PDA

View Full Version : Flabbergasting!



dnf777
10-19-2010, 11:23 AM
So, we have frontrunners in key senate races that say things like:

"some of you look Asian to me" to a group of Hispanic schoolchildren

And:

"show me where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state"

You could hear the crowd erupt in gasps and then laughter at that last one.


Tell me, tea-party supporters.....is this the best you've got?
You want to trust the reigns of our government at a time of economic uncertainty, unemployment, war......to someone who asks where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state??

Its not even funny anymore. Its sickening and scary. Since when is being stupid en vogue in America? If you pronounce names properly, you're called elitist and snobbish? I have no problem with having someone who's proud of being smart in office.

Buzz
10-19-2010, 11:33 AM
Brace yourself. You're about to get an education on the constitution. ;-)

Ken Bora
10-19-2010, 11:37 AM
.... Since when is being stupid en vogue in America? .....

I don't know, when did they stop counting and say Al Franken won?????
Stuart Smally ain't no rocket surgeon:rolleyes:

david gibson
10-19-2010, 11:38 AM
So, we have frontrunners in key senate races that say things like:

"some of you look Asian to me" to a group of Hispanic schoolchildren

And:

"show me where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state"

You could hear the crowd erupt in gasps and then laughter at that last one.


Tell me, tea-party supporters.....is this the best you've got?
You want to trust the reigns of our government at a time of economic uncertainty, unemployment, war......to someone who asks where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state??

Its not even funny anymore. Its sickening and scary. Since when is being stupid en vogue in America? If you pronounce names properly, you're called elitist and snobbish? I have no problem with having someone who's proud of being smart in office.

and this is better than electing congressmen that have gay lovers running male prostitution rings and growing marijuana in their house, and then heckling opponents that dare run against their partner?

or presidents who visit 57 states, and think Austrians speak Austrian? yeah, thats a great role model for foreign relations.....

harry reid who says there are no illegal immigrants holding jobs in nevada?

do you really think your side is so much better??

and i thought you were "independent".....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ken Bora
10-19-2010, 11:43 AM
and this is better than electing congressmen that have gay lovers running male prostitution rings and growing marijuana in their house, and then heckling opponents that dare run against their partner?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Hey, that’s Massachusetts so it don’t count.
Chappaquiddick anyone ??????:rolleyes:



.

Roger Perry
10-19-2010, 11:46 AM
and this is better than electing congressmen that have gay lovers running male prostitution rings and growing marijuana in their house, and then heckling opponents that dare run against their partner?

or presidents who visit 57 states, and think Austrians speak Austrian? yeah, thats a great role model for foreign relations.....

harry reid who says there are no illegal immigrants holding jobs in nevada?

do you really think your side is so much better??

and i thought you were "independent".....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What else would you call it. If someone talked to me in these words I would not have a clue as to what they are talking about:confused:
amber nectar -- beer

ANZAC -- Australia and New Zealand Army Corps

back of beyond -- far away in the outback

bail up -- to rob

billabong -- a watering hole

bloody -- general all purpose adjective, once thought profane

bludger -- a sponge who lives off the labor of others

cobber -- a friend

cuppa -- a cup of tea

digger -- Australian soldier

g'day -- hello, good day

good on ya -- well done, general term of approval

jackaroo -- apprentice cowboy, station (farm) hand

jumbuck -- sheep

Kiwi -- New Zealander

larrikin -- boozy, anti-authoritarian, mischievous fellow

mate -- friend, buddy

outback -- the bush, the interior of Australia, or desert country

plonk -- cheap wine

Pom or Pommy -- an English person

swagman -- a vagabond, a tramp

up a gum tree -- in a bad situation

vegemite -- black, yeast based bread spread

walkabout -- travel on foot for long distances

wowser -- a puritanical, blue-nosed, do-gooder

Yank -- an American

luvmylabs23139
10-19-2010, 11:47 AM
Let's not forget Greene running as a Dem for senate in SC. I believe one of his suggestions for raising revenues was to sell action figures of himself.

Ken Bora
10-19-2010, 11:49 AM
Let's not forget Greene running as a Dem for senate in SC. I believe one of his suggestions for raising revenues was to sell action figures of himself.

at least he could dance:cool:

luvmylabs23139
10-19-2010, 11:50 AM
Roger,
Austria not Australia
German is the language spoken in Austria.

BonMallari
10-19-2010, 12:14 PM
So, we have frontrunners in key senate races that say things like:

"some of you look Asian to me" to a group of Hispanic schoolchildren

And:

"show me where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state"

You could hear the crowd erupt in gasps and then laughter at that last one.


Tell me, tea-party supporters.....is this the best you've got?
You want to trust the reigns of our government at a time of economic uncertainty, unemployment, war......to someone who asks where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state??

Its not even funny anymore. Its sickening and scary. Since when is being stupid en vogue in America? If you pronounce names properly, you're called elitist and snobbish? I have no problem with having someone who's proud of being smart in office.

that quote belongs to Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle...I thought she was referring to my family, because one of my brother's does look hispanic, a couple of my siblings could pass for being chinese, Clint could pass for being Eskimo,people often mistake me for being vietnamese except I am tall for being american-asian...and of course we are all American of Filipino descent..:razz::razz:

her comments were just another gaffe from someone ill suited for the job...unfortunately my choices are

Sharon Angle
Harry Reid
Neither candidate

dnf777
10-19-2010, 12:14 PM
and this is better than electing congressmen that have gay lovers running male prostitution rings and growing marijuana in their house, and then heckling opponents that dare run against their partner?

or presidents who visit 57 states, and think Austrians speak Austrian? yeah, thats a great role model for foreign relations.....

harry reid who says there are no illegal immigrants holding jobs in nevada?

do you really think your side is so much better??

and i thought you were "independent".....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whoaaa Cowboy! You're putting more words in my mouth than can fit! I assume by adding more examples, you agree with my comments? I don't care what side of the aisle they're from....we have a bunch of morons running things...or trying to run things! Its just that right now, you're gals seem to be in the front running for idiot of the year award. The Bush era seemed to have ushered in the dumbing-down fad.

david gibson
10-19-2010, 12:29 PM
Roger,
Austria not Australia
German is the language spoken in Austria.

i dont know whether to laugh or cry for the man after that one. holy shit.

that takes the cake, and with no smiley faces he cant claim he knew that all along, and based on the intelligence level of his other posts we all know he didnt.

probably thinks the chilean miners were actually in texas too.......lol

david gibson
10-19-2010, 12:31 PM
Whoaaa Cowboy! You're putting more words in my mouth than can fit! I assume by adding more examples, you agree with my comments? I don't care what side of the aisle they're from....we have a bunch of morons running things...or trying to run things! Its just that right now, you're gals seem to be in the front running for idiot of the year award. The Bush era seemed to have ushered in the dumbing-down fad.

sorry, i think the above examples are bigger gaffes than the ones you stated, but since you are so independent i am certain you dont see it that way.

