U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.bnd.com/2010/10/19/14432 ... nell-questions-separation.html
Published: Oct 19, 2010
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2010-10-19 11:29:00 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 199267
Comments: 236
WASHINGTON -- Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion. In a debate at Widener University Law School, O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine. O'Donnell asked where the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Delaware Senate The exchange Tuesday aired on radio station WDEL generated a buzz among law professors and students in the audience.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-7) not displayed.
.
.
.
#8. To: Happy Quanzaa (#6)
Cool, you got something right.
Or lack of brain has rotted her sexual equipment.
that was pretty limp wristed comment, sweetheart.
Flattery will get you no where. You are not just the wrong gender for a sexual bender; you aren't even my type.
Afraid not. It was her big "Gotcha!" question.
;}
Dumbass author. She never questioned that. That's not the same thing as claiming there is no separation of church and State in the constitution. Close enough. ;} Like the 60 minutes piece on Israel. They just don't stop. And are looking for ANY way to get in.
Both the left and right are completely out to lunch on this. The framers in general were deeply religious men who believed that divine providence guided their efforts and that American was destined to be a beacon of light to the world. The framers were also deeply suspicious of government sanctioned regions like the Church of England. The framers were right. America is one of the most religious countries on earth precisely because we don't have a state sanctioned religion. Look what has happened in Europe, where many countries have official churches. Religious belief and active participation is well below ours in almost every country (Ireland and Italy may be exceptions). I've never been a regular church goer, but I have attended Baptist (in elementary school), Lutheran (in junior high school), Pentecostal (in the Air Force), Greek Orthodox (first wife), and Catholic (second wife) churches. I have relatives who go to non-denominational protestant churches and other relatives who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I have friends who are Mormon, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, and Jewish. The only group that really seems to be a threat to the American way are the militant atheists who feel they need to force their beliefs on others by coercing government to bash religion, and especially Christianity, at every opportunity. Unfortunately, some evangelical Christians respond to the militants in the wrong way. Like everything else, the fight becomes who can control government to force their beliefs on the rest of us -- militant atheists versus bible thumpers. The real fight has to be between anyone who wants the government involved in promoting or bashing versus those of us who want the government to keep their nose out of our business.
I disagree. Partly because the militant atheists are such a small minority they will never get anybody to pay much attention to them. Mostly I disagree because the Muslims OWN that territory. They are a bigger threat than we have ever faced.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Relax, Christine O'Donnell! Nobody knows the First Amendment. By Alexandra Petri | October 19, 2010 "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" -- Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's question during a debate with Democratic challenger Chris Coons. Christine O'Donnell doesn't know that the Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. Who does? Christine explicitly said she didn't bring her Constitution with her! That ought to be enough. Why taunt her? Instead of pretending we know what the Constitution says and are indignant that she doesn't, let's fess up. I studied history for years, so I know that our nation was founded by Sacagawea. Also, Columbus Day is a holiday where we celebrate that city that isn't Dayton, because it doesn't get enough love! When it comes to the Constitution, I know that if someone ever approaches me and suggests that I'm a "loose constructionist," I'm supposed to throw my drink in his face and say "Maybe your mother was, but I'm not that kind of girl!" Sometimes, it makes sense! And when it comes to knowing my amendments? On Law and Order, people always say "I'm pleading the fifth," so I bet the Fifth Amendment is the amendment where Mariska Hargitay looks steely and thinks about alcoholism. There's some amendment that has to do with cruel and unusual punishment, probably saying something along the lines of "absolutely fine, as long as you feel somewhat convinced he's a terrorist." I bet that's the one they used to open Guantanamo! I don't know what the Nineteenth Amendment is, but I have a bad feeling about it. If I ever become a lawyer, I plan to tell my clients to "use the Fourth" a lot, then laugh mysteriously. I went to a bar once called the Twenty First amendment, so I am fairly convinced that the Twenty First Amendment had something to do with bars. Or maybe that was the Eleventh Amendment. I don't remember that evening very well. Maybe Christine O'Donnell's been there. And maybe it's not just me. A survey on the First Amendment conducted throughout high schools found that students don't know the rights the First Amendment guarantees -- and when it was explained to them, more than one in three felt it went too far. So instead of jumping on Christine, maybe we should take a look at ourselves. Like she says, "I'm you."
