Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[Sun Devil 92]

Of course they do. Come on over and I'll make you a sandwich. No strings attached.

Yeah....but what is that strange smell coming from the basement....?

Why don't you ask him where he got the stuff to make a sandwich.

You might get it for free....but the stuff didn't just show up.

It's likely his mother got it from a Wal-Mart.....and I don't expect that was free.

I didn't say it was free for me to supply his free lunch.

You said free lunches exist.

Apparently, you (like most left wingers) see it as free as long as it means free to you.

Just like "freedom" to most right wingers means "freedom to enforce my point of view".

I just finished saying that it isn't free for me to provide that free lunch for him.

You're kinda stupid, aren't you?

He asked if free lunches exist.

You said..."sure they do".

I was just pointing that out.

I don't need to ask you if you are stupid....it's very apparent.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

[


At the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US Constitution was designed to stamp that out.

From the MA Constitution of 1780:

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected..."

No it wasn't....not at the state level.

States had state sponsored religions into the early 1830's and nobody ever challenged them.

They were simply written out of the state constitutions.

 

[Synthaholic]

He asked if free lunches exist.

You said..."sure they do".

I was just pointing that out.

I said that because it's true.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

What proof do you have that they wanted religion far away from government.

Please don't cite the first amendment.

It says "no laws respecting the establishment of religion".....guess what.

States could and did establish religions.....most of those colonies were divided along lines of religion and they were allowed to keep that.

And that is the beauty of the Constitution as a piece of diplomacy between the states! Again it demonstrates itself as a political tool, a 'subtle' agreement, a propaganda piece to unite the colonies!

Yes, most states had a " state" religion, but few were identical! And no one group of christian wanted a different brand of Christianity dictating to them.

The Constitution said that it would not submit to any religious group and hence you could practice your brand of Christianity as the way you see it without fear of the federal government!

The major part that most modern Christians miss is that in the day of our forefathers, the different christian sects were bitter rivals. They would start fights based on their different understandings of their bible. Hell, some did not have the exact copy of the bible! To unite this group of self-righteous Christians, the constitution declared not to take a side in the argument. In other words, play a neutral role in the argument.

Many people like to claim that we are a christian nation. If so, then it is a nondenominational one at best. Which means no christian group has a claim over it.

But, if this is the case. That is, our nation is founded on nondenominational christian principles, then it can not recognize any other christian group as its model!

You may think this is not a problem, until you try to find the bible that our government supposedly. Turns out, there is no bible mandated by the federal government. It can not by way of the first amendment!!

Hence, America is not a christian nation. It is a nonreligious secular nation. Nonreligious through compromise by the various different state religions that could not see eye to eye to form a simple compromise on which denomination the government should follow!

Yes, Christians did help found it. No, it is not christian because the various denominations at the time did not trust each other!

Thomas Jefferson Wall Of Separation Letter


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

So, are you saying Our government is a vehicle for Christianity?

If so, which denomination?

PS--you could search our forefathers works, letters and use their opinions as much as you like. The government is secular through compromise. Not because deists just thought secularism is idea. Because the various christian groups did not trust one being more powerful than another..

Our federal government wasn't going to be one.....

But there was never any intent to disallow states to encourage and support a particular denomination.

I suspect, carried to the extreme, South Carolina would have been a muslim state and been O.K.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

He asked if free lunches exist.

You said..."sure they do".

I was just pointing that out.

I said that because it's true.

Thanks for pointing that out.

You are welcome.

Now, I'll repeate....free is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]I didn't say it was free for me to supply his free lunch.[/QUOTE]

Poli first talked about a free lunch. Synthaholic kindly offered one when he read a post questioning her about the cost free meal. It's my lunch; hands off! Stop saying, "Thou shalt not, Syn!"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't ya' just love it when the villains get what they deserve, a dose of their own medicine?
I sure do.


1. Can you imagine....secularists squealing like stuck pigs when their own methods are used against them!
'...a consummation devoutly to be wished....'


First.....those methods....then that example.



2. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

That's why the hatred comes out whenever they see folks who are religious.




3. The change in America, from a spiritual to a materialist entity, is largely due to the efforts of the 32nd President. He promised all sorts of material rewards, if America would only give up the individualism, and freedoms that the Founders embodied in the Constitution.
He promised rewards such as

· Employment(right to work)

· Food, clothing and leisure, viaenough income to support them

· Farmers' rights to a fair income

· Freedom fromunfair competitionandmonopolies

· Housing

· Medical care

· Social security
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights
Kind of a 'worker's paradise,' huh?
I wonder where he got that idea.



4. And for these material benefits, all Americans had to do was give up our birthright...Individuals who have had the benefit of an education recognize this.

"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."


5. While America was founded on this view:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

...it has become inculcated with this one:

" Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices."
Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


....the very antithesis of 'a moral and religious people.'
The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

Oh, good - another FAIL thread from PC. Can never have too many of those!

Wait.....aren't you the moron who wrote this:

....."All You Have To Know About Obama: "Best president in over 50 years

• Prevented Iran from amassing nuclear weapons
• Restored respect for America globally"

You wrote that, didn't you.


1. And we find that Obama has made certain that Iran gets a nuclear bomb...

and...


2. Let's gauge that "respect"...


Obama normalizes relatioins with another bastion of repression....Cuba....and let's see what great 'respect' Cuba showed:

"Normalizing U.S. Relations With Cuba Leads to Escalation in Repression of Cuban Dissidents"NORMALIZING U.S. RELATIONS WITH CUBA LEADS TO ESCALATION IN REPRESSION OF CUBAN DISSIDENTS, Sweet Land of Liberty



Wait...,.some dunce said"Best president in over 50 years....Restored respect for America globally"

Oh...wait....that dunce is you!!!!!!

