Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Robert_Stephens]

Santorum probably throws up if he sees a naked woman too. That is one seriously repressed man.

8 FUCKING KIDS and you think he hates women naked.

What part of the universe are you from I'd say Rick's got mojo baby. May look like a dork, but somethings hitting home.

Hey Dancer,

What a great comeback and very humorous post. Salute, dear heart!

Robert

 

[Gadawg73]

Wrong. You can make laws based upon yours, or my, or a whole group of peoples', religious beliefs. You just can't make laws ESTABLISHING a RELIGION. My faith tells me that I should support (and if I were a politician or lobbyist, propose) laws that protect religious freedom, freedom of speech and a variety of other things. THAT IS A-OK. But if I were to propose laws that establish a RELIGION, or force people to WORSHIP, or to DENOUCE their faith, then that would be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science.

It sure ain't but you are about as dumb as a box of rocks.
You CAN NEVER make a law based on religous beliefs IF THEY ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
Biggest problem we now have in America is both the far left and the far right HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE about The United States Constitution.
That IS THE DAMN LAW.
Where is religion or God IN THE Constitution?
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various religous beliefs.

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you for arguing to a point that was never made, idiot. Don't let that stop your nonsensical rant.

Next?

 

[Syphon]

actually the supreme court ruled that the first amendment does establish a separation between the church and state. this is responsibility given to them by that very same constitution.
******************************************************************

Great then Obama should not be able to force religious institutions to provide or pay for (by way of paying for the insurance providing it) things which go against their religious beliefs. That is exactly what's going on with this whole contraception mandate.

the problem with your argument is that once you upon up a hole like this, health care providers can then refuse to stop carrying products or services based on religious views. what if a catholic hospital refuses to admit a gay patient because they disagree with his/her lifestyle? what if a religious hospital refuses to admit an aids patient because AIDS (in their eyes) is a disease created to punish gays. what if a rape victim is brought by ambulance to a religious controlled hospital and that hospital refuses to carry emergency contraception.

this opens up a huge can of worms, and it actually a great argument for a single payer systems where everyone has access to the same care and services, while everyone pays the same price.

Health Care providers (such as Catholic hospitals) already don't provide certain services that go against their religious beliefs, for example they would not do a tubal ligation on a woman after she delivers a baby, if she wanted one. However, Catholic hospitals would not turn away a gay patient, because even though they may disagree with that person's lifestyle, they are still in need of care, they are still a human being who needs medical services. Would they provide medical services that went against what the Catholic Church teaches? No. But they definitely treat people who are gay, or who don't even believe in God or are even anti Catholic. This is basically an argument for freedom of religion.
As for your rape scenario I'm sure it happens already. Because I know for a fact Catholic hospitals do not and will not do anything to cause an abortion etc...they will treat the rape victim but if they want something to make sure they don't end up pregnant they have to go somewhere else.
Now you may not agree with it, but a Catholic owned hospital should not be forced to do something that goes against it's freedom of religion. That opens up a whole can of worms in itself. Don't you think?

isnt a bit hypocritical to say you don't believe in providing this service because i disagree with it, but then again agreeing to provide another services even though you disagree with that too? if a religious hospital is going to stay consistent with its beliefs shouldn't they refuse all services which violate their faith? if they are picking and choosing, then you could make the argument that it is not their faith which they are following consistently.

 

[Syphon]

Wrong. You can make laws based upon yours, or my, or a whole group of peoples', religious beliefs. You just can't make laws ESTABLISHING a RELIGION. My faith tells me that I should support (and if I were a politician or lobbyist, propose) laws that protect religious freedom, freedom of speech and a variety of other things. THAT IS A-OK. But if I were to propose laws that establish a RELIGION, or force people to WORSHIP, or to DENOUCE their faith, then that would be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science.

you are actually wrong. because they have ruled against prayer in school. this would be making law support the catholic or christian religion. which the courts have ruled is a violation of the first amendment.

tell me im wrong.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Wrong. You can make laws based upon yours, or my, or a whole group of peoples', religious beliefs. You just can't make laws ESTABLISHING a RELIGION. My faith tells me that I should support (and if I were a politician or lobbyist, propose) laws that protect religious freedom, freedom of speech and a variety of other things. THAT IS A-OK. But if I were to propose laws that establish a RELIGION, or force people to WORSHIP, or to DENOUCE their faith, then that would be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science.

you are actually wrong. because they have ruled against prayer in school. this would be making law support the catholic or christian religion. which the courts have ruled is a violation of the first amendment.


tell me im wrong.