Hew
10-19-2010, 12:34 PM
Brace yourself. You're about to get an education on the constitution. ;-)
I'm glad you recognize DNF's mangling of the Constitution even if he doesn't. Kudos. ;-)

david gibson
10-19-2010, 12:36 PM
democrat jim mcgovern:

“I think the Constitution is wrong”

on tape and on tv. now there's a gem for you! i notice how you conveniently dont mention ANY democtratic gaffes - of course you wouldnt - what self-respecting "independent" would????

Buzz
10-19-2010, 01:26 PM
And:

"show me where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state"

You could hear the crowd erupt in gasps and then laughter at that last one.




I googled this and this is what I came up with:

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002765/

Is this what you're talking about? The video is amusing...:D

Buzz
10-19-2010, 01:27 PM
democrat jim mcgovern:

“I think the Constitution is wrong”

on tape and on tv. now there's a gem for you! i notice how you conveniently dont mention ANY democtratic gaffes - of course you wouldnt - what self-respecting "independent" would????


Isn't that what you have you guys around for?

dnf777
10-19-2010, 01:51 PM
sorry, i think the above examples are bigger gaffes than the ones you stated, but since you are so independent i am certain you dont see it that way.

No I don't. People who outright deny any separation of church and state are very scary to me, and they should be to you too. And people who are too stupid to even know the First Amendment should scare all of us. I wonder if she knows that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms? Oh, where is that one?

And by the way, exposing one's ignorance of a vitally important subject, one that person claims to be well-versed in, is NOT a gaffe.

road kill
10-19-2010, 01:54 PM
No I don't. People who outright deny any separation of church and state are very scary to me, and they should be to you too. And people who are too stupid to even know the First Amendment should scare all of us. I wonder if she knows that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms? Oh, where is that one?

And by the way, exposing one's ignorance of a vitally important subject, one that person claims to be well-versed in, is NOT a gaffe.

I agree, I think she was going to try to force a religion on us, great catch Dave!!!:rolleyes:


RK

dnf777
10-19-2010, 02:07 PM
that quote belongs to Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle...I thought she was referring to my family, because one of my brother's does look hispanic, a couple of my siblings could pass for being chinese, Clint could pass for being Eskimo,people often mistake me for being vietnamese except I am tall for being american-asian...and of course we are all American of Filipino descent..:razz::razz:

her comments were just another gaffe from someone ill suited for the job...unfortunately my choices are

Sharon Angle
Harry Reid
Neither candidate


Know what you mean. My wife's family is Filipino....they can pass for Hispanic, Asian, Italian, Native American......just about anything but African!


I agree, I think she was going to try to force a religion on us, great catch Dave!!!


So you think she was just being stupid? I can go along with that. She's no mastermind. (I think she's opposed to masterminding, isn't she?)

ducknwork
10-19-2010, 02:27 PM
The government cannot establish or promote a religion. Teaching the theory of creationism alongside the THEORY of evolution is doing neither. Perhaps her sentence was just worded poorly, because I don't see how the Constitution allows the outlaw of teaching an alternative theory. Of course, I did leave my liberal bias goggles at home today...

david gibson
10-19-2010, 02:33 PM
No I don't. People who outright deny any separation of church and state are very scary to me, and they should be to you too. And people who are too stupid to even know the First Amendment should scare all of us. I wonder if she knows that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms? Oh, where is that one?

And by the way, exposing one's ignorance of a vitally important subject, one that person claims to be well-versed in, is NOT a gaffe.

yet it shouldnt scare us to hear a democrat say he thinks the constitution is wrong.

there goes your wonderful "independence" again...:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
10-19-2010, 02:33 PM
O'Donnell's comment was not a "mis-speak". Actually, the religious right, with whom O'Donnell identifies when she is not playing with candles and crystals, has been saying for years that the first amendment was never intended to impose a separation of church and state. Rather, the argument is made that the first amendment was intended solely to keeo government from interfering with religion, not to keep religion out of government. Of course, the laughter from the audience suggests that she might want to pick better audiences than a law school if she wants to spout such drivel. While the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, historical evidence certainly suggests that was the common understanding of the establishment clause in the first amendment when the Constitution was drafted and adopted.

road kill
10-19-2010, 02:38 PM
I agree, I think she was going to try to force a religion on us, great catch Dave!!!


So you think she was just being stupid? I can go along with that. She's no mastermind. (I think she's opposed to masterminding, isn't she?)

Nope, I think you have nothing to stand on in regard to issues or record so you concoct cheap shots to try to make her or any other conservative look bad.

"For the first time in my life" and "57 state regards.......":rolleyes:




RK

david gibson
10-19-2010, 02:48 PM
Nope, I think you have nothing to stand on in regard to issues or record so you concoct cheap shots to try to make her or any other conservative look bad.

"For the first time in my life" and "57 state regards.......":rolleyes:


RK

and lets not forget Jeremiah Wright! Pookies favorite uncle and mentor!

nooooo....not scary at all

BonMallari
10-19-2010, 02:58 PM
Know what you mean. My wife's family is Filipino....they can pass for Hispanic, Asian, Italian, Native American......just about anything but African!


I agree, I think she was going to try to force a religion on us, great catch Dave!!!


So you think she was just being stupid? I can go along with that. She's no mastermind. (I think she's opposed to masterminding, isn't she?)

So there is a slight chance we are relatives...very cool...wouldnt that make for one heck of a family dinner :D:D

starjack
10-19-2010, 03:28 PM
So, we have frontrunners in key senate races that say things like:

"some of you look Asian to me" to a group of Hispanic schoolchildren

And:

"show me where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state"

You could hear the crowd erupt in gasps and then laughter at that last one.


Tell me, tea-party supporters.....is this the best you've got?
You want to trust the reigns of our government at a time of economic uncertainty, unemployment, war......to someone who asks where in the Constitution it mentions separation of church and state??

Its not even funny anymore. Its sickening and scary. Since when is being stupid en vogue in America? If you pronounce names properly, you're called elitist and snobbish? I have no problem with having someone who's proud of being smart in office.

