Wrong. No one is debating or trying to restrict either GWB or Miers right to practice their religion. That is what is prevented by the statement in the constitution.
On the other hand, having the president DISQUALIFY people because of their religion (which is what is happening by making a specific religion a qualification) is wrong. It is not illegal (since it is congress that is restricted from making such a law, and they aren't doing that), but it surely is wrong (to me) and should not be allowed without much complaint. But there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. There is also nothing to prevent him from publicly stating that only whites could be appointed or only people who contributed over a million dollars to his campaign can be considered.. On 10/13/05, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or the > free exercise thereof. > > That is the line that defines church and state. If the President is ever > prevented to make appointments in which he chooses to use the religion of > the appointee then the separation of church and state is violated. > > I don't particularly like this appointment, but to claim that the President > can't take all things into his head when making the choice is absurd. > > The separation of church and state is there to protect these sorts of > actions, not prevent them. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:176959 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
