O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[DiveCon]

* * * *

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.

was there actually anything in that post TO debate?

 

[Liability]

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.

was there actually anything in that post TO debate?

Of course not. It was just she-man babbling incoherently as per usual.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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!

It's not his gerbil lover, it's his gerbil RESCUER.

He's got his head so far up his ass that the only thing that can get up there is a gerbil.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

was there actually anything in that post TO debate?

Of course not. It was just she-man babbling incoherently as per usual.

exactly, and its interesting that benttight actually though it contained a debatable point

 

[DiveCon]

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!

It's not his gerbil lover, it's his gerbil RESCUER.

He's got his head so far up his ass that the only thing that can get up there is a gerbil.

it refers to benttight aka curvelight

 

[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.

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.

They put the right to keep and bear guns in the Constitution, didn't they? But they managed to do it without using the word 'gun'. And they put separation of church and state in the Constitution, but managed to do it without saying 'separation of church and state'.

How was that possible? By the astounding magic of language, which, apparently, all across our great nation there are rightwing dullards for whom that concept is just beyond the grasp of their brains, which,

like the arms of a midget, so often reach up, but so often fall short of their target.

Get it, Shorty?

 

[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...........

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!

This is what im talking about...I want to support the Tea Party, BUT not blindly!! I mean come on...this is exactly what i hate about politics, people just vote for an R or a D. Its really sad, i mean its like people are asleep and dont care. Im a republican, and i was only able to vote for my first time in 2008 and i voted for Obama. It was the lesser of 2 evils, and i hated that...why do we have more choices of cheese burgers on a fast food menus than possible presidents? Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle?? These are peoples choices? We need REAL leaders, people who are willing to tell the truth even if its ugly (no offense to Angle). I think people should demand better........

 

[Intense]

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.

They put the right to keep and bear guns in the Constitution, didn't they? But they managed to do it without using the word 'gun'. And they put separation of church and state in the Constitution, but managed to do it without saying 'separation of church and state'.

How was that possible? By the astounding magic of language, which, apparently, all across our great nation there are rightwing dullards for whom that concept is just beyond the grasp of their brains, which,

like the arms of a midget, so often reach up, but so often fall short of their target.

Get it, Shorty?

I get it and actually agree with you on the point. The problem is that with your logic in general, the Constitution only say's what the Court says it say's and only for as long as the Court allows. Out lawing lead bullets comes to mind specifically. Where some of us use reason, some instead choose to subjugate their will to the flavor of the day. O'Donnell was literally correct that the phrase was not in the Constitution, yet, thanks to Locke, it was adopted into higher Christian Principle to convince through argument and example, not force of law. What we have in the Common Law of the Constitution is the values and Ideals of higher principles., the best that could be put together at the time.

I personally love the way Thoreau put it together.


[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.


Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

 

[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!

This is what im talking about...I want to support the Tea Party, BUT not blindly!! I mean come on...this is exactly what i hate about politics, people just vote for an R or a D. Its really sad, i mean its like people are asleep and dont care. Im a republican, and i was only able to vote for my first time in 2008 and i voted for Obama. It was the lesser of 2 evils, and i hated that...why do we have more choices of cheese burgers on a fast food menus than possible presidents? Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle?? These are peoples choices? We need REAL leaders, people who are willing to tell the truth even if its ugly (no offense to Angle). I think people should demand better........

I still voted Mitt Romney on '08, but then again I am in IL, so my vote didn't really matter. Nevertheless, I look for a three main qualities in a candidate. Do they have a business background, will they cut spending and taxes and will they make a strong commitment to ending illegal immigration. I obvious lean more Republican, but I perfer a blue dog (fiscal conservative, socially moderate) Democrats over a far rightist like DeMitt any day of the week.

2008 is the first time you could vote? Your a youngin! I will admit if I was 18-20 in 2008 no doubt I would have voted for Obama. My first time voting I went the liberal way!!!

When your young and your not liberal then you don't have a heart, when you get older and are not conservative then you don't have a brain
- Winston Churchill

 

[Intense]

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!

This is what im talking about...I want to support the Tea Party, BUT not blindly!! I mean come on...this is exactly what i hate about politics, people just vote for an R or a D. Its really sad, i mean its like people are asleep and dont care. Im a republican, and i was only able to vote for my first time in 2008 and i voted for Obama. It was the lesser of 2 evils, and i hated that...why do we have more choices of cheese burgers on a fast food menus than possible presidents? Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle?? These are peoples choices? We need REAL leaders, people who are willing to tell the truth even if its ugly (no offense to Angle). I think people should demand better........

I still voted Mitt Romney on '08, but then again I am in IL, so my vote didn't really matter. Nevertheless, I look for a three main qualities in a candidate. Do they have a business background, will they cut spending and taxes and will they make a strong commitment to ending illegal immigration. I obvious lean more Republican, but I perfer a blue dog (fiscal conservative, socially moderate) Democrats over a far rightist like DeMitt any day of the week.

I supported Romney too. The other contenders did treat him pretty poorly.

 

[pinqy]

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 .

I didn't say it was. I ASKED if that is not your argument, then what is it? Looking back, you've said that separation is a myth, and yet the guy who wrote it clearly believed the 1st ammendment separates church from state, government from religion. Please enlighten us on how President Madison was wrong about his own words.

 

[mal]

"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...

And what's Funny is, that is only Directed at Congress... At the time of the Founding, a State Arguably could Declare a Religion...

It's not unlike the 2nd Amendment... Liberals want it to say something it doesn't, so they Find a Court who will take Jefferson's words in a Letter to a Church the HELL out of Context, and Attempt to Rewrite the 1st Amendment.

