Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Inthemiddle]

Neither Santorum or Romney can beat Obama.

Santorum, definitely not. Romney is a different story. If he stops putting his feet in his mouth with stupid things, like $10,000 bets, he very well could beat Obama. Romney has the ability to potentially pull in alot of swing votes and independent votes, which is Obama's strength. Obama thinks he wants to take on Romney, but he's stupid to think so. Out of the major GOP candidates Romney has been the one who always had the best chance against Obama.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You can always tell how the GOP are doing in an election by how pathetic their attacks get. Can't attack Obama on his Economic or Foreign policy, talk about seperation of church and state or gay marriage or solyndra or abortion.

Based on all the threads, I say Republicans are in big trouble come November. Neither Santorum or Romney can beat Obama. Even if gas goes to $5 a gallon, we all know who's in bed with the oil companies. And if you don't, its the GOP.

Solyndra is fair game.
Seperation of church and state, gay marriage and abortion are why we have the kook in office now.
If the Republicans backed off the gay marriage boogeyman issue and left abortion issue alone and to the states there would be a Republican President for the next 50 years.
Plenty of gay folk and moderate women that are fiscal conservatives.
Romney can beat Obama. SOMEONE needs to beat Obama.
Small business can not afford 4 more years of a nice guy that has no clue about the business world.

'

we agree there, if the Republicans would just shut up about gay marraige and abortion. They could beat bammer.

 

[koshergrl]

He has a clue about the business world. HE DOESN'T CARE. He wants to see America brought down, and the rest of the world brought level with her. He's all about a new world order.

This has been obvious from the beginning. The left says it's not true...but they, like he, are LYING when they say this. Because it's what they want, too.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The secular perspective in public policy is a myth.

There is no secular perspective. There is only the guarantee that our federal government will not establish a state religion, and the guarantee that the state shall never prevent us from adhering to our own religions as we see fit. Openly, without shame, and with absolutely no interference.

My religion demands that I have lots of unfettered sex, rely on birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and affirm the validity of marriage between members of the same gender. Something tells me, you think the government should discourage all of this.

 

[koshergrl]

The secular perspective in public policy is a myth.

There is no secular perspective. There is only the guarantee that our federal government will not establish a state religion, and the guarantee that the state shall never prevent us from adhering to our own religions as we see fit. Openly, without shame, and with absolutely no interference.

My religion demands that I have lots of unfettered sex, rely on birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and affirm the validity of marriage between members of the same gender. Something tells me, you think the government should discourage all of this.

I don't care if you have sex.
Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex. You have to change the language to make it exist.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The secular perspective in public policy is a myth.

There is no secular perspective. There is only the guarantee that our federal government will not establish a state religion, and the guarantee that the state shall never prevent us from adhering to our own religions as we see fit. Openly, without shame, and with absolutely no interference.

My religion demands that I have lots of unfettered sex, rely on birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and affirm the validity of marriage between members of the same gender. Something tells me, you think the government should discourage all of this.

I don't care if you have sex.
Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex. You have to change the language to make it exist.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

Don't let them suck you into that stupid game of well what if my religion meant violating the rights of others.


PS who gives a shit if some "religion" calls two gays married? As long as mine isn't required to.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex.

According to my religion, there is.

You have to change the language to make it exist.

We've already been over this. You've already been presented with several sources illustrating the fact that same sex marriage has been understood for thousands of years, nearly the entire world over.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

So, we must adopt the position that birth control is killing someone, because that's what your religion teaches, and reject what my religion teaches. Thank you for proving that what you want isn't religious freedom, it's government enforcement of your particular religious views, even if it infringes upon someone else's religion.

 

[bodecea]

The secular perspective in public policy is a myth.

There is no secular perspective. There is only the guarantee that our federal government will not establish a state religion, and the guarantee that the state shall never prevent us from adhering to our own religions as we see fit. Openly, without shame, and with absolutely no interference.

My religion demands that I have lots of unfettered sex, rely on birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and affirm the validity of marriage between members of the same gender. Something tells me, you think the government should discourage all of this.

I don't care if you have sex.
Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex. You have to change the language to make it exist.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

Um....yes there is. My wife and I are legally married in the state of California.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

First Amendment fail

It doesn't call for separation of Church and State. Merely calls for no official religion.

