Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[BluePhantom]

What the hell are you rambling about now? You am syphon?

Your caselaw in no way supported your lying statement that the SCOTUS ruled that law could not be founded in religion.

Only in your twisted brain. The SCOTUS outranks you and they agree with me.

No, they don't. Again, you can't provide the verification that they said anything like "cannot found" law in religion.

KG....I will let the SCOTUS have the final word as I have already posted earlier.

(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

Now use whatever words you want: founded, based, guided by....whatever. The effect is the same. Using a religious argument before our court system is out the window. If all you want to do is argue about definitions of "founded", "based", etc, that's not an argument I am particularly interested in. Your argument is right up there with "That depends on your definition of what the word 'is' is".

Unless you have some stronger argument to make that is actually focusing on the point instead of semantics, I for one will be disregarding whatever you say at this point as you are offering little more than cluttering up what is actually a very good discussion by everyone else.

 

[Intense]

The Court is a Powerful Force, true enough, yet it can arbitrarily change It's position on a dime. The Trump Card there to effectively deal with Injustice is Constitutional Amendment.

That's not correct. The Court has always been an agent for change and is geared that way when working as it should be. Amendments were supposed to be few and far between, which is why there are only 27 of them in over 200 years.

By your theory, we'd still have segregation and intermarriage would be illegal. It is silly to think that the Court can't review legislation to ascertain if it is consistent with the constitution.

Not at all. That is not what I'm saying. You are projecting. I support Judicial Review, when it is supported by sound reason. It too often is not. The Reversals are evidence of that. Are we to argue Marbury V.S. Madison again? Let's agree to disagree there.

Amendment's are not based on Popular-ism, they are not based on how often they are used. They are based on Establishing and Maintaining Justice.

Consider where we would be in relation to conflict regarding Abortion, Integration, Marriage, had we thought to argue Ideal and Principle, seeking the consent of the Governed, rather than shove Mandates down the throats of the Governed.

To deny the Court can Arbitrarily change It's Will, is to deny the dangers of Oligarchy Rule, which is where we are. The Court at Conception was a Co-Equal Branch, that is not the case now.

 

[The Infidel]

Only in your twisted brain. The SCOTUS outranks you and they agree with me.

The Court is a Powerful Force, true enough, yet it can arbitrarily change It's position on a dime. The Trump Card there to effectively deal with Injustice is Constitutional Amendment.

No argument there. In fact they have changed their position on several issues (albeit so far not regarding church and state that I am aware of). But again as I said in an earlier post, people who desire US law to be legitimately based upon religion should be very careful what they wish for. Sharia Law has been brought up on this thread. I wrote in an earlier post : "While the citizens of the United States have historically been predominantly Christian, that is not to say that will always be the case...If the day were ever to come that Islam became the most common religion of the citizenry and we have previously opened the door to allow religion to be a legitimate basis upon which to make law and set policy, then we have lost our Constitutional argument against the imposition of Sharia Law."

I am a pretty spiritual guy, but there's no way in hell I would endorse the idea of government opening that door whether I was currently in the majority or not.

But your deep seated beliefs are based on Judeo-Christian roots... you cant suppress that when you are looking at a political candidate. Otherwise you end up with folks who are 'godless'. I know I am using extreme rhetoric, but I am just trying to convey my point. Nothing more... I dont want religious zealots running the show either.
I enjoy my alcohol and R-rated movies too much

 

[koshergrl]

Only in your twisted brain. The SCOTUS outranks you and they agree with me.

No, they don't. Again, you can't provide the verification that they said anything like "cannot found" law in religion.

KG....I will let the SCOTUS have the final word as I have already posted earlier.

(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

Now use whatever words you want: founded, based, guided by....whatever. The effect is the same. Using a religious argument before our court system is out the window. If all you want to do is argue about definitions of "founded", "based", etc, that's not an argument I am particularly interested in. Your argument is right up there with "That depends on your definition of what the word 'is' is".

Unless you have some stronger argument to make that is actually focusing on the point instead of semantics, I for one will be disregarding whatever you say at this point as you are offering little more than cluttering up what is actually a very good discussion by everyone else.

I know..it's "clutter" to point out that you lied about what the SCOTUS actually said. How irritating for you that must be, lol.

And ps..you've never been involved in a "good discussion" in your life. A person who is incapable of honesty, or the effective use of words, cannot engage in meaningful discussion. As is evidenced by every single post you spew.

