O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[drsmith1072]

Quick question.

WHY does it INSTANTLY mean there will be an establishment of an official state religion contrary to the EXACT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, unless we apply words THAT DO NOT exist in the Constitution?

I mean that's stupid.



It's already in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It's already there.

So, why do we NEED words that DO NOT EXIST in the Constitution to prevent what is already contained IN the Constitution?

I'll tell you why? Because that isn't ENOUGH for liberals. They do not want to stop Congress from establishing a state religion.

Quite the contrary. They WANT Congress to establish a state religion. THEIR RELIGION OF LIBERALISM. And thus they can tolerate no other religion. All other religions must be censored with the supposed "separation."

That's the dirty little secret, and as usual liberals hide this not so dirty little secret behind a veneer of nobility, a visage of freedom.

But as usual, it always SCREAMS that someone has to be censored for "freedom" to shine. Thus we can't have God showing up! That's competes with their false religion and they don't like that!

Nice to see you agree with a separation of church and state Teabagger Sumo Lie.

This is what liberals do when they lose. They claim you said something you didn't say or agree with them anyway.

Just as they are lying about what O'Donnel said.

That's what liberals do when they lose!

Uh did you miss the fact that you claimed liberals want something that i haven't heard any liberal say that they want??

They WANT Congress to establish a state religion. THEIR RELIGION OF LIBERALISM. And thus they can tolerate no other religion. All other religions must be censored with the supposed "separation."

Do you have a url showing liberals asking for what you claim they want?

Does that mean that you lost since you are engaging in the very tactics you are trying to attack liberals for using??

BTW the only people lying about what o'donnell actually said are her defenders.

 

[manifold]

sigh...so faith based initiatives are unconstitutional?

Could be

Not when the programs are non secular. Food Banks, Pantries, Soup Kitchen's Shelters, Charter Schools, etc.... The key is Non Secular.

I think you meant secular.

And of course if they're secular, then the term "faith based" is a misnomer.

 

[drsmith1072]

Liability I'm a she.

But that's the point. There are idiot liberals who claim "Separation of church and State" is in the Constitution.

You want a stupid lib who claims it's there?

See the Civil Liberties Union!

The separation between Religion & Govt is strongly guarded in the Constitution of the United States. See James Madison's Detached Memoranda

NO SEE THE ACTUAL WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NO WORDS THERE even SUGGESTING a wall. IN FACT there is something there liberals ignore "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF!"

Like stopping prayers at a graduation ceremoney, stopping religious Christmas songs, etc etc etc.

But liberals claim the Constitution bars such activities IN VIOLATION OF THE ACTUAL WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Liberals base their wall on a tissue of LIES to ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RELIGION of LIBERALISM.

And as usual with any oppressive state religion, no competing religion can be allowed. THUS, all other religious expression must be stopped in the name of "freedom."

That's not freedom, that's censorship!

You got to love the way these morons try to claim that because it doesn't specifically state what has become accepted law in the constitution that it was never meant to be.
BTW where in the constitution does it specifically state that the right to bear arms is an individual right??
That was a recent decision by the SCOTUS but is NOT in the actual wording of the constitution therefore according to your spin the right to bear arms is NOT and individual right.
So which is it?? Do we base our discussion on the existing case law and precedent or do we ignore the history and go only word for word based on what is actually written in the constitution?

 

[Intense]

Could be

Not when the programs are non secular. Food Banks, Pantries, Soup Kitchen's Shelters, Charter Schools, etc.... The key is Non Secular.

I think you meant secular.

And of course if they're secular, then the term "faith based" is a misnomer.

I stand corrected. Thanks Manie. When Government takes advantage of the infrastructure set up by the Churches, Temples, Mosques, whatever, every dollar goes much farther, that's a given.

 

[manifold]

Not when the programs are non secular. Food Banks, Pantries, Soup Kitchen's Shelters, Charter Schools, etc.... The key is Non Secular.

I think you meant secular.

And of course if they're secular, then the term "faith based" is a misnomer.

I stand corrected. Thanks Manie. When Government takes advantage of the infrastructure set up by the Churches, Temples, Mosques, whatever, every dollar goes much farther, that's a given.

Actually, that's more of an opinion than a given. And even if it's true, that doesn't mean it's not violating the establishment clause.

 

[drsmith1072]

No I am a fan of doing the right thing saying no is the right thing to do when what is being done is so very wrong. But of course a faggot like you wouldn't understand that. since your so fucked up.

Ever heard of compromise? It's how differing viewpoints get things done together.

But, you're too much of a close minded idiot to see that. Go fuck yourself you racist cocksucker (yeah.....I called you a cocksucker, but you called me a faggot).