YOUR SPIN ON THINGS MAKE ME ILL.

Don Horstman
10-19-2010, 04:25 PM
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.

The actual first amendment Yardley, and not there is nothing there about the separation of church and state.

I think we have taken things like this way to far, and we often forget the context of the time period. Our founding fathers were not attempting to exclude religion, but rather trying to keep the goverment from establishing an official religion and from persecuting people for their religious beliefs. They had just watched the royal family leave the Catholic church, establish the Anglican church, and then persecute all of those who didn't follow their teachings.

The founding fathers mention things like God and divine rights in a multitude of writings including the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence. They were not anti-religion, and there is even a picture of our very first president putting his hand on (gasp) a Bible while the Oath of Office was administered. I am always amazed that liberals are able to add things to the Constitution that are not there, but unable to see the entire Second Amendment which is actually in the original document. These are the same people that think it is okay for federal judges to reference foreign law when making decisions for United States citizens who live under the U.S. Constitution.

I just read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to make sure, but I do not see anything that leads me to believe that the government can do something like force me to purchase a product (say like health insurance). They are able to levy taxes on citizens though. As a matter of fact President Obama expressly said this was not a tax during the health care debate, but now has the Justice Department using the governement's ability to levy taxes as the rationale behind the legality of nationalized health care. It is a tax now! Go figure a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Cody Covey
10-19-2010, 04:55 PM
I imagine they were laughing because the liberal left has tried to pound it into peoples heads that separation of church and state is in fact in the constitution when in fact it is taken out of context from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. Not really sure how you can say with a straight face that it was what the founders intended when the first time it was ever addressed by courts wasn't for about 100 years after the formation of the country. Sounds to me like it was judges using the bench to make laws....never seen that before /sarcasm.

Gerry Clinchy
10-19-2010, 05:03 PM
Well put, Don.

I think our founding fathers would be amazed by the tumult caused by the first part of that first sentence. As Jeff has often pointed out, not all the founding fathers were of a religious nature (I believe Thomas Jefferson is the one Jeff usually cites), but even so, I think that they might be surprised at today's furor over those few words. An atheist surely has substantial interest in not allowing the govt to "establish" any preferred religion.

When I was a kid, schools gave "released time" once a week to go to church instruction. Those who did not wish to participate got a study hall. Perhaps that is the epitome of "not interfering" with religous instruction, while not favoring any one religion (or non-religion) over another. I understand that is not a common practice any longer. Confirmation classes and Jewish instruction might often ALSO took place in non-school hours (after school or on weekends).

YardleyLabs
10-19-2010, 05:12 PM
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.

The actual first amendment Yardley, and not there is nothing there about the separation of church and state.

I think we have taken things like this way to far, and we often forget the context of the time period. Our founding fathers were not attempting to exclude religion, but rather trying to keep the government from establishing an official religion and from persecuting people for their religious beliefs. They had just watched the royal family leave the Catholic church, establish the Anglican church, and then persecute all of those who didn't follow their teachings.

The founding fathers mention things like God and divine rights in a multitude of writings including the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence. They were not anti-religion, and there is even a picture of our very first president putting his hand on (gasp) a Bible while the Oath of Office was administered. I am always amazed that liberals are able to add things to the Constitution that are not there, but unable to see the entire Second Amendment which is actually in the original document. These are the same people that think it is okay for federal judges to reference foreign law when making decisions for United States citizens who live under the U.S. Constitution.

I just read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to make sure, but I do not see anything that leads me to believe that the government can do something like force me to purchase a product (say like health insurance). They are able to levy taxes on citizens though. As a matter of fact President Obama expressly said this was not a tax during the health care debate, but now has the Justice Department using the governement's ability to levy taxes as the rationale behind the legality of nationalized health care. It is a tax now! Go figure a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth.
You are making my point perfectly. As I noted in my post, the words "separation of church and state" never show up in the Constitution. However, the words were not some modern invention taken out of the context of the time. The words came from President Thomas Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where he wrote:
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.(http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
That interpretation, which is also reflected in correspondence among other principals at the time, has been upheld by the courts consistently. It was never intended as a rejection of religion. Rather it reflected the belief, common at the time, that religion was a personal matter and not the stuff of government. That there were variations in attitude among the state governments was itself one of the reasons why the states did not want the federal government involved.

In fact, none of the rights stipulated in the Bill of Rights, including our own favorite second amendment, applied to state governments at all. Only with the adoption of the 14th amendment did state governments fall under the constraints of some of the first ten amendments, including the first, but not the second. The first time in history that the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment applied to the states by virtue of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was this year.

So yes, the Constitution was intended to build a wall of separation between church and state by virtue of the first amendment. It has been interpreted that way throughout our history. It has only applied to state governments since the civil war. The only modern "revisionism" affecting the Bill of Rights has been in extending the application of the second amendment to the states.

dnf777
10-19-2010, 05:29 PM
YOUR SPIN ON THINGS MAKE ME ILL.

Did I misquote? Or did she really ask where the Constitution provides for separation of church and state? If she did, then I didn't spin. I accurately quoted your "hope and change".

Gibson: There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating one's opinion that the constitution is wrong. Some people did just that when they decided that negroes and other people of color are not just 3/5 of a person, and should be allowed to vote and have equal protection under the law. (I know that one irks you) Some other people did just that when they thought that women should have the right to vote. See?

The authors of the Constitution did not think they were writing an infallible document, so they allowed mechanisms to AMEND it, when someone thinks it is "wrong" and pursues the proper channel.

dnf777
10-19-2010, 05:32 PM
So there is a slight chance we are relatives...very cool...wouldnt that make for one heck of a family dinner :D:D

If we ever sit down for a family dinner....YOUR side can do the cooking, we'll do the cleaning! I don't care much for chicken head soup and fish heads! My mother in law can cook some wicked Italian, but that's not true to form! ;)

Filipino fare is not my favorite. Kind of tailor made for Zimmerman's bizarre food show.

Cody Covey
10-19-2010, 06:45 PM
Did I misquote? Or did she really ask where the Constitution provides for separation of church and state? If she did, then I didn't spin. I accurately quoted your "hope and change".

Gibson: There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating one's opinion that the constitution is wrong. Some people did just that when they decided that negroes and other people of color are not just 3/5 of a person, and should be allowed to vote and have equal protection under the law. (I know that one irks you) Some other people did just that when they thought that women should have the right to vote. See?

