O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

So you resort to arguing over semantics. Typical liberal.

Since you're the one claiming that there is no separation of church and state because that exact phrase isn't mentioned, that makes it a semantic argument.

So, try again...even though the exact phrase is not in the constitution, Jefferson (who heavily influenced the first ammendment) and Madison (who wrote it) clearly believed that the first ammendment established a separation. The Supreme Court has consistantly held that there is a separation (and never ruled otherwise). So on what grounds are you claiming that there is no separation except from a purely semantic argument?

Wrong dickweed! That's not my argument .

 

[Liability]

If mingling of Church and State isn't something the right is particularly concerned about, why do they throw fits over the idea of Sharia Law coming to some American communities?

Well, nobody knows what YOU mean by "mingling." And nobody on the right has said that they aren't particularly concerned by "mingling" anyway. You making stuff up doesn't qualify as factual, schmuck.

In any event, "Sharia Law" would, by definition, go far beyond what most people would consider "mingling," you dipstick.

Ok, so you agree that 'separation of church and state' is a well established foundational constitutional principle.

That's what we're trying to tell you, Lardbelly.

I said no such thing, shit-brain.

As a matter of fact, I am quite content that the Constitution prohibits the STATE from creating a STATE religion. And I am quite fully content that I am free to practice any religion of my choice -- or no religion at all. That is the only "separation" of church and state the Constitution addresses.

And I never needed some idiot lib who doesn't even understand the concept to teach me anything about it, retard. Unlike you jerkoffs, I have understood it quite well for quite some time. Granted, I got "taught" in school the same general gibberish that morons like you cling to. But that crap is not the same as what the Constitution calls for or prohibits.

As I correctly noted before, the words themselves are really not unclear. No SCOTUS "interpretation" is actually needed to clarify its plain meaning. If an act of Congresss (or of a State) does not CREATE a religion which is the supposedly "official" religion of the State, then there is no establishment violation. And if no Act purports to prevent me from engaging in the religion of my own choice, then there is no violation of the free exercise provision, either.

You libs are inarticulate and grunting and rather bombastic and simplistic, but you are at least consistently misguided!

 

[Liability]

[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.

[Liability] is still obsessed with typos.....since he can't debate for shit he has to seek compensation in sum form.

Another lie from Pussy Puddle. As he knows, I have always out-debated him. He has no ability whatsoever as all of his idiotic posts show. Man, is he a boring liar. The chump brings nothing to the table Ever.

I never said having the motto prevents anyone from being an atheist * * * or anything else. It's hilarious you can't respond to what posts actually say.

We all saw what you said (and tired in your lame-ass way to deny) you lying coward.

One more time [Liability]. Having prayer in a government arena imposes religion onto everyone.

No. It doesn't, stupid. The Senate has been doing that from the start of the Republic, but I have never had any of that "imposed" on me. Nor has it been imposed on you, you imbecile.

Having a religious motto on all currency imposes religion onto the public.

No, you ignorant asshole. It doesn't. It has said, for many years now, "In God we trust," yet lots of folks go blithely on being Atheists or Buddhists or Agnostics. It imposed nothing on anyone to have what many consider meaningless words on the coinage. Obviously.

Ignore it again [Liability] cuz skank punks like you are fucking parasites to America.

As if on cue, we see the grand "form" of what PussyPuddle considers "debate" skillz. What a jackoff he is!

But to educate the lying cowardly scumbag, I ignored nothing. Ispecifically addressed his pussy concerns. Indeed, in repeating his prior argument, he just proved that he lied. For it WAS things like the Motto on our coinage that he was addressing and it was his moronic claim that it somehow "imposes" religion on others. Having "In god we trust" imprinted on our coinage obviously doesn't impose religion on me or on anyone else, but that wouldn't stop a lying liberal loser like MenstrualMess from making his dishonest claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[E]

I said no such thing, shit-brain.

As a matter of fact, I am quite content that the Constitution prohibits the STATE from creating a STATE religion.

Which is what separation of church and state means, dumbass.

 

[bodecea]

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.

[Liability] is still obsessed with typos.....since he can't debate for shit he has to seek compensation in sum form.

Another lie from Pussy Puddle. As he knows, I have always out-debated him. He has no ability whatsoever as all of his idiotic posts show. Man, is he a boring liar. The chump brings nothing to the table Ever.



We all saw what you said (and tired in your lame-ass way to deny) you lying coward.



No. It doesn't, stupid. The Senate has been doing that from the start of the Republic, but I have never had any of that "imposed" on me. Nor has it been imposed on you, you imbecile.

Having a religious motto on all currency imposes religion onto the public.

No, you ignorant asshole. It doesn't. It has said, for many years now, "In God we trust," yet lots of folks go blithely on being Atheists or Buddhists or Agnostics. It imposed nothing on anyone to have what many consider meaningless words on the coinage. Obviously.

Ignore it again [Liability] cuz skank punks like you are fucking parasites to America.

