# It's not just your guns and your religion you bitterly cling to



## Deaf Smith (Mar 9, 2010)

So now Obama want's to go after your fishing rods to.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

"The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. "

And I wonder how many jobs that would cost to in the fishing industry.

Isn't 'Hype and Change' wonderful?

Deaf


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 9, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> "The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. "



At least our "Leader" doesn't need to listen to his employers anymore...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 10, 2010)

About the title of this thread: I can't remember Obama going after your guns and your religion. So what does that have to do with this proposal?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 10, 2010)

Bruno,

When Obama was talking in San Francisco he said, "So its not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who arent like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

See,, Obama feels we hicks 'cling to guns or religion or antipathy' (but considering Obama's track record antipathy is growing by leaps and bounds) like it's come kind of crutch.

And Obama does not like guns (nor does he even go to church.. at least since he has talken office.)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

So if he had is way, yep he would be hot on the trail of everyones guns.

And that is how it relates.

Deaf


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 10, 2010)

An honest couple of questions from an outsider, if you'll permit me to break my self-imposed silence for a moment or two?  

Given the seperation of Church and State, isn't it a good thing not to have a pawn of organised religion as your President?

Given that gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, any President trying to take away that Right is doomed to fail isn't he?  Otherwise he tears up the social contract with which your nation was founded and that sort of thing never ends well.

As to the direct matter of the OP, regulation of fishing is necessary if people are going to enjoy it as 'sport' for a sustained period.  Too many hooks in the water at any one time result in no results for anyone after a while.  Or am I just daft (a dangerous question there )?


----------



## David43515 (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> An honest couple of questions from an outsider, if you'll permit me to break my self-imposed silence for a moment or two?
> 
> Given the seperation of Church and State, isn't it a good thing not to have a pawn of organised religion as your President?
> 
> ...


 
I for one always enjoy your input here. You always seem to bring up good points or post interesting comments and questions.

While I wouldn`t want someone in charge who was "a pawn of organised religion", at the same time I don`t like having someone in charge who treats religion (mine or anyone else`s) with open disdain. And although the concept of seperation of church and state is generally accepted, the phrase appears no where in the constitution.

Obama basically nationalized the auto industry and the banks, and is trying to radically change the healthcare industry even though the majority of the people seem to be against his plans. Since he`s made his views on private firearm ownership pretty plain in the past, I wouldn`t at all put it past his administration to try to find a way to legislate it out of the reach of the majority.

From what I can see in the article this is just some advisory panel saying that they`re no longer accepting further public input (from anyone) before they write the report with thier reccomendations. It looks like they were until this time. What the author of the peice seems to be afraid of is that they willl reccomend ending ALL recreational fishing in all those waters. Considering how much revenue sport fishing generates in the great lakes alone, it`ll never happen. I don`t know what it`s like on the gulf coast, but we in the great lakes get the vast majority of our tourist dollars from fishermen.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 11, 2010)

David43515 said:


> From what I can see in the article this is just some advisory panel saying that they`re no longer accepting further public input (from anyone) before they write the report with thier reccomendations. It looks like they were until this time. What the author of the peice seems to be afraid of is that they willl reccomend ending ALL recreational fishing in all those waters. Considering how much revenue sport fishing generates in the great lakes alone, it`ll never happen. I don`t know what it`s like on the gulf coast, but we in the great lakes get the vast majority of our tourist dollars from fishermen.



The column caught my attention because the author draws a line from the cancellation of the managed bear hunt in Ontario -- from what I understand, a soundly scientific exercise -- to this fishing story in the states. The connection, he feels, is "Big Green," as he terms it, thus, "We are no longer taking comments," is translated into, "Silence, your Fuhrer has spoken." It's a shame, really, because I think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had about the steps needed to protect the environment.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 11, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> ...(nor does he even go to church.. at least since he has talken office.)



I have no idea how one verifies that Mr Obama has not worshiped in over a year. 

Nor do I understand how is church attendance or lack thereof is relevant. Presidents Clinton and Bush are regular church goers, oft photographed with a bible in one hand and the Missus in the other. The former committed adultery and the latter bore false witness against a neighbour.


----------



## Carol (Mar 11, 2010)

Oh come now.  Everyone knows that Obama doesn't go to church, his wife is in to the Occult, especially Astrology, and he refuses to wear his faith on his sleeve.

