Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[thereisnospoon]

Yes, but God is not barred from the Constitution either. The two are not mutually incompatible.

Whose God? Let me guess, yours, but not mine.

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.

Secularism is not a religion. Nor is Atheism synonymous with secularism. There are many deeply spiritual people, like myself, who support maintaining a secular perspective in public policy, so as to protect all people of all spiritual persuasions.

That does not mean "to the extent of excluding religion from public life"..
In other words, we have freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.
This entire issue boils down to the exclusion of Christianity which liberals look upon as the religion of the oppressor. So the political left has been incrementally chipping away at the rights of Christians. They couch their objection to Christians in that they don't want to offend people of other religions or non believers.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes, but God is not barred from the Constitution either. The two are not mutually incompatible.

Whose God? Let me guess, yours, but not mine.

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.

Secularism is not a religion. Nor is Atheism synonymous with secularism. There are many deeply spiritual people, like myself, who support maintaining a secular perspective in public policy, so as to protect all people of all spiritual persuasions.

Any god. Of course, I won't vote for non-Christians unless I believe that they will protect my right to BE a Christian and I support their governmental policies.

Nothing wrong with that. You project much that is not there save your own fantasy.

re·li·gion

  http://www.usmessageboard.com/# /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Let's see. Secularism, Humanism, Atheism... these all meet the definition of religion. Their 'deity' may not be personified in any particular form or something supernatural, but it is a focus on the concept of some set of rules and reasons as to answer 'why' reality is the way they believe.

So, fail again.

 

[Cowman]

Theocracy is probably Santorum's ideal government type.

 

[Big Fitz]

Theocracy is probably Santorum's ideal government type.

highly assumptive. You have a reason to base that on, outside of an innate hatred for Christians and their faith? Would you hate muslim or Jewish theocratic rule ?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

It's based upon DOCUMENTATED cases and legislation going back closer to when the Amendment was passed. I'd trust an interpretation of the First Amendment from statements back in 1853 before I look to one a hundred years later, from those judges who have a greater chance at losing it's original meaning. Are you really that clueless to understanding what is meant by past documented judicial cases or Congressional statements that is more capable of presenting the best "original" meaning behind a Constitutional amendment?

 

[Political Junky]

Theocracy is probably Santorum's ideal government type.

You betcha. He's not even pretending otherwise.

 

[Cowman]

Theocracy is probably Santorum's ideal government type.

highly assumptive. You have a reason to base that on, outside of an innate hatred for Christians and their faith? Would you hate muslim or Jewish theocratic rule ?

Innate hatred for Christians in their faith? LOL. My family is Christian. I used to be devoutly Christian but am not anymore. I know the dark side of Christianity but I do not hate it.

And fuck no would I want to live under Muslim or Jewish theocratic rule either. All three religious are highly misogynistic and have ridiculous rules in each of their holy laws.

And of course it's assumptive on my part. I can't say with any knowledge of what Santorum prefers, but he's always talking about pushing religious law into the government and have American citizens follow it... which is entirely what our country is against and absolutely entirely what his supporters are against, but only if it was under the veil of Islam instead.

Shit's all the same. Canon Law and Sharia Law and Halakha law are all stupid.

 

[Pheonixops]

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.

Exactly!!! That's the beauty of Our system.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.



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.

^ dismissed as partisan hack.

 

[koshergrl]

You mean "dismissed for uncomfortably addressing the actual issue and cutting through the logical fallacy that is all the baby killers have to support killing babies".

PS...you haven't the ability to dismiss me. Particularly on this topic. My arsenal is always full, and includes more than the same old trite progressive and relativist mob pro-death phrases.

 

[bodecea]

You mean "dismissed for uncomfortably addressing the actual issue and cutting through the logical fallacy that is all the baby killers have to support killing babies".

PS...you haven't the ability to dismiss me. Particularly on this topic. My arsenal is always full, and includes more than the same old trite progressive and relativist mob pro-death phrases.

Who is killing babies?

 

[koshergrl]

You are.

 

[Cowman]

You mean "dismissed for uncomfortably addressing the actual issue and cutting through the logical fallacy that is all the baby killers have to support killing babies".

PS...you haven't the ability to dismiss me. Particularly on this topic. My arsenal is always full, and includes more than the same old trite progressive and relativist mob pro-death phrases.