Okay, you're wrong.

The Court has NEVER ruled against prayer in school. The closest they've came to that is Engel v. Vitale when they ruled , essentially, that a state led prayer, including teachers, was unconstitutional.

People can pray at school though.

I imagine you are quite used to being wrong....

 

[hortysir]

You really need to quit this line, it's not working for you.

i also just heard, since some people have decided that atheists and agnostics are religions, that they wanna have some of their symbols on federal buildings as well. i'm not sure what the atheists are gonna use but the agnostics' symbol will be...

"Maybe/Maybe Not"

When they start looking for art from idiots, maybe you will be able to submit some of yours.



Which part of "free exercise thereof" are you having a problem with?

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

You really need to quit this line, it's not working for you.

i also just heard, since some people have decided that atheists and agnostics are religions, that they wanna have some of their symbols on federal buildings as well. i'm not sure what the atheists are gonna use but the agnostics' symbol will be...

"Maybe/Maybe Not"

When they start looking for art from idiots, maybe you will be able to submit some of yours.



Which part of "free exercise thereof" are you having a problem with?

none of it

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong. You can make laws based upon yours, or my, or a whole group of peoples', religious beliefs. You just can't make laws ESTABLISHING a RELIGION. My faith tells me that I should support (and if I were a politician or lobbyist, propose) laws that protect religious freedom, freedom of speech and a variety of other things. THAT IS A-OK. But if I were to propose laws that establish a RELIGION, or force people to WORSHIP, or to DENOUCE their faith, then that would be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science.

you are actually wrong. because they have ruled against prayer in school. this would be making law support the catholic or christian religion. which the courts have ruled is a violation of the first amendment.

tell me im wrong.

You're an idiot.

It isn't illegal to pray in school.

 

[koshergrl]

"Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). In addition, the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302. For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313."

Prayer In Public School (Precedents)

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

i know no one will care but...

"Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960: Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools. Ultimately, her actions and the actions of the American Atheist Organization resulted in the Supreme Court ruling of 1962..."

 

[koshergrl]

"Forced".

 

[Syphon]

Wrong. You can make laws based upon yours, or my, or a whole group of peoples', religious beliefs. You just can't make laws ESTABLISHING a RELIGION. My faith tells me that I should support (and if I were a politician or lobbyist, propose) laws that protect religious freedom, freedom of speech and a variety of other things. THAT IS A-OK. But if I were to propose laws that establish a RELIGION, or force people to WORSHIP, or to DENOUCE their faith, then that would be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science.

you are actually wrong. because they have ruled against prayer in school. this would be making law support the catholic or christian religion. which the courts have ruled is a violation of the first amendment.

tell me im wrong.

You're an idiot.

It isn't illegal to pray in school.

its illegal to have prayer in public school try again.

 

[hortysir]

i know no one will care but...

"Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960: Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools. Ultimately, her actions and the actions of the American Atheist Organization resulted in the Supreme Court ruling of 1962..."

she's dead

 

[koshergrl]

you are actually wrong. because they have ruled against prayer in school. this would be making law support the catholic or christian religion. which the courts have ruled is a violation of the first amendment.

tell me im wrong.

You're an idiot.

It isn't illegal to pray in school.

its illegal to have prayer in public school try again.

No, it's legal to pray in school.

It's illegal for teachers to endorse a particular religion.

 

[Alessa]

Rick Santorum on Sunday took on separation of church and state.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

If this retard is elected, I'm going to consider becoming an ex patriot.

 

[Syphon]

You're an idiot.

It isn't illegal to pray in school.

its illegal to have prayer in public school try again.

No, it's legal to pray in school.

It's illegal for teachers to endorse a particular religion.

you are sorely mistaken. you can not pray in a public school.

the United States Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional in 1962

prove me wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). In addition, the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302. For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313."

Prayer In Public School (Precedents)

This was never at issue.

And can be expanded to include the nonsense heard from the right about how ‘people of faith’ are not ‘allowed a voice in the public square,’ when they clearly are.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, you can pray in public school...

and I already proved you wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

Prayer in School - Prayer During Non-instructional Time
Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other non-instructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.
"Prayer in School - Organized Prayer Groups and Activities
Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and "see you at the pole" gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression."

Prayer In School