Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
Of course Rehnquist was correct.
"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."
And you're actually denying that.
What a good little fascist you've become.
Based on her posts,
PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.
Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.
I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.
Looking forward to that link.
I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.
first of all, loser.... it's jillian. there is nothing remotely haggish about me....except of course to misogynist rightwingnut pond scum.
i have answered you. you're an ignorant twit who relies on nonsense from a dissent by rhenquist....
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
Of course Rehnquist was correct.
"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."
And you're actually denying that.
What a good little fascist you've become.
Based on her posts,
PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.
Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.
I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.
Looking forward to that link.
I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.
The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.
Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.
you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.
you're welcome, dearie
Of course Rehnquist was correct.
"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."
And you're actually denying that.
What a good little fascist you've become.
Based on her posts,
PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.
Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.
I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.
Looking forward to that link.
I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.
The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.
Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.
At least you've got something to chew on.
You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.
you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.
you're welcome, dearie
Of course Rehnquist was correct.
"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."
And you're actually denying that.
What a good little fascist you've become.
The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.
It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.
Christian of course.
As long as we are clear on the first sentence.
As to the rest, I don't know.
This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.
Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.
the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.
the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.
otherwise whose religion takes preference?
mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?
and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.
It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.
Of course Rehnquist was correct.
"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."
And you're actually denying that.
What a good little fascist you've become.
Based on her posts,
PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.
Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.
I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.
Looking forward to that link.
I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.
The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.
Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.
At least you've got something to chew on.
You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.
it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.
the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.
Of course Rehnquist was correct.
"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."
And you're actually denying that.
What a good little fascist you've become.
The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.
It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.
Christian of course.
As long as we are clear on the first sentence.
As to the rest, I don't know.
This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.
Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.
the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.
the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.
otherwise whose religion takes preference?
mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?
and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.
It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.
which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.
you're welcome
The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.
It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.
Christian of course.
As long as we are clear on the first sentence.
As to the rest, I don't know.
This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.
Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.
the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.
the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.
otherwise whose religion takes preference?
mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?
and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.
It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.
which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.
you're welcome
Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.
Still no link ? Didn't think so.
Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.
As long as we are clear on the first sentence.
As to the rest, I don't know.
This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.
Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.
the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.
the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.
otherwise whose religion takes preference?
mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?
and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.
It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.
which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.
you're welcome
Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.
Still no link ? Didn't think so.
Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.
what is it you think you need a link to?
you're making things up. i'm telling you they're incorrect.
As long as we are clear on the first sentence.
As to the rest, I don't know.
This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.
Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.
the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.
the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.
otherwise whose religion takes preference?
mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?
and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.
It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.
which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.
you're welcome
Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.
Still no link ? Didn't think so.
Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.
what is it you think you need a link to?
you're making things up. i'm telling you they're incorrect.
Based on her posts,
PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.
Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.
I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.
Looking forward to that link.
I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.
The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.
Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.
At least you've got something to chew on.
You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.
it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.
the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.
That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....
Are you drunk.....?
We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.
Stay out of things you know nothing about.
And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.
For NYcarbineer
An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....
There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....
My point was that PC at least strings it together.....
Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.
the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.
the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.
otherwise whose religion takes preference?
mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?
and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.
It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.
which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.
you're welcome
Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.
Still no link ? Didn't think so.
Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.
what is it you think you need a link to?
you're making things up. i'm telling you they're incorrect.
Post 216...you said I rely on a dissent by Renquist.....
I have not quoted or alluded to anything he said.....
You can't produce....you are a liar and a fraud.
Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.
I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.
Looking forward to that link.
I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.
The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.
Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.
At least you've got something to chew on.
You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.
it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.
the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.
That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....
Are you drunk.....?
We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.
Stay out of things you know nothing about.
And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.
For NYcarbineer
An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....
There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....
My point was that PC at least strings it together.....
Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.
Ridicule is another form of fallacious argument, which happens to be what you're doing with jillian.
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.
That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.
Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....
Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.
States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.
Pretty simple.
That is only relevant to you.
There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.
BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.
Stop deflecting.....
I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......
Thank heavens it never made it.
And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?
Please show me.....
If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.
That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.
You've been proven wrong repeatedly on this. The American Civil War was bloodier than the French Revolution.
The French Wars of Religion were bloodier than the French Revolution.
Both of those facts go unrefuted. You lose.
Now throw us another of your memorable tantrums.
^ thatlol
You can’t be serious.
This thread’s moronic premise is nothing but a rightwing whine-fest; all conservatives do is complain – everything’s ‘bad,’ everything’s ‘wrong,’ and Christians are always ‘the victims.’
Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.
More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.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."
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
How about we simply say I'm somewhere between you and educated, and leave it at that.
Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.
there is that.
yeah PoliSpice. Sheesh!!!"They were thrown into a hole in the ground...the ground was moving..." Many were buried alive.
So.....yeah....really, you dunce.
And how was that any different than what we did to the Native Americans and Filipinos, what the British did all over their empire, or what the God-fearing Nazis did all over Europe with the Pope's blessing.
Human beings tend to be pretty shitty to each other. They are shittier when they believe a magic fairy in the sky approves of their actions.