As if on cue, we see the grand "form" of what PussyPuddle considers "debate" skillz. What a jackoff he is!

But to educate the lying cowardly scumbag, I ignored nothing. Ispecifically addressed his pussy concerns. Indeed, in repeating his prior argument, he just proved that he lied. For it WAS things like the Motto on our coinage that he was addressing and it was his moronic claim that it somehow "imposes" religion on others. Having "In god we trust" imprinted on our coinage obviously doesn't impose religion on me or on anyone else, but that wouldn't stop a lying liberal loser like MenstrualMess from making his dishonest claim.

How sad does a person's argument have to be that they take the time to alter a poster's nic on the quote line? How sad is that?

Taking so much time, going out of one's way to plant an insult....but can't take two seconds to be civil.

Now that's an interesting kind of person, isn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's separation of Church and State, not separation of religion and state. The founders were in an era when internecine fighting amongst the various versions (i.e. Churches) of Christianity was rampant, as it had been for centuries.

The founders did not want a government that would take sides, so they formed a government that could not take sides.

 

[Liability]

[E]

I said no such thing, shit-brain.

As a matter of fact, I am quite content that the Constitution prohibits the STATE from creating a STATE religion.

Which is what separation of church and state means, dumbass.

No it isn't, shitbrain.

The provision of the First Amendment that prohibits the State from creating an official State religion is the Establishment clause. THAT'S what means that the State cannot do such a thing.

And the provision of the First Amendment that denies the State the authority from interfering with my Free Exercise is the Free Exercise clause.

The "separation of church and state" was a shorthand method of describing what the Constitution would serve to do in those regards. But the shorthand expression in a Jeffersonian letter is not the same as the words OF the actual Constitution.

Hope that clears some of this up for you, stupid. But I doubt it. You are far too narrow and provincial in your thinking. You can't help it. You are just a doctrinaire, knee-jerk, unthinking and incapable of thinking libbie.

 

[Liability]

[Liability] is still obsessed with typos.....since he can't debate for shit he has to seek compensation in sum form.

Another lie from Pussy Puddle. As he knows, I have always out-debated him. He has no ability whatsoever as all of his idiotic posts show. Man, is he a boring liar. The chump brings nothing to the table Ever.



We all saw what you said (and tired in your lame-ass way to deny) you lying coward.



No. It doesn't, stupid. The Senate has been doing that from the start of the Republic, but I have never had any of that "imposed" on me. Nor has it been imposed on you, you imbecile.



No, you ignorant asshole. It doesn't. It has said, for many years now, "In God we trust," yet lots of folks go blithely on being Atheists or Buddhists or Agnostics. It imposed nothing on anyone to have what many consider meaningless words on the coinage. Obviously.

Ignore it again [Liability] cuz skank punks like you are fucking parasites to America.

As if on cue, we see the grand "form" of what PussyPuddle considers "debate" skillz. What a jackoff he is!

But to educate the lying cowardly scumbag, I ignored nothing. Ispecifically addressed his pussy concerns. Indeed, in repeating his prior argument, he just proved that he lied. For it WAS things like the Motto on our coinage that he was addressing and it was his moronic claim that it somehow "imposes" religion on others. Having "In god we trust" imprinted on our coinage obviously doesn't impose religion on me or on anyone else, but that wouldn't stop a lying liberal loser like MenstrualMess from making his dishonest claim.

How sad does a person's argument have to be that they take the time to alter a poster's nic on the quote line? How sad is that?

Taking so much time, going out of one's way to plant an insult....but can't take two seconds to be civil.

Now that's an interesting kind of person, isn't it?

How sad must your pathetic life be to take your obsession with you from thread to thread?

Again, however, no rational person would EVER accept a lecture on "civility" from an uncivil cretin like you. The notion is laughable.

Hurry back though with more off topic bullshit!

 

[DiveCon]

her tea bag supporters are almost as comicle as she is.

but no where near as comical as YOU are

 

[jillian]

her tea bag supporters are almost as comicle as she is.

but no where near as comical as YOU are

i think you have it backward on that one

her ignorance is pretty comical.

 

[CurveLight]

If mingling of Church and State isn't something the right is particularly concerned about, why do they throw fits over the idea of Sharia Law coming to some American communities?

Well, nobody knows what YOU mean by "mingling." And nobody on the right has said that they aren't particularly concerned by "mingling" anyway. You making stuff up doesn't qualify as factual, schmuck.

In any event, "Sharia Law" would, by definition, go far beyond what most people would consider "mingling," you dipstick.

Which form of sharia law? (Or are you so ignorant you think there is only one?)

America has long held Christian versions of practicing areas similar to some brands of sharia law. Oh, you would like examples? Sure thing skip.

Having christian based prayer for government ceremonies. You know....things like the prez putting his hand on the bible. What would be the reaction if a koran was used?

Serving fish on fridays in schools.

Not selling liquor on sundays

Having "God" on our currency and the pledge.

