quibble correctly

The direct quote is as follows; you either excerpted what you thought would prove your point with that ellipsis, or are missing the major point:

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

That's pretty clear that it's not EXCLUSIVELY Jesus time, but also referenced for the secular folk.

Yes, the term "our lord" is in there, but it is used only to define the date of drafting, and there was no other convention for doing so at the time; I don't know whether the term "the common era" was in use at the time. Since there wasn't any other convention for describing the date at the time, they went out of their way to create a new one.

Affirmation was specifically added to accommodate Quakers, who do not allow themselves to swear. This is an effort to include those of other viewpoints, not as any implied endorsement of the concept of "god".

Referring to "god" as a fact is specifically against the spirit of the Constitution, and in direct conflict with Article One of the Bill of Rights. It's not a question of a particular religion over any other religions, it's RELIGION ITSELF. For the government to endorse the concept that there is a god is supremely unconstitutional, flies in the face of democracy and creates an aristocracy.

Personally, I don't think that a date reference is part of the body of the Constitution; it has nothing to do with the laws being presented for agreement, and the fact that an alternative method to define the date is literally created on the spot sounds mighty convincing and consistent.

[onenote]

162. if you bothered to read my posts

You'd understand my position:
I wasn't remotely making any claim that the Constitution "exclusively" referred to religious matters. In fact, I made exactly the opposite point. The Constitution goes out of its way to recognize secular rights: no religious test for office, affirmations placed on equal footing with oaths. My point is that those are evidence of the fact that we are not a "Christian" or "religious" nation. However, claims that the Constitution is devoid of refernce to a supreme being or that references to "god" (as in the oath of office) are simply wrong. Just as the Constitution was not "pro" religion, it was not "anti" either. It was neutral. Given the reference to "oaths" (which was understood at the time to inherently involve an acknowledgement, express or implicit, of a supreme being), as well as affirmations and the reference to "year of our Lord" as well as to time measured in reference to the Declaration. I should note that if you took your thesis to its logical conclusion, the US would've merrily gone along dating everything by reference to the Declaration and this would not be 2005, it would 230.

Again...the US Constitution is neutral on religion. It recognizes it as a personal choice. Thus, when George Washington said "so help me God" at the end of his oath, he didn't violate the spirit of the Constitution in the slightest, even though those words were not required.

onenote

[swimmernsecretsea]

52. OK, rolled up newspaper spanking

everyone form a line...

[swimmernsecretsea]

53. Please delete

dupe

[Stephanie]

54. Is this on the home page yet?

Stunning ignorance. God I'd like to smack her!

[sweetheart]

55. LOL... what an idiot

The US government has become laughable, a real comedy of stooges,
hahahahahahahahahah!! :-) what's next... this is better than monty python.

[Old Mouse]

56. K Hughes: "Our constitution cites 'to blave'."

... And, as we all know, "to blave" means "to bluff. ...

[MisterP]

109. "quone"

What we need is a medical dictionary

[PegDAC]

186. LOL n/t

:toast: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Zynx]

57. Republicans don't need to tell the truth.

Didn't you know that? One thing that is true about all Republicans is that they have a very poor knowledge of history. I went to a very Republican high school and those people knew nothing of this country's history.

[Splatter Phoenix]

94. If they knew...

I doubt they'd be Republicans. It's hard to have blind, loyal, aggressive patriotism to hatred, etc., as witnessed in the US' previous history towards Natives, blacks, gays, women, Chinese, Irish, Japanese, German, Jews, anyfuckingone else you can think of...

I find myself kind of hating America, which I know is NOT what the Dems stand for, but hell, how much hate does a country have to bathe itself in before the stench affects those who live there to turn them against it?

[Tactical Progressive]

59. You know what would have been really great

if the Egypitian had corrected her on her knowlege of the US Constitution and religion.

I'll bet he knew, but didn't say anything because such an embarassment would be a diplomatic faux-pas.

[stevietheman]

62. This stupid "b" is bin Laden's salesperson. n/t

n/t

[Raster]

64. i'm surprised the wetnurse to the beast could even say the word "God"

without her head spinning 360 degrees and puking pea soup. She doesn't just wear the mark of the beast, SHE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

on edit: or at least those are his teeth marks on her titties...yuck!

[IChing]

65. "Our Godless Constitution" A MUST READ from the "Nation"

"In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

"As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today."

THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

[BrotherBuzz]

75. The Supremacy Clause makes that treaty "supreme Law of the Land", too!

The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[hootinholler]

141. Good point!

There should be a challenge to In God We Trust based on that.

-Hoot

[BrotherBuzz]

153. I don't think any legal challenge could be mounted on this, alone...

But being empowered with the knowledge of Article 6 of the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli gives me license to verbally flog all the flag waving white-wing fundies who insist that our country and constitution was founded on Christian religion. Knowledge is power, and simply citing the connection between the treaty and the Constitution really pisses them off, but it does shut them down.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmom]

66. so now it's now the anti-war demonstrators that are

"enabling the terrorists" it's this administration.

[Ganja Ninja]

68. They're all just hopeless dumb asses.

:dunce:

[Guaranteed]

69. "When Stupid People Talk"

Would be a great show for Fox.


God, this shit. It's just continuous.

[mod mom]

70. Priceless and Shameful!

[MN ChimpH8R]

71. More of this

[despairing optimist]

106. Hey, that picture is classified. It's the 2008 GOP Platform Committee's

It shows where the planks come from.

[AllyCat]

76. Huh. Guess I got the factory second version of the Constitution

Mine doesn't say anything about that.

[young_at_heart]

79. "Karen Hughes: Her Power Over Bush"

I'm wondering if such a book will ever be written. I'll bet it would have some interesting info and explain one of the reasons why we have been saddled with him for so long.

[Fenris]

84. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS/DOESN'T SAY.

:banghead:

[Justpat]

86. Poor thing has the constitution mixed up with the pledge of allegiance.

[bridgit]

87. ms. hughes is clearly delusional for a host of reasons...

least of all touting things that in no way exist to real people who do, and she wants to be my latex salesman :eyes:

[chelsea0011]

88. Who can blame her for the mixup. At least she didn't say "one nation

under OUR god", you backward people.

[Richard Steele]

91. Do I smell a #1 Conservative Idiot? I think I do!!!!!

Then again, the competition is pretty fierce this week.

[cdeca2005]

146. Sorry..

I hafta vote for tOm dElay.

[Javaman]

92. one more indiction that she is a halwit and not someone who actually

read the constitution.

I loath that woman. she is a shining example of everything that is wrong with this admin*.

colossal racist failure*.

[Kurovski]

93. Oh, geez. I think Karen is a lot of things, I never thought

"idiot" was one of them.

And this is why Karen is probably merely lying through her scummy little teeth. Just like always.

That wet-nurse to George Bush is just "catapulting the propaganda."

[Kailassa]

99. She's an Idiot

if she thinks that Egyptians can't do their homework and won't be laughing at her over their coffee.

[Kurovski]

107. Karen's comments promotes the idea that Bush has extended

the Holy Wars. This will of course inflame jihadists, as the article points out.

Most of us think that's idiotic, but BushCo thinks it's brilliant. The more war, the larger the enemy, the more the newly revealed Republican Party likes it. More fear, more control, more power, more money.

Yes, I'm one with those Egyptians over coffee, she's an idiot. And a nasty, nasty liar.

One begins to wonder if she isn't a bit bonkers as well.

[Whoa_Nelly]

95. Well, let's all just email her on "Ask Karen" at her WH addy

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040121.html

Welcome to "Ask the White House" -- an online interactive forum where you can submit questions to Administration Officials and friends of the White House. Visit the "Ask the White House" archives to read other discussions with White House officials.


Gee. Karen! Could ya maybe like point me in the right direction where I can like you know find that our Constitution has like you know "one nation under God" in it?

Gee Whiz, Kareless Karen! First you are disrespectful when speaking to women in the Middle East, and now you cite our Constitution as having a statement in it that DOES NOT EXIST!

That's two strikes against you as the Public Relations Czar, (or would that be Czarina...Czaress...CzarFUBAR?). One more, and I hope you get taken off the diplomatic beat. You are not doing our nation and its image one bit of good. And, it is a wee bit difficult to improve on an administration that continues to create an ugly global image on a daily basis. CheapShot Band-Aids just don't stick like the real ones, eh, Karenina?

Soon, the Bush administration will no longer have the top seats in destroying the US image and wreaking havoc upon the world...and that's a good thing! The last five years have done nothing to actually represent the American public, and has put us in even greater danger for having those terrorists who need fuel for their hatred being amply provided through the horrendous gaffs by the Bush Administration.