 

[BluePhantom]

But your deep seated beliefs are based on Judeo-Christian roots... you cant suppress that when you are looking at a political candidate. Otherwise you end up with folks who are 'godless'. I know I am using extreme rhetoric, but I am just trying to convey my point. Nothing more... I dont want religious zealots running the show either.
I enjoy my alcohol and R-rated movies too much

I understand what you are getting at and I don't necessarily disagree. Again I made a point earlier (post #192) that just because you can't go before the Supreme Court, make a religious argument, and hope to win it doesn't mean that our values and mores must be necessarily disregarded. You simply have to provide an argument that is secular in nature.

So again...this is why opponents of gay marriage do not argue from a religious point of view before the courts. They may do it in public but not before the judges. They can't. They will lose immediately. They have to come up with something else that is secular in nature.

 

[Intense]

The Court is a Powerful Force, true enough, yet it can arbitrarily change It's position on a dime. The Trump Card there to effectively deal with Injustice is Constitutional Amendment.

No argument there. In fact they have changed their position on several issues (albeit so far not regarding church and state that I am aware of). But again as I said in an earlier post, people who desire US law to be legitimately based upon religion should be very careful what they wish for. Sharia Law has been brought up on this thread. I wrote in an earlier post : "While the citizens of the United States have historically been predominantly Christian, that is not to say that will always be the case...If the day were ever to come that Islam became the most common religion of the citizenry and we have previously opened the door to allow religion to be a legitimate basis upon which to make law and set policy, then we have lost our Constitutional argument against the imposition of Sharia Law."

I am a pretty spiritual guy, but there's no way in hell I would endorse the idea of government opening that door whether I was currently in the majority or not.

But your deep seated beliefs are based on Judeo-Christian roots... you cant suppress that when you are looking at a political candidate. Otherwise you end up with folks who are 'godless'. I know I am using extreme rhetoric, but I am just trying to convey my point. Nothing more... I dont want religious zealots running the show either.
I enjoy my alcohol and R-rated movies too much

I like People Driven by Principle, whether Consciously, or on Auto-Pilot is Insignificant.

 

[The Infidel]

But your deep seated beliefs are based on Judeo-Christian roots... you cant suppress that when you are looking at a political candidate. Otherwise you end up with folks who are 'godless'. I know I am using extreme rhetoric, but I am just trying to convey my point. Nothing more... I dont want religious zealots running the show either.
I enjoy my alcohol and R-rated movies too much

I understand what you are getting at and I don't necessarily disagree. Again I made a point earlier (post #192) that just because you can't go before the Supreme Court, make a religious argument, and hope to win it doesn't mean that our values and mores must be necessarily disregarded. You simply have to provide an argument that is secular in nature.

So again...this is why opponents of gay marriage do not argue from a religious point of view before the courts. They may do it in public but not before the judges. They can't. They will lose immediately. They have to come up with something else that is secular in nature.

That is why I dont want to stop 'gays' from having a 'civil union'. Simply because I feel you have to change the traditional definition of marriage. A 'marriage' is just a civil union between a man and a woman. A 'civil Union' can be a marriage between two consenting adults.
I have no problem with 'gays' having a life together with whoever they want to... my mom is a lesbian, and I would never think her partner is'nt entitled to everything as if they were married.
I just dont want the definition changed just to suit a group of people.

I think we agree more than we disagree BluePhantom.

 

[BlindBoo]

Santorum's radical religious statements may help him win evangelical voters on Super Tuesday, and even the GOP nomination, but they would destroy him in the General Election - and you can bet that GOP leaders know that. Also, I can't imagine a devout Mormon like Romney selecting a radical Christian like Santorum for the VP slot. There are just too many differences between Mormonism and Christianity to allow such a ticket. Here are just a few of those differences:

A Comparison Between Christian Doctrine and Mormon Doctrine|Mormonism Does Not Agree with the Bible | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

look it's obvious your end game is "Christians shut up" , but unfortunately for you, the COTUS doesn't allow you to do that. You're free to vote against him, you are NOT free to prevent him from running.

No one has told Rick to shut up. Fuck no. Keep talking, don't hold back, let us know how you really feel.

btw, Kennedy's speech about Catholics and seperation of church and state is probably the main reason Rick or any Catholic, can run for president. He completely misses the Presidents point in the speech. God I hope he wins the GOP nod........

