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: 198987
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
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Pssst. She's right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a thing about 'seperation of church and state'. The history, and the revisionist history, related to this...theory, is facinating and revealing. It was from a USSC minority ruling, designed to keep a specific religion from attaining elective office, in short.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Somebody PLEASE tell me this was taken out of context! Although I suppose the fundie bible thumpers will be shouting with joy over this because they think THEIR cult will be "the one,true state religion". Meanwhile,the fundie Muslims will be wetting their pants with joy and smiling behind their hands.
"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)
WASHINGTON -- Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion. That's just insane. Lack of sex has rotted her brain.
Because it doesn't.
# # Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution ... Jun 1, 2010 ... The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that ... www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html - Cached - Similar And here's where we get to it. For the Sexless One's perusal: Give me the reason why the Church is NOT taxed. Then give me the reason why the Church will NOT be taxed IMMEDIATELY @ 10% for ALL infrastructure/monies. Let's play. ;}
is a letter, it's not in the Constitution. BTW, neither is the right for Obama & His Statists to force us to buy anything from a private business, such as insurance. And I don't think Jefferson ever even wrote a letter about that one.
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.
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.
It is in the Constitution: Source please.
Ya know, this is one of those topics that clearly displays who actually knows whats IN THE CONSTITUTION, and who gets their information from the Eliot Spitzers of the world. Few years back, before my biz partner woke the hell up, he insisted 'seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution!' to both myself and my wife, right here in my office. I looked at my wife, then at him and said 'Thousand dollars, right now, says you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.' He said 'Your ON!' and went back to his office. Five minutes later he came back and said 'You want a check?' Told him 'nope, you buy all of us (office staff) lunch today'. He's a staunch Conservative these days.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
rotflmao! Pass the popcorn....
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
And no, it's not in the Constitution. Yeah, he didn't quote verbatim, however its clear that he has the concept of what's in the First Amendment down. Bottom line - can't uphold the Constitution if you don't know what's in it.
So should the churches kick the voting booths out of their churches?
Yeah, he didn't quote verbatim, however its clear that he has the concept of what's in the First Amendment down. Not at all. First of all, the 1st Amendment limits the powers of CONGRESS, not government, an important distinction as the basis of the discussion was allowing local schools to teach creation. Second he seems to have completely forgot the first amendment also says that Congrees shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, something he seems to fully support any form of government doing.
OMFG. Then you'd better laock and load now. And bring your army back from it's War of Terror. Cause you're gonna need it here to enforce this mandate. 8D
It is in the Constitution: Source please. OMFG. You fell asleep during civics class. A lot. ;} SOURCE: THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. You got one of those?
My point is that it isn't in the constitution. You libtards made it up. So you must be using a different source.
And are you people serious? You actually believe your zioFuny religions that there is NO separation of Church and state? motherfucker. I don't believe in ANY White Cloud Father or any other religion. And I have and ALWAYS will have EXACTLY the same rights as you evangelicals. You want blood. For your kids? Adopt a State Religion. Guaranteed Death. By Definition. And I'll need SOURCES for just exactly which religion you think is OKIE DOKIE for the UNITED STATES OPF AMERICA to adopt now. Better drop those matches, cuase your standing in gasoline. 8D
Game, set and match. This is like watching eskimo's with ballbats v baby seals at this point.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
OMFG The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION And YOU can give me that QUOTE from the Authors of the Beginning of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on just EXACTLY WHICH RELIGION is to be favored. See the problems Israel's having? They've got a piece of cake compared to what will happen here. 8D
Game, set and match. BWAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 8D A JOKE. I'm laughing all day on that. MORRON's Unite. That you think there's some kind of technicality here. Fuck your religion. Pay TAXES now. At least 10% and we'll see how courageous your preachers are then.
They can't make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That means if a judge wants to hang the 10 commandments on the wall they can't do squat about it.
And you can forget that NeoLiberal Pledge of Allegiance BULLSHIT as well. 8D
They will once Islam starts demanding the same privileges that Christianity has. Then the Wiccans, then the Scientologists, then who the hell knows what. Unfortunately the wingnuts are too dumb to understand that and miss completely the brilliance of the church-state separation.
That would be a violation of the free exercise cluase and no law... You still haven't quoted from the constitution where separation of church and state is. Oh that is right you can't because it isn't there. You are either dumb or dishonest. Which is it?
Those you mentioned aren't religions.
Except where they've tried to do that. And fuck your ten commandments. Where's that one about Corporations doing Ecocide. 8D
Look I have to leave now. Thanks for the amusement. It's always fun watching you liberals spin your tires.
That would be a violation of the free exercise cluase and no law... You still haven't quoted from the constitution where separation of church and state is. Oh that is right you can't because it isn't there. You are either dumb or dishonest. Which is it? Oh shit. Fuck. You want to have a debate? Very well. Know why the Church can't have an opinion on an election? Pay your fucking taxes and you can tell your flock to vote for Satan and I won't give a fuck. You PAY for the privilege of participating. 8D
And you haven't given me that QUOTE by the Founding Fathers where the Privileged Religion of the State is. Keep Comin. 8D
Actually they can and do. They don't support the demoncrats.
Your brain is almost as big as a lizards.
Stone, you crack me up.
And UNTIL you do so it's The Constitution: "In the end, many supporters of the Constitution, including one of the most prominent, James Madison, agreed to support a bill of rights in the Constitution, if it could be ratified. Several of the states included suggested amendments, including rights of the people, in their ratification documents. The push was on for a bill of rights in the Constitution. Madison was true to his word — on June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison rose and gave a speech in the House where he introduced a series of articles of amendment. One concerned religious freedom: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. Madison's proposal follows the proposals of some of the states. New Hampshire's read: Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience. Virginia was much more verbose: That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others. New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly: That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others. Aside from New Hampshire's wide-reaching "no touch" proposal, all of these have a few elements in common. First, no national religion should be established, in contrast to several European nations of the time (and to this day) which have an official state church. Second, that no one sect of any religion be favored by the government. Third, that all persons should be free to worship in whatever manner they deemed appropriate for them."
And there's nothing in the Constitution about CORPORATIONS either. I tell you what, you can have your religion. But first get rid of the Corporation. On second thought. NO. You can't have either. Lock and Load. And those Pashtun have nothing on us Dirty Fuckin Hippies. 8D It's FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And I'm an Atheist.
WTF are you babbling about? They already have more priviliges.
Like Stone's bible, his constitution is the cut and paste version where select segments can be used out of context to make his case.
For instance?