The authors of the Constitution did not think they were writing an infallible document, so they allowed mechanisms to AMEND it, when someone thinks it is "wrong" and pursues the proper channel.
You did spin in the sense that it never does say anything about separation of church and state in the constitution and then try to make her seem like an idiot because she asked where it says that (Btw i think she is a complete moron. she just happens to be correct here)

starjack
10-19-2010, 07:12 PM
Did I misquote? Or did she really ask where the Constitution provides for separation of church and state? If she did, then I didn't spin. I accurately quoted your "hope and change".

Gibson: There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating one's opinion that the constitution is wrong. Some people did just that when they decided that negroes and other people of color are not just 3/5 of a person, and should be allowed to vote and have equal protection under the law. (I know that one irks you) Some other people did just that when they thought that women should have the right to vote. See?

The authors of the Constitution did not think they were writing an infallible document, so they allowed mechanisms to AMEND it, when someone thinks it is "wrong" and pursues the proper channel.

Yes she did say it in a question form to her opponent. Like i said before SPIN !!!

road kill
10-19-2010, 08:22 PM
You did spin in the sense that it never does say anything about separation of church and state in the constitution and then try to make her seem like an idiot because she asked where it says that (Btw i think she is a complete moron. she just happens to be correct here)

So, are you saying a "complete moron" out smarted dnf??:shock:

Who'd of ever thunk it??


RK

road kill
10-19-2010, 08:24 PM
You are making my point perfectly. As I noted in my post, the words "separation of church and state" never show up in the Constitution. However, the words were not some modern invention taken out of the context of the time. The words came from President Thomas Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where he wrote:
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.(http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
That interpretation, which is also reflected in correspondence among other principals at the time, has been upheld by the courts consistently. It was never intended as a rejection of religion. Rather it reflected the belief, common at the time, that religion was a personal matter and not the stuff of government. That there were variations in attitude among the state governments was itself one of the reasons why the states did not want the federal government involved.

In fact, none of the rights stipulated in the Bill of Rights, including our own favorite second amendment, applied to state governments at all. Only with the adoption of the 14th amendment did state governments fall under the constraints of some of the first ten amendments, including the first, but not the second. The first time in history that the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment applied to the states by virtue of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was this year.

So yes, the Constitution was intended to build a wall of separation between church and state by virtue of the first amendment. It has been interpreted that way throughout our history. It has only applied to state governments since the civil war. The only modern "revisionism" affecting the Bill of Rights has been in extending the application of the second amendment to the states.

Mr. Yardley, could you please post the words that specifically state "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution??

Please................


RK

david gibson
10-19-2010, 08:48 PM
and you guys call yourselves "independents"

thats got to be the funniest part of it all

dnf777
10-19-2010, 08:57 PM
Mr. Yardley, could you please post the words that specifically state "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution??

Please................


RK

That is the most lame-a$$ weasel maneuver I've ever come to expect out of the right, in an attempt to protect one of their select picks! Oh, she was asking for the actual text, not withstanding the meaning of the phrase! Let's redefine the founding fathers' intentions. And Jefferson made this PERFECTLY clear. No room for weasels here.

Look at the interview, and the question. And tell me you're going to stick to that argument. That is so lame, its pathetic! Yep, you guys fell for a real dimwit in ODonnell. Congratulations.

Cody Covey
10-19-2010, 09:00 PM
So, are you saying a "complete moron" out smarted dnf??:shock:

Who'd of ever thunk it??


RK

yes i am :)

depittydawg
10-19-2010, 09:00 PM
that quote belongs to Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle...I thought she was referring to my family, because one of my brother's does look hispanic, a couple of my siblings could pass for being chinese, Clint could pass for being Eskimo,people often mistake me for being vietnamese except I am tall for being american-asian...and of course we are all American of Filipino descent..:razz::razz:

her comments were just another gaffe from someone ill suited for the job...unfortunately my choices are

Sharon Angle
Harry Reid
Neither candidate

This choice should be on EVERY ballot in America:
C. None of the Above

david gibson
10-19-2010, 09:00 PM
That is the most lame-a$$ weasel maneuver I've ever come to expect out of the right, in an attempt to protect one of their select picks! Oh, she was asking for the actual text, not withstanding the meaning of the phrase! Let's redefine the founding fathers' intentions. And Jefferson made this PERFECTLY clear. No room for weasels here.

Look at the interview, and the question. And tell me you're going to stick to that argument. That is so lame, its pathetic! Yep, you guys fell for a real dimwit in ODonnell. Congratulations.

nope. he is just asking you to substantiate your claim.

you cant do it, so you attack.

lock-step with the party line!

the "independent" party line that is... LOL!!!

david gibson
10-19-2010, 09:03 PM
This choice should be on EVERY ballot in America:
C. None of the Above

ummmm dummy - it allready is. its called skipping a line.

about as hard to understand as trying to speak "austrian"/ "australian" eh?

you guys are cracking me up here!

depittydawg
10-19-2010, 09:07 PM
ummmm dummy - it allready is. its called skipping a line.

about as hard to understand as trying to speak "austrian"/ "australian" eh?

you guys are cracking me up here!

As usual you fail to comprehend. I'll spell it out for you.

C. None of the Above

C gets a majority of the votes - nobody is elected... Start over. Not quite the same as skipping a line is it?

dnf777
10-19-2010, 09:12 PM
nope. he is just asking you to substantiate your claim.

you cant do it, so you attack.

lock-step with the party line!

the "independent" party line that is... LOL!!!

What claim? That she said that? Easily verifiable through any number of outlets.

If you want to know her motivations, it would be far easier for you or your sidekick to get into her head. You're much closer to her mental functioning that anyone else on this list.

You guys are endless entertainment. Lets hear it now, how the Constitution is all Bible-based and supports a church-state. I know its coming next. Give me 3:30 to pop some popcorn first.

david gibson
10-19-2010, 09:15 PM
As usual you fail to comprehend. I'll spell it out for you.

C. None of the Above

C gets a majority of the votes - nobody is elected... Start over. Not quite the same as skipping a line is it?

oh yeah, i failed to see that. my apologies.

starting over makes so much more sense. so we just go out and conjure up 2 new candidates. 2 new candidates with new funding, new mudslinging, etc.... wow, that sounds so simple......

tell me - does this fantasy land you live in have chicks with 4 boobs???

Buzz
10-19-2010, 09:31 PM
The words came from President Thomas Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where he wrote:
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.(http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
That interpretation, which is also reflected in correspondence among other principals at the time, has been upheld by the courts consistently. It was never intended as a rejection of religion. Rather it reflected the belief, common at the time, that religion was a personal matter and not the stuff of government. That there were variations in attitude among the state governments was itself one of the reasons why the states did not want the federal government involved.