Bet your ancestors are really proud of the asshole you've turned out to be.

Picture this: Retarded you driving a car at 120 mph straight toward the cliff. Your front seat passenger is screaming at you, "STOP!"

Your idiot back-seat passenger suggests that you two need to stop arguing. "Compromise," suggests that idiot back-seat passenger. "Slow down to 60!"

Your back-seat passenger isn't only half the idiot you are. You are BOTH complete morons.

The problem with your analogy is that you ignore the fact the republicans were driving the car toward said cliff, then a majority of the passengers chose to replace the republicans and change course and we stopped on the edge of the cliff. Now that we are in the process of pulling away from the edge and changing course to avoid the cliff that republicans were driving toward, republicans are now demanding that they should get back in the drivers seat to continue the direction that they were driving before. Considering the fact that the same leadership that was driving last time will take the wheel this time what do you realistically expect to change IF republicans get back into power??

 

[drsmith1072]

They are not being sent to DC to compromise, They are being sent to fix the shit the democrats fucked up. If they don't keep the crap from taking affect then they will be the party of the DOP

You mean, going to DC to reinstate the fuck ups of the Bush Jr. admin.

Blame BUOOOSH is getting old. Democrats controlled the spending from 2007 until now.

Ignoring history and the reality of where this mess began as you only blame the left is getting prehistoric.

 

[drsmith1072]

And Bush Jr. fucked up the country from 2000 until 2007.

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

Aww here we go with that spin AGAIN. The FACT is that the republicans talked about it but in the end they CHOSE to do NOTHING. Not a single bill was filibustered so how can you honestly blame the left? The sad FACT is that you are blaming the left for the inaction of the right. Typical.

 

[drsmith1072]

Really? What were the unemployment numbers in 2002? He tried to reign in freddy and fanny but the republicans did not have enough votes to stop a thread from the party of NO the democrats.

Hey soup sandwich, the party of No was the GOP.

Try again retard.

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

Does that standard apply to the right too? Especially when you consider how they were against the filibuster before they were for it. Are they hypocritical scumbags too??

BTW how often did the left use the filibuster back then and what does it look like when you compare it to how much the right is using it now??

Furthermore, in case you missed it the attempt to "reign in freddy and fanny" that bigreb is whining about wasn't filibustered. In the end REPUBLICANS CHOSE TO DO NOTHING.

 

[drsmith1072]

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

Bullshit.....there have been MORE filibusters since the GOP lost power than any other time in Congress.

Check the stats you fucking 'tard.

You're trying to stray from the point. Bush tried to reigen in Freddy and fanny the republicans did not have the numbers to bust a threaten fillibuster from the party of NO the democrats.

So in other words republicans CHOSE to do nothing and you are blaming the left for the inaction of the right considering the FACT that the republicans didn't even bother putting a single bill on the floor for a vote. Got it. I guess they must not have tried very hard. LOL

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Yeah well same challenge I've given to all my prey.

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

Then on top of that, I'll walk to the Center of the Oval on THE Ohio State Campus and sing "I'm a Little Tea Pot" at the strike of noon.

Hell, I'll go to the 50 yard line at half time of the Ohio State v. Michigan Game and sing the Michigan Fight Song, if you can find those EXACT words!

Until then "implied meaning" is just liberal for "the Constitution says what WE say it says!"

(And yes, I've actually had a liberals dumb enough to take me up on that bet. Morons, the lot of 'em!)

These are the same idiots who think abortion is in the Constitution because Roe v. Wade says so, BUT think Bush v. Gore or Citizens United proves a run away court system.

The USSC is only the last word on the Constitution when liberals LIKE the decision, NOT when they don't!

no one cares what you do, and no one thinks that you *think* in the generally accepted sense of the term.

carry on

Excuse me, but it's not about what I *think.*

It's what liberals claim is in the Constitution and have been claiming since 1960, which IS "Separation of Church and State."

Just because libs insist it's in the Constitution doesn't make it so, and that's why I set up my bet.

Just because YOU don't like the way I put it, doesn't change it's validity.

Separation of Church and State is a reasonable symbolic representation of the idea of civil government with no authority over religion. It's not the best symbol. But, it is a reasonable one.

 

[drsmith1072]

Not when the GOP was in the majority. THEN the Dims were the Party of NO and the Party of the filibuster. They are hypocritical scumbags -- much like you.

No that's not fair.

Exactly like you.

Bullshit.....there have been MORE filibusters since the GOP lost power than any other time in Congress.

Check the stats you fucking 'tard.

There has been more threat to Liberty since the DNC gained control.