[savemefromdumbya]

96. Karen is an embarassment

still if she keeps up with the blunders........

[Dr Fate]

97. Either lying on purpose or being ignorant on purpose. n/t

n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

98. astounding

This is what happens when hacks instead of statesmen run the show.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

100. Hughes is either the poster child for the dumbing down of America or like

the rest of the sociopath's minions, lies as easily as she breathes to make her point. They are all evil reptilians from outer space!

[rodWA]

104. She's supposedly the brains of the outfit

[Dean_Convert]

108. Queen of the Asshats

That's a frighteneing statement when one considers how much influence this closeted lesbian has with the president.

[Snoogoo]

138. what the heck?

Why do so many people make these "s/he's a closeted lesbian/gay man" comments when referring to rightwing f*ckheads? Even Randi does it when she talks about John Roberts. Is there some proof to this, or is it just a generic comment we make about everyone we hate? 'cause if that's the case, I think that's an insult to gays, and I actually find it kind of disturbing. I don't mean to rip on your post, I am just wondering because it's something I see often.

Thanks,
Z

[Buns_of_Fire]

110. She was obviously misinspokeninterpreted

Obviously, she MEANT to say, "...one nation, under Our Glorious and Supreme Saintly Leader Boosh*, interdi... invis... ind... Oh, screw it. It's in the Constitution. Look it up."

*sigh* I remember a time when our country's NAME was all the P.R. we needed...

[McCamy Taylor]

111. Someone altert the CDC. Dumbya disease must be catching!

[McCamy Taylor]

112. duplicate

[The Doctor.]

113. It's not a question of Whether she made the Top Ten Con. Idiots...

But at what number.

You know, the Admin has to start making a list of the 40 or so runners up, each with a simple link to the story of their particular idiocy.

[Racenut20]

115. Hmmm. I didn't know the Pledge of Allegiance was in the Constitution.

Darn education system must have left me behind.

[mzteris]

117. Hey Karen!

How's that "improving US's image" thing working out for ya?

:rofl:

[pinto]

119. She's an embarrassment. What's this person doing as a diplomat?

I know I'm speaking to the choir here, but what the hell is a PR front person from the ranks of a part time Governor's campaign to be a part time President doing speaking as an "Ambassador" for the country in one of the most volatile regions in the world?

[Olney Blue]

192. The same reason that John Bolton is at the U.N.......

:banghead:

[Maestro]

120. She needs to read this article.

What would Jefferson Do?

[goodhue]

121. Does not

Geez, she is less intelligent than I would have guessed.

[donheld]

122. That explains this whole Administration

They've no idea what is really in the constitution. None of them.
:grr: :banghead: :scared: :mad: :hurts: :grr: :banghead: :scared: :mad: :hurts: :grr: :banghead: :scared: :mad: :hurts:

[Generic Other]

125. Did Karen Hughes ever take high school civics?

No of course not. You have to go higher than 9th grade to take civics.

[dancingme]

126. Is Our Karen Hughes Learning?

No moron left behind.

[PapaJoe]

131. Remember SHE is the smart one.

and she probly blievez it/

[cdeca2005]

147. You speleed it rong.......

You speleed it rong.......the corect speling is MORAN. ROFLMAO

Sory, I could nto recist the sarkasm.

[AntiFascist]

127. One nation UNDER God...

doesn't that include government officials, or are they exempt?

[ToolTex]

130. Oh, come on, y'all are being pretty rough. You'll have to admit she sure

makes a pants suit look hot. In my opinion she does for pants suits what Hitler did for mustaches.

You can't fault her for mixing up that confusin Constitu thingy with that other pledgey thing. Heck, her boss thinks his "main job is to protect the amurcan people." He doesn't remember swearing to that part of it that said he "will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

132. Ummm... you're being sarcastic, right? Right? ???

???
:shrug:

[ToolTex]

137. No I'm serious! She does for pants suits what Hitler did for mustaches.

(Yeah, I am being very extremely sarcastic)!

[merci_me]

133. I knew they trashed and aren't using our original one but

I had no idea they wrote a new one.

[ToolTex]

134. I seem to remember Laura goin over there and gettin her comeuppance.

They couldn't get her back state-side fast enough. Karl must think Karan is more bullet proof than Laura, (or expendable), and sure couldn't do much more harm. Turns out he was wrong about the more harm part.