See ya. I'll be here when you get back. You'll be needing to study up on Posse Commitatus when you arrive. You know, to enforce that State Religion thingy. 8D And that you think I'm a liberal is always a knee slapper. Cause I;m so far past that on the spectrum you need to look for me coming up on your FAR RIGHT side. LMFAO
What is your point. Is it free speech. No law can be made limiting free speech. Socialist Security isn't in the constitution or medicaid or medicare and letting foreigners be president isn't either.
Atheists are never on the right. They are leftists. Your soviet union is the example or your china.
Like Stone's bible, his constitution is the cut and paste version where select segments can be used out of context to make his case. And thank you very much. The Problem for A K and his crowd of wealthy prosyletizers is that they just can't hide that they hate Equality. There Religion DEMANDS an US v THEM way of life. If the zioFundies were in charge, you'd see ZERO diff between them and any other 'Wahabbi' Sect. The Fundies ALWAYS have the same mindset. Master meet slave.
And I thought you were gone, A K. SUPER> Cause I have so much more to say!!!! 8D "Atheists are never on the right." ThAT ANOTHER COMMANDMENT OF YOURS? Would you burn me at the stake if you caught me? LMFAO SOURCE NOW. And/Or I'll need your Logic behind that one. Cause I'm here to tell you that I AM an ATHEIST and Nathan Bedford Forrest and I could be best buddies. LMFAO
The first thing Satan does to capture the Populace. Start an Organized Religion.
Like just when did that interlocutor meet the god that he (and in religion it's ALWAYS a he;} knows exactly what that god is thinking and can and WILL explain that to the 'flock' (and they literally mean flock-as in time to eat;}.
That you pick and choose what you want your Constitution to mean. And that the US Constitution's purpose is to preserve EQUALITY and you and your minions never want to bring that up or the fact that anything you say is NOT in the Constitution has the strange effect of making the UNITED STATES MORE Un equal. THAT's my point. 8D And of course the Constitution's FIRST job was to preserve PROPERTY RIGHTS and that the ELITE of the Time did not trust the masses-see Electoral College for details. But as far as you and STATE Religion go, you'll never get it. And you and your Church can start PAYING taXES AT ANYTIME IF YOU THIN DIFFERENT. THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8D
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Muslim Prayer in Public Schools http://www.suite101.com/content/muslim-prayer-in-public-schools-a26209
This is what the Superintendent says: "At Carver, we provide afternoon recess for students to play, pray, talk, study or just have a break. Some Muslim students use this time for a prayer that, according to their faith, must be prayed during a specific time window each afternoon. That occurs at recess. Students of other faiths are free to pray or not pray, as they wish, but teachers and staff are prohibited from encouraging or discouraging prayer or from praying with students. " Try again padlock.
Why?
And that's really believable, huh? -- At Carver Elementary School in San Diego students are praying 15 minutes during an afternoon recess and an hour after lunch. Extra breaks were put into the school day this year to accommodate 100 Muslim students that transferred from a closed Arabic languge program. No Child Left Behind Because of the No Child Left Behind mandate, many schools are eliminating recesses to allow more time for reading and math. Even science is being pushed to the back burner to allow more time for teaching. Lengthening the schools day is being considered and all-year school is becoming popular to aid in student information retention. With all this being demanded in other schools, it is surprising that some public schools are adding a recess for religious prayer. (Muslim religious prayer) Christian Demands Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute is asking the school district to provide rooms for Christians to pray, as well. "The school policy presumes that Christians are less religious and less inspired to worship and praise the Lord and come together," says Dacus." [Randy Dotinga, The Christian Science Monitor, scmonitor.com, July 12, 2007] Court Involvement Lisa Soronen, attorney with the National School Boards Association, says, "Most Americans don’t think about the fact that schools naturally accommodate Christians. There’s no school on Sunday, and we get days off for most of the major Christian holidays." Soronen added that the courts have not ruled on this issue so there is no precedent. Since the American Civil Liberties Union has remained silent on Muslim prayer, it may be up to Christian groups to take this matter to the courts. Meanwhile, schools are unclear how to handle the issue.
O’Donnell is running for the Senate, isn't she? Shouldn't she know what laws Congress may and may not pass within the meaning of the Constitution? The point is that she doesn't know what's in the Constitution. Second he seems to have completely forgot the first amendment also says that Congrees shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, something he seems to fully support any form of government doing. How so? You might find this article interesting: religion.blogs.cnn.com/20...irst-amendment-ignorance/ As the author of Religious Literacy and adviser to the recent Pew Forum U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, each of which demonstrated the ignorance of Americans about most things religious, I am not surprised that candidates for the U.S. Senate seem as surprised to learn about the Bill of Rights as I am by the latest plot turns in "Glee." (Emma? With John Stamos? Really?)
Limbaugh is having a ball with this topic right now.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
The point is is O'Donnell did know; Coons didn't. The 1st Amendment does not say GOVERNMENT can't establish laws establishing religion as Coons said; it specifically references Conrgress. O'Donnel was right to question him on this, especially since this entire matter was in regards to a local school decision to teach creation. Did you even read my earlier post as you seem to be comnpletly disregarding it. The fact is that Coons was wrong and O'Donnel was right as clearly articulated here.
Government shall make no establishment of religion And he's correct: Few years back, before my biz partner woke the hell up, he insisted 'seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution!' to both myself and my wife, right here in my office. I looked at my wife, then at him and said 'Thousand dollars, right now, says you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.' He said 'Your ON!' and went back to his office. Five minutes later he came back and said 'You want a check?' Told him 'nope, you buy all of us (office staff) lunch today'. He's a staunch Conservative these days. LOL. GOOD one!
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Its 100% true. Today he's a Conservative blogger in his free time.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
From the posted article: 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?" From the article you linked The First Amendment establishes that Congress shall declare no official nationwide religion. The First Amendment does not ban the mention of religion in public. In fact, it protects same. Who is arguing that the mention of religion in public is banned? I can't remember a president that did not end a major speech with "God bless America", can you? But then God and religion are not the same thing are they? From James Madison: Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. (thank you to you know who) (The use of the word "state" in the above should not be confused with "state" as in one of the fifty states.)
... He's a staunch Conservative these days. He's not very bright is he?
Coons is arguing it is unConstitutional for school districts to teach creation. O'Donnell argues there is nothing in the Constitution itself which would indicate such. And she is right. It's as simple as that. And given that Madison lead prayers before Congress invoking his Calvinistic belief of Divine Providence, I would say he would agree with O'Donell, too.