Incorrect. See: Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Actually Unknown Soldier is correct in that the First Amendment addressed the issue of an "establishment" of ONE national denomination that other denominations or faiths must conform to. This Amendment was meant to bring about a freedom OF religion to worship as their faith desires, never a freedom FROM religion as the left likes to make others believe with this "wall of separation" misinterpretation. You have to go further back, all the way to 1853 and 1854 to learn the TRUE intent surrounding what the Founder Fathers meant by Freedom of Religion and establishment. I do believe those who made statements stating the intent of the First Amendment back in 1853 and 1854 knew more about the ORIGINAL meaning behind what was written, than those interpreting it on a case presented as late as March 8, 1948.

Congress of the United States of America January 19, 1853
, as part of a Congressional investigation, records the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communions,-such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion..." They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people... . They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits... . Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.

Here is a recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath, in exclusion of the Jewish or Mohammedan Sabbath... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect.

We are a Christian people... not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity.

Congress of the United States of America March 27, 1854
, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was as established religion without all these...

At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government...

Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.

It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment,-without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.

In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion.

 

[paperview]

The secular perspective in public policy is a myth.

There is no secular perspective. There is only the guarantee that our federal government will not establish a state religion, and the guarantee that the state shall never prevent us from adhering to our own religions as we see fit. Openly, without shame, and with absolutely no interference.

My religion demands that I have lots of unfettered sex, rely on birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and affirm the validity of marriage between members of the same gender. Something tells me, you think the government should discourage all of this.

I don't care if you have sex.
Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex. You have to change the language to make it exist.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

Legal in my state.

Too bad you don't like it.

 

[Big Fitz]

You can always tell how the GOP are doing in an election by how pathetic their attacks get. Can't attack Obama on his Economic or Foreign policy, talk about seperation of church and state or gay marriage or solyndra or abortion.

Based on all the threads, I say Republicans are in big trouble come November. Neither Santorum or Romney can beat Obama. Even if gas goes to $5 a gallon, we all know who's in bed with the oil companies. And if you don't, its the GOP.

Uhhhh.... The left brought up contraception, after trying to get away with brushing subjugating religion to the state first under the carpet after it became obvious it was going to cost P-BO and every supporter of that policy their job.

We're not freaking out. We're outraged at how far you guys are trying to go. Spinning it to say we are worried about it is just lying to yourself, not us.

 

[paperview]

Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex.

According to my religion, there is.

You have to change the language to make it exist.

We've already been over this. You've already been presented with several sources illustrating the fact that same sex marriage has been understood for thousands of years, nearly the entire world over.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

So, we must adopt the position that birth control is killing someone, because that's what your religion teaches, and reject what my religion teaches. Thank you for proving that what you want isn't religious freedom, it's government enforcement of your particular religious views, even if it infringes upon someone else's religion.

Have I told you lately how much I appreciate reading your posts?

 

[Pheonixops]

There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment

LOL, true, but Santorum is still a jerk.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex.

According to my religion, there is.

You have to change the language to make it exist.

We've already been over this. You've already been presented with several sources illustrating the fact that same sex marriage has been understood for thousands of years, nearly the entire world over.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

So, we must adopt the position that birth control is killing someone, because that's what your religion teaches, and reject what my religion teaches. Thank you for proving that what you want isn't religious freedom, it's government enforcement of your particular religious views, even if it infringes upon someone else's religion.

Yep...Koshergrl made that very clear even if that was not her intent.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex.

According to my religion, there is.

You have to change the language to make it exist.

We've already been over this. You've already been presented with several sources illustrating the fact that same sex marriage has been understood for thousands of years, nearly the entire world over.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

So, we must adopt the position that birth control is killing someone, because that's what your religion teaches, and reject what my religion teaches. Thank you for proving that what you want isn't religious freedom, it's government enforcement of your particular religious views, even if it infringes upon someone else's religion.

Do you acknowledge that your "side" is as equally guilty of the "my way or the highway" bullshit as those you gripe about?

For instance, in another thread your "side" is screaming that you have a right to FORCE someone to sell you a certain produce, all the while screaming that no one has a right to FORCE you accept that gay marriage isn't legal.

Both sides are correct, the government does NOT have the right..... I wish more people would see that.

 

[koshergrl]

If by 'birth control" you mean killing a child in it's early stages of development, yeah, I'm against it. I'm against killing old people cuz they are in the way as well.

If by "birth control" you mean contraceptives, nah, I'm not anti-contraceptive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He very clearly stated that the notion that people of faith have no role in the public square makes him want to throw up…

That’s equally ridiculous as it is not true. There is nothing prohibiting a person of faith from expressing that faith in any public venue.