Oh....no....wait....that was Reagan.  :lol2:


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2010)

Back to the subject of the OP, I'm an avid fisherman and I've been all over the country pursuing my habit.  The states do just fine managing the local stocks.  There is input from local people and the system monitors and adjusts.  When a mistake is made, people learn and make it better.  If we give the bureaucrats in Washington the power to regulate all of this, they will absolutely ruin a system that works just fine.

I can see no other reason for this, other then another federal power grab.  

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY ROD, FEDS!!!!  LOL!


----------



## chaos1551 (Mar 11, 2010)

Well, we can see that the author of the article, Bowman, has issued an apology for the irresponsible article he wrote through ESPN, which was spread by Drudge and elevated into a fiasco.  

There is no way there will be a blanket ban on any kind of fishing.  Adjustments, maybe, as people learn and make the system better.  It's all about conservation and making sure fish stocks are available into the forseeable future.

Even though Obama is actively trying to ruin the entire world with his horrible intent, he won't be able to succeed!  (What hyperbole?)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 11, 2010)

I'm not worried about a fishing ban.  Most of the fishing near me is crap, and the fish inedible due to excessive toxins.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> It's all about conservation and making sure fish stocks are available into the forseeable future.



The issue for me is that this is easier to accomplish on a local level in many cases.  The Federal Government has no need to get involved.  Each state can individualize it's approach to its needs.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The issue for me is that this is easier to accomplish on a local level in many cases. The Federal Government has no need to get involved. Each state can individualize it's approach to its needs.


 
Assuming that only one state is involved, anadromous fisheries fequently involve multiple states.  Also, federal jurisdictions come into play when you look at multiple sovereign governments like tribes or neighboring nations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2010)

Blindside said:


> Assuming that only one state is involved, anadromous fisheries fequently involve multiple states.  Also, federal jurisdictions come into play when you look at multiple sovereign governments like tribes or neighboring nations.



Those are good examples of where the FED can make a difference.  It's not appropriate or needed in all cases though.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Given the seperation of Church and State, isn't it a good thing not to have a pawn of organised religion as your President?


 
The doctrine is not in the Constitution. It came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He said, 

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "*make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"* thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

We do have a 'freedom OF religion'. Notice the word 'OF', not 'FROM' religion. We still are pretty much a Christian nation.




Sukerkin said:


> Given that gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, any President trying to take away that Right is doomed to fail isn't he? Otherwise he tears up the social contract with which your nation was founded and that sort of thing never ends well.


 
Hahahahaha. So you think? Sukenkin, the fly in the ointment on that is in 'interpretation'. Lots of times Congress, the President, and even SCOTUS ignores some of the wording of the Constitution.

Remember Bill Clinton's 'meaning of 'is' is?

Do not put your faith in politicians. The history of the world is repeat with politicians selling out the citizenry.

Deaf


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 13, 2010)

Thank you for the clarification of the exact quote from whence the concept of the seperation of church and state comes.  I'm not sure that I have ever seen that extract before, tho' I have heard it.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 13, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> The doctrine is not in the Constitution. It came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He said,
> 
> "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "*make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"* thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
> 
> We do have a 'freedom OF religion'. Notice the word 'OF', not 'FROM' religion. We still are pretty much a Christian nation.


 
Quite. And I would point out that Jefferson explicitly points out the reason for the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment:

"...the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions..."

_This_ is why there is a separation of Church and State in the U.S. It's also something people who invoke Jefferson's comment about a "wall of separation" routinely ignore. The "wall" is there to protect the people in their freedom to believe, not to outlaw public displays of religiosity. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Carol (Mar 13, 2010)

There isn't any place that I know of in U.S. law mandating that the American people must belong to some sort of religion, with the freedom lying in which one they can pick.

It is not mandatory to have any sort of spirituality in the U.S.  The religion of our President matters little to me.  However, I do not think it is in good form for the president to make the denigrating statement the way he did.

As far as going after fishing, methinks hunters and fishermen are in a similar voting demographic -- more likely to vote R than D.  This to me smacks more of politics than anything else.


----------



## geezer (Mar 14, 2010)

Carol said:


> T However, I do not think it is in good form for the president to make the denigrating statement the way he did.



Well, he wasn't president when he said that, it was a very political campaign statement, and he certainly has _regretted_ saying it ever since... a bad move politically. And, like so many things that were said by both cantidates on that campaign, it was taken out of context and blown totally out of proportion. No need to let paranoia destroy ya, Deaf. Obama isn't going to take away our guns. Any president who tries will simply be voted out of office. 