She is correct,the United States Constitution doesn't. Am I am no church supporter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Goofy, you are the last person that should be casting negative comments on anyone's intelligence levels. As I noted, he woke the hell up. While you choose to remain a idiot, as we see daily.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Based on your post, I challenge you to copy and paste the section. Or remain the fool we see here each day.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do./
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Not so fast CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, MARSH v. CHAMBERS Jay and Rutledge specifically grounded their objection on the fact that the delegates to the Congress "were so divided in religious sentiments . . . that [they] could not join in the same act of worship." Their objection was met by Samuel Adams, who stated that "he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country." This interchange emphasizes that the delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's "official seal of approval on one religious view." Rather, the Founding Fathers looked at invocations as "conduct whose . . . effect . . . harmonize[d] with the tenets of some or all religions." webcache.googleuserconten...nk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Teaching creationism is this context is not the same thing as a Congressional prayer.
Based on your post, I challenge you to copy and paste the section. The phrase is not in the Constitution and the principle is, so to say the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution is correct. To say, however, that the concept of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution is false. To be accurate one must distinguish between form and content.
or he just substituted what you said for what someone before you told him.
Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do. It is common courtesy to ping a person you mention in your post.
What facts, my dear Eric? Maybe you should STFU and let the adults talk. No can do. 1st Amendment and all that. You're free however, to put me on filter at any time of your choosing.
Funny, in this day and age, it most certainly would be. Madison didn't just say a prayer; he invoked his Calvinist beliefs. The first amendment limits the power of CONGRESS in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to not establish any national religion or prohibit the exercising of any one's religious rights (paraphrasing). It says nothing about what local school boards (or any other local government entity, for that matter) can do. In fact, if a local government chooses to actually teach religion (not just an alternative form of the origins of life) it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. O'Donnell was simply right.
The issue becomes a bit cloudy when the local school accepts federal money.
And you wonder why I call you 'goofy'....lol
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Or remain the fool we see here each day. Not fair, you know thats going to be the case no matter what goofy does, or doesn't do. It is common courtesy to ping a person you mention in your post. Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol And you wonder why I call you 'goofy'....
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Still pretending you post from Japan? rotfl!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I don't? You have proof?
Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol I don't? You have proof? I've seen it a few times with you and mingster...the difference is I don't really give a shit.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Compared to anything you post? Absolutely.
Not really. The Feds might make it a condition of receiving the money, but that has nothing to with the Constitutionally of the matter. Except that it might be construed as such conditions by the Feds are unconstitutional as making an end run around the legislative duties of Congress. Fact is O'Donnell was right.
A US military base isn't considered US soil? Legally, the answer is "no." That is, the Constitution does NOT apply on U.S. military bases. If you'd served in the military, you'd already know that. It's one of the realities of what sneakypete was stating, when he said "The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to people who are on American soil." That you don't KNOW about this, and instead choose to argue from a position of overt ignorance, demonstrates that you don't give a shit... about FACTS. Yeah, you're guaranteed the right to make yourself look like a complete asshat. Congratulations on successfully exercising that right. Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Yep, and Coons looked ridiculous.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
rotfl! Still pretending anyone takes you seriously? Chuckle.
I find that hard to believe. Madison wrote: s the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional pnnciples. The tenets of the chaplains elected shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious pnnciples are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor. I whole-heartedly agree with Madison when he writes Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
You posted to me for four YEARS after I left LP, dumbass. Thanks for playing.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Thanks for playing. I did? Just how many years? Didn't know you cared enough to check. So you were lurking all these years after your sorry ass was tossed from LP? Chuckle!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Wow, you know how to copy and paste. I'm impressed.
Or it could be construed as favoring one religion over another.
Oh yes, and I'm sure if/when the lease expires and Cuba refuses to renew, the US will just pack up and leave, eh? Sure, you betcha! What about Iraq and Afghanistan... are they leased too? Yeah,the poor downtrodden fundie Muslim masses,caught setting bombs or carrying arms against US troops. Duh poor bayb-bees! What part of "innocent until proven guilty" confuses you? Has it been proven that all of them captured were engaged in those activities? We already knew you are a Dim. Now you provide proof of your qualifications. Well, not all of us can be card carrying members of the Gay Old Party like you! Well then, I guess we've found something on which you agree with Obama that a disagree with... imagine that!
B.E. can copy and paste but when will liberals learn how? ANYONE. Copy and paste the section in the US Constitution that states there is a Separation of Church and State. Here's one way to Copy and Paste : Find the text. That's right. You have to find the text! If you have remapped your mouse and or K.B. then you will need to set back to default for these instructions to work. Highlight the text you wish to copy by left clicking on your mouse as you drag over the text then release the mouse button. The text will now be seen as being highlighted. To Copy: Use Ctrl and the letter "C" on your key board. Go to the comments field/section here at L.F. where you wish to paste the copied text. Use your mouse and left click in the field to get a blinking cursor to make the field active or what we web site builders call focused. Then use Ctrl and the letter "V" to paste. Liberals- Amaze your friends at the Where's my check club!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Take your meds, Whitey.
No, it is not a state, however it is under the jurisdiction of the US government just as our military bases in foreign countries are and our embassies.
Excellent point! Since Obama has taken over the trials have been stopped. He refuses them due process while keeping the base open. We now learn he is operating a secret prison in Afghanistan!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Since Obama has taken over the trials have been stopped. He refuses them due process while keeping the base open. That's right, and I disagree strongly with Obama on this. On the other hand, I'm imagine you're ecstatic about it, and fully support Obama on this. Am I wrong?
I'm not the one who wrote that. That would be sneakypete.
Bagram - According to a new report from an independent think-tank group, former detainees of an alleged secret prison in Afghanistan claim they were abused and tortured. The United States military has repeatedly denied these accusations. Digital Journal reported in February that : Afghans claimed that the Bagram United States Air Force is President Barack Obama’s Guantanamo Bay detention center because of alleged torture, Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299020#ixzz12wBHZOQ8
-----------------------------------------------------------
What's your point, Whitey? I disagree with these prisons, whether it was Bush or now Obama in charge.
Please accept my apologies!
Yes you are wrong. Again. Your support of Obama and silence on this important issue displays just how fake your concern for humanity is. I have posted several articles on Obama's on going torture at Gitmo and his new secret Afghan prison. You have been absent from them all. Nor have you posted any articles about his issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Again. Your support and silence on this important issue displays just how fake your concern for humanity is. I have posted several articles on Obama's on going torture at Gitmo and his new secret Afgan prison. You have been absent from them all. Nor have you posted any articles about his issue. Piss off, wacko.
You always have to resort to personal attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You start them, Whitey.
You always have to resort to personal attacks. He probably got some sand in his vaseline jar.
No problem at all.
Use my copy anbd paste instructions to prove you assertion. Or remain the syph infected liar we see here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Or remain the syph infected liar we see here. Eat shit and die, mental case.
If he can share where he lives, travel and his age, given his sexual orientation, we can tell what the CDC odds are that he is infected with Syph. That wold explain his behavior.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You have chosen , or do you feel it's gentic, to remain the syph infected liar we see here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That wold explain his behavior. Like I told you before, mental case, eat shit and die.
