Fact Of The Day

[lester1/2jr]

Raffine - The book "Chang and Eng" is AWESOME

[Leah]

there's a BS law that said that cars cannot be imported from other countries if it's less than 25 years old. It's total BS.

[ER]

A satisfying way to win a scholarly sort of bet is to challenge someone to show where the US Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Nine times out of ten they'll leap to the First Amendment, but contrary to popular belief the Constitution says nothing on that subject in Amendment One or elsewhere.

[Newt]

The youngest rider employed by the Pony Express was eleven years old.

[indianasmith]

A satisfying way to win a scholarly sort of bet is to challenge someone to show where the US Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Nine times out of ten they'll leap to the First Amendment, but contrary to popular belief the Constitution says nothing on that subject in Amendment One or elsewhere.

It is true that the phrase "separation of church and state" occurs nowhere in the Constitution - that was cribbed from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote over a decade AFTER the First Amendment was ratified.  However, I do think the actual wording was intended to create a certain level of separation - albeit nothing as draconian as the ACLU would have us believe.

[Chainsawmidget]

This is a picture of Andre the giant holding a standard sized beer can. 

it has been estimated that Andre the Giant drank 7,000 calories worth of booze every day. The figure doesn't include food. Just booze.

When Andre was asked how much it took to get him drunk he said, "It usually takes two liters of vodka just to make me feel warm inside." 

TWO LITERS of VODKA... and that's just warm and fuzy. 

Andre once drank 119 twelve ounce bottles in a six hour period.  That's a bottle of beer every three minutes non-stop, or to put it another way, he drank over 11 GALLONS of booze in one sitting. 

[indianasmith]

That is just INSANE!!!

[Raffine]

Raffine - The book "Chang and Eng" is AWESOME

Yep - I've got a dog-eared copy somewhere.

Millie-Christine: Fearfully and Wonderfully Made is a good companion book.

[Raffine]

The Russian alphabet is very different from the English one - apparently...

[Newt]

A horse's teeth weigh more than its brain.

[Flangepart]

A horse's teeth weigh more than its brain.

Calling any politician...oh, wait...horses TEETH!...

[ER]

Because in 2004 Richard Hatch smuggled a book of matches in with him, all contestants on Survivor are now strip searched before setting foot on the island.

[Rev. Powell]

A satisfying way to win a scholarly sort of bet is to challenge someone to show where the US Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Nine times out of ten they'll leap to the First Amendment, but contrary to popular belief the Constitution says nothing on that subject in Amendment One or elsewhere.

It is true that the phrase "separation of church and state" occurs nowhere in the Constitution - that was cribbed from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote over a decade AFTER the First Amendment was ratified.  However, I do think the actual wording was intended to create a certain level of separation - albeit nothing as draconian as the ACLU would have us believe.

I think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the correct answer to the challenge to find where the Constitution guarantees the separation of Church and state. Of course it all depends on how you define the concept of separation, establishment, and so forth, and how you apply them in difficult borderline cases. The answers to these questions are not always obvious. I'm sure the ACLU is on the "correct" side in some cases and the "wrong" side in others.

[indianasmith]

Reasonable enough.  I remember a few years back the Supreme Court was hearing a case about commencement prayers.  A Christian historian prepared an amicus curiae brief on the case in which he cited over 400 instances of the men who authored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights offering up prayers at commencements - proof positive, in his view, that they did not view such activities as violating the Establishment Clause.  Well, the pro-prayer advocates lost that particular case, and the historian got a nice letter back from Justice David Souter, congratulating him on a well-researched and prepared brief.  Then Souter concluded with these words: "This proves something I have long suspected - either the Founding Fathers were complete hypocrites on the subject of church/state separation, or else they simply did not understand the Constitution."

I thought that one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read.

[Rev. Powell]

Souter concluded with these words: "This proves something I have long suspected - either the Founding Fathers were complete hypocrites on the subject of church/state separation, or else they simply did not understand the Constitution."

I thought that one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read.

TO me that sounds more like a humorous observation---although Souter's not normally known for his sense of humor. The Founding Fathers signed onto the idea that "all men are created equal" while many of them kept slaves, so they were no strangers to hypocrisy. They were fallible men, not gods.