It's also not unlike Abortion... The Founders would Certainly NOT Support the Act of Aborting a Pregnancy of Convenience, nor would they have Found a place in the Constitution that Legitimized it...

So what Jefferson called "the Despotic Branch" did.



peace...

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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...

And what's Funny is, that is only Directed at Congress... At the time of the Founding, a State Arguably could Declare a Religion...

It's not unlike the 2nd Amendment... Liberals want it to say something it doesn't, so they Find a Court who will take Jefferson's words in a Letter to a Church the HELL out of Context, and Attempt to Rewrite the 1st Amendment.

It's also not unlike Abortion... The Founders would Certainly NOT Support the Act of Aborting a Pregnancy of Convenience, nor would they have Found a place in the Constitution that Legitimized it...

So what Jefferson called "the Despotic Branch" did.



peace...

First trimester abortion was legal throughout the colonies in the 18th century.

 

[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...

And what's Funny is, that is only Directed at Congress... At the time of the Founding, a State Arguably could Declare a Religion...

It's not unlike the 2nd Amendment... Liberals want it to say something it doesn't, so they Find a Court who will take Jefferson's words in a Letter to a Church the HELL out of Context, and Attempt to Rewrite the 1st Amendment.

It's also not unlike Abortion... The Founders would Certainly NOT Support the Act of Aborting a Pregnancy of Convenience, nor would they have Found a place in the Constitution that Legitimized it...

So what Jefferson called "the Despotic Branch" did.



peace...

First trimester abortion was legal throughout the colonies in the 18th century.

Stop fucking up the thread with facts!

 

[mal]

"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...

And what's Funny is, that is only Directed at Congress... At the time of the Founding, a State Arguably could Declare a Religion...

It's not unlike the 2nd Amendment... Liberals want it to say something it doesn't, so they Find a Court who will take Jefferson's words in a Letter to a Church the HELL out of Context, and Attempt to Rewrite the 1st Amendment.

It's also not unlike Abortion... The Founders would Certainly NOT Support the Act of Aborting a Pregnancy of Convenience, nor would they have Found a place in the Constitution that Legitimized it...

So what Jefferson called "the Despotic Branch" did.



peace...

First trimester abortion was legal throughout the colonies in the 18th century.

Yeah... I was Speaking to the Constitution in that Post...

Do you Feel that the Founders would have a Supported a "Right to Abortion"?...

And don't Tire me with that Dishonest word, "Choice".

It's about Abortion.



peace...

 

[mal]

Abortion in early America. [Women Health. 1979] - PubMed result

Don't Know if it's 100% True, but at Least I give Link...



peace...

 

[CurveLight]

This is what im talking about...I want to support the Tea Party, BUT not blindly!! I mean come on...this is exactly what i hate about politics, people just vote for an R or a D. Its really sad, i mean its like people are asleep and dont care. Im a republican, and i was only able to vote for my first time in 2008 and i voted for Obama. It was the lesser of 2 evils, and i hated that...why do we have more choices of cheese burgers on a fast food menus than possible presidents? Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle?? These are peoples choices? We need REAL leaders, people who are willing to tell the truth even if its ugly (no offense to Angle). I think people should demand better........

I still voted Mitt Romney on '08, but then again I am in IL, so my vote didn't really matter. Nevertheless, I look for a three main qualities in a candidate. Do they have a business background, will they cut spending and taxes and will they make a strong commitment to ending illegal immigration. I obvious lean more Republican, but I perfer a blue dog (fiscal conservative, socially moderate) Democrats over a far rightist like DeMitt any day of the week.

I supported Romney too. The other contenders did treat him pretty poorly.

Romney was one of the first governors in America to sign socialized healthcare into law. Kinda undermines that whole conservative thing.

 

[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.

was there actually anything in that post TO debate?

You missed the point of two different posts made by two different posters in one shot. Look on the bright sight. Your stoopidity is getting more efficient.

 

[Intense]

I still voted Mitt Romney on '08, but then again I am in IL, so my vote didn't really matter. Nevertheless, I look for a three main qualities in a candidate. Do they have a business background, will they cut spending and taxes and will they make a strong commitment to ending illegal immigration. I obvious lean more Republican, but I perfer a blue dog (fiscal conservative, socially moderate) Democrats over a far rightist like DeMitt any day of the week.

I supported Romney too. The other contenders did treat him pretty poorly.

Romney was one of the first governors in America to sign socialized healthcare into law. Kinda undermines that whole conservative thing.

Nobody's Perfect. Coming from Massachusetts, of all places, an intervention may have done him well. Just remember, Socialism Bad! Value for Value good! There might still be hope for you CL.

What bothers me most about a system that is so corrupted is that everyone seems to be arguing whether you should have access to that $500.00 Band-Aid. Nobody seems to be concerned with why that Band-Aid is $500.00 dollars and not .50 cents. Government does not insure a fair market place, I wish it was capable of that, but it's not. Government protests it's own employees and interest, feeding off of the rest of us. What it takes it does not give back. Yes we are both on the menu.

 

[Intense]

"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...

And what's Funny is, that is only Directed at Congress... At the time of the Founding, a State Arguably could Declare a Religion...

It's not unlike the 2nd Amendment... Liberals want it to say something it doesn't, so they Find a Court who will take Jefferson's words in a Letter to a Church the HELL out of Context, and Attempt to Rewrite the 1st Amendment.

It's also not unlike Abortion... The Founders would Certainly NOT Support the Act of Aborting a Pregnancy of Convenience, nor would they have Found a place in the Constitution that Legitimized it...

So what Jefferson called "the Despotic Branch" did.



peace...

First trimester abortion was legal throughout the colonies in the 18th century.

I've always been curious about that. Do you have a link?