O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Lonestar_logic]

how silly. She actually think the Constitution means what it says.

Could you answer her question? Where does the Constitution mention "Separation of Church and State"?

You go first....where in the Constitution does it say "right to a fair trial," "right to own a gun," or "separation of powers?"

Since none of those are explicitly stated in the Constitution, do you maintain they don't exist?

Try reading the 2nd, 6th and 10th amendments you retard!

 

[manifold]

Rightwingtards arguing that the separation of church and state is unsupported by the first amendment is as equally laughable as Leftwingtards arguing that the right to burn a book is not protected by it.

In both instances it's a case of objective reason and judgement completely blinded by partisan hackery and denial.

True story

In other words, you can't

Can't what?

 

[mal]

The Civil Govt. 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, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. (James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819, Writings of James Madison vol 8, ed. Gaillard Hunt, published New York, Putnam's Sons, 1908)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, published in The Founders' Constitution, ed Kurland and Lerner, Chicago University Press)

Ahem....

No! No! No! They don't EXACTLY say "Separation OF Church & State"....they don't count!

lolol, and yet, there is plenty of truth in that. This is standard practice rightwing 'logic'; they will argue down to a crossed t and dotted i's worth of difference to try to 'disprove' something they don't like to hear.

The Supreme Court doesn't Modify the Constitution...

It Incorrectly Interprets it Plenty though... Like it did with Dred Scott...

Or I am Sure how you Feel they did with the 2000 Election.

Anyway, the Constitution does NOT say "Separation of Church and State" and the Context of that Specifically is here:

the latest from associalisticpress.com© Separation of Church and State is a Lie

Jefferson's Words to the Danbury Baptists were Molested by the Court...

Probably one of the Many Reasons he felt this way about that Branch:

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary."

"The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will."

And of course, my Favorite:

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

Funny how the Court Ignores those Quotes, eh?...

And of course, we could Settle the 2nd Amendment Debate using Jefferson's Words, couldn't we:

"...that all power is inherent in the people... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of Arms."

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Hell, it's Settled... Isn't it?



peace...

 

[Liability]

I realize that this is hardly worth the effort since the lib mind is tightly shut against any train of thought at odds with the lib preconception, but still.

IF one were to glean a RATIONAL understanding of what our Constitution actually SAYS, then one might be able to formulate coherent and consistent and RATIONAL answers to a variety of questions stemming from the fact that there are places where the state intersects with religion.

This is why it is a good idea to see what the First Amendment actually SAYS on the topic of state and religion.

It's not that difficult.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * * *

Let's say the school district has an opening prayer (or the permissible alternative moment of silence) after the pledge of allegiance in its schools. The question about whether or not this ACTUALLY "violates" the First Amendment could be reasonably answered by asking: "Does that opening prayer OR moment of silence ESTABLISH a STATE religion?"

The answer is clearly, "No. It does not."

Does it prohibit ANYBODY from the free exercise of their religion?

The answer is clearly, "No. It does not."

Therefore, the hypothetical school district's policy does not seem to violate any part of the 1st Amendment.

In that particular example, the Constitutional "analysis" need not get any more cluttered or confused than that.

 

[mal]

It's called the Establishment Clause for a Reason...

The US can't be like the Crown it Fought...

We can't be Officially Catholic or Jewish or Muslim...

And the State can't Stop the Free Exercise of ANY...

Now, why does the Supreme Court and the Congress open with a Prayer?...

And why has it since the Founding?...



peace...

 

[Liability]

It's called the Establishment Clause for a Reason...

The US can't be like the Crown it Fought...

We can't be Officially Catholic or Jewish or Muslim...

And the State can't Stop the Free Exercise of ANY...

Now, why does the Supreme Court and the Congress open with a Prayer?...

And why has it since the Founding?...



peace...

I'm gonna have to just go ahead and take a stab at that one.

It might have something to do with the fact that an opening prayer does NOT establish a State religion nor does it deny the right of anybody to freely practice their own religion.

The relatively new Motto of the USA is "In God We Trust." I know. I have seen it on the walls of Courtrooms (above the judges' benches) and on lots and lots of our coins. And you know what? One may agree or disagree with that motto, but having it imprinted on our coins does NOT create any official state religion nor does it deny anybody the right to practice their own religion (or no religion at all).

 

[NYcarbineer]

how silly. She actually think the Constitution means what it says.

Could you answer her question? Where does the Constitution mention "Separation of Church and State"?

You go first....where in the Constitution does it say "right to a fair trial," "right to own a gun," or "separation of powers?"

Since none of those are explicitly stated in the Constitution, do you maintain they don't exist?