Now, the left may (temporarily) be able to re-instate the assault rifle ban. _I don't care._ I don't need a rifle that _looks_ like a fully auto M-16 or AK 47 but shoots like sheist. My hunting rifles work just fine, thank you. Besides, everytime talk of a ban comes up, all the gun dealers make a small fortune in "panic" sales. LOL


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 14, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> The "wall" is there to protect the people in their freedom to believe, not to outlaw public displays of religiosity.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Exactly!!!! There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting displays of any religion in a government place (we swear on the Bible, have 'In God We Trust' on denominations, Even the 'Star Spangled Banner', our anthem, has God mentioned!!!!

But we have no state religion, as Britain did, nor push any one. And that is what our founding fathers wanted to stop.

Deaf


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 14, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> We do have a 'freedom OF religion'. Notice the word 'OF', not 'FROM' religion. We still are pretty much a Christian nation.


 
Actually freedom of religion does also mean freedom from religion. All it does it give you the choice to believe as you will, be it any of a multitude of religions or no religion at all.

By a Christian nation, I take it you mean that most people identify with or claim to be Christians?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 14, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Exactly!!!! There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting displays of any religion in a government place (we swear on the Bible, have 'In God We Trust' on denominations, Even the 'Star Spangled Banner', our anthem, has God mentioned!!!!
> 
> But we have no state religion, as Britain did, nor push any one. And that is what our founding fathers wanted to stop.
> 
> Deaf


 
Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing. There is nothing to say you cant paint yourself blue and call yourself a Smurf either.
You can swear on a bible or take an oath. In god we trust came about in 1956.
While the UK may have a State religion, I cant think of a recent occurrence of people being forced to follow it.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 15, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually freedom of religion does also mean freedom from religion. All it does it give you the choice to believe as you will, be it any of a multitude of religions or no religion at all.




Since this is a discussion revolving around the U.S. you should note that in such a context this is not correct. The framers of the Constitution were dealing with the official religion of England (the Anglican church) and wanted to avoid having to deal with that whole set of problems. What the First Amendment protected was a person's freedom of conscience. The people are free to belong to whatever Church they wish. 

It would only be proper to refer to freedom of religion in the sense you use it secondarily. In fact, in an American context I would argue that such a notion is actually alien to the Constitution since it was not really what the founders were addressing. You can believ in nothing if you want but that's not exactly what the First Amendment was dealing with. 
 
Your statement sounds more in line with the idea of France's "Laitie" than it does with what the U.S. Constitution adresses.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 15, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing. There is nothing to say you cant paint yourself blue and call yourself a Smurf either.




This is true and in the U.S. you don't need the government's permission to paint yourself like a smurf. In fact, our Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal gov't in order to _limit_ said powers, not in order to grant the people rights. 




> You can swear on a bible or take an oath. In god we trust came about in 1956.





> While the UK may have a State religion, I cant think of a recent occurrence of people being forced to follow it.


 
Still can't be a Catholic and be in line for ther throne, IIRC. But hey that's only a little bigotry so it's OK!  I know there was talk of finally overturning that law but haven't heard anything recently. I hope the English people finally realize how bigoted it is.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Carol (Mar 15, 2010)

However, Ken's remarks are in line with the Supreme Court's guidelines that were set forward in Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing Township. 330 US 1 (1947).

Below text from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education


The 5-4 decision was handed down on February 10, 1947. The Court, through Justice Hugo Black, ruled that the state bill was constitutionally permissible. Perhaps as important as the actual outcome, though, was the position that the entire Court adopted on the Establishment Clause. It reflected a broad interpretation of the Clause that was to guide the Court's decisions for decades to come. Black's language was sweeping:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this:


Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"


----------



## Carol (Mar 15, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing.


 
The issue is more of a pragmatic matter. In the U.S., it is permissible for employees, of any employer (public or private) to keep small religious in their workspace if it permits employees in general to have small personal belongings. In other words, if it is OK for an employee to have a photo of their family in their workspace, then it is OK for an employee to have a mandala or a set of rosary beads in their workspace.

With regards to openly public displays, the issue gets a bit more complicated. If government establishment displays religious regalia for one religion's holidays, but not the others...even when a display to honor other faiths is requested...then that is showing favoritism to one religion over another. 

One example is Lexington's Battle Green. The town voted to remove a creche after receiving a flood of other requests to display religious displays from other religions. The law has been changed to state that religious displays on Battle Green must be live-action. The rulinig was upheld by Federal Court. (Boston Globe, Dec. 7 & 19, 2000)


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> [/size][/font]
> 
> I know there was talk of finally overturning that law but haven't heard anything recently. I hope the English people finally realize how bigoted it is.