Have you heard the latest? The "exact phrase" separation of church and state came from Hitler. So that makes Liberals Nazis.



GOP candidate: Hitler invented separation of church and state

By Muriel Kane
Friday, September 17th, 2010 -- 9:52 pm

Christine O'Donnell isn't the only Delaware Tea Party candidate making waves.

The seat in the House of Representatives currently held by Republican Mike Castle -- who was defeated by O'Donnell in Tuesday's Senatorial primary -- is also up for grabs. The Republican primary for that office was won by Tea Partier Glen Urquhart, and it turns out that his political positions may be even more unique than O'Donnell's.

"Do you know, where does this phrase 'separation of church and state' come from?" Urquhart asked at a campaign event last April. "It was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. ... The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they’re Nazis."

"My jaw dropped when I heard it," rival candidate Kevin Wade told Delaware Online. "And he was emphatic about it -- it was not like a slip of the tongue. He got applause from half the crowd, and that disturbed me. I'd say half the room was stunned and the other half applauded."

According to Delaware Online, "Urquhart says the statement was taken out of context and that he did not explain his point very well. If he could do it over, he said, he would add more historical context and explain why he rejects Hitler's take on the relationship between government and the church."



The video is really entertaining. Watch it and see if you think anything was taken out of context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kh4xhem8tM&feature=player_embedded

Life must be really scary in that alternate reality.

Cody Covey
10-19-2010, 11:00 PM
What claim? That she said that? Easily verifiable through any number of outlets.

If you want to know her motivations, it would be far easier for you or your sidekick to get into her head. You're much closer to her mental functioning that anyone else on this list.

You guys are endless entertainment. Lets hear it now, how the Constitution is all Bible-based and supports a church-state. I know its coming next. Give me 3:30 to pop some popcorn first.

Who said or has said that the constitution supports a church state. Clearly it doesn't but another thing it doesn't say is there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. What it clearly says (and since the founders were supposed to be some of the smartest people of their time in America I'm pretty sure that they were able to form sentences and says exactly what they meant) Is that shall be no state religion established. Hence its called the establishment clause. It's not called the separation clause. Don't you think if you the founders wanted complete separation they would've taken down the religious symbols throughout the land. Instead that didn't start happening until "Progressives" came around.

Hew
10-20-2010, 03:21 AM
And Jefferson made this PERFECTLY clear. No room for weasels here.
Jefferson didn't write one word of the Constitution. Nor did he pen any of the Federalist Papers. Nor did he ever cast one vote on ratification of the Constitution. He was a very influential president whose opinions about religion and the Constitution, written in a letter a decade and a half after the Constitution, became the de facto interpretation. I wouldn't exactly argue that his interpretation was shared by a majority of the men who envisioned, wrote and ratified the Constitution. I also know, that despite the Left's tittering and snickering, you will indeed find no specific mention of separation of church and state in the United States Constitution.

dnf777
10-20-2010, 04:41 AM
After hearing what she said, and hearing people rush to her defense and spin this, all I can say is:

GOD HELP US!!

road kill
10-20-2010, 05:46 AM
After hearing what she said, and hearing people rush to her defense and spin this, all I can say is:

GOD HELP US!!

If you so clearly understand the EXACT words of her question, why don't you answer it?

All the name calling and histrionics do nothing but avoid answering the question.

Put all of us who "rush" to her defense to shame, answer her question.:cool:



BTW--is the back of your head sore??;-)


RK

cotts135
10-20-2010, 06:11 AM
Mr. Yardley, could you please post the words that specifically state "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution??

Please................


RK
Not sure what that would prove since the Constitution does not elaborate on a lot of things. The argument that., since it does not say it specifically in the Constitution, than it can't be valid, is completely bogus.
It is a document of many broad principles that the founders believed should be upheld. It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court for many years when specific and unforeseen events have presented themselves. To think that it could cover and elaborate on every circumstance and situation that could possibly occur would produce a document that would might not even fit in the Library of Congress.

ducknwork
10-20-2010, 06:15 AM
Not sure what that would prove since the Constitution does not elaborate on a lot of things. The argument that., since it does not say it specifically in the Constitution, than it can't be valid, is completely bogus.
It is a document of many broad principles that the founders believed should be upheld. It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court for many years when specific and unforeseen events have presented themselves. To think that it could cover and elaborate on every circumstance and situation that could possibly occur would produce a document that would might not even fit in the Library of Congress.

Good point, but you would think they would really say what they mean regarding the topic that was one of the main causes of the birth of America...

road kill
10-20-2010, 06:37 AM
Not sure what that would prove since the Constitution does not elaborate on a lot of things. The argument that., since it does not say it specifically in the Constitution, than it can't be valid, is completely bogus.
It is a document of many broad principles that the founders believed should be upheld. It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court for many years when specific and unforeseen events have presented themselves. To think that it could cover and elaborate on every circumstance and situation that could possibly occur would produce a document that would might not even fit in the Library of Congress.

I am not arguing that.
She asked a question, the question is never answered, only personal belittling from the elitist amongst us and broad interprtations.

Just answer the question.........."show me where it states that in the Constitution."



RK

cotts135
10-20-2010, 06:59 AM
I am not arguing that.
She asked a question, the question is never answered, only personal belittling from the elitist amongst us and broad interprtations.

Just answer the question.........."show me where it states that in the Constitution."



RK
Absolutely correct there is no clause in the Constitution that says "Separation of Church and State" Her implication with that statement, at least to me is quiet clear, If it doesn't say it than it can't be true. That's how i see it.

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 08:09 AM
Mr. Yardley, could you please post the words that specifically state "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution??

Please................


RK
Some day you'll learn to read before you hit submit. You may check both of my posts addressing this. In both you will see my statement that there is no language in the Constitution saying "separation of church and state". BTW, there is also no language guaranteeing people the right to bear arms.;-) What the Constitution does say is that Congress shall pass no laws "respecting" an establishment of religion or infringing on the practice of religion. In accordance with the exact language, that has been interpreted as preventing Congress from passing any laws that favor any practice of religion or any religious organization. It has also been interpreted as meaning that Congress shall pass no laws telling religions what or how to worship. Neither seems to be much of a stretch. Jefferson characterized that as a wall of separation between church and state. He, not the Constitution, is the source of that phrase. However, it does strike me as pretty apt.