He may not, however, use the official apparatus of the state as a conduit of that expression. But this should be of consequence only to those who feel the need to compel others to abide their faith, as prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

I have to say that the idea that some on the left either knowingly or not pass on to the rest of us that people of faith should not be allowed to participate in government makes me want to throw up too. It is as disgusting to me as making the claim that atheist or muslims should not be allowed to participate in politics.

No one on the left is advocating that people of faith should not participate in government. The problem is what defines ‘participate in government.’

If by ‘participate in government’ a person of faith means that his religious dogma must be codified in secular law, then no, that is not allowed per the Constitution, having nothing to do with ‘left’ or ‘right.’

Seperation of Church and State not in the constitution. Get over it.

And the above, unfortunately, is representative of why the discussion comes to an impasse: if there is no acknowledgement of the fact of judicial review and the Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution, then further ‘debate’ is pointless.

They are there to interpret the Constitution based upon previous points of view supported by researched documentation dating back to earlier Supreme Court decisions, and legislation that effect the view points of when that ammendment was originally written within the context of those who wrote it. It doesn't mean taking a phrase out of context from its original intent, or throw your own "view" without the ability to provide any previous supported Constitutional judicial case decisions, but rather based soly upon what you think it OUGHT to say.

And who decided that ‘original’ original intent? All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation, there was no consensus by any of the Framers as to any part of the Constitution, save that the Founding Document was to indeed be subjected to judicial review and interpretation by the courts.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry, there's no such thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex.

According to my religion, there is.

Good, then you can get married by one of your church leaders.



We've already been over this. You've already been presented with several sources illustrating the fact that same sex marriage has been understood for thousands of years, nearly the entire world over.

But if your religion requires you to kill, that's a problem. The right to life trumps religious liberty. Sorry.

So, we must adopt the position that birth control is killing someone, because that's what your religion teaches, and reject what my religion teaches. Thank you for proving that what you want isn't religious freedom, it's government enforcement of your particular religious views, even if it infringes upon someone else's religion.

Abortion is murder. It isn't a contraceptive. It's murder. It's birth control in the sense that you control the birth to allow you to deliver a dead baby, and no, I don't support the form of birth control that requires someone to chop up a baby and deliver it.

Do you acknowledge that your "side" is as equally guilty of the "my way or the highway" bullshit as those you gripe about?

When it comes to human rights, there is only one way...or the highway.

For instance, in another thread your "side" is screaming that you have a right to FORCE someone to sell you a certain produce, all the while screaming that no one has a right to FORCE you accept that gay marriage isn't legal.

Both sides are correct, the government does NOT have the right..... I wish more people would see that.

Yawn.

 

[Big Fitz]

God is not in The Constitution.
Get over it. Religion has no place in government.
We intend to keep it out. Those of us that value our faith and religous beliefs more than politics.

Yes, but God is not barred from the Constitution either. The two are not mutually incompatible. That said, we have a lot of protections from any law being crafted to force any religion on us, save it seems, for Atheism/Humanism/Secularism. I suspect that is because of the current bias in this nation for these ideas and the general tolerance of the Christian majority.

We are not a majority rule nation as The Constitution protects the rights of the individual, not the majority.
The Founders knowing that the majority of citizens WERE Christian and religous had a great influence in them not mentioning God in The Constitution and not naming Christianity as the national religion when that was proposed by many at the convention.
We are a nation OF LAW, not men and their various and changing like the wind religous beliefs and ideology.

Yes, but that also means that you cannot prohibit God from government either. The individual Christian's beliefs are just as protected as the voodoo priest or imam.

A nation of law, yes. Not of men. But men are inseperable from their religious beliefs (no matter how they choose to couch them for even denying religion follows the same principles) and therefore cannot be used to disqualify any elected official and the free exercise of their faith in or out of office, so long as their faith does not violate any law of the land.

Most atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists have forgotten, that their faith is protected too, for no one can force them to worship any way they do not believe. On the other hand, there is no 'freedom from religious offense' either. Just because I find Santeria offensive doesn't mean I have a right to shut down any elected official or public display of it so long as it does not violate any laws or infringes on the right of another to continue their life.

The rights of the individual are protected, even if there is a majority of them.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment

LOL, true, but Santorum is still a jerk.

So don't vote for him. Millions won't. But millions will for just that very reason.