[proud2BlibKansan]

135. oh my gawd

She is truly a stoopid stoopid woman.

[phillysuse]

136. My email to Condi regarding Karen Huge

Karen Hughes must have been The One Child Left Behind when they
were studying the Constitution in high school. The Constitution does
NOT state that we are One Nation, Under God. That is in the Pledge
of Allegiance, modified in 1954.
This woman has no business representing the United States
to anyone. She clearly needs to spend more time with
her family!!!

Fire her!!!! She has obviously violated the law put through
by Senator Robert Byrd requiring all Federal employees to have
read the Constitution.
Just in case you haven't read the Constitution either, here's the link:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[Snoogoo]

139. lmao

"she clearly needs to spend more time with her family" just made me spit what I was drinking all over my keyboard! Thanks! :rofl:
Did you really send that?

[Miss Chybil]

142. Reading the Constitution does not seem to be a prerequisite for trying to

sell it to the rest of the world.

[Ellen Rose]

144. Message to Condi

Ms.Rice,

I have just finished reading an article in The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1581335,00.html,
regarding Ms.Karen Hughes' trip to the Middle East. The author of the article, Sidney Blumenthal, recounts one her statements in Egypt: "When an Egyptian opposition leader inquired why Mr. Bush mentions God in his speeches, Hughes asked him whether he was aware that "previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

I have read and studied the US Constitution many times as I attained my minor in government in college. The first time I came in contact with the wonderful foundation of our US government was in the 8th grade. As an eight grader I could have told you that the US Constitution does not have the phrase "one nation under God" in it. That phrase was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50s during the "Red Scare" and is not part of the original pledge written by a Baptist minister.

I am appalled to think that someone from the State Department representing the United States could be so ignorant of the US Constitution. I do hope that you will give Ms Hughes a copy of the document she so badly quoted and perhaps a crash course on the Constitution.

How can someone swear to uphold the Constitution if she is not even aware of what is in it?

My name and address

[texpatriot2004]

145. Do me a favor KH and stay your stupid soccer mom ass at home.

[AuntieM1957]

149. Get the original that Bush has been using to line the litter box

and make her a copy.

[proud patriot]

150. We should all write letters to Egypt and apologize for Karen's mistake

:grr: and send copies of the constitution to
Karen.

[cantstandbush]

169. We should all write letters to the MSM and ask them to apologize

for Karen's mistakes and ignorance.

Once again, this proves that our nation is in the hands of the ignorant elite, meaning that the people in charge, are articulate but ignorant and therefore DANGEROUS.

Had a black high school student said these same words, Bennett would be on TV using it as an example of poor public schooling and a step on the path to violent crime.

[imperial jedi]

151. what a moron.

it's moments like this that make me embarrassed to be an American.

[moondust]

155. They've written a new constitution.

A new, improved, King James version. Specially made for Jesusland.

[moose65]

168. I don't get it anyway....

Karen Hughes is certainly not my idea of a "diplomat." She strikes me as a loud, obnoxious Texas "broad" who wouldn't know tact if it bit her on her enormous rump. Why the hell is SHE scampering around the world trying to improve our image? She's about the last person I'd want to represent America to the rest of the world. More of the same incompetence we've come to expect from the administration!

[WhiteTara]

173. she is so busy subverting the constitution that

she doesn't even know what it says. The part that says she is helping bin Laden by being her stupid stupid self scares hell out of me. What hubris. We are all going to be hoisted on their petard! I don't see how she can put makeup on because she would have to look in the mirror.
IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE!

[dave123williams]

175. If she were any more stupid, she'd need an assistant to wipe up the drool.

[Warren Stupidity]

177. There is reference to a diety in the text of the constitution.

It is the date at the end of the document, and it reads something like "... in the year of our lord ...". That is it.

[FreedomAngel82]

179. No it doesn't sweetie

God is not mentioned period. :eyes: Read the damn thing.

[FighttheFuture]

194. Fucking clueless Bu$hitCo Bitch....

like all the rest of them!

Even where God is mentioned, in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Natural God, Natures God, not a "God" of any specific religion.

Yet I am sure they know this, and this is only a another poison for the ignorant masses who do not better. Geroge Orwell could not have predecited this better. Josef Gobbels would be proud of this crew!

[zbdent]

195. It is a shame that a "furner" knows more about our constitution

than a "knowledgeable" representative of the US does . . .

Civics 101, anybody?