Whatever, mentally diseased one....
Syphilis is no joke you Hetrophobe. They can slow the damage it's causing you.
-----------------------------------------------------------
They can slow the damage it's causing you. Speak from experience?
Hardly. I am not gay. The disease runs rampant where ever the gay community is strong. But given the amount of Doctors and Nurses in my family I do know the meds can help you. For a while.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saying there is no separation of church and state, is like saying there is no separation of powers in the US constitution. Both are paraphrases for what the constitution says. Any conservatives going to argue the constitution doesn't have a separation of powers? The Constitution gives the Federal government no power over religious matters, and specifically bans establishment and bans the infringement of religious freedom. To the critics who say there is no federal separation of church and state, where does the Constitution give the government power to influence the church? Where does it give the government the power to regulation a persons religious beliefs? What are you going to do argue the commerce clause?
I wonder about that. I'm also younger, healthier, stronger, and more mentally cogent than you, loser.
Paraphrase (pronounced /ÈpærYfrejz/) is restatement of a text or passages, using other words. It's not a paraphrase it's a complete rewrite.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Again you use the homosexuals hate homosexuals argument. That will not go over will at the White Swallow.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why does Canada discriminate against gays?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Careful Whitey, if you continue to post to me, you might catch syphilis!
They already influence churches. Can Churches tell folks how to vote with out losing tax status? Why is the US fuding an Imams speaking tour?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes quite true. That will not go over will at the White Swallow. Where? Is this some place you frequent? The name of the mental hospital you're institutionalized at?
Careful, rhino, Whitey's off his meds big time today.
Meg your statement supports the need to regulate homosexuals. You don't know how Syphilis is spread.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If there is separation of church and state, then the Federal governmemt should have no say so in what religion is or is not taught in local schools. Of course, we know that is notxthe case. Idiots like Coons don't realize they are not arguing for separation; they are arguing against it.
Meg continues his hetrophobia.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You don't know how Syphilis is spread. So regulate me, Whitey. Go for it.
Can Churches tell folks how to vote with out losing tax status? Why is the US fuding an Imams speaking tour? Can I start a political party and not pay taxes on my property? No. So Churches aren't being treated any different from anyone else. The same revocation would happen to any non for profit group.
I know you know this. But there is no separation of church and state. There is a prohibition against CONGRESS ONLY from prohibiting people from practicing their religion or from the CONGRESS from interfering with peoples free exercise of their religion. The godless liberals just like to say separation of church and state because it is easier to spin then the words in the constitution.
How can the Fed grant tax exemptions to "Churches"? How can the Fed pay for Imams to tour the ME? They will never move to challenge tax exemptions for "Churches".
-----------------------------------------------------------
If there is separation of church and state, then the Federal governmemt should have no say so in what religion is or is not taught in local schools. Of course, we know that is notxthe case. Idiots like Coons don't realize they are not arguing for separation; they are arguing against it. The 14th amendment now forces all levels of government to follow the Bill of Rights. This means the State governments have to have a separation of church and state as well. Of course most states have a separation built into their constitution as well. The Federal government doesn't tell the states they can't teach religion, the US Constitution does. You are effectively arguing that the right to bears arms, means the Fed's can't tell you whether your state can tell you have guns or not have guns. That is really twisted logic. Furthermore why do Conservatives want godless commie schools teaching their kids religion anyway?
Godless Liberals like Thomas Jefferson. What an anti American piece of shit that guy was huh?
The founders were wise they knew that writing no establishment clause would stop them form ever establishing a national religion. If one religion can do so , all could.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Also how is teaching one religion in a school not infringing on your right to practice your religion? How would you like it if you had to move to Boston, MA and the teachers taught Catholic Dogma as fact, in school? Your religious American forefathers moved to the United States to be free of government interference in their religion. This isn't even a controversial part of American history.
Thomas Jefferson was a great President. Maybe the best. He wasn't godless either. Do you know that the creator in the Declaration is God? He was a creationist.
Yea no shit, I was being facetious. To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem. (signed) Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802.
I don't send my kids to govt school. Everyone should be to send their kids to the school of their choice if they qualify. If we are to have govt education. The money should follow the student and not the district.
If anyone wants to know what that sound is, it's AKAStone realizing he in fact doesn't know everything.
I don't send my kids to govt school. Everyone should be to send their kids to the school of their choice if they qualify. If we are to have govt education. The money should follow the student and not the district. I think a voucher system is a better system than what we have now.
He was Godless? Source that one please. He didn't believe in religion. =============== Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
A letter not a law. If you argue Constitutional Law based on Jefferson's personal life, then you could argue slavery is good.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The 14th Amendment did not repeal the 10th Amendment. The Federal government doesn't tell the states they can't teach religion, the US Constitution does. Feel free to point the words that do so. You are effectively arguing that the right to bears arms, means the Fed's can't tell you whether your state can tell you have guns or not have guns. Actually, that's what YOU are arguing. What is taught in local schools is none of the Feds business.
Jefferson was actually defending the interests of the Church, meaning that the Federal Govt shouldn't be butting in.
Source that one please. He didn't believe in religion. =============== Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm No I was being facetious because Stone claimed it was godless liberals who use Separation of Church and State, when in fact the term was created by Thomas Jefferson, specifically to describe the first amendment. Anyone claiming that the Separation and Church and State doesn't exist that hasn't read Jeffferson's letter to the Marbary Baptists, is talking about a subject they are purposely ignorant about. For fucks sake, you find this shit out if you just bother to google the term. This is what happens when people rely on Conservative talking points to educate themselves on constitutional law and American history.
What you quoted from was a letter. It isn't the constitution for starters. If we are adding letters of Thomas Jefferson to the constitution how about this one "Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393 That is part of the constitution too because Jefferson was great and all his writings are part of the constitution right?
If you argue Constitutional Law based on Jefferson's personal life, then you could argue slavery is good. The first amendment is law however. And it does separate church and state.
There is no separation of church and state. Go back and read the constitution. The FACT is that there is only a prohibition on CONGRESS!!!!
No problem. Got it. I rarely use the sarc tag too.
-----------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't. Quote the constitution accurately and I will agree with you.
What you quoted from was a letter. It isn't the constitution for starters. If we are adding letters of Thomas Jefferson to the constitution how about this one "Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393 That is part of the constitution too because Jefferson was great and all his writings are part of the constitution right? Did you read what I wrote? Obviously not. I was showing you that letter to show that the Separation of Church and State is just a term to describe the first amendment. Not some godless liberal conspiracy you cooked up. Thomas Jefferson's own words. Jefferson, the Supreme Court, and an objective reading of the Constitution aren't trumped by Christine O'Donnell.
Jefferson says it better than I.
