| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
toenailcake
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 2:58 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
 |
|
Just like a politician to not read the document they are talking about in public
Thank God she's in Delaware and we live in NJ, hehehe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 7:25 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
...and a little bit hotter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 8:02 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
She is cute, I'll give her that. But, she's as dumb as a post as far as being in politics. Perhaps thats a badge of honor these days which began under Our Clueless Leader GW Bush?
Maybe, brains don't help us much anymore as we commence our long downward slice towards an also-ran status. Perhaps, our best years are far behind us! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 8:47 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
The First Ammendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where does the First Ammendment state separation of church and state? It protects the exercise of all religions.
Whatever you think about O'Donnell, if you look at the entire debate, you will see she was correct on this issue. The concept of separation of church and state was an intepretation by the Supreme Court. Her opponent did not acknowledge the first ammendment protects exercise of religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 9:26 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | The First Ammendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where does the First Ammendment state separation of church and state? It protects the exercise of all religions.
Whatever you think about O'Donnell, if you look at the entire debate, you will see she was correct on this issue. The concept of separation of church and state was an intepretation by the Supreme Court. Her opponent did not acknowledge the first ammendment protects exercise of religion. |
You have to read between the lines monjabo!
If you want to be a literalist, you'll never understand the Constitution, or any other document for that matter.
Congress-meaning the gubment-shall NOT make ANY laws which establish an official state religion.
I can't make it any simpler than that!!!!!!!!
In other words, you're free to worship, or NOT to worship any way that you please no matter how kooky your belief system is.
Including the nutbag fundaMENTALists.
The gumbment, nor any of its employees may push their whacky beliefs onto anyone else. At least while they're on the clock at work.
It's called subtlety and nuance. Something that the lugnut right-wingers seem to have an irony deficiency about.
They're not very smart people, so they just bleat out what Pastor Bob tells them down at the megachurch and there is NO thought process from their ears to their mouths.
In fact, the Supremes have used this interpretation for generations. It's pretty much settled law. If you want to challenge it, fine. The wing-nuts seem to delight in tilting at windmills and fighting silly fights that nobody thinks twice about.
Go have your silly beliefs and let the normal people get on with their lives and with their country. Go get a job and do something useful with your lives.
I'll bet the whackadoodles have no problem about owning guns however. Even though they have NOTHING to do with being in a well-regulated militia.
That one they seem to gloss over pretty well.
They can't seem to get over that dern comma in the middle of the sentence!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foxymoxy
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 9:41 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svC-i26rqE8&feature=related
Old crotchety guy: I fought the war for your sort!
Ringo: I'll bet you're sorry you won!
Old guy reminds me of someone on this board.
Now, who could it be.......................................? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 9:43 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | The First Ammendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where does the First Ammendment state separation of church and state? It protects the exercise of all religions.
Whatever you think about O'Donnell, if you look at the entire debate, you will see she was correct on this issue. The concept of separation of church and state was an intepretation by the Supreme Court. Her opponent did not acknowledge the first ammendment protects exercise of religion. |
Actually you're wrong. Her opponent did acknowledge that the first amendment protects the exercise of religion, just not in government run schools. And he did specifically state that the separation of church and state was defined by the subseqent Supreme Court cases in the debate. You don't seem to have actually watched it if you weren't clear about that. It wasn't just the Supreme Court, numerous times, and both liberal and conservative majority courts BTW, who defined it this way. During his lifetime Madison, who wrote the amendment, often referred to it as defining the separation of church and state. People often attribute the quote to Jefferson, who also wrote that phrase but was not one of the author's of the Constituion. But it's hard to dismiss the fact that the actual person who wrote the words articulated what they meant. Really no credible legal scholar, of any political ilk, questions this meaning, which is why the room of legal scholars gasped then laughed at her when she said it. You can hear it for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 9:58 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
Clearly, all that "in God we trust", swearing on the bible and "endowed by our creator" stuff must be interpreted as a mandate to stamp out ALL religious references in anything to do with government.