White house having Easter.

US taxpayers subsidizing Christian holidays.

Placing Crosses over graves of people who never had a voice im saying what they would like staked over their graves.

Thank you, but no. I cannot accept money for tutoring you. Just consider yourself a beneficiary of community service, Snitch Bitch.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Which form of sharia law? (Or are you so ignorant you think there is only one?)

Which "form" of Sharia Law do you imagine would not impose religion on people with the imprimatur of law?

America has long held Christian versions of practicing areas similar to some brands of sharia law. Oh, you would like examples? Sure thing skip.

Having christian based prayer for government ceremonies. You know....things like the prez putting his hand on the bible. What would be the reaction if a koran was used?

You do realize you are incoherent, right? If a Muslim gets elected (as one Congresscritter recently was) and chooses to put his hand on a Qur'an instead of on a Bible to take the Oath OR Affirmation of Office, the public reaction will almost sruely be what it should be. General disinterest.

Serving fish on fridays in schools.

Oh nozies. I hadda eat fish on Fridays in public school as a kid. For sure certain, that means I am obligated to be a Catholic, right? You dope.

Not selling liquor on sundays

Sunday "blue laws ," as they were known, have been abolished almost universally in America. And even when they existed, the laws only impeded my right to buy alcohol (or other products). They never made me accept any particular religion.

Having "God" on our currency and the pledge.

Already addressed. A ridiculous argument by you. It no more imposes any particular religious belief on me or anybody else than the phrase "To Allah we submit" would impose Islam on me. Hell. Even a load of dumbass shit like YOU should be able to reject the words even as you spend the currency.

White house having Easter.

Easter is a religious day of observance. The White House cannot "have" a day. It can and does observe some of the religiously-neutral symbols and passtimes of the day. And again, so what? That imposes no religion on anyone. I guarantee you will never be able to find even one person who, upon witnessing the egg hunt on the South Lawn, suddenly decided that he just HAD to convert to Christianity.

US taxpayers subsidizing Christian holidays.

Whatever the fuck that random set of words might mean....

Placing Crosses over graves of people who never had a voice im saying what they would like staked over their graves.

Yes. Good one. This imposes the christian faith on the dead. You imbecile.

Thank you, but no. I cannot accept money for tutoring you. Just consider yourself a beneficiary of community service * * * *

You haven't tutored anyone. You've made a bigger fool of yourself and you'd have some fucking nerve to charge for that. The only service you have ever provided is you make me laugh -- always at you and your ridiculous "arguments." You truly suck at debate. This is why you cannot prevail. You're retarded.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well, nobody knows what YOU mean by "mingling." And nobody on the right has said that they aren't particularly concerned by "mingling" anyway. You making stuff up doesn't qualify as factual, schmuck.

In any event, "Sharia Law" would, by definition, go far beyond what most people would consider "mingling," you dipstick.

Ok, so you agree that 'separation of church and state' is a well established foundational constitutional principle.

That's what we're trying to tell you, Lardbelly.

As a matter of fact, I am quite content that the Constitution prohibits the STATE from creating a STATE religion. And I am quite fully content that I am free to practice any religion of my choice -- or no religion at all. That is the only "separation" of church and state the Constitution addresses.

"NO WAY!!!"

*

 

[Liability]

* * * *

There. Fixed that for ya.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

* * * *

There. Fixed that for ya.

"NO WAY!!!"

*

 

[Urkie]

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

Meaning the government cannot force us or deny us the right to practice any religion. So if they can't force us then there's some kind of seperation there...

 

[CurveLight]

* * * *

There. Fixed that for ya.

Constantly editing others' posts proves you are so fucking insecure you can only post by debating against yourself. No wonder you think you can debate.

 

[Ravi]

Who is Pussy Puddle? I can only conclude it is Liarbility's gerbil lover.

As for his arguments about praying before school, I bet he'd be peeing his pants in outrage (admittedly a daily happening) if the teacher was shouting out Allah Akbar!

 

[CurveLight]

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

Meaning the government cannot force us or deny us the right to practice any religion. So if they can't force us then there's some kind of seperation there...

The main muzzle maze is pure sanitation or allowances based on population? I lean more towards the sanitation end because honoring one religion via tax dolloars inherently respects the establishment of one religion even if there is no legally based theocracy. How could a government possibly engage equaliy by having federal holidays for one faith if it does not do the same for all faiths? Obviously it cannot so the next logical step in honoring the idea of our Constitution is to stop favoring one faith over all others.

The truly embarrassing aspect is knowing some camps would actuall label that as persecution.

 

[CurveLight]

Who is Pussy Puddle? I can only conclude it is Liarbility's gerbil lover.

As for his arguments about praying before school, I bet he'd be peeing his pants in outrage (admittedly a daily happening) if the teacher was shouting out Allah Akbar!

Isn't it funny he edits so much others can't even tell who he's trying to insult? I guess it is a microscopic example of being self consumed.