Who said or has said that the constitution supports a church state. Clearly it doesn't but another thing it doesn't say is there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. What it clearly says (and since the founders were supposed to be some of the smartest people of their time in America I'm pretty sure that they were able to form sentences and says exactly what they meant) Is that shall be no state religion established. Hence its called the establishment clause. It's not called the separation clause. Don't you think if you the founders wanted complete separation they would've taken down the religious symbols throughout the land. Instead that didn't start happening until "Progressives" came around.
It says that there will be no state religion, but it also says much more (and I agree that they were pretty smart). It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". "An establishment of religion" would be any organization or group or entity formed for religious purposes. A law, for example, giving money or privileges to churches would be illegal even if it were given to all churches. The founders were not anti-religion. They simply didn't believe that religion was the business of the government.


Jefferson didn't write one word of the Constitution. Nor did he pen any of the Federalist Papers. Nor did he ever cast one vote on ratification of the Constitution. He was a very influential president whose opinions about religion and the Constitution, written in a letter a decade and a half after the Constitution, became the de facto interpretation. I wouldn't exactly argue that his interpretation was shared by a majority of the men who envisioned, wrote and ratified the Constitution. I also know, that despite the Left's tittering and snickering, you will indeed find no specific mention of separation of church and state in the United States Constitution.
You are absolutely right in that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being drafted. However, his influence was clear in many ways including the fact that the Virginia Bill of Rights, which he had helped to draft, was one of the documents that influenced the US Bill of Rights. The demand for the Bill of Rights came largely from the anti-Federalists. What people forget, however, is that it was not an effort to state the rights of individuals so much as a statement of limitation on the powers of the Federal government itself. Thus, it did not give citizens the right to bear arms, it prevented the Federal government from adopting laws that restricted that right. States were still free to do so. It said that Congress could not adopt laws "respecting" an establishment of religion, but did not prevent states from doing so. Only with the adoption of the 14th amendment were the restrictions on actions by the Federal government extended to restrict the actions of state governments. Even then, the extension was not automatic or uniform across all rights. The relevant language from the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". That has been interpreted by the courts as an extension of the provisions of some of the Bill of Rights to apply as limits on the actions of state governments. The "establishment" clause was one of the first to be interpreted in this way. The second amendment was the last, having only been included this year.

Franco
10-20-2010, 08:32 AM
Since we are on the subject of Thomas Jefferson, I thought I would copy and paste the below from the PBS website. PBS aired a special on Jefferson not to long ago and below is a part of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The White House, Washington, D.C. 1804.
Thomas Jefferson was frustrated. It was not the burdens of office that bothered him. It was his Bible.
Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus written in the New Testament had been contaminated. Early Christians, overly eager to make their religion appealing to the pagans, had obscured the words of Jesus with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the teachings of Plato. These "Platonists" had thoroughly muddled Jesus' original message. Jefferson assured his friend and rival, John Adams, that the authentic words of Jesus were still there. The task, as he put it, was one of
abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill.
With the confidence and optimistic energy characteristic of the Enlightenment, Jefferson proceeded to dig out the diamonds. Candles burning late at night, his quill pen scratching "too hastily" as he later admitted, Jefferson composed a short monograph titled The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. The subtitle explains that the work is "extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John." In it, Jefferson presented what he understood was the true message of Jesus.
Jefferson set aside his New Testament research, returning to it again in the summer of 1820. This time, he completed a more ambitious work, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English. The text of the New Testament appears in four parallel columns in four languages. Jefferson omitted the words that he thought were inauthentic and retained those he believed were original. The resulting work is commonly known as the "Jefferson Bible."
Who was the Jesus that Jefferson found? He was not the familiar figure of the New Testament. In Jefferson's Bible, there is no account of the beginning and the end of the Gospel story. There is no story of the annunciation, the virgin birth or the appearance of the angels to the shepherds. The resurrection is not even mentioned.
Jefferson discovered a Jesus who was a great Teacher of Common Sense. His message was the morality of absolute love and service. Its authenticity was not dependent upon the dogma of the Trinity or even the claim that Jesus was uniquely inspired by God. Jefferson saw Jesus as
a man, of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, (and an) enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions of divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law.
In short, Mr. Jefferson's Jesus, modeled on the ideals of the Enlightenment thinkers of his day, bore a striking resemblance to Jefferson himself.

BrianW
10-20-2010, 08:45 AM
After hearing what she said, and hearing people rush to her defense and spin this, all I can say is:

GOD HELP US!!
Though I'm sure you intend this last comment as tongue-in-cheek;

He "might, except He has conditions first;
And I will certainly hide my face on that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.
Deuteronomy 31:18

"if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land"
2 Chronicles 7:14

This thread epitomizes these verses, imo, though they were addressed to the Israelites before the birth of Christ. Here are so many people trying to espouse that God has no place in our federal government, that free exercise of religion means separation from religion, and then we wonder why things are falling apart?!? :confused:

Don't hold your breath though waiting for that "Godly help" dnf. :(

ducknwork
10-20-2010, 09:03 AM
Brian, the more you post the more I like you...Two thumbs up!

Buzz
10-20-2010, 09:24 AM
Actually that post scares the heck out of me.

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 10:34 AM
...
Here are so many people trying to espouse that God has no place in our federal government, that free exercise of religion means separation from religion, and then we wonder why things are falling apart?!? :confused:

...
Our Federal government is made up of people, and if they are like most Americans, the majority are religious to at least some extent.

The separation of church and state is not anti-religious. Instead, it is pro-religious freedom and freedom of individual conscience. Government has no business interfering with religion or religious practices. It has no business playing favorites among religions even if the "religion" is atheism. That was viewed as an essential requirement for federation among the states, not because they were not religious, but because religious beliefs varied from state to state and from person to person and they did not want a government that played favorites. They were much more the children of the "Age of Reason" than they were the children of religious fervor.

In fact, by the mid-19th century, more and more evangelists emerged who attributed some of the tribulations of the Civil War to the secularism of our founding fathers. That is when more public expressions of religious beliefs entered into politics and when people began to worry about including things like "In God We Trust" on our coinage. How absurd is it that people view the printing of a religious statement on money is somehow a measure of Christian belief. Wasn't Jesus the man who went into the Temple and drove out all the merchants? Talk about irony ...

ducknwork
10-20-2010, 10:42 AM
It has no business playing favorites among religions even if the "religion" is atheism.

Atheism is treated as the favorite every time the Govt forces God or even the mention of the name Jesus out of somewhere public.

Ken Bora
10-20-2010, 10:48 AM
......

