Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!

While I can agree with your post...it says nothing about mine.

Jillhag is incorrect in her statement.

What the founders wanted was to avoid a federal religion (like their forefathers had escaped from). But don't kid yourself. They didn't come here looking for freedom of religion. They came here to practice it and to have the state help them. They burned people at the stake and hanged them legally all in the name of "religion" (or theology as the case may be).

And the Constitution did nothing to stop them from doing it at a state level.

pretend constitutionalist rightwingnut scum are funny

…and consistently wrong.

 

[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.

We’ll do better than that, we’ll cite its case law:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

And the First Amendment in fact applies to the states, where the states may not establish an ‘official religion’:

‘The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth [Amendment], commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Let, me guess....Jillihag e-mailed you because she was getting her ass kicked and asked you step in.

And, like always, you completely miss the point and simply start talking out your ass.

HER claim was about the founding fathers. Got that....read it again and again and again...the founders.....

Hence my response.

Your citations are from 1947 and 1948....long after they buried the last founder.

I didn't say it was the case today.

I acknowledge the 14th amendment and it's place in all this.

We were talking history.

Pull your head out of your ass......

 

[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.

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!

While I can agree with your post...it says nothing about mine.

Jillhag is incorrect in her statement.

What the founders wanted was to avoid a federal religion (like their forefathers had escaped from). But don't kid yourself. They didn't come here looking for freedom of religion. They came here to practice it and to have the state help them. They burned people at the stake and hanged them legally all in the name of "religion" (or theology as the case may be).

And the Constitution did nothing to stop them from doing it at a state level.

pretend constitutionalist rightwingnut scum are funny

…and consistently wrong.

Looks who is yacking about being wrong.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Don't address the main points...it's what you do best.

She's the one who uses the term nutter like it was her last name.

And you are hypocrite....didn't you reference PC and a sewer.

GFY

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

you certainly don't need a link to tell you that the states cannot override the federal courts.

Avoiding my request where I asked that you back up your claim that I rely on Renquist.

You are a liar and a fraud.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

thank you. but that's what not-so-bright people like doing to people who know more than they do...especially rightwingnut mysogists in their discussions with women. (note, particularly the use of the word hag simply because he disagrees politically and isn't bright enough to prevail in any actual discussion).

This coming from the hag who can't say five words without using the term nutter...or wingnutter.....

Who can't post an argument to save her life.

But still can throw paper nothings at someone who, at the very least, no matter how correct, forms something close to a formal argument.

You are a liar and a fraud.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

you're kind of a moron.

the link that keeps getting reposted in this thread which says the federal government does not have to be neutral between belief and non belief.

that statement is from a dissent...which is not law and which files in the face of actual law.

do you need a basic primer on law to tell you that a dissent is not law that is why it is a *dissent* and not the *opinion*?

do you need some link telling you about the supremacy clause of the constitution which prohibits the states from granting fewer rights that the federal government?

grow up. learn something. stop being a bitter twit because you don't know what you're talking about.

You are not kind of a moron....you are a huge moron.

What link would that be...you are do lazy to even bring it forward. It suites your purposes because you are a liar to boot.

I didn't reference Renquist's dissent.....nor commented on it. You are essentially making stuff up to argue against.

I need a link for you to show me where I even entered into that discussion.

You...a lawyer ??? That's rich.

 

[jillian]

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!

While I can agree with your post...it says nothing about mine.

Jillhag is incorrect in her statement.

What the founders wanted was to avoid a federal religion (like their forefathers had escaped from). But don't kid yourself. They didn't come here looking for freedom of religion. They came here to practice it and to have the state help them. They burned people at the stake and hanged them legally all in the name of "religion" (or theology as the case may be).

And the Constitution did nothing to stop them from doing it at a state level.

pretend constitutionalist rightwingnut scum are funny

…and consistently wrong.

yes. i do love how they pretend they know more than actual justices

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

You can't even stay on topic.

This is pure deflection on your part....are you a student of Jillihag's.

Do you deny that PC, at least, puts together more than two sentences in her OP's. YES or NO.

Have you shown me where JH posts more than five sentences in a coherent argument ?

 

[jillian]

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.

you're kind of a moron.

the link that keeps getting reposted in this thread which says the federal government does not have to be neutral between belief and non belief.

that statement is from a dissent...which is not law and which files in the face of actual law.

do you need a basic primer on law to tell you that a dissent is not law that is why it is a *dissent* and not the *opinion*?

do you need some link telling you about the supremacy clause of the constitution which prohibits the states from granting fewer rights that the federal government?

grow up. learn something. stop being a bitter twit because you don't know what you're talking about.

You are not kind of a moron....you are a huge moron.

What link would that be...you are do lazy to even bring it forward. It suites your purposes because you are a liar to boot.