The first amendment essentially guarantees the right to religious freedom without any interference from the federal govt. Its purpose is to protect the churches, not the govt.
See the fourteenth amendment and related case law. The Bill of Rights applies to the states. Which is why gun bans are now illegal
It also prevents the establishment of a religion. And yes the point is to protect all religions. Which is why the government can't teach any. Because teaching one is teaching against all the rest.
Yawn that is old news. Jefferson meant well. But liberals try to use those words to change the meaning of the constitution. There is no constitutional separation of church and state.
Incorrect. The prohibition is on Congress only. Not state or local govts. That is the true meaning of the words in the first amendment. Come on be honest and admit it and quit spinning. You will be ok.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states by the Constitution. That is perfectly in line with the bolded part of the tenth. The states are now prohibited from infringing our rights. Those powers are prohibited by the Constitution (14th amendment).
The 14th wasn't ratified properly and is not really part of the constitution. If it was real it would be more like the 15th amendment as the evil government got rid of the real 13th amendment.
By CONGRESS. Religions are established all the time.
Until the passage of the 14th Amendment, absolutely. However most states have the first amendment in their constitutions as well. It would take amending their constitutions to remove them. However after the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights applies to all levels of governments. To make a long story short, we fought this war, your side lost, and we made the 14th amendment.
Well this is a conspiracy theory. I don't know what you want me to do with that. The 14th amendment is considered valid by every court in America.
Yawn that is old news. Jefferson meant well. But liberals try to use those words to change the meaning of the constitution. There is no constitutional separation of church and state. I'll take Jefferson and the US Supreme court over Christine ODonnell and AKASTONE any day.
The 14th amendment freed the slaves. That is the real 14th amendment. The 13th god rid of titles of nobility and honors.
You are just repeating yourself. Here is the 14th Amendment: http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html Cut and paste the WORDS whick make you think the Federal Govt now has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices.
The supreme court that says it is ok to murder babies. Ok you stick with the baby murderers.
By CONGRESS. Religions are established all the time. Establishment of a state religion. Are you this bankrupt of historical knowledge? We can't debate this if you don't even speak the language. P.S. the 14th amendment makes the states follow the Bill of Rights. Either way, every single US state has the first amendment in it's own Constitution now.
I don't think the federal govt has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It doesn't. But neither does your local government.
It is no conspiracy theory. The South was denied their equal sufferage in the Senate. They were already admitted into the union and passed the 13th (really the 14th) which outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude. So they were already back in the union with good standing. They refused the 14th (really the 15th) and then the feds put in the puppets under the gun. It is not valid. It is dishonest. It is not true to our constitution. It is color of law "legal" not lawful and that is the honest truth.
So if States arbitrarily refuse schools the tight to teach creationist philosophies alongside evolution, they are depriving students of knowledge, and the Fed Govt should step in and force them to teach it, huh. When do you think they'll start doing this?
constitutionally they do. I wouldn't want someone telling me which church to go to. That isn't really the issue. The issue is the govt taking prayer out of school and butting into church business. Prohibiting judges from hanging the 10 commandments on their court wall. Stuff like that.
So if States arbitrarily refuse schools the tight to teach creationist philosophies alongside evolution, they are depriving students of knowledge, and the Fed Govt should step in and force them to teach it, huh. When do you think they'll start doing this? Creationism is a religious doctrine. The schools can teach what they want as long as it isn't an establishment of a religion.
constitutionally they do. I wouldn't want someone telling me which church to go to. That isn't really the issue. The issue is the govt taking prayer out of school and butting into church business. Prohibiting judges from hanging the 10 commandments on their court wall. Stuff like that. Children are allowed to pray, the school just can't lead them in prayer. Even if every American was some kind of Christian, you all have different prayers. And American isn't all Christian. The Separation of Church and State doesn't prevent hanging the 10 commandments as art or history, but it does prevent it as a display of faith by the court. That again would be establishment of religion. On a further note, it's funny that they choose the 10 commandments when the Bill of Rights specifically makes the first three commandments specifically LEGAL in the United States.
A religion isn't being taught. It's merely an alternative theory of the origins. There's no dogma, or sects, or creeds. And even if there were, how is anybody being deprived of life, liberty or property? By hearing something they might object to? So any kid in any classroom who hears something they object to is protected by the 14th Amendment? The only ones being deprived are those being deprived of a complete education. Why isn't the Fed Govt helping them.
Genesis isn't a theory it's a religious text. Liberty to freely excercise their religion, and freedom from an establishment of a state religion. A school can't teach your religion is false.
Creationism isn't part of a complete education. It is religion. I can't get why a bunch of people who think it is communism to have government pay for healthcare, wants socialized religious education? Do you guys really want the school district in charge of teaching your kid religion. Do you know what countries have religious education in school? Europe. It didn't keep them holy, it destroyed their religions by mixing it with government.
Thar's an entirely different issue; not a Constitutional one -- whatever one's opinion is. Liberty to freely excercise their religion, and freedom from an establishment of a state religion. Everybody is free to engage in whatever religion they want. What if I objected to my kid being exposed to the religion of evolution? A school can't teach your religion is false. Yet you feel it is okay to teach creationism is false. Teaching evolution does just that. Anyway, it is a weak argument on its very face to suggest anybody is being deprived of life or liberty by the 14th Amendment and was not the argument that was used for the Supreme Court to enter this fray.
Thar's an entirely different issue; not a Constitutional one -- whatever one's opinion is. No it very much is a Constitutional one. Under no reasonable definition of religion does evolution apply. If reality and your religion collide, that's on you. But the school can't explicitly say it invalidates your religion. The first amendment is on it's face a liberty issue.
Freedom of Religion: What the Constitution Says The Constitution of The United States guarantees everyone the right to the freedom of expression. "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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -United States Constitution The 14th amendment also protects these rights and doesn't allow any state to withhold any individuals rights to the freedom of expression. The Bill of Rights also protects a persons right to religious liberty. The Establishment Clause also says that there is a wall of separation between church and state. Almost all contributions and property of sects of religion are free from taxation so it is clear that religion isn't an enemy of the government. Public officials take oaths that include God's name. The nations anthem includes God's name, and this country was built by people who had strong ties with religion. Because of many court cases spanning across the twentieth century, it has become unlawful for public schools to promote religious exercises. BUT, this does not mean that schools cannot study the Bible because the Bible has literary and historical aspects that are important. Individuals also have the right to pray however they want to while in school. Displays of celebrations around holiday seasons are allowed but in 1989 a manger seen was erected outside of a county courthouse that became unlawful and was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments. There as a large display of the birth of Jesus on the steps of the building which included a banner that read "Glory to God in the Highest." The Free Exercise Clause gives a person the right to believe whatever he or she wants to believe in matters of religion. It is a constitutional right therefore no government can try and violate that right. It is unlawful to act in certain ways though. People do not have the right to engage in criminal activity, offend public morals, or threat the safety of the community. Polygamy is considered unlawful.
