Emanuel goes after Chick-fil-A for boss’ anti-gay views

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Not for nothing...

Treaty of Tripoli

Article 11Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen such as David Barton claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[14] that though the English phrase is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government, a number of the founders described America as a Christian nation,[9] or that the quotation is based on an incomplete reading of Article 11.[16]



Article 11

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

Lambert writes, "By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

The Senate's ratification was only the third time in history the Senate had voted unanimously. It was the 339th time that the Senate decided to require a recorded vote. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent. This quiet assent to the Treaty of Tripoli is all the more remarkable because evidence of the erroneous character of the translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since approximately 1800. It is a mystery why no one made any notice of the defects in the translation or comparison of the English translation with other translations prior to 1930.
Founded on religion? Whatever you choose to believe, spindoctors have been around a long-ass time

 
.....the Pilgrims were fleeing religious persecution ....... and the Amreican REvolution wasn't a "religious war" it was against taxes and oppression from a remote government.
hmmmmmm. sounds familiar. Maybe another revolution is coming then.

The problem lies not with the word itself, but rather the meaning given to it by the person saying it.

Dumbass is not a bad word, but if you say it to RG on a day he hasn't had his coffee...
gotta let it go man, gotta let it go.

The word retarded bothered me as well; that is until I found the Association of Retarded Citizens, a federally-recognized non profit. If they use the word retarded in their name I don't mind using it either. Furthermore, the word retarded IS the politically correct term since retarded replaced the words cretin, moron, etc. If the word gets replaced again the concept entirely will be on the euphemism treadmill for eternity.
"Colored People" doesn't fly any more despite the existence of the NAACP. Just sayin'.
^^ Tell that to just about everyone in this state over 80 years old

 
FWIW, the federal government is removing the word 'retarded' from education related laws/paperwork/etc and forcing the states to do likewise.

Retarded used to be the general umbrella that idiots, imbeciles, and morons fell under. They used to be legimate clinical terms describing IQ level.

And there is no 'separation of church and state. here's the first ammendment:

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.
But the lawyers have stretched that beyond all recognition.

And, as for gay marraiage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.

 
And, as for gay marriage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.
Really? How does a homosexual couple file taxes as 'married' without the IRS knocking on their door demanding more money?

 
thanks for the input. EM , as I expected there is enough fodder out there to support whatever point of view someone wants to adopt. However, in the end it's "freedom of speech" that let's everyone spout their rhetoric about a particular point of view. The US government/legal system tries to simply support the right of someone to say their POV, which inevitably gets interpreted as supporting the cause.

 
And, as for gay marriage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.
Really? How does a homosexual couple file taxes as 'married' without the IRS knocking on their door demanding more money?
What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.

 
What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.
so is there any benefit to being married?

 
And, as for gay marriage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.
Really? How does a homosexual couple file taxes as 'married' without the IRS knocking on their door demanding more money?
What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.
We've had the discussion over and over on here.

There very often is a huge advantage to being married, but it depends on the income of the two individuals. If the one of the spouses doesn't work or has a much lower income than the other, it can be tax advantageous to file married. If, for instance, I had a wife who didn't work it would lower my tax bill by about $9,000. Approximately in half. (edit: and that's just federal).

I agree, however, that if both spouses are high earners it can be a detriment.

In any case, gay couples do not have this option. There are other things they cannot find ways around too, like employer health care benefits. My company doesn't recognized domestic partners.

Personally, I think there shouldn't be a tax distinction for married couples, and companies shouldn't pay married people more in benefits just because they're married.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.
so is there any benefit to being married?
Not on taxes, no.

And, as for gay marriage, they can still avail themselves of all the legal 'benefits' of marraige, they just can't do it in one fell swoop. You can do the same thing with anyone, really. Just a bit more of a PITA.
Really? How does a homosexual couple file taxes as 'married' without the IRS knocking on their door demanding more money?
What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.
We've had the discussion over and over on here.

There very often is a huge advantage to being married, but it depends on the income of the two individuals. If the one of the spouses doesn't work or has a much lower income than the other, it can be tax advantageous to file married.
I'm not being snotty, but explain to me how that works. Because when I did the numbers for the very same situation you listed, just for kicks, we would have been far better off if we were single filing separately. What did I miss?

 
When my wife was in school and not working, our taxes were SIGNIFICANTLY lower by filing jointly. Basically because she wasn't working, she had no income and thus did not owe any taxes. By filing jointly, I essentially added a dependent without adding any additional income.

 
When my wife was in school and not working, our taxes were SIGNIFICANTLY lower by filing jointly. Basically because she wasn't working, she had no income and thus did not owe any taxes. By filing jointly, I essentially added a dependent without adding any additional income.
That may be true, but I found myself in the weird donut hole where I could itemize deductions to well over the single standrd deduction but not the married standard deduction.

What is the benefit of doing so? I haven't found any tax benefit to being married.

If the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed, the marriage penalty will return, and it will actually be better to be unmarried.
so is there any benefit to being married?
Not on taxes, no.
you didn't answer the question.
Because the answer would be vastly different for each person.

 
This shit's getting out of control -

On W. MI direct sell corporation, Amway:

ADA, MI - A leading national gay rights activist announced he is launching on Amway boycott three years after the direct selling giant's president donated $500,000 to a conservative group that has worked to ban gay marriage.
Amway's founding families have never been shy about their conservative views. They have given to many conservatives causes over the years including the Republican party.

Karger's press release hints that he wants to pressure Amway - which had sales of $10.9 billion last year - to make amends by donating to organizations that support gay rights.

Karger called Amway the biggest boycott target of Rights Equal Rights to date. He is asking people not only to avoid Amway's hundreds of products but the NBA basketball team Orlando Magic, which is owned by Amway co-founder Rich DeVos along with his hotels, car dealerships and fitness centers
:blink:
http://www.mlive.com...ctivist_de.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not being snotty, but explain to me how that works. Because when I did the numbers for the very same situation you listed, just for kicks, we would have been far better off if we were single filing separately. What did I miss?
Ok, let's say you have $10,000 in deductions (that's in between the single standard deduction and the married standard deduction).

Also let's say you make $80,000 gross and your wife makes $0.

Filing singly, your AGI is $80,000 - $10,000 (deductions) - $3,700 (exemption) = $66,300. The single tax on this is $12,706.

Wife's tax is $0, so total is $12,706.

Filing married, your AGI is $80,000 - $11,300 (standard deduction) - $7,400 (2 exemptions) = $61,300. The married tax on this is $8,349 or 35% lower.

This is based on 2011 tax tables, available here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf The brackets/formulas are at the very end of the document. Since the married tax brackets are much wider, you are taxing the same amount of money at much lower rates. I think the effect becomes much more pronounced at the higher tax brackets, and much less as the two spouses incomes approach parity. I think it goes away and becomes a detriment as total income of the couple goes way up.

 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure my wife is A LOT more expensive than the $3,700 deduction. So are my kids...

 
Reading through this one, I intended on commenting on the Bible stuff. However, I'm afraid its so far derailed there is no use anymore.

 
Back
Top