Weren't you the poster who claimed millions would be evacuated from the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico? That was truly insane, mcclown!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
He's off his meds again...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
She is you!
Maybe...but you still remain goofy either way.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Two points: A.) Sure, extremist Muslims are a threat to the entire world from the Middle East to Southern Russia to Western China to the Philippines, but not so much domestically. Right now, our domestic threats come from Muslims outside the country, not Muslims who are U.S. citizens. B.) Yes, if Muslims in general ever become a significant portion of our population, their basic belief system would indeed be a threat to the classical liberal beliefs enshrined in the Constitution. Is that likely to occur? Probably not. In my view, the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration are the biggest the biggest threats to the country, with their Marxist professors and "structural feminist" bullshit. All of who comprise the radical atheists that I spoke of.
Huh? here's what she said: I think this one is pretty clear; Not true. The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to people who are on American soil. Actually,it doesn't even apply to active duty members of the US military. They are governed by the Universal Code of Military Justice,and the Bill of Rights does NOT apply to them.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
True so far,but we keep allowing fundie Muslims to immigrate to the US as political refugees,and that spells nothing but trouble for us in the future. As for acting president Soetoro,he is no bigger threat than Clinton or either Bush was. Probably even less of a threat because he is so totally arrogant and incompetent.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
True so far Major Nidal Malik Hasan, U.S. Army.
Looks like you've taken the low path ala jerx, whiningskank or skid mark rather than discussing the factoid you probably didn't know. Is it the loss of quidance from dwarf's statist directives or the pending Nov bitch slapping that's changing your path Mike?
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. No more need for famous Dwarfisms due to his journey to the land of irrelevance:):)....until his banning I'll leave the Jerxism up... To: e_type_jag (#1) "I hate that you're off the plantation" 9-03-2010 Sheets Jerx .........(Why Fred???why the hate???....was it because my left Vibram sole made a lasting imprint on your face as I stepped over your constantly prone body and hopped the plantation wall .....:):)
Corn Flake Girl likes being a bitch.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Go find your own Code Pink-where's-my-check-fag to kick around . This one's mine!
-----------------------------------------------------------
A US military base isn't considered US soil? Well then, whose soil is it... Fidel's? Well then, that's mighty convenient. Randomly capture people on foreign soil, send them to Cuba, and then proudly declare that due process doesn't apply to them. You betcha!
And that in English means...?
You need to find a boy friend Sand. I am not gay, and most certainly not your type. Dumbshit.
it means your Ativan is wearing off. Your seeing the aliens again.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what your drug is, but you are talking in loops, and I am tired of it. To the bozo you go.
Homophobic hypocrite. Nike Guard really kicked your weak ass out of the tree. It's indicative of how weak all your stances are.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, you never served in the military. If you did, you'd KNOW better.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
So why did you reply in the first place, jackass? I didn't ping you on my post. I couldn't give a shit about you.
A US military base isn't considered US soil? I know this is a complex matter for you to work your way through,but it's only on US soil if it is IN the US. Well then, whose soil is it... Fidel's? Yes. I hate to disappoint you,but the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is NOT a US state. It is leased land belonging to Cuba. Well then, that's mighty convenient. Duhhhhh! Think of that all by yourself,Captain Obvious? Randomly capture people on foreign soil, Yeah,the poor downtrodden fundie Muslim masses,caught setting bombs or carrying arms against US troops. Duh poor bayb-bees! send them to Cuba, and then proudly declare that due process doesn't apply to them. It doesn't,numbnuts. You betcha! We already knew you are a Dim. Now you provide proof of your qualifications.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
So why did you reply in the first place, jackass? I didn't ping you on my post. I couldn't give a shit about you. You also post as calcon? Is that the name of one of the voices in your head?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Don't parse me, Congressman Grayson...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Coons didn't say that. He said: Government shall make no establishment of religion And no, it's not in the Constitution.