What a crock and such a lame excuse for the party of NO obstructing so much more than their predecessors. LOL

Got any specifics or are we just supposed to take your word for it??

What has the DNC done to threaten Liberty and can you show how every filibuster has been justified in order to protect Liberty??

 

[del]

Yeah well same challenge I've given to all my prey.

When you dumbasses can find the EXACT WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the Constitution, I'll not only leave this forum, I'll become a life long Democrat and ONLY vote liberal.

Then on top of that, I'll walk to the Center of the Oval on THE Ohio State Campus and sing "I'm a Little Tea Pot" at the strike of noon.

Hell, I'll go to the 50 yard line at half time of the Ohio State v. Michigan Game and sing the Michigan Fight Song, if you can find those EXACT words!

Until then "implied meaning" is just liberal for "the Constitution says what WE say it says!"

(And yes, I've actually had a liberals dumb enough to take me up on that bet. Morons, the lot of 'em!)

These are the same idiots who think abortion is in the Constitution because Roe v. Wade says so, BUT think Bush v. Gore or Citizens United proves a run away court system.

The USSC is only the last word on the Constitution when liberals LIKE the decision, NOT when they don't!

no one cares what you do, and no one thinks that you *think* in the generally accepted sense of the term.

carry on

Excuse me, but it's not about what I *think.*

It's what liberals claim is in the Constitution and have been claiming since 1960, which IS "Separation of Church and State."

Just because libs insist it's in the Constitution doesn't make it so, and that's why I set up my bet.

Just because YOU don't like the way I put it, doesn't change it's validity.

well, you're absolutely right about that.

no matter how it's worded or by whom it's said, it's specious bullshit.

congrats, you've won the coveted blind squirrel award.

 

[mal]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

The Convention and the Debates will let you Know what was Intended...

America was NOT going to be Officially Catholic or any other Religion in Law as Fronted by the United States Congress...

Stop the Dishonesty.

The Congress has Opened with a Prayer since the Founding.



peace...

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I see no ambiguity.

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

The Convention and the Debates will let you Know what was Intended...

There is no evidence whatsoever that the men who made the Constitution believed, as they were making the document, that the words in the Constitution would be interpreted according to the Convention and the Debates.

On the other hand, there is a pile of evidence that they took for granted that the Constitution would be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction.

However, unless you know what those rules were, in the late 1700's, they will go right over your head when you read the historical documents generated during the making of the national charter.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The Congress has Opened with a Prayer since the Founding.

If you're taking about the U. S. Congress, that's a myth, dude. The myth is based on a lie, or at least an untruth, told by a Supreme Court Justice in a bogus opinion he wrote.

Here's the entry from the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America for MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1790:

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwsj.html">Senate Journal</a> --MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1790.
​

As you can see, there is no mention of an opening prayer. There is no mention of opening prayer in the records of either the Senate or the House until the mid 1850's.

If you're talking about the Continental Congress, it prayed only once a year most of the time. It established daily prayer in 1777, but it was terminated after four weeks. After the War with Britain ended, there were a couple years with no prayer whatsoever.

 

[Intense]

Bullshit.....there have been MORE filibusters since the GOP lost power than any other time in Congress.

Check the stats you fucking 'tard.

There has been more threat to Liberty since the DNC gained control.

What a crock and such a lame excuse for the party of NO obstructing so much more than their predecessors. LOL

Got any specifics or are we just supposed to take your word for it??

What has the DNC done to threaten Liberty and can you show how every filibuster has been justified in order to protect Liberty??

Your Statist Progressive Agenda is an Offense to Liberty. It is a direct offense. I don't expect you to understand that, without an intervention. A perfect example of the hypocrisy and arbitrary application of flawed reasoning of the left is now playing out with NPR. Liberty, there is no substitute Smith. We need productive contributors, not Parasites. Big Government is the worst of them. You are killing the host.

 

[Intense]

In 1788 - 1791, the words "law", "respecting", "establishment" and "religion" are all ambiguous.

The Convention and the Debates will let you Know what was Intended...

There is no evidence whatsoever that the men who made the Constitution believed, as they were making the document, that the words in the Constitution would be interpreted according to the Convention and the Debates.

On the other hand, there is a pile of evidence that they took for granted that the Constitution would be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction.

However, unless you know what those rules were, in the late 1700's, they will go right over your head when you read the historical documents generated during the making of the national charter.

Federalist Parers are a great tool in discerning. Here is a Site that is one of my favorites.

Liberty Library
of
Constitutional Classics

Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

 

[JimH52]

Who are her handlers, the 3 Stooges?

 

[Liability]

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?

You forgot to look in the penumbras.