 

[boilermaker55]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
ratified 12/15/1791
So, I don't want santorum trying to force his religious ideology onto me or my family.
His statement that President Kennedy's speech made him want to puke makes him sound like a 4th grader.
This man wants to run the country. How immature can he become.

 

[koshergrl]

But your deep seated beliefs are based on Judeo-Christian roots... you cant suppress that when you are looking at a political candidate. Otherwise you end up with folks who are 'godless'. I know I am using extreme rhetoric, but I am just trying to convey my point. Nothing more... I dont want religious zealots running the show either.
I enjoy my alcohol and R-rated movies too much

I understand what you are getting at and I don't necessarily disagree. Again I made a point earlier (post #192) that just because you can't go before the Supreme Court, make a religious argument, and hope to win it doesn't mean that our values and mores must be necessarily disregarded. You simply have to provide an argument that is secular in nature.

So again...this is why opponents of gay marriage do not argue from a religious point of view before the courts. They may do it in public but not before the judges. They can't. They will lose immediately. They have to come up with something else that is secular in nature.

That is why I dont want to stop 'gays' from having a 'civil union'. Simply because I feel you have to change the traditional definition of marriage. A 'marriage' is just a civil union between a man and a woman. A 'civil Union' can be a marriage between two consenting adults.
I have no problem with 'gays' having a life together with whoever they want to... my mom is a lesbian, and I would never think her partner is'nt entitled to everything as if they were married.
I just dont want the definition changed just to suit a group of people.

I think we agree more than we disagree BluePhantom.

However, it's impossible to tell because to BP, words have no meaning. So while he says one thing, he most likely means something entirely different.

I've never seen him accurately quote anyone, ever, and every single point he thinks he makes depends upon distorting whatever he is using as a reference. Count on it.

 

[koshergrl]

And when you catch him at it, as I have multiple times, he will fall back on whining about "semantics".

It's not semantics. It's him lying, miquoting, and attributing alternate meanings when the real meanings don't suit him.

 

[Mustang]

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

Neither is an embrace of church and state mentioned either. At best, I would call that detached ambivalence.

 

[BluePhantom]

That is why I dont want to stop 'gays' from having a 'civil union'. Simply because I feel you have to change the traditional definition of marriage. A 'marriage' is just a civil union between a man and a woman. A 'civil Union' can be a marriage between two consenting adults.
I have no problem with 'gays' having a life together with whoever they want to... my mom is a lesbian, and I would never think her partner is'nt entitled to everything as if they were married.
I just dont want the definition changed just to suit a group of people.

I think we agree more than we disagree BluePhantom.

I think we do yes. Frankly, I am of the opinion that the government has no business getting involved in marriage whether its heterosexual or homosexual. It's simply none of their concern. They should have the exact same rights as everyone else and whether they call it "marriage" or "civil unions" or whatever is an issue between them, God, and their church.

I stated in an earlier post that when we grant the government to power to tell us what we can do we give them legitimacy on that issue. As we have discussed, the SCOTUS can certainly change its mind and once they have legitimacy to say we can't do something they also have legitimacy to make the argument at some future time that we must do that thing...and indeed they have done that regarding some issues.

I find it best that as much as possible we limit the power of government to tell us what we must and cannot do.

 

[Nosmo King]

If Rick Santorum's god says it's blessed to hate those different from you, that sex isn't a gift not only for procreation but recreation, that a woman cannot live her life according to her own wishes and needs and desires, that contraceptive devices are evil or, more insidiously, un-necessary, then I don't want to worship his god.

Santorum would impose his template of morality on this nation, in spite of the narrow fit, the oppressive attitudes and the restrictive nature of that template. Just as the Taliban want to force a rigid, repressive form of Islam on people who just want to live, love and worship in their own way, Santorum would gladly repress the basic civil rights we should enjoy here in America.

But my God is love itself. My God would not cast out His children. He would embrace and celebrate them. But I don't want my God involved in matters of state. As Jesus Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's." I don't want Caesar telling me any different.

 

[boilermaker55]

If Rick Santorum's god says it's blessed to hate those different from you, that sex isn't a gift not only for procreation but recreation, that a woman cannot live her life according to her own wishes and needs and desires, that contraceptive devices are evil or, more insidiously, un-necessary, then I don't want to worship his god.