You're going to kill an abortion doctor some day, aren't you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You like making up shit, don't you.
It's not even worth reading your posts.
You are now known as "The Vapid One".

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

Damn you really are one dumb fuck.

really, chica? what was dumb about his observation?

any presidential candidate who thinks the president is a "snob" because he thinks everyone should ASPIRE to higher education, and who hates education because he thinks it makes kids irreligious, and who thnks Griswold should be reversed because contraception should be outlawed (at least his brand of religion says so) has no business holding the office he seeks because he has no concept of the constitution.

If the president believes evryone should aspire to higher education, he would side with parents who desire quality education over unions who only concern themselves with protecting teachers' jobs. Why do unions, and the democrats who support them, fight against assuring quality educated competitent teachers to provide the best education for our children?

If school districts across the U.S. were to begin taking similar actions, it could add to pressure on school administrators to improve or to remove their weakest teachers.

In New York, the nation's largest school system, the teachers' union opposed release of the data on 18,000 public-school teachers. A state court ordered the release in response to a public-records request by The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations. It comes 18 months after the Los Angeles Times published a database, calculated by the newspaper, of teacher rankings in Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest school district.

Teacher Ratings Aired in New York - WSJ.com

Whatever the merits, and there are some, including more federal money, a big negative is that the new system will erase current attempts to hold teachers accountable for student performance. “It wipes the slate clean,” one city official said.


That means thousands of city teachers already found to be boobs in the classroom likely will get a fresh start. Under the new law, they must get “ineffective” ratings for two consecutive years before administrators can even try to dismiss them.

With details still to be worked out in the city and other local districts, the earliest the new system could take effect is the start of school next September. The time needed for someone to get two years of “ineffective” evaluations would push the calendar to June 2014, which is when the first group of failing teachers would face possible termination.

But dismissal won’t be a sure thing. Under the terms the city negotiated, two ineffective ratings will be considered a presumption of incompetence and shift the burden of proof to the teacher. However, the final decision on firing remains with a three-person panel, which includes an independent arbitrator and one representative each from the union and City Hall.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/teachers_latest_free_ride_12BmIi0oszgm2Autt4FUBJ

There is also no such thing as FREE, as someone must pay for it. Anyone who makes the claim free contraceptives will reduce on health insurance costs need to go back and take some basic math lessons. There's no algebraic formula that can prove the expenses behind manufacturing contraceptives, then providing them for free, actually lowers costs. There are already means to get contraceptives to those who can't afford them, there is no reason to provide yet another free service through government mandate.

 

[Rinata]

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

Only when it is convenient for the GOP.

Liberals insist on government intrusion when it suits their purposes then bitch about it when it doesn't. Same as the GOP. Let's not get holier than thou. Both sides play this game when it's advantageous for them.

Bull. Liberals support the separation of church and state even though it is only IMPLIED in the bill of rights. We get it.

But conservatives always refer to the first amendment to the constitution as though it clearly states there is to be a separation of church and state. You people need everything spelled out and have no critical thinking skills. But when it suits their purpose, hell no there is nothing in the first amendment about separation church and state. So save it.

 

[koshergrl]

You mean "dismissed for uncomfortably addressing the actual issue and cutting through the logical fallacy that is all the baby killers have to support killing babies".

PS...you haven't the ability to dismiss me. Particularly on this topic. My arsenal is always full, and includes more than the same old trite progressive and relativist mob pro-death phrases.

You're going to kill an abortion doctor some day, aren't you.

No, I'm pro-life. I don't believe in the death penalty either, scum.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

well , the lunatics have douched up this thread. I'm out.

 

[koshergrl]

One less lunatic, yippee.

 

[BluePhantom]

Only when it is convenient for the GOP.

Liberals insist on government intrusion when it suits their purposes then bitch about it when it doesn't. Same as the GOP. Let's not get holier than thou. Both sides play this game when it's advantageous for them.

Bull. Liberals support the separation of church and state even though it is only IMPLIED in the bill of rights. We get it.

But conservatives always refer to the first amendment to the constitution as though it clearly states there is to be a separation of church and state. You people need everything spelled out and have no critical thinking skills. But when it suits their purpose, hell no there is nothing in the first amendment about separation church and state. So save it.

Might I suggest that you go read what I wrote in posts #182, #190, #192, and #199? After that might I suggest that you go fuck yourself.