Actually the 6th Article of the Constitution does prevent Religious Tests. And the Oath of the Presidency as written in the US constitution doesn't mention god at all. And the Star Spangled Banner we all sing doesn't say God either. But I guess these are minor points. Exactly. You can teach Bibles stores as literature, or history, but not as truth. For example you really need to have a solid foundation of King James to read much of British Literature, esp Shakespeare.
No it very much is a Constitutional one. No it's not. You can't see the difference because you are a bigot. Under no reasonable definition of religion does evolution apply. BS. It's unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unprovable, and based on a tautology. But even that's beside the point. If reality and your religion collide, that's on you. But the school can't explicitly say it invalidates your religion. What reality would that be, that you support depriving studemts of a complete educarion, and the Feds doing theit job under the 14rt Amendment of enforcing this? The first amendment is on it's face a liberty issue. Ans students and schools are being deprived of their 1st amendment liberties and pinheads like you support it.
No it's not. You can't see the difference because you are a bigot. Haha, I guess the entirely Christian Supreme Court that agreed with me are bigots too. Find a human bone ten millions year old. That's disprove it instantly.
I'll leave the bullshit of evolution to anther thread. I guess the entirely Christian Supreme Court that agreed with me are bigots too. You might want to look up their 1984 decision on the matter.
It is bible thumpers like you who bring death and destruction to the rest of the world. Lots of luck on your crusades.
Ignorance empowered always leads to disaster.
How can I? I'm openly gay. Up until just this week, I couldn't. Duh.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
or he just substituted what you said for what someone before you told him. This thread must've gotten good. Why the 'no longer displayed'. 8D
Ignorance empowered always leads to disaster. IT WAS getting good. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It ALL comes down to the INDIVIDUAL. Who IS the ULTIMATE minority to be PROTECTED from DICTATORSHIP by the MAJORITY. A STATE RELIGION automatically imperils that INDIVIDUAL/MINORITY.
That's what winners do - make the rules.
That explains a lot. You still can't. And if they remove the restrictions, and you're "openly gay" in a military unit, you will have a very unpleasant experience. That don't put up with that crap.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Someone said, "as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school".
You're going to come beat me up, tough guy? LOL
No. I got out of the military at the end of '91, and have no desire to return. As to whether you're going to get beat up, though...? You'll be lucky if the only thing that happens, is you get beat up. Every shit detail, every assignment where the probability of survival is smaller than for everybody else, in every way that matters, they'll make your life HELL. And rightfully so. You have that particular tendancy, then fine. You want to tell everyone in your unit, and you'll pay a heavy price...
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Correct. Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits the forming of CORPORATIONS.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Correct. Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits the forming of CORPORATIONS. Wrong. And THAT's why you'll ONLY find 'legitimacy' for CORPORATIONS in an 'off worded' summary of a SCOTUS case dealing with the 14th Slavery Amendment. The prohibition in the Constitution is that NO ONE AND NOTHING has supremacy over Human Rights and ONLY HUMANS can have those rights.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State
#5. To: All (#3)
(Edited)
#6. To: mcgowanjm (#5)
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter
#7. To: mcgowanjm (#3)
Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware is questioning whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing religion.
#8. To: Happy Quanzaa (#6)
"...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:
#49. To: mcgowanjm (#44)
And no, it's not in the Constitution.
#50. To: no gnu taxes (#48)
#51. To: A K A Stone (#49)
#52. To: no gnu taxes (#42)
Government shall make no establishment of religion
#53. To: lucysmom (#52)
#54. To: lucysmom (#52)
And no, it's not in the Constitution.
#55. To: no gnu taxes (#48)
#56. To: A K A Stone (#49)
And no, it's not in the Constitution.
#57. To: mcgowanjm (#56)
#58. To: All (#56)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#57)
My point is that it isn't in the constitution. You libtards made it up. So you must be using a different source.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#57)
You libtards made it up.
#61. To: Badeye (#59)
My point is that it isn't in the constitution. You libtards made it up. So you must be using a different source.
#62. To: mcgowanjm (#60)
#63. To: All (#61)
#64. To: mcgowanjm (#58)
You actually believe your zioFuny religions that there is NO separation of Church and state?
#65. To: mcgowanjm (#61)
Fuck your religion. Pay TAXES now.
#66. To: Skip Intro (#64)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#62)
They can't make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That means if a judge wants to hang the 10 commandments on the wall they can't do squat about it.
#68. To: mcgowanjm (#67)
#69. To: A K A Stone (#65)
Fuck your religion. Pay TAXES now.
#70. To: All (#69)
#71. To: mcgowanjm (#69)
Know why the Church can't have an opinion on an election?
#72. To: mcgowanjm (#69)
#73. To: A K A Stone (#66)
Those you mentioned aren't religions.
#74. To: All (#70)
#75. To: A K A Stone, All (#74)
(Edited)
#76. To: Skip Intro (#64)
They will once Islam starts demanding the same privileges that Christianity has.
#77. To: mcgowanjm (#75)
And there's nothing in the Constitution about CORPORATIONS either.
#78. To: no gnu taxes (#76)
WTF are you babbling about? They already have more priviliges.
#79. To: A K A Stone (#68)
Look I have to leave now. Thanks for the amusement. It's always fun watching you liberals spin your tires.
#80. To: mcgowanjm (#75)
And there's nothing in the Constitution about CORPORATIONS either.
#81. To: mcgowanjm (#79)
#82. To: Skip Intro, A K A Stone, All (#77)
And there's nothing in the Constitution about CORPORATIONS either.
#83. To: A K A Stone, All (#81)
(Edited)
Atheists are never on the right. They are leftists. Your soviet union is the example or your china.
#84. To: All (#83)
#85. To: All (#84)
Start an Organized Religion.
#86. To: A K A Stone (#80)
What is your point.
#87. To: mcgowanjm (#61)
off your meds again, huh?
#88. To: Skip Intro (#78)
#89. To: no gnu taxes (#88)
#90. To: A K A Stone (#53)
So should the churches kick the voting booths out of their churches?
#91. To: Skip Intro (#89)
#92. To: no gnu taxes (#54)
First of all, the 1st Amendment limits the powers of CONGRESS, not government, an important distinction as the basis of the discussion was allowing local schools to teach creation.
#93. To: Brian S (#0)
#94. To: lucysmom (#92)
#95. To: no gnu taxes (#42)
He said:
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.
#96. To: Badeye (#50)
Ya know, this is one of those topics that clearly displays who actually knows whats IN THE CONSTITUTION, and who gets their information from the Eliot Spitzers of the world.