Or possibly, our founding fathers were so emersed in a judeo-christian world they were simply trying to ensure the government would not pick one specific judeo-christian religion over all of the other sects, instead focusing on the commonalities of judeo-christian religion as the foundation of our nation's values. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 10:08 am EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Clearly, all that "in God we trust", swearing on the bible and "endowed by our creator" stuff must be interpreted as a mandate to stamp out ALL religious references in anything to do with government.
Or possibly, our founding fathers were so emersed in a judeo-christian world they were simply trying to ensure the government would not pick one specific judeo-christian religion over all of the other sects, instead focusing on the commonalities of judeo-christian religion as the foundation of our nation's values. |
Most of the so-called "founding fathers" were Deists.
They believed in some sort of amorphic, wishy-washy power in the Universe, but, were loath to push the belief to the nth degree like any self respecting, modern day right-wing nut would.
They bowed to a Christian belief system because that was the prevalent religion in the colonies at that time. But, it was a sort of weak-tea variety of Christianity. You know, Jesus as Santa Claus kind of stuff?
They didn't want to favor one sect over another,
even though most people were Protestant.
We have even more diversity today, so the doctrine of church VS state is even more important today than it was 200+ years ago.
Anyone who doesn't understand this is ignorant of American history! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 5:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Clearly, all that "in God we trust", swearing on the bible and "endowed by our creator" stuff must be interpreted as a mandate to stamp out ALL religious references in anything to do with government.
Or possibly, our founding fathers were so emersed in a judeo-christian world they were simply trying to ensure the government would not pick one specific judeo-christian religion over all of the other sects, instead focusing on the commonalities of judeo-christian religion as the foundation of our nation's values. |
Most of the so-called "founding fathers" were Deists.
They believed in some sort of amorphic, wishy-washy power in the Universe, but, were loath to push the belief to the nth degree like any self respecting, modern day right-wing nut would.
They bowed to a Christian belief system because that was the prevalent religion in the colonies at that time. But, it was a sort of weak-tea variety of Christianity. You know, Jesus as Santa Claus kind of stuff?
They didn't want to favor one sect over another,
even though most people were Protestant.
We have even more diversity today, so the doctrine of church VS state is even more important today than it was 200+ years ago.
Anyone who doesn't understand this is ignorant of American history! |
Not sure how you concluded that "most" founding fathers were anything but rich, white men, but regardless, what you're saying is that it is imperative that we teach children about the religious beliefs of the founding fathers in school, so long as we don't teach about religion. Good luck walking that fine line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 6:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Clearly, all that "in God we trust", swearing on the bible and "endowed by our creator" stuff must be interpreted as a mandate to stamp out ALL religious references in anything to do with government.
Or possibly, our founding fathers were so emersed in a judeo-christian world they were simply trying to ensure the government would not pick one specific judeo-christian religion over all of the other sects, instead focusing on the commonalities of judeo-christian religion as the foundation of our nation's values. |
Most of the so-called "founding fathers" were Deists.
They believed in some sort of amorphic, wishy-washy power in the Universe, but, were loath to push the belief to the nth degree like any self respecting, modern day right-wing nut would.
They bowed to a Christian belief system because that was the prevalent religion in the colonies at that time. But, it was a sort of weak-tea variety of Christianity. You know, Jesus as Santa Claus kind of stuff?
They didn't want to favor one sect over another,
even though most people were Protestant.
We have even more diversity today, so the doctrine of church VS state is even more important today than it was 200+ years ago.
Anyone who doesn't understand this is ignorant of American history! |
Not sure how you concluded that "most" founding fathers were anything but rich, white men, but regardless, what you're saying is that it is imperative that we teach children about the religious beliefs of the founding fathers in school, so long as we don't teach about religion. Good luck walking that fine line. |
That's not a very fine line at all. I leanred all about the Reformation in school history class. That wasn't teaching religion, it was teaching history. Knowing what religion or other beliefs (philosophy, political ideology, etc.) historical figures have is not remotely the same as devoting class time to the study of the religion its beliefs itself. Not sure why you find that so hard. Schools have been pulling it off just fine for decades.