Or lack of brain has rotted her sexual equipment. Constitution? What stinkin' Constitution! We'se got our bible, and that's all the edumacation we needs. 8D
And no, it's not in the Constitution. It is in the Constitution: Look up FREEDOM OF RELIGION for details. LMFAO
LMFAO And THAT includes Freedom FROM religion as well. But we can tax your scrawny 'church's infrastructure/assets and then EVERY year's revenue after that by 10% and you can play religion all day long.
You don't give a shit about FACTS, either. Maybe you should STFU and let the adults talk.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Americablog.com "Obama(right like a blind hog;} responded to his GOP critics: "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." It was spot on. And Obama never said it again. (He also changed his mind on drilling.) Maureen Dowd resurrects the theme. (Or as Sarah Palin calls her, Maureen O'Dowd.) At least, unlike Paris Hilton and her ilk, the Dumb Blonde of ’50s cinema had a firm grasp on one thing: It was cool to be smart. She aspired to read good books and be friends with intellectuals, even going so far as to marry one. But now another famous beauty with glowing skin and a powerful current, Sarah Palin, has made ignorance fashionable. You struggle to name Supreme Court cases, newspapers you read and even founding fathers you admire? No problem. You endorse a candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate seat who is the nominee in West Virginia? Oh, well. At least you’re not one of those “spineless” elites with an Ivy League education, like President Obama, who can’t feel anything. It’s news to Christine O’Donnell that the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. It’s news to Joe Miller, whose guards handcuffed a journalist, and to Carl Paladino, who threatened The New York Post’s Fred Dicker, that the First Amendment exists, even in Tea Party Land. Michele Bachmann calls Smoot-Hawley Hoot-Smalley. Sharron Angle sank to new lows of obliviousness when she told a classroom of Hispanic kids in Las Vegas: “Some of you look a little more Asian to me.” As Palin tweeted in July about her own special language adding examples from W. and Obama: “ ‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”
No it's not -- What Is the Separation of Church and State? In 1620, a group of Christian pilgrims known as the Separatists washed ashore in what came to be known as Plymouth, Massachusetts. They first left England to escape religious persecution there. They landed in Holland but realized Holland was not a place that allowed their faith to flourish. They set sail again; this time for America. When the pilgrims set up their colony in Plymouth, Massachusetts, they soon employed a policy that came out of their own struggles for religious freedom. They employed the first American policy of a separation of church and state. This may seem like a counterintuitive decision for a group of deeply religious people. However, the Separatists knew full well that when the power of the church is placed under the control of the government, the government then begins to mandate its own sanctioned religious practice. The Separatists had endured the religious persecution of the state in England and wanted to ensure that no such persecution would occur in America. Unlike the Puritans, who believed in establishing some form of a Theocracy, these Separatists, being true to their name, decided to separate the two entities of the church and the state so as to allow the free expression of religion to flourish. That is precisely what happened. Early America in the 1600’s saw many religious groups and sects set up colonies that were specifically designed for the free expression of their religion without government interference. That is what the separation of church and state is really all about: keeping the government out of the church’s business. Fast forward to the writing of our nation’s Bill of Rights in 1789. Founding fathers like Patrick Henry and James Madison knew that allowing a mandated government religious practice would stifle religious expression in the new nation. They decided to embrace what is the most harmonious balance between the federal government and the church that the world has ever seen. They wrote the First Amendment of the Constitution. In the First Amendment we see the balance between the federal government’s role in protecting religious practice and not coercing it. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees all Americans the freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly, has this to say about religious practice: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The federal government cannot mandate a religious practice, nor can they prohibit religious practice. Unfortunately, in the last few decades we have seen many judicial rulings that demonstrate a desire to uphold the establishment clause of the First Amendment at the expense of the free exercise clause. This is completely contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment and a violation of it as well. The first major case that undermined the balance between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause occurred in 1947. In Everson vs. Board of Education the Supreme Court, led by Justice Hugo Black, an FDR appointee and member of the Ku Klux Klan, reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This decision set in motion an unconstitutional chain of events that has undermined our First Amendment liberties ever since. Just what did Justice Black and the other FDR appointees to the Supreme Court do? They hijacked a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson, “separation of church and state,” found in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802). Jefferson’s letter was actually used by the court to limit religious freedom. By taking completely out of context the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter, "separation of church and state," the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of religious expression in the public square was a violation of the “separation of church and state” found in the Constitution. This is an astounding ruling, as the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even found in the Constitution. In 1947, the Supreme Court actually used Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists as the basis for their decision, even though his letter is not Constitutional law. This is another example of the Progressive Bait and Switch tactic at work that I spoke of in my last article with Townhall. Another interesting fact concerning Jefferson's use of the phrase, “separation of church and state” is its true meaning. Thomas Jefferson used this phrase as nothing more than a metaphor to express the First Amendment’s role as a protector of religious expression in the public square. So even if Jefferson’s letter was Constitutional law, Hugo Black and the other FDR appointees on the Supreme Court still misinterpreted the meaning of Jefferson’s letter and the separation of church and state. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, President Jefferson said he believed there was a "wall of separation" in the Constitution that was designed to keep the government from interfering in the affairs of the church, not a wall to keep free speech out of the public arena. Thankfully, the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law. While the 1984 case was a breath of fresh air to those who love liberty, the damage of the 1947 case has led to other terrible decisions that defy logic, reason and the Constitution itself. In fact, the 1947 ruling, in spite of being inaccurate and unconstitutional, has become part of the American collective consciousness. In what has become the most infamous Supreme Court ruling regarding religious speech, Engel vs. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court reinterpreted the meaning of the establishment clause in the First Amendment and misused its authority to ban the free exercise of religion in schools. This is the famous school prayer case. According to the Supreme Court in 1962, the free exercise of religion in school somehow violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The founding fathers would be up in arms to hear that free speech was now censored in the name of protecting the establishment clause. While it is true that American students who do not want to pray in school should not be forced to do so, it also true that those who do desire to pray should not be denied their First Amendment right to do so. There is a balance in the First Amendment between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. It must be upheld in order for liberty to abound. Where do these liberal judicial activist judges get this bizarre and erroneous interpretation of the First Amendment and the separation of church state in the first place? Looking back in American history, we find that this same misguided interpretation of the First Amendment was actually the vision of Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1920. Baldwin, it is important to mention, was a member of the Communist Party of the USA. It was Baldwin’s vision to remove all references to God and religion from the public square, even though the free expression clause of the First Amendment is clear as day. Starting around the 1920’s, a major reinterpretation of the meaning of the First Amendment and the Constitution itself began to make its way into the colleges and universities of the USA. It is this time in history that colleges and universities begin to teach that the Constitution is a “living document;” one that changes with the times. Regardless of the opinion of radicals like Baldwin, it is important to remember that all Americans do have the Constitutional right of religious expression in the public square as long as the federal government does not coerce that expression. Ironically, what the Supreme Court did in 1947 and 1962 was coerce the limiting of religious expression, in keeping with Roger Baldwin’s dream. As such, the First Amendment rights of all Americans have been threatened and even violated in some cases, because the Supreme Court embraced the opinion of a man who was a member of the Communist Party of the USA, not the Constitution of the United States. Finally, after more than forty years of cognitive dissonance concerning the free exercise of religion, the Supreme Court re-established the true nature of the First Amendment in Board of Education of Westside Community Schools vs. Mergens (1990). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of all students to voluntarily pray in school, form Bible study groups and express their religious beliefs provided the government, including government paid officials (i.e. teachers, counselors), do not coerce that religious expression. Yet, even with the Mergens case re-establishing the balance between the establishment clause and the free exercised clause, the damage of the 1947 and 1962 cases still lives on. Let’s consider the 2002 case of Kala Brotos, a five-year old kindergarten student from Saratoga Springs, NY. Before eating her lunch, little Kala simply prayed out loud and gave thanks for her meal. Her teacher then scolded her before the entire the class, claiming that Kala violated the separation of church and state – Roger Baldwin’s version, that is. The teacher even claimed that Kala committed a “crime against humanity.” Well, a crime against humanity was indeed committed -- against a little five year-old girl -- who simply gave thanks before her lunch. If this is not tyranny, I don’t know what is. Take a closer look at our culture today. The propaganda concerning the First Amendment is staggering. Each year thousands of students are suspended, harassed, receive lower grades on their term papers, or even arrested for simply expressing their deeply held religious beliefs in the public forum. I know this personally having endured the discrimination and bigotry of liberal professors during college and graduate school. Such behavior is against federal law. It is called belief discrimination and it occurs more often than you think. If we take a closer look at just what the Constitution really says, we will see that the religious practice of Americans is the choice of each citizen and cannot be censored even in public. The government cannot mandate religious practice, nor can the government deny that same practice. That is the balance of powers spelled out in the First Amendment. If we fail to maintain that balance then we as a nation are no longer truly free.
