Boebert: "I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk".

While the bulk of republicans are happy just to spite the libs the evangelicals have a pretty radical vision for their new Supreme Court rubber stamp.
Saving little babies from being torn apart in the womb is radical to you leftwingers. That's where the left is today.
 
She's the base.

That seems unlikely. I don't know anyone that supports that. And it has never been gop policy.

Everything I have ever heard or seem, indicates it is a fringe position.


Can you support your claim with...anything?
 
Give them credit: They're no longer even trying to hide it. And why should they? They know they have the Supreme Court in their pocket.

I'm not kidding when I say that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is pushing for an authoritarian Nationalist Theocracy.

"The Church is supposed to direct the government". Right, Republicans?


Are you just going to spout slogans or are you going to tell us what the correct understanding to the First Amendment is in your opinion?
 
hahah then tell your fellow tyrants to prove their claim...and don't expect me, or anyone else to disprove it....that burden shifting on your part is what tyrants do

You made a claim just like them. Yet you only want them to prove theirs. Why is that?
 
POSSCOTUS has lost legitimacy.

'Robert Ingersoll: " They knew that to put God in the constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her keeping, or in the keeping of God, the sacred rights of man. They intended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship; that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed. They intended to found and frame a government for man, and for man alone. They wished to preserve the individuality and liberty of all, to prevent the few from governing the many, and the many from persecuting and destroying the few."

....our Constitution's only reference to religion is exclusionary. It excludes the state from involving itself in religion (the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause) and excludes religion from involving itself in the state (The First Amendment's "establishment" clause....The separation of church and state was woven into the constitutional design even before the First Amendment was drafted....Divorcing religion from government offices was so important that the US Congress edited the word god out of its oath of office.'
(Seidel, The Founding Myth, pp. 32-3)
 
Welcome to Sharia Law

They welcome a joining of church and state, as long as they get to pick which church. As you pointed out, we've seen what a fusion of the two has done to Afghanistan.

Welcome to the jungle.
 
haha it’s sad this concept goes over your head

Not at all. Those that make a claim should support their claim.

The Dems made a claim and did not support it.

You made a claim and did not support it.

There is no difference between the you and them.
 
Saving little babies from being torn apart in the womb is radical to you leftwingers. That's where the left is today.
You and most other Americans have been pre-castrated from the history of abortion in America. We don't think you will not be able to list the states circa 1860 that were anti-abortion. If you think you can do that, post the list here so that we can compare those states with the the ones involved in the current POSSCOTUS ruling.
 
Not at all. Those that make a claim should support their claim.

The Dems made a claim and did not support it.

You made a claim and did not support it.

There is no difference between the you and them.
haha i need to support my claim by saying they made an accusation based on nothing??? a horrible accusation at that

moreover i did provide a number of links
 
What she should have said is that the people should tell government what to do

And in a country like ours where most of us are Christian that means the church foes have a say in government
Your pathology is the false problem of the more and the less. More xians than non-xians is the contradiction that opposes the Constitution.

'First, our Constitution is deliberately godless. There are no references to gods, goddesses, or divine intervention. The omission was not an oversight. Supernatural power was rejected in favor of the natural power contained in the first three words: "We the People."

Robert Ingersoll: " They intended that all should have the right to worship or not to worship; that our laws make no distinction on account of creed. They intended to found and frame a government for man and man alone. They wished to preserve the individuality and liberty of all, to prevent the few from governing the many, and the many from persecuting and destroying the few." '
(Seidel, The Founding Myth)
 
haha i need to support my claim by saying they made an accusation based on nothing??? a horrible accusation at that

moreover i did provide a number of links

Tis not the claim you made that I am talking about. Do try to keep up.
 

Forum List

Back
Top