I didn't reference Renquist's dissent.....nor commented on it. You are essentially making stuff up to argue against.

I need a link for you to show me where I even entered into that discussion.

You...a lawyer ??? That's rich.

you wish.

and i know what i get paid for.

some rightwingnut troll's opinion notwithstanding.

but please go back to your bitter and petty little life.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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!

While I can agree with your post...it says nothing about mine.

Jillhag is incorrect in her statement.

What the founders wanted was to avoid a federal religion (like their forefathers had escaped from). But don't kid yourself. They didn't come here looking for freedom of religion. They came here to practice it and to have the state help them. They burned people at the stake and hanged them legally all in the name of "religion" (or theology as the case may be).

And the Constitution did nothing to stop them from doing it at a state level.

pretend constitutionalist rightwingnut scum are funny

…and consistently wrong.

yes. i do love how they pretend they know more than actual justices

Not that you could ever show where that actually occurred.

For a liar and fraud, you are pretty pathetic.

Some people try to make their lies look reasonable.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

you're kind of a moron.

the link that keeps getting reposted in this thread which says the federal government does not have to be neutral between belief and non belief.

that statement is from a dissent...which is not law and which files in the face of actual law.

do you need a basic primer on law to tell you that a dissent is not law that is why it is a *dissent* and not the *opinion*?

do you need some link telling you about the supremacy clause of the constitution which prohibits the states from granting fewer rights that the federal government?

grow up. learn something. stop being a bitter twit because you don't know what you're talking about.

You are not kind of a moron....you are a huge moron.

What link would that be...you are do lazy to even bring it forward. It suites your purposes because you are a liar to boot.

I didn't reference Renquist's dissent.....nor commented on it. You are essentially making stuff up to argue against.

I need a link for you to show me where I even entered into that discussion.

You...a lawyer ??? That's rich.

you wish.

and i know what i get paid for.

some rightwingnut troll's opinion notwithstanding.

but please go back to your bitter and petty little life.

Awwww.......

I am sure you get paid for something.......

Arguing cases it isn't.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

Why do you keep wondering off track......

Jillhag, the moron was commenting on the founders.

When was the 14th ratified ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

thank you. but that's what not-so-bright people like doing to people who know more than they do...especially rightwingnut mysogists in their discussions with women. (note, particularly the use of the word hag simply because he disagrees politically and isn't bright enough to prevail in any actual discussion).

BTW: asswipe...

It was BlueGin, a female, who coined the phrase.

It just happens to fit.

 

[jillian]

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.

You can't even stay on topic.

This is pure deflection on your part....are you a student of Jillihag's.

Do you deny that PC, at least, puts together more than two sentences in her OP's. YES or NO.

Have you shown me where JH posts more than five sentences in a coherent argument ?

PC is the cut and paste queen. and we've been reading her cut and paste garbage for years.

but i'm sure she thrives on ignorant sycophants like you who think she knows anything.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

You can't even stay on topic.

This is pure deflection on your part....are you a student of Jillihag's.

Do you deny that PC, at least, puts together more than two sentences in her OP's. YES or NO.

Have you shown me where JH posts more than five sentences in a coherent argument ?

PC is the cut and paste queen. and we've been reading her cut and paste garbage for years.

but i'm sure she thrives on ignorant sycophants like you who think she knows anything.

Never said she knew anything....

Even cut and paste is better than your two line (argument-less) commentary.

I was commenting on her efforts to, at least, make an argument.

And how you are to lazy to even try.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

You can't even stay on topic.

This is pure deflection on your part....are you a student of Jillihag's.

Do you deny that PC, at least, puts together more than two sentences in her OP's. YES or NO.

Have you shown me where JH posts more than five sentences in a coherent argument ?

PC is the cut and paste queen. and we've been reading her cut and paste garbage for years.

but i'm sure she thrives on ignorant sycophants like you who think she knows anything.

Funny you admit it's garbage but you keep reading it....for years.....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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....

Still looking for that link that backs your claim I rely on a dissent by Rhenquist.

Liar.

 

[jillian]

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.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

Why do you keep wondering off track......

Jillhag, the moron was commenting on the founders.

When was the 14th ratified ?

all of which is irrelevant, idiota. and therein lies your fail.

but i think it's cute that you can't distinguish between a cut and paste queen and someone who's told you the status of the law.

what people said over 200 years ago is lovely....but ultimately not relevant.

 

[jillian]

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....

Still looking for that link that backs your claim I rely on a dissent by Rhenquist.

Liar.

t's been explained to you multiple times...as has the ridiculousness and ignorance of pretty much everything your little idol PC says.


so keep looking little boy.

and just because you're a compulsive liar, don't project your epic fail onto anyone else.