Try reading the 2nd, 6th and 10th amendments you retard!

I don't see the word gun in the 2nd amendment, you retard.

 

[Misty]

"So where did the words "Separation of Church and State." come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter. . .

"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, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Read the full text of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association .."

Separation of Church and State, Thomas Jefferson, and the First Amendment

 

[CurveLight]

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

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?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

I thought these Tea Party candidates were all about Constitutionalism? WTF???

The separation of church and state is a fallacy. Our founding fathers did intend to keep government out of the religious arena by disallowing a national religion such as existed in England with the Church of England; however the intent was never to keep the church out of government.

Few American educated people, it seems, have the ability to critically analyze political spin. Case in point: separation of church and state. The far left has embarked on a massive propaganda campaign to socialize the masses into believing that the above is an absolute. Religion, therefore, and any reference to God should be anathema in politics, leg-islation and enactment of law.

The historical and philosophical facts are quite different however. Our fore fathers never envisioned an absolute separation of church and state. Most of them were religious people. Their model for government was based mostly on separation of powers. In their mind, the church, as an organized entity, should hold no formal position in government. They did not say or imply that the church should have no voice in pronouncing political descent. Nor did they ever envision a government devoid of references to Judeo-Christian theology or idealisms; and they never believed that the government must be completely secular.

Unfortunately, many people believe the liberal left’s machinations without regard to these historical facts. Their argument states that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than of any other source. They cry: ‘the marriage of religion and politic has produced the crusades, Inquisition and the Taliban’ etc. What they fail to mention is the melding of the secular with absolute power. This has produced virulently greater horrors as evidenced in the persons of Stalin (20+ million dead) and Hitler (11+ million). Not to mention the killing fields of Cambodia and other secular genocide committed in the name of a greater social order.

In rebuttal: firstly, the Declaration of Independence itself is a religious document. The preamble states the primary premise from which all of the other premises follow. The premise is: that all people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. These ‘rights’ are not endowed by the state, nor by any secular entity, be it government or king, but by God. Secondly, the framers of the Constitution wrote the latter and the Bill of Rights etc. because they believed that legislating such documents into law was God’s will. Their very core ethos as Christians made them draw the conclusions written within the documents. You cannot separate these documents from their Judeo-Christian roots without tearing them asunder and laying them waste. Simply, the ethics contained in our Constitution are Judeo-Christian. Therefore our constitution is essentially a religious document. Thus, separation of church and state as the far left sees it is complete fallacy.

Lastly, it is neither religion nor people of faith who have produced the horrors mention above. It is an evil that knows no boundaries. It has transcended all times, peoples and cultures whether secular or religious. In the Christian gospels Jesus vehemently condemned one sin in particular above all others. The reason is that this sin has the potential of producing the greatest amount of evil. It is none other than the greatest of the seven deadly sins: humanities tendency toward self-righteous pride. Hitler, Stalin, Usama Bin Laden, all of these have been inebriated by this great sin. So absolute is its power to blind that one, when caught in its grip, could conceive genocide as justifiable - even when done in the name of God.
Separation of Church and State: the leftist fallacy exposed. - Tech Support Forums - TechIMO.com

Toilet paper is meant to wipe asses. Toilet paper dolled up with a pretty floral pattern still ends up shitty.

 

[GHook93]

The Civil Govt. 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, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. (James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819, Writings of James Madison vol 8, ed. Gaillard Hunt, published New York, Putnam's Sons, 1908)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, published in The Founders' Constitution, ed Kurland and Lerner, Chicago University Press)

Ahem....

Neither are part of the constitution and with out Supreme Court Rulings would have just been ideas from Smart Men on paper and nothing more!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Civil Govt. 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, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. (James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819, Writings of James Madison vol 8, ed. Gaillard Hunt, published New York, Putnam's Sons, 1908)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, published in The Founders' Constitution, ed Kurland and Lerner, Chicago University Press)

Ahem....

Neither are part of the constitution and with out Supreme Court Rulings would have just been ideas from Smart Men on paper and nothing more!

Yeah, well the Supreme Court is part of the Constitution.

 

[GHook93]

sure check the average price of a house in Cali vs Texas youno family knuckle dragger.

God your dumb! So housing prices dictate the better place to live. I wish I could take a my $80K salary to a nice suburb in Texas (no income tax, lower sales and property tax) or Utah. My $80K (plus my wife's income) would go a lot further!

But you can be happy with the highest property prices tough guy!