Comments (49 - 236) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"...I don't think..."
#9. To: mcgowanjm (#3)
"Lack of sex has rotted her brain."
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
#11. To: Happy Quanzaa (#10)
"that was pretty limp wristed comment, sweetheart."
#12. To: sneakypete (#2)
Somebody PLEASE tell me this was taken out of context!
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
#14. To: no gnu taxes (#7)
Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion.
#15. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#16. To: jwpegler (#15)
The only group that really seems to be a threat to the American way are the militant atheists who feel they need to force their beliefs on others by coercing government to bash religion, and especially Christianity, at every opportunity.
#17. To: Badeye, All (#1)
Pssst. She's right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about 'seperation of church and state'.
#18. To: mcgowanjm (#3)
That's just insane.
#19. To: lucysmom (#17)
Pssst. She's right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about 'seperation of church and state'.
#20. To: Ibluafartsky (#18)
Weren't you the poster who claimed millions would be evacuated from the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico?
#21. To: Badeye (#19)
#22. To: lucysmom (#21)
She is you!
#23. To: sneakypete (#16)
(Edited)
Mostly I disagree because the Muslims OWN that territory. They are a bigger threat than we have ever faced.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#24. To: Badeye (#1)
Pssst. She's right.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
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.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#25. To: lucysmom (#17)
There's some amendment that has to do with cruel and unusual punishment, probably saying something along the lines of "absolutely fine, as long as you feel somewhat convinced he's a terrorist." I bet that's the one they used to open Guantanamo!
#26. To: jwpegler (#23)
Right now, our domestic threats come from Muslims outside the country, not Muslims who are U.S. citizens.
#27. To: sneakypete, jwpegler (#26)
Right now, our domestic threats come from Muslims outside the country, not Muslims who are U.S. citizens.
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
"Lack of sex has rotted her brain." Or lack of brain has rotted her sexual equipment.
#29. To: e_type_jag, Corn Flake Girl (#28)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#30. To: e_type_jag, Corn Flake Girl (#28)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#31. To: sneakypete (#25)
(Edited)
The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to people who are on American soil.
#32. To: e_type_jag (#28)
#33. To: WhiteSands (#30)
#34. To: Ferret Mike, NikeBitchGirl (#32)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#35. To: WhiteSands (#34)
#36. To: Ferret Mike (#33)
You need to find a boy friend Sand.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#37. To: meguro (#31)
A US military base isn't considered US soil? Well then, whose soil is it... Fidel's? Well then, that's mighty convenient. Randomly capture people on foreign soil, send them to Cuba, and then proudly declare that due process doesn't apply to them. You betcha!
#38. To: Capitalist Eric (#37)
(Edited)
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested
#39. To: meguro (#31)
#40. To: meguro, Capitalist Eric (#38)
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested
#41. To: go65 (#24)
Pssst. She's right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about 'seperation of church and state'.
#42. To: go65 (#24)
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion
#43. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
"Lack of sex has rotted her brain."
#44. To: no gnu taxes (#42)
Government shall make no establishment of religion
#45. To: All (#44)
Look up FREEDOM OF RELIGION for details.
#46. To: meguro (#38)
I couldn't give a shit about you.
#47. To: no gnu taxes (#7)
#48. To: mcgowanjm (#44)
It is in the Constitution:
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]