Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Segregationists were states rights anti-civil rights conservatives.
Yes.Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Should abortion be a crime of murder? Should women who have abortions be prosecuted as having committed the crime of murder?
Hell awaits.Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Abortion is not murder.
Hell awaits.Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Abortion is not murder.
Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.
I wish I could sit on my azz, draw SS or SSDI or SNAP whatever federal funding she gets, and just post screeching right wing talking points all day, except they'd be left wing talking points, of course.
Should abortion be a crime of murder? Should women who have abortions be prosecuted as having committed the crime of murder?
You're dumber than I first thought. I am a religious person. My religion is Christianity. I can vote for other religious men (or women) who share my ideals. I can also cite the wise words of our founding fathers who were vastly Christian in their beliefs.Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.
Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
GentlemenJan. 1. 1802.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.
Once again you have made a fool of yourself!
Jefferson recognized America as a Christian nation but didn't believe that any particular denomination should be dominant over the others. That was one of the reasons why he broke from England. He was wholly opposed to any government regulating a person's right to religion:
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and StateJefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]
By the same token, Jefferson was responsible for using the halls of Congress for church services:
Religion and the Federal Government Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of CongressIt is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
The first Congress sponsored the first Bible printed in the USA:
Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of CongressCongress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
Are you joining PoliticalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?
Yes or no?
Never has been a separation. You and others have embraced a misconception routinely spewed forth as "truth" in America's public FOOL system. The Constitution protects religious folks from government but government can be influenced by religion.
If that is what you were taught when you were home schooled you should ask for your money back because it it utterly fallacious.
Religion doesn't get to dictate what a secular government does.
But you clearly didn't read my earlier PROOF that our first Congress was wholly Christian and that Jefferson and Hamilton held Christian services within the halls of Congress on Sundays. But, as they say, ignorance is bliss. Keep your blinders on. I don't care!
The Constitution and case law are two very different things. Can you guess which one is the law of the land?And once again the OP exhibits her ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.
Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
GentlemenJan. 1. 1802.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.
Once again you have made a fool of yourself!
Case law is a part of the Constitution and you are an idiot.
And another lie from NYLiar.
Case law is largely repudiation of the Constitution.
It is a product of the Progressive era, Roscoe Pound, and Christopher Columbus Langdell
That is even more retarded than your claim that your stupid claim that segregation was a liberal position.
Here's a question you won't answer:
What repudiation of the Constitution is found in McDonald v City of Chicago?
McDonald v. City of Chicago law case Encyclopedia Britannica
Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?Are you joining PolitcalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?
Yes or no?
As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Hell awaits.Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Abortion is not murder.
Hell awaits.Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Abortion is not murder.
Jefferson recognized America as a Christian nation but didn't believe that any particular denomination should be dominant over the others. That was one of the reasons why he broke from England. He was wholly opposed to any government regulating a person's right to religion:
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State
By the same token, Jefferson was responsible for using the halls of Congress for church services:
Religion and the Federal Government Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress
The first Congress sponsored the first Bible printed in the USA:
Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress
Are you joining PolitcalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?
Yes or no?
As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Abortion is not murder.
You'll believe in hell soon enough.Hell awaits.Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Abortion is not murder.
No it doesn't. It is a mythological place. A fairy tale.
A fetus is not a child. It would be called a child if it were. They're two different fucking things. Grow up, learn science, and stop trying to control women's bodies. The only body you have any right to is your own. You don't get to decide whether or not to force anyone to become or remain pregnant. You have no say in whether or when someone spawns. The only rights you have are to your own fucking self. Do you understand this? Do you understand that this is why nothing you said is even valid? They're not even real fucking opinions. You know they're wrong. You know why they're wrong. Now grow the fuck up and stop pretending to believe shit you have no right to believe.
Are you joining PolitcalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?
Yes or no?
As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Opposition to murder is a religious belief, rather than a secular one?
OK.
Since when is not allowing murder an exclusively religious principle?Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Abortion is not murder.
Does it end a human life?
As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Opposition to murder is a religious belief, rather than a secular one?
OK.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy before viability is still not murder.
As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
Yet more flailing ignorance on your part.
The states cannot impose a state religion because that would violate the federal constitution.
Try enrolling in an adult remedial education class for social studies at your local community college, PoliticalSpice.
And the State can, in no way, impose its will upon Christianity or impair the free exercise thereof. That means that if a religious institution is opposed to abortion the State CANNOT force that institution to do anything whatsoever that goes against its tenets.
Who exactly is opposed to a person or religious institutions opposing abortion? I don't care if someone chooses not to have an abortion based on their religion. Just don't try and hold everyone in society to that religious belief.
Opposition to murder is a religious belief, rather than a secular one?
OK.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy before viability is still not murder.
Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.
Legally it is just not so.