 

[Liability]

The Civil Govt. 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, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. (James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819, Writings of James Madison vol 8, ed. Gaillard Hunt, published New York, Putnam's Sons, 1908)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, published in The Founders' Constitution, ed Kurland and Lerner, Chicago University Press)

Ahem....

Neither are part of the constitution and with out Supreme Court Rulings would have just been ideas from Smart Men on paper and nothing more!

Yeah, well the Supreme Court is part of the Constitution.

So is the word "the."

Noting that doesn't further any argument anymore than noting that the BRANCH of government known as the Judicial Branch is mentioned or that the top Court, by name, is mentioned.

The Supreme Court decided Dred Scott. It is not infallible.

 

[bodecea]

sure check the average price of a house in Cali vs Texas youno family knuckle dragger.

What has that got to do with anything you ignorant fuck?

When comparing California with Texas, U-Haul says it all. To rent a 26-foot truck oneway
from San Francisco to Austin, the charge is $3,236, and yet the one-way charge for that
same truck from Austin to San Francisco is just $399.


http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/tax/09RSPS/09RSPS_chap2.pdf

And? We appreciate you taking those who can't make it here. Now, if our traffic and schools would reflect a lowering of our population.

 

[CurveLight]

It's called the Establishment Clause for a Reason...

The US can't be like the Crown it Fought...

We can't be Officially Catholic or Jewish or Muslim...

And the State can't Stop the Free Exercise of ANY...

Now, why does the Supreme Court and the Congress open with a Prayer?...

And why has it since the Founding?...



peace...

I'm gonna have to just go ahead and take a stab at that one.

It might have something to do with the fact that an opening prayer does NOT establish a State religion nor does it deny the right of anybody to freely practice their own religion.

The relatively new Motto of the USA is "In God We Trust." I know. I have seen it on the walls of Courtrooms (above the judges' benches) and on lots and lots of our coins. And you know what? One may agree or disagree with that motto, but having it imprinted on our coins does NOT create any official state religion nor does it deny anybody the right to practice their own religion (or no religion at all).

Snitch Bitch is still livig in fantasies. An opening prayer and the religious motto on money does impose religion on people. Dumbasses like you who enjoy dominating others never object to impositions of your flavor but scream bloody murder when others object.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Last month when the mosque controversy was the topic du week, a Foxnews poll showed that 25% of Americans thought they should not have the RIGHT to build the mosque. Not just that those polled didn't like the idea of it (that number was 61%)

but that they believed Muslims shouldn't have the RIGHT, that fundamental Constitutional RIGHT of religious freedom.

Just bringing that up for the benefit of anyone who might astounded that so many on the right don't like the idea of the government not being able to advance (or suppress) one religion over another...

 

[topspin]

sure check the average price of a house in Cali vs Texas youno family knuckle dragger.

What has that got to do with anything you ignorant fuck?

When comparing California with Texas, U-Haul says it all. To rent a 26-foot truck oneway
from San Francisco to Austin, the charge is $3,236, and yet the one-way charge for that
same truck from Austin to San Francisco is just $399.


http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/tax/09RSPS/09RSPS_chap2.pdf

poor people move to texas, if a house is 600K in Cali and 200K in texas. It's because texas is a shithole

 

[topspin]

sure check the average price of a house in Cali vs Texas youno family knuckle dragger.

God your dumb! So housing prices dictate the better place to live. I wish I could take a my $80K salary to a nice suburb in Texas (no income tax, lower sales and property tax) or Utah. My $80K (plus my wife's income) would go a lot further!

But you can be happy with the highest property prices tough guy!

Maybe you make dogshit becuase your a dumbass. Supply and demand.

 

[uscitizen]

sure check the average price of a house in Cali vs Texas youno family knuckle dragger.

God your dumb! So housing prices dictate the better place to live. I wish I could take a my $80K salary to a nice suburb in Texas (no income tax, lower sales and property tax) or Utah. My $80K (plus my wife's income) would go a lot further!

But you can be happy with the highest property prices tough guy!

Maybe you make dogshit becuase your a dumbass. Supply and demand.

You mean the Tea Party has quit recruting?

 

[bodecea]

how silly. She actually think the Constitution means what it says.

Could you answer her question? Where does the Constitution mention "Separation of Church and State"?

You go first....where in the Constitution does it say "right to a fair trial," "right to own a gun," or "separation of powers?"

Since none of those are explicitly stated in the Constitution, do you maintain they don't exist?

Try reading the 2nd, 6th and 10th amendments you retard!

Here is the 2nd amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ...doesn't say guns.

Here is the 6th Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." ...doesn't say fair trial.

Here is the 10th Amendment:

"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." ...doesn't say separation of powers.


Now, what was this you were saying about trying to actually read?