O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[CurveLight]

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 adv
ance (or suppress) one religion over another...

In our current state millions are not only ignorant of islam but misinformed to the point they cannot separate it from terrorism. In effect their fearful ignorance prevents them from understanding islam is a religion and one that is theologically similar, in some respects, with Christianity.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

I forgot you were mentally challenged.

Here perhaps this will help:

arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military)
in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military)
lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military)
present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military)
take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly

 

[GHook93]

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?

It doesn't! The sixth amendment states "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed.."

Through case law and well set Stare Decicis a fair trial is the held interpretation by the courts of a right to a fair trial. Althought "fair" is rather objective.

The 2nd amendment says the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Arms is pretty much a synomous which guns. Of course the liberal argument is Arms meant an arm length firearm meaning a rifle and not a concealed weapon. Nevertheless, the meaning of Arms and gun rights and thankful even two very recent cases Heller and McDonald (in the great city of Chicago!!!!) have strengthen the right to keeo guns.

Of course a dishonest liberal will fire back that "they never stated specifically guns which is the same as the Separation of Church and State and Establishment clause!" But this is dishonest and a weak argument! No stretch of the imagination can even say the Establishment clause language is synomous with the doctrine of Church and State. The opposite is certaintly true with keep arms and keep guns and even a speedy, impartial trial synomous with fair trail!

 

[bodecea]

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 adv
ance (or suppress) one religion over another...

In our current state millions are not only ignorant of islam but misinformed to the point they cannot separate it from terrorism. In effect their fearful ignorance prevents them from understanding islam is a religion and one that is theologically similar, in some respects, with Christianity.

Ah, I remember our own Lonestar_Logic making excuses for protestors verbally abusing a New Yorker walking by their Mosque protest cause he was wearing a "moooslim-like" hat....which turned out to be a under armor skull cap...and the guy wasn't mooslim...just dark looking.

 

[GHook93]

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.

The Supreme Court decided Plessy v Ferguson which established The Separate but Equal doctrine for a half century.

 

[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).

[Liability] 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.

Bent tight pussy puddle is still LIVIG with an apparently deadly cold in da node. What a stupid little twat it is.

Yeah. The Motto on a coin imposes shit on him. Right.

Fucking asshole liars like Pussy Puddle

simply cannot be taken seriously.

Shit-Sucker Pussy Puddle says, "Oh nozies, the mean old American Government has a motto on my coin so I can no longer be an atheist or a Shintoist or an Animalist or a Zoroastrian! Sound the ALARUMS, sirrah!"

What an asshole.

 

[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!

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

Let me ask you this one genius? Where does the Supreme Court get the power to decide whether a law is constitutional, hence hear cases of the Federal Question?

I guarantee you say from the constitution, but you would be wrong!

Marbury v. Madison , established the Supreme Court hears federal question cases. Originally the constitution gave the supreme court diversity subject matter jurisdiction.

Some Case Law doctrines, LIKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, are here to stay. However, some doctrines that were thought to be the established law, like Separate but Equal, can and have changed.

 

[LuvtheStars]

Christine O'Donnell is an embarrassment not only to the Tea Party but to women in politics. I could barely sit through that debate...she said "fortunately senators dont have to memorize the constitution" - REALLY?? It was like someone applying to be a manager of Starbucks and saying "l dont need to know how to make coffee do I ?" Sad...........

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

So when comparing states that's the best you can do? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Tell me how many Fortune 1000 Companies are headquartered in California? Or even Fortune 500 companies for that matter.

California vs. Texas: the Cheat-Sheet

 

[ABikerSailor]

Don't forget that O'donnell told Coons that he was jealous because he'd never been on Sat. Night Live before.

Interestingly..........neither has she. All she's done is get lampooned on SNL. Haven't seen her on stage yet.

 

[GHook93]

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?

I am not a tea partier, because I'm not a social conservative. I support fag marriage, fags in the military, abortion, condomns in school, sex education etc. However, I do support their primary aspiration of lower taxes, cutting spending, cutting regulation, shrinking government and making America a business friendly country again!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

Texas is a shithole huh? At least our state isn't bankrupt like California.

You know I'm really glad you think that of Texas, anything that keeps idiots like you from showing up here is a good thing.

 

[beowolfe]

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.

Actually, if you go to U Haul's website you find that the cost of a 26 foot truck from SF to Austin is $1711 and from Austin to SF is $752 (just noting this for accuracy's sake).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

Damn you liberals really are fucking stupid!!

That's too funny!

 

[GHook93]

Christine O'Donnell is an embarrassment not only to the Tea Party but to women in politics. I could barely sit through that debate...she said "fortunately senators dont have to memorize the constitution" - REALLY?? It was like someone applying to be a manager of Starbucks and saying "l dont need to know how to make coffee do I ?" Sad...........

Very true a bad candidate is a bad candidate! You can still support the Tea Party movement, you have to recognize that sometimes a bad candidate is a bad candidate.

Same for your candidate in NV, however I hope she beat Reid!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Actually, if you go to U Haul's website you find that the cost of a 26 foot truck from SF to Austin is $1711 and from Austin to SF is $752 (just noting this for accuracy's sake).

The quote I got was from a few years back. but nevertheless the fact remains Texas is a hell of a lot cheaper to live in that bankrupt California.

 

[manifold]

Texas is cheaper due in large part to much more widespread and efficient use of inexpensive, undocumented Mexican labor.


true story

 

[topspin]

detroit has cheap real estate too, another thing it has in common with texas besides being a cultural shithole.

 

[pinqy]

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

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

I forgot you were mentally challenged.

Here perhaps this will help:

arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military)
in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military)
lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military)
present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military)
take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly

But it doesn't say "gun." That's implied by the use of the word "arms" which can mean any weapon. Right to bear arms also guaranteed the right to own a sword or bayonet, all of which were in common usage at the time. So technically, guns could be disallowed, swords and bows and arrows allowed and that could still be considered bearing arms. (Yes, that's a ridiculous argument...it's meant to show the ridiculousness of claiming lack of specific wording means the intent is not there).

And the 6th ammendment says nothing about a "fair trial," but that's implied by the rights it does mention, which set the framework for a fair trial.

And the 10th ammendment doesn't cover separation of powers. Separation of Powers refers to the powers of the different branches of the Federal government. The phrase is not in the Constitution, but is implied by the actual separation of powers in Articles I to III.

And since James Madison, who wrote the 1st Ammendment, used the phrase Separation of Church and State and Separation of religion and government when talking about the Constitution he clearly believed that separation was the effect. It was certainly his intent. Surely no one is dumb enough to claim that the author of the ammendment didn't know what it meant?

 

[topspin]

it also says arms in refernce to militia