In fact, by the mid-19th century, more and more evangelists emerged who attributed some of the tribulations of the Civil War to the secularism of our founding fathers. That is when more public expressions of religious beliefs entered into politics and when people began to worry about including things like "In God We Trust" on our coinage. How absurd is it that people view the printing of a religious statement on money is somehow a measure of Christian belief. Wasn't Jesus the man who went into the Temple and drove out all the merchants? Talk about irony ...


Not to split hairs here but they were not actually “Merchants” they were more like bankers. See you had to pay to pray and you had to have correct ceremonial clothing. You had to get your feet washed. All this stuff you needed to pay for. The folk came from all over, many kingdoms, like today. And needed to exchange the currency they had to the currency the temple accepted. Hence the term “Money Changers” And of course they (the bankers) charges a fee for this service. Hence profiting off the righteous ness (I just cant spell what I am thinking L ) of others, while they themselves were not righteous. I am pretty sure it is the only time Jesus lost his temper, in what I have read. The “Yea Hypocrites” line, I don’t know the New Testament numbers, just the stories, sorry. But anyway, he was lashing out at hypocritical bankers, not merchants. And they have gotten a bad rap ever since. Merchants are cool.
But I digress, anyone need maple syrup J

Cody Covey
10-20-2010, 10:56 AM
But what I don't understand maybe with your Ivy educated mind you can help me. How does...Not establishing a religion and not restricting religion mean that government can't have the 10 commandments on the lawn of a building. It is not establishing a religion not is it restricting religion. The problem with liberals is they all want to read the constitution for what it could mean if they are just able to get 5-4 vote out of the supreme court where as I just read the document. It says what it says....

ducknwork
10-20-2010, 11:05 AM
But what I don't understand maybe with your Ivy educated mind you can help me. How does...Not establishing a religion and not restricting religion mean that government can't have the 10 commandments on the lawn of a building. It is not establishing a religion not is it restricting religion. The problem with liberals is they all want to read the constitution for what it could mean if they are just able to get 5-4 vote out of the supreme court where as I just read the document. It says what it says....

So Christianity gets what, a few square feet of lawn where the ten commandments are located? Atheism gets all the grass in the rest of the lawn that contains no religious symbols!

If Christians get to hang the ten commandments on the courthouse wall, big deal! Atheists get the rest of the wall where it is blank space. They could even hang a nice framed picture of a plain white piece of paper since they believe in the non existence of God. Wouldn't offend me a bit!

Cody Covey
10-20-2010, 11:17 AM
So Christianity gets what, a few square feet of lawn where the ten commandments are located? Atheism gets all the grass in the rest of the lawn that contains no religious symbols!

If Christians get to hang the ten commandments on the courthouse wall, big deal! Atheists get the rest of the wall where it is blank space. They could even hang a nice framed picture of a plain white piece of paper since they believe in the non existence of God. Wouldn't offend me a bit!

or you can live in seattle and have this at the capital building.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/solstice_front%5B1%5D.jpg

ducknwork
10-20-2010, 11:31 AM
How can atheists be offended by something they believe doesn't exist?

Santa and the tooth fairy don't piss me off...

Just sayin...

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 12:31 PM
Atheism is treated as the favorite every time the Govt forces God or even the mention of the name Jesus out of somewhere public.The absence of religious expression is not an expression of atheism; it is silence. An expression of atheism would be the posting of material denying the existence of any deity or condemning religion as evil. An open lawn is just that: a space of grass that has nothing to do with religious belief. The government does not prevent public expressions of religious beliefs; it prevents using the auspices of government to support those beliefs.


Not to split hairs here but they were not actually “Merchants” they were more like bankers. See you had to pay to pray and you had to have correct ceremonial clothing. You had to get your feet washed. All this stuff you needed to pay for. The folk came from all over, many kingdoms, like today. And needed to exchange the currency they had to the currency the temple accepted. Hence the term “Money Changers” And of course they (the bankers) charges a fee for this service. Hence profiting off the righteous ness (I just cant spell what I am thinking L ) of others, while they themselves were not righteous. I am pretty sure it is the only time Jesus lost his temper, in what I have read. The “Yea Hypocrites” line, I don’t know the New Testament numbers, just the stories, sorry. But anyway, he was lashing out at hypocritical bankers, not merchants. And they have gotten a bad rap ever since. Merchants are cool.
But I digress, anyone need maple syrup J
Actually, Matthew 21:12 reads "And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves." I was originally going to write money changes but figured I shold check first.;-)


But what I don't understand maybe with your Ivy educated mind you can help me. How does...Not establishing a religion and not restricting religion mean that government can't have the 10 commandments on the lawn of a building. It is not establishing a religion not is it restricting religion. The problem with liberals is they all want to read the constitution for what it could mean if they are just able to get 5-4 vote out of the supreme court where as I just read the document. It says what it says....The ten commandments are an expression of laws handed down by the god of Moses. They address not just general moral behavior, but include admonishments concerning belief in one god and rejection of all others. That favors belief over non-belief, monotheism over multitheism, and Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs over all others. How can it be seen as anything other than a government action "respecting an establishment of religion" when it is placed in a public space symbolizing the force of law? Why should it be given preference over, for example, a copy of the Communist Manifesto?


So Christianity gets what, a few square feet of lawn where the ten commandments are located? Atheism gets all the grass in the rest of the lawn that contains no religious symbols!

If Christians get to hang the ten commandments on the courthouse wall, big deal! Atheists get the rest of the wall where it is blank space. They could even hang a nice framed picture of a plain white piece of paper since they believe in the non existence of God. Wouldn't offend me a bit!
As noted in my first comment, silence of matters of religion is not an expression against religion. All that other space on the wall is not filled with anti-religious expressions.


How can atheists be offended by something they believe doesn't exist?

Santa and the tooth fairy don't piss me off...

Just sayin...
The offense doesn't come from the expression; it comes from government's implicit endorsement of that expression. Towns which have allowed numerous groups to put up both religious and non-religious expressions have not run into legal problems. The problems come when those expressions seem to reflect only certain perspectives. There was a thread here a couple of years ago where outrage was being expressed over Islamic or atheistic displays being put up in the same areas as Christian displays during Christmas holiday period. How would such a restriction not represent a governmental action "respecting" Christianity.

Cody Covey
10-20-2010, 01:08 PM
The absence of religious expression is not an expression of atheism; it is silence. An expression of atheism would be the posting of material denying the existence of any deity or condemning religion as evil. An open lawn is just that: a space of grass that has nothing to do with religious belief. The government does not prevent public expressions of religious beliefs; it prevents using the auspices of government to support those beliefs.