Was normalizing relations with Cuba dependent upon them treating their dissidents better?

No. You lose again.

Was the Iran Deal dependent upon them releasing all Americans from their prisons?

No. You lose again.

Is President Obama (praise be unto Him!) the best president in 50 years?

Yes. You lose again.

Fortunately, America won.

C'mon....say it again....

....."All You Have To Know About Obama: "Best president in over 50 years

• Prevented Iran from amassing nuclear weapons
• Restored respect for America globally"

You wrote that, didn't you.


C'mon.....one more time: folks can always use a good laugh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


At the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US Constitution was designed to stamp that out.

From the MA Constitution of 1780:

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected..."

No it wasn't....not at the state level.

States had state sponsored religions into the early 1830's and nobody ever challenged them.

They were simply written out of the state constitutions.

They were written out of state constitutions as the Framers expected they would be if it were written INTO the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

[


At the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US Constitution was designed to stamp that out.

From the MA Constitution of 1780:

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected..."

No it wasn't....not at the state level.

States had state sponsored religions into the early 1830's and nobody ever challenged them.

They were simply written out of the state constitutions.

They were written out of state constitutions as the Framers expected they would be if it were written INTO the Constitution.

Garbage....

If it had been written into the Constitution, states would have been obliged.

The framers essentially acknowledged that the colonies were often formed to preserve specific religious POV.

Jefferson's famous letter came about because of his exasperation with the Congregationalists in the north who were electioneering from the pulpit (as they were allowed to do) against him.

 

[jillian]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is what I googled...

"Images for michelle obama school lunch"

That one of the pics.....

Your Google results are based on what you have previously searched for. If you're a wingnut, you'll get results from other wingnuts.

Just another subject you're ignorant about.

Get used to it: I'm never wrong.


"Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!)

Read more: Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!) - The Political Insider

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

 

[jillian]

[


At the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US Constitution was designed to stamp that out.

From the MA Constitution of 1780:

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected..."

No it wasn't....not at the state level.

States had state sponsored religions into the early 1830's and nobody ever challenged them.

They were simply written out of the state constitutions.

They were written out of state constitutions as the Framers expected they would be if it were written INTO the Constitution.

Garbage....

If it had been written into the Constitution, states would have been obliged.

The framers essentially acknowledged that the colonies were often formed to preserve specific religious POV.

Jefferson's famous letter came about because of his exasperation with the Congregationalists in the north who were electioneering from the pulpit (as they were allowed to do) against him.

no, dearie...the political opinions of politicians who differed from each other like politicians today are irrelevant. all that is relevant is the constitution, it's caselaw and our federal laws on those subjects.

you people really should learn something before you post.

 

[jillian]

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

The ban on religious tests for holding office in the Constitution proves you wrong.

Oh and btw,

a Judge's opinion in a DISSENT, as you posted from Rehnquist...

...is the opinion of the side that LOST the case.

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

the states can't overturn the holdings of the supreme court.

the federal laws are the law of the land.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

[


At the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US Constitution was designed to stamp that out.

From the MA Constitution of 1780:

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected..."

No it wasn't....not at the state level.

States had state sponsored religions into the early 1830's and nobody ever challenged them.

They were simply written out of the state constitutions.

They were written out of state constitutions as the Framers expected they would be if it were written INTO the Constitution.

Garbage....

If it had been written into the Constitution, states would have been obliged.

The framers essentially acknowledged that the colonies were often formed to preserve specific religious POV.

Jefferson's famous letter came about because of his exasperation with the Congregationalists in the north who were electioneering from the pulpit (as they were allowed to do) against him.

no, dearie...the political opinions of politicians who differed from each other like politicians today are irrelevant. all that is relevant is the constitution, it's caselaw and our federal laws on those subjects.

you people really should learn something before you post.

We are talking history you stupid jackass.

Not what is going on today.

You should look into having your head pulled from your ass before you post.

 

[jillian]

This is what I googled...

"Images for michelle obama school lunch"

That one of the pics.....

Your Google results are based on what you have previously searched for. If you're a wingnut, you'll get results from other wingnuts.

Just another subject you're ignorant about.

Get used to it: I'm never wrong.


"Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!)

Read more: Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!) - The Political Insider

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

if only you knew as much as you wished you did

 

[jillian]

And the US Constitution was designed to stamp that out.

From the MA Constitution of 1780:

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected..."

No it wasn't....not at the state level.

States had state sponsored religions into the early 1830's and nobody ever challenged them.

They were simply written out of the state constitutions.

They were written out of state constitutions as the Framers expected they would be if it were written INTO the Constitution.

Garbage....

If it had been written into the Constitution, states would have been obliged.

The framers essentially acknowledged that the colonies were often formed to preserve specific religious POV.

Jefferson's famous letter came about because of his exasperation with the Congregationalists in the north who were electioneering from the pulpit (as they were allowed to do) against him.

no, dearie...the political opinions of politicians who differed from each other like politicians today are irrelevant. all that is relevant is the constitution, it's caselaw and our federal laws on those subjects.

you people really should learn something before you post.

We are talking history you stupid jackass.

Not what is going on today.

You should look into having your head pulled from your ass before you post.

which is not enforceable law, you braindead ignorant wing nut