Never!  Keep those papist traitors, with their foreign-power string-pullers, out of the power structure!  They should be thankful we don't set fire to them any more (tho' that was mainly in vengeance at their burning Protestants)  .

There are very good reasons in our history why it is that the Monarch cannot be a papist or marry one either.  Just as there are good reasons why we have the Crown as head of the church and why the envoy to the Vatican is not supposed to be a Catholic.  Once religion no longer has any political power then it will be time to remove that legislation from our statute books.  Until then, if we have to have any organised religions at all, Church of England will do fine {Cake or death? :lol:}.


----------



## DocWard (Mar 15, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Exactly!!!! There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting displays of any religion in a government place (we swear on the Bible, have 'In God We Trust' on denominations, Even the 'Star Spangled Banner', our anthem, has God mentioned!!!!


 
Well.... The poem "The Star Spangled Banner" does mentions "God" in the fourth stanza. It isn't mentioned in the first, that which is traditionally performed as the National Anthem.



> Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light
> What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
> Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
> O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
> ...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 15, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> There are very good reasons in our history why it is that the Monarch cannot be a papist or marry one either. Just as there are good reasons why we have the Crown as head of the church and why the envoy to the Vatican is not supposed to be a Catholic. Once religion no longer has any political power then it will be time to remove that legislation from our statute books. Until then, if we have to have any organised religions at all, Church of England will do fine {Cake or death? :lol:}.


 
Like I said, it's OK because it's only a little bigotry. Good show, old chap. Religion will always have political power because it will always influence people's lives. The desire to do away with that is the desire to do away with religion. 

The fact that the Crown is the head of the Anglican church also demonstrates the double standard your comfortable with. It's no big deal, really. All cultures have prejudices they excuse for one reason or another.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 15, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Like I said, it's OK because it's only a little bigotry. Good show, old chap. Religion will always have political power because it will always influence people's lives. The desire to do away with that is the desire to do away with religion.
> 
> The fact that the Crown is the head of the Anglican church also demonstrates the double standard your comfortable with. It's no big deal, really. All cultures have prejudices they excuse for one reason or another.
> 
> ...


 
Well the real power lies with the PM anyway, and they can be RC, so what does it matter? Its like asking if the Pope could be Jewish.

The sooner religion is stripped of any and all political power the better. Corporations influence peoples lives as much if not more so then religion, and yet they have less political power. The day religious dogma disappears from our lives the better.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 15, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Yes there is nothing in your constitution prohibiting religious displays on government buildings, but there is also nothing that approves of such a thing. There is nothing to say you cant paint yourself blue and call yourself a Smurf either.
> You can swear on a bible or take an oath. In god we trust came about in 1956.
> While the UK may have a State religion, I cant think of a recent occurrence of people being forced to follow it.


 
Recent? True, not recently, but it's amazing how the Church of England is so imbedded into the legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

"Of the forty-four diocesan archbishops and bishops in the Church of England, only twenty-six are permitted to sit in the House of Lords. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York automatically have seats, as do the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The remaining twenty-one seats are filled in order of seniority by consecration. It may take a diocesan bishop a number of years to reach the House of Lords, at which point he becomes a Lord Spiritual. The Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe are not eligible to sit in the House of Lords as their Dioceses lie outside of the United Kingdom."

Deaf


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 15, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Well the real power lies with the PM anyway, and they can be RC, so what does it matter? Its like asking if the Pope could be Jewish.


 
No, it's not like that at all. It's like asking if the President could be a Jew. 



> The sooner religion is stripped of any and all political power the better. Corporations influence peoples lives as much if not more so then religion, and yet they have less political power. The day religious dogma disappears from our lives the better.


 
Yes, stripping religion of all its political power worked wonders in places like the USSR, DPRK, Cuba, etc. 

It's debateable whether or not corporations have les political power than religions but regardless, so what? At least the U.S. recognizes that people have the right, granted by our creator, to be free in their religious belief and these beliefs are not a priori excluded from debate in the public square. 

Granted some people on the left treat any hint of public religion as nothing short of the dreaded coming of "Theocracy" but such reactions really only demonstrate that they don't know what the term theocracy means and that they are haunted by a very peculiar bogey man. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chaos1551 (Mar 16, 2010)

As long as people are religious and people run governments, there will be no true separation of church and state.  Only when either religion is dead or government is dead will they be separated.  Period.


----------