#97. To: Capitalist Eric (#96)
#98. To: no gnu taxes (#94)
The fact is that Coons was wrong and O'Donnel was right as clearly articulated here.
#99. To: Badeye (#50)
I looked at my wife, then at him and said 'Thousand dollars, right now, says you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.' He said 'Your ON!' and went back to his office.
#100. To: lucysmom (#98)
#101. To: Brian S (#0)
Christine O'Donnell Asks Where Constitution Calls For Separation Of Church, State
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#102. To: lucysmom (#99)
He's not very bright is he?
#103. To: lucysmom (#99)
you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.'
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#104. To: WhiteSands (#103)
Or remain the fool we see here each day.
#105. To: no gnu taxes (#100)
And given that Madison lead prayers before Congress invoking his Calvinistic belief of Divine Providence, I would say he would agree with O'Donell, too.
#106. To: WhiteSands (#103)
you cannot find that phrase ANYWHERE within the Constitution.'
#107. To: Badeye (#102)
As I noted, he woke the hell up.
#108. To: Badeye (#104)
Or remain the fool we see here each day.
#109. To: Capitalist Eric (#46)
You don't give a shit about FACTS, either.
#110. To: lucysmom (#105)
This interchange emphasizes that the delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's "official seal of approval on one religious view.
#111. To: no gnu taxes (#110)
It says nothing about what local school boards (or any other local government entity, for that matter) can do. In fact, if a local government chooses to actually teach religion (not just an alternative form of the origins of life) it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. O'Donnell was simply right.
#112. To: lucysmom (#107)
As I noted, he woke the hell up. or he just substituted what you said for what someone before you told him.
#113. To: lucysmom (#108)
#114. To: meguro (#109)
#115. To: Badeye (#113)
Riiight, cause thats what you do with me all the time....lol
#116. To: lucysmom (#115)
#117. To: no gnu taxes (#91)
And that's really believable, huh?
#118. To: lucysmom (#111)
The issue becomes a bit cloudy when the local school accepts federal money.
#119. To: meguro, sneakypete (#109)
Your statement:
No can do. 1st Amendment and all that.
#120. To: no gnu taxes (#118)
Fact is O'Donnell was right.
#121. To: Badeye (#114)
To: meguro Still pretending you post from Japan?
#122. To: no gnu taxes (#110)
Madison didn't just say a prayer; he invoked his Calvinist beliefs.
#123. To: meguro (#121)
Still pretending anyone takes you seriously?
#124. To: Badeye (#123)
(Edited)
You posted to me for four YEARS after I left LP, dumbass.
#125. To: meguro (#124)
You posted to me for four YEARS after I left LP, dumbass. Thanks for playing.
#126. To: Badeye (#125)
#127. To: no gnu taxes (#118)
The Feds might make it a condition of receiving the money, but that has nothing to with the Constitutionally of the matter. Except that it might be construed as such conditions by the Feds are unconstitutional as making an end run around the legislative duties of Congress.
#128. To: sneakypete (#39)
(Edited)
Yes. I hate to disappoint you,but the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is NOT a US state. It is leased land belonging to Cuba.
#129. To: meguro (#126)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#130. To: WhiteSands (#129)
#131. To: meguro (#128)
Yes. I hate to disappoint you,but the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is NOT a US state.
#132. To: meguro (#128)
(Edited)
What part of "innocent until proven guilty" confuses you? Has it been proven that all of them captured were engaged in those activities?
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#133. To: WhiteSands (#132)
Excellent point!
#134. To: lucysmom, sneakypete (#131)
No, it is not a state, however it is under the jurisdiction of the US government just as our military bases in foreign countries are and our embassies.
#135. To: meguro (#133)
nightly raids and the large number of health hazards.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#136. To: WhiteSands (#135)
#137. To: meguro (#134)
#138. To: meguro (#133)
(Edited)
Am I wrong?
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#139. To: WhiteSands (#138)
Yes you are wrong.
#140. To: meguro (#139)
Piss off, wacko.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#141. To: WhiteSands (#140)
You always have to resort to personal attacks.
#142. To: WhiteSands (#140)
Piss off, wacko.
#143. To: lucysmom (#137)
Please accept my apologies!
#144. To: meguro (#141)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#145. To: WhiteSands (#144)
Use my copy anbd paste instructions to prove you assertion.
#146. To: no gnu taxes, meguro (#142)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#147. To: meguro (#145)
Eat shit and die, mental case.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#148. To: WhiteSands (#146)
If he can share where he lives, travel and his age, given his sexual orientation, we can tell what the CDC odds are that he is infected with Syph.
#149. To: WhiteSands (#147)
You have chosen , or do you feel it's gentic, to remain the syph infected liar we see here.
#150. To: meguro (#149)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#151. To: WhiteSands (#150)
Syphilis is no joke you Hetrophobe.
#152. To: meguro (#151)
(Edited)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#153. To: all (#147)
#154. To: WhiteSands (#152)
I am not gay.
#155. To: Rhino (#153)
(Edited)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#156. To: meguro (#154)
I wonder about that.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#157. To: meguro (#154)
I'm also younger, healthier, stronger, and more mentally cogent than you, loser.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#158. To: WhiteSands (#157)
Why does Canada discriminate against gays?
#159. To: Rhino (#153)
where does the Constitution give the government power to influence the church?
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#160. To: WhiteSands (#156)
Again you use the homosexuals hate homosexuals argument.
#161. To: WhiteSands, rhino (#159)
#162. To: meguro (#158)
Careful Whitey, if you continue to post to me, you might catch syphilis!
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#163. To: Rhino (#153)
Saying there is no separation of church and state,
#164. To: meguro (#161)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#165. To: WhiteSands (#162)
Meg your statement supports the need to regulate homosexuals.
#166. To: WhiteSands (#159)
They already influence churches.
#167. To: no gnu taxes (#163)
(Edited)
#168. To: no gnu taxes (#163)
If there is separation of church and state,
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#169. To: no gnu taxes (#163)
#170. To: A K A Stone (#167)
I know you know this. But there is no separation of church and state. There is a prohibition against CONGRESS ONLY from prohibiting people from practicing their religion or from the CONGRESS from interfering with peoples free exercise of their religion. The godless liberals just like to say separation of church and state because it is easier to spin then the words in the constitution.
#171. To: A K A Stone (#167)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#172. To: A K A Stone (#167)
I know you know this. But there is no separation of church and state. There is a prohibition against CONGRESS ONLY from prohibiting people from practicing their religion or from the CONGRESS from interfering with peoples free exercise of their religion. The godless liberals just like to say separation of church and state because it is easier to spin then the words in the constitution.