Santorum would impose his template of morality on this nation, in spite of the narrow fit, the oppressive attitudes and the restrictive nature of that template. Just as the Taliban want to force a rigid, repressive form of Islam on people who just want to live, love and worship in their own way, Santorum would gladly repress the basic civil rights we should enjoy here in America.

But my God is love itself. My God would not cast out His children. He would embrace and celebrate them. But I don't want my God involved in matters of state. As Jesus Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's." I don't want Caesar telling me any different.

Thank you.

 

[koshergrl]

If Rick Santorum's god says it's blessed to hate those different from you, that sex isn't a gift not only for procreation but recreation, that a woman cannot live her life according to her own wishes and needs and desires, that contraceptive devices are evil or, more insidiously, un-necessary, then I don't want to worship his god.

Santorum would impose his template of morality on this nation, in spite of the narrow fit, the oppressive attitudes and the restrictive nature of that template. Just as the Taliban want to force a rigid, repressive form of Islam on people who just want to live, love and worship in their own way, Santorum would gladly repress the basic civil rights we should enjoy here in America.

But my God is love itself. My God would not cast out His children. He would embrace and celebrate them. But I don't want my God involved in matters of state. As Jesus Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's." I don't want Caesar telling me any different.

Who said you had to worship his God?

And please provide the proof that Santorum would impose a moral template. I can't wait to see what you pull up. If it's his opinion that pushing contraceptives upon young women has negatively affected this country, sorry, you lose, that's not evidence of him seeking to impose any moral code upon the country. It's his opinion about contraception.

 

[Nosmo King]

If Rick Santorum's god says it's blessed to hate those different from you, that sex isn't a gift not only for procreation but recreation, that a woman cannot live her life according to her own wishes and needs and desires, that contraceptive devices are evil or, more insidiously, un-necessary, then I don't want to worship his god.

Santorum would impose his template of morality on this nation, in spite of the narrow fit, the oppressive attitudes and the restrictive nature of that template. Just as the Taliban want to force a rigid, repressive form of Islam on people who just want to live, love and worship in their own way, Santorum would gladly repress the basic civil rights we should enjoy here in America.

But my God is love itself. My God would not cast out His children. He would embrace and celebrate them. But I don't want my God involved in matters of state. As Jesus Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's." I don't want Caesar telling me any different.

Who said you had to worship his God?

And please provide the proof that Santorum would impose a moral template. I can't wait to see what you pull up. If it's his opinion that pushing contraceptives upon young women has negatively affected this country, sorry, you lose, that's not evidence of him seeking to impose any moral code upon the country. It's his opinion about contraception.

If Santorum by some fluke of nature wins this November, then yes, you , me, and every American will be forced to 'worship' his god. And if Santorum wants to eliminate access to contraceptive devices, we will be worshiping his god. And if Santorum has his way, thousands of happily married homosexual couples would have their marriages declared null and void. We would be worshiping his god.

Because, unless Santorum comes out and says that contraceptive devices and homosexual marriage is antithetical to his political beliefs, not his religious beliefs, then Santorum would be governing as he sees his god would, not as a statesman in the best traditions of the word.

The moral template? No contraceptives, no abortion, no consideration of same sex marriage, no homosexuals serving in the military. If that's not governing based on a narrow, repressive moral template, I'm pretty sure I've never seen one.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, you're full of shit. Thanks for proving you have zero, nada, nothing. It's the old "BAD CHRISTIANS MUST DESTROY THEM BEFORE THEY STEAL YOUR BABIES AND RAPE YOUR WOMEN" mantra.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yeah, you're full of shit. Thanks for proving you have zero, nada, nothing. It's the old "BAD CHRISTIANS MUST DESTROY THEM BEFORE THEY STEAL YOUR BABIES AND RAPE YOUR WOMEN" mantra.

So much for intelligent debate! If I held the repressive views you do, I'd dash off some non sequitor and run and hide when faced with solid, well thought and respectfully presented arguments too.

You see, that's the problem with zealots. They assume a moral high ground and have no concept of what others might think. It's a hold over from days gone by when 'you're either for us or against us'. It's our way or the highway. America, love it or leave it. We've heard them all before. But nothing makes those views anywhere close to right.

 

[koshergrl]

What the hell is a repressive view?

You were asked for a simple thing...proof that Santorum would impose his brand of morality and religion upon the US.

You produced nothing but your own bigoted spew, and zero evidence to show your irrational fear has any basis in reality.

I have no high moral ground on this. I asked you for evidence. You have none. Discussion over.