And for those of us who want to teach their kids about religion, there is church, sunday school, our home, etc. No problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 6:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
Scooter,
You don't seem to have any sense of how often you contradict yourself. If you had a well formulated opinion you would acknowledge that this is a complicated issue that has frequently been mis-handled by parties on all sides and that our founding fathers never envisioned a godless society, but rather a society where people of various religious beliefs could practice without fear of persecution. Your warped sense of historical "facts", righteous indignation and sense of entitlement shows just how poorly our schools are handling important social issues. God help us! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 7:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Scooter,
You don't seem to have any sense of how often you contradict yourself. If you had a well formulated opinion you would acknowledge that this is a complicated issue that has frequently been mis-handled by parties on all sides and that our founding fathers never envisioned a godless society, but rather a society where people of various religious beliefs could practice without fear of persecution. Your warped sense of historical "facts", righteous indignation and sense of entitlement shows just how poorly our schools are handling important social issues. God help us! |
Dear Zip (The Pinhead)
Our nation was founded by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots!
That premonition seems to be coming true.
Nobody ever mentioned a godless society. Thats your own warped view of the nation today.
You're probably the type that believes the reason why kids are shooting up our schools is because we have removed school prayer. It never occurs to an ossified mind such as yours that perhaps it's because we have a gun-crazed culture that allows children easy access to firearms. Guns were meant to be kept by citizen-soldiers to protect and defend against government intrusion, whether foreighn or domestic. "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA". Not just any kook who feels like having one.
Anyway, the founders most likely meant muzzle-loaded, single shot, black power muskets. Not automatic machine guns with exploding bullets! Why would anyone need to have assault rifles for hunting, unless they're hunting on safari in Africa?
So, you may twist and turn and warp your constitution anyway you which, but, you are NOT entitled to your own facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 8:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Scooter and Zip, what colorful nicknames. If you two kids can't play nice, you will both have to leave the sandbox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 9:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: OMG!!! |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Scooter,
You don't seem to have any sense of how often you contradict yourself. If you had a well formulated opinion you would acknowledge that this is a complicated issue that has frequently been mis-handled by parties on all sides and that our founding fathers never envisioned a godless society, but rather a society where people of various religious beliefs could practice without fear of persecution. Your warped sense of historical "facts", righteous indignation and sense of entitlement shows just how poorly our schools are handling important social issues. God help us! |
Dear Zip (The Pinhead)
Our nation was founded by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots!
That premonition seems to be coming true.
Nobody ever mentioned a godless society. Thats your own warped view of the nation today.
You're probably the type that believes the reason why kids are shooting up our schools is because we have removed school prayer. It never occurs to an ossified mind such as yours that perhaps it's because we have a gun-crazed culture that allows children easy access to firearms. Guns were meant to be kept by citizen-soldiers to protect and defend against government intrusion, whether foreighn or domestic. "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA". Not just any kook who feels like having one.
Anyway, the founders most likely meant muzzle-loaded, single shot, black power muskets. Not automatic machine guns with exploding bullets! Why would anyone need to have assault rifles for hunting, unless they're hunting on safari in Africa?
So, you may twist and turn and warp your constitution anyway you which, but, you are NOT entitled to your own facts. |
Scooter,
What's with the rant on guns? This topic is about government and religion.
My point is simply that the pendulum has swung so far to the extreme that we won't even allow for a moment of silence for those who might wish to pray. That's ridiculous.
By stamping out all religious references, we are effectively promoting a Godless society. This was clearly NOT the intention of the founders considering all the religious references they used and they way the used them. You can blab on and on about your personal interpretations of the constitution, but you can't ignore the simple fact that our founders attributed our inalienable rights to an endowment from our Creator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