#173. To: Rhino (#170)
#174. To: A K A Stone (#173)
Thomas Jefferson was a great President. Maybe the best. He wasn't godless either. Do you know that the creator in the Declaration is God? He was a creationist.
#175. To: Rhino (#172)
Also how is teaching one religion in a school not infringing on your right to practice your religion? How would you like it if you had to move to Boston, MA and the teachers taught Catholic Dogma as fact, in school?
#176. To: All (#174)
#177. To: A K A Stone (#175)
#178. To: Rhino (#170)
Godless Liberals like Thomas Jefferson. What an anti American piece of shit that guy was huh?
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#179. To: Rhino (#174)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#180. To: Rhino (#169)
The 14th amendment now forces all levels of government to follow the Bill of Rights.
#181. To: Rhino (#174)
#182. To: WhiteSands (#178)
He was Godless?
#183. To: Rhino (#176)
If anyone wants to know what that sound is, it's AKAStone realizing he in fact doesn't know everything.
#184. To: WhiteSands (#179)
A letter not a law.
#185. To: Rhino (#182)
#186. To: Rhino (#182)
No I was being facetious
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#187. To: Rhino (#184)
The first amendment is law however. And it does separate church and state.
#188. To: A K A Stone (#183)
#189. To: A K A Stone (#187)
No it doesn't. Quote the constitution accurately and I will agree with you.
#190. To: Rhino (#184)
#191. To: A K A Stone (#185)
There is no separation of church and state. Go back and read the constitution. The FACT is that there is only a prohibition on CONGRESS!!!!
#192. To: no gnu taxes (#190)
The first amendment essentially guarantees the right to religious freedom without any interference from the federal govt. Its purpose is to protect the churches, not the govt.
#193. To: Rhino (#188)
Did you read what I wrote? Obviously not. I was showing you that letter to show that the Separation of Church and State is just a term to describe the first amendment.
#194. To: Rhino (#192)
And yes the point is to protect all religions. Which is why the government can't teach any. Because teaching one is teaching against all the rest.
#195. To: no gnu taxes (#180)
The 14th Amendment did not repeal the 10th Amendment.
#196. To: Rhino (#191)
#197. To: Rhino (#192)
It also prevents the establishment of a religion.
#198. To: A K A Stone (#194)
Incorrect. The prohibition is on Congress only. Not state or local govts. That is the true meaning of the words in the first amendment. Come on be honest and admit it and quit spinning. You will be ok.
#199. To: A K A Stone (#196)
The 14th wasn't ratified properly and is not really part of the constitution. If it was real it would be more like the 15th amendment as the evil government got rid of the real 13th amendment.
#200. To: A K A Stone (#193)
#201. To: Rhino (#199)
#202. To: Rhino (#195)
The 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states by the Constitution. That is perfectly in line with the bolded part of the tenth.
#203. To: Rhino (#200)
#204. To: no gnu taxes (#197)
#205. To: no gnu taxes (#202)
Cut and paste the WORDS whick make you think the Federal Govt now has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices.
#206. To: no gnu taxes (#202)
Cut and paste the WORDS whick make you think the Federal Govt now has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices.
#207. To: A K A Stone (#205)
I don't think the federal govt has the authority to involve itself in local religious practices.
#208. To: Rhino (#199)
Well this is a conspiracy theory. I don't know what you want me to do with that. The 14th amendment is considered valid by every court in America.
#209. To: Rhino (#206)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
#210. To: Rhino (#207)
It doesn't. But neither does your local government.
#211. To: no gnu taxes (#209)
#212. To: A K A Stone (#210)
#213. To: Rhino (#211)
Creationism is a religious doctrine. The schools can teach what they want as long as it isn't an establishment of a religion.
#214. To: no gnu taxes (#213)
A religion isn't being taught. It's merely an alternative theory of the origins. There's no dogma, or sects, or creeds.
And even if there were, how is anybody being deprived of life, liberty or property? By hearing something they might object to? So any kid in any classroom who hears something they object to is protected by the 14th Amendment?
#215. To: no gnu taxes (#213)
The only ones being deprived are those being deprived of a complete education. Why isn't the Fed Govt helping them.
#216. To: Rhino (#214)
Genesis isn't a theory it's a religious text.
#217. To: no gnu taxes (#216)
Everybody is free to engage in whatever religion they want. What if I objected to my kid being exposed to the religion of evolution?
Yet you feel it is okay to teach creationism is false. Teaching evolution does just that.
Anyway, it is a weak argument on its very face to suggest anybody is being deprived of life or liberty by the 14th Amendment and was not the argument that was used for the Supreme Court to enter this fray.
#218. To: Rhino (#217)
#219. To: no gnu taxes (#218)
Public officials take oaths that include God's name. The nations anthem includes God's name, and this country was built by people who had strong ties with religion.
BUT, this does not mean that schools cannot study the Bible because the Bible has literary and historical aspects that are important. Individuals also have the right to pray however they want to while in school.
#220. To: Rhino (#217)
Thar's an entirely different issue; not a Constitutional one -- whatever one's opinion is.
#221. To: no gnu taxes (#220)
BS. It's unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unprovable, and based on a tautology. But even that's beside the point.
#222. To: Rhino (#221)
Find a human bone ten millions year old. That's disprove it instantly.
#223. To: A K A Stone (#193)
There is no constitutional separation of church and state.
#224. To: Fred Mertz (#223)
It is bible thumpers like you who bring death and destruction to the rest of the world. Lots of luck on your crusades.
#225. To: Capitalist Eric, sneakypete (#119)
If you'd served in the military, you'd already know that.
#226. To: meguro (#126)
You posted to me for four YEARS after I left LP, dumbass. Thanks for playing.
#227. To: lucysmom, badeye, All (#107)
As I noted, he woke the hell up.
#228. To: Skip Intro, Fred Mertz, All (#224)
It is bible thumpers like you who bring death and destruction to the rest of the world. Lots of luck on your crusades.
#229. To: Rhino, All (#217)
The first amendment is on it's face a liberty issue.
#230. To: Rhino (#198)
To make a long story short, we fought this war, your side lost, and we made the 14th amendment.
#231. To: meguro (#225)
How can I? I'm openly gay.
Up until just this week, I couldn't.
#232. To: A K A Stone (#210)
The issue is the govt taking prayer out of school and butting into church business.
#233. To: Capitalist Eric (#231)
And if they remove the restrictions, and you're "openly gay" in a military unit, you will have a very unpleasant experience.
#234. To: meguro (#233)
You're going to come beat me up, tough guy? LOL
#235. To: mcgowanjm, A K A Stone, All (#75)
And there's nothing in the Constitution about CORPORATIONS either.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#236. To: WhiteSands, A K A Stone, All (#235)
(Edited)
And there's nothing in the Constitution about CORPORATIONS either.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]