Actually, Matthew 21:12 reads "And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves." I was originally going to write money changes but figured I shold check first.;-)

The ten commandments are an expression of laws handed down by the god of Moses. They address not just general moral behavior, but include admonishments concerning belief in one god and rejection of all others. That favors belief over non-belief, monotheism over multitheism, and Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs over all others. How can it be seen as anything other than a government action "respecting an establishment of religion" when it is placed in a public space symbolizing the force of law? Why should it be given preference over, for example, a copy of the Communist Manifesto?


As noted in my first comment, silence of matters of religion is not an expression against religion. All that other space on the wall is not filled with anti-religious expressions.


The offense doesn't come from the expression; it comes from government's implicit endorsement of that expression. Towns which have allowed numerous groups to put up both religious and non-religious expressions have not run into legal problems. The problems come when those expressions seem to reflect only certain perspectives. There was a thread here a couple of years ago where outrage was being expressed over Islamic or atheistic displays being put up in the same areas as Christian displays during Christmas holiday period. How would such a restriction not represent a governmental action "respecting" Christianity.
I don't recall saying it should get preference over it. Does just being up establish a centralized religion? I would have to say that unless we start to govern through religion, not just based on it since all of our morals don't come from the same place and may be based in religion thus affected how we decide to govern, and have an established religion for the country then we don't have a violation of the constitution.

Why in your mind....other than being an atheist yourself... do you think atheists should get preferential treatment over christians? All that space on the wall does reflect anti-religion when it was atheists wanting it pulled down....

ducknwork
10-20-2010, 01:18 PM
All that space on the wall does reflect anti-religion when it was atheists wanting it pulled down....

B-I-N-G-O....

dnf777
10-20-2010, 02:40 PM
Don't hold your breath though waiting for that "Godly help" dnf. :(

I don't. I tried praying my Penelec bill to be paid when I lived in Philly. Finally, I gave up, stayed in school, got a job, and paid the damn thing myself.


Duck: You gotta help me understand your logic on the open grass thing being a shrine to atheism????

By that logic, God himself must be an atheist, as he created the oceans, the plains, the majestic mountains, the Grand Canyon.....all without reference to religion. So these wonders of beauty are all shrines to atheism?? I admit, I saw the Virgin Mother on the trunk of a SugarMaple once...he snuck that one in I suppose.

Hmmm...while I no longer subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, I still admire in awe and humbleness God's handywork everytime I take in the natural wonders of the world. Should I stop doing this, since these are atheist shrines? :confused:

road kill
10-20-2010, 02:43 PM
I don't. I tried praying my Penelec bill to be paid when I lived in Philly. Finally, I gave up, stayed in school, got a job, and paid the damn thing myself.

Duck: You gotta help me understand your logic on the open grass thing being a shrine to atheism????

By that logic, God himself must be an atheist, as he created the oceans, the plains, the majestic mountains, the Grand Canyon.....all without reference to religion. So these wonders of beauty are all shrines to atheism?? I admit, I saw the Virgin Mother on the trunk of a SugarMaple once...he snuck that one in I suppose.

Hmmm...while I no longer subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, I still admire in awe and humbleness God's handywork everytime I take in the natural wonders of the world. Should I stop doing this, since these are atheist shrines? :confused:

So, your prayer was answered!!:D


RK

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 03:36 PM
or you can live in seattle and have this at the capital building.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/solstice_front%5B1%5D.jpg
This is an example of an atheistic statement that would normally only be permitted in governmental space if religious symbols were also permitted to be displayed. It would be inappropriate if this were permitted and, say, a nativity scene were not. In fact, the Port of Seattle removed a Christmas tree from the airport after a rabbi requested permission to put up a menorah at the same time. At the same time, the capitol building had a menorah on display and refused a permit request to display a nativity scene. Litigation abounded and ultimately, the decisions was made to allow inclusive displays of which this sign was one. There were religious displays at the same time that are not included in the photo. There is no problem with that legally. The complaints since have come from Christian groups that believe they should receive preferential treatment.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/12/03/2008464578.jpg

The sign shown in the first picture is on the left, while the nativity scene is on the right. A menorah was also on display.

I don't recall saying it should get preference over it. Does just being up establish a centralized religion? I would have to say that unless we start to govern through religion, not just based on it since all of our morals don't come from the same place and may be based in religion thus affected how we decide to govern, and have an established religion for the country then we don't have a violation of the constitution.

Why in your mind....other than being an atheist yourself... do you think atheists should get preferential treatment over christians? All that space on the wall does reflect anti-religion when it was atheists wanting it pulled down....
The courts actually have a very mixed position on the display of the ten commandments. Where displays have been established as part of an overall historical display including many other items, the courts have allowed the ten commandments to remain. Where the ten commandments have been displayed as part of a relatively recent action aimed largely at promoting what was viewed as the religious foundations of American law, the courts have generally forced their removal.

Effectively, the court has decided that when the commandments are being put on public property to promote a religious view that they are illegal unless other religious (or non-religious) views have equal opportunity to be displayed.

The notion that the adsence of religious displays evidences preferential treatment of atheism is absurd on its face. Your focus on the notion of a centralized state religion also misses the point. The language of the Constitution did not prohibit Congress from passing laws giving one religion preferential treatment over another, it adopted language prohibiting acts respecting "an establishment of religion," meaning any establishment of religion.

The understanding of that certainly varied from delegate to delegate and even from state to state. However, it clearly was intended to preserve rights of conscience, and to prevent any religious group from being treated preferentially over others (not simply to prevent a group from being designated as the "official" state religion). Madison tended to fear acts of the majority that would infringe on the rights of minorities. Jefferson tended to fear acts by the government and the powerful that would infringe on the rights of the people. Both feared any action that would have the government taking sides, or showing preferences, or interfering in religious practices (This is evident in Madison's correspondence with Jefferson concerning proposals for a Bill of Rights.).

The Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution as adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Instead, is was only drafted after it became clear that the Constitution would not be ratified unless such a Bill of Rights were adopted at the same time. Madison originally proposed twelve amendments of which only ten were approved. The two that were not approved both addressed issues of religion and free speech. One allowed people to be exempted from military service for religious reasons. The other basically imposed the restrictions of the first amendment on the individual states. Once the final ten were adopted as the Bill of Rights, the ratification of the Constitution by the remaining states proceeded to completion in 1789.

subroc
10-20-2010, 03:44 PM
or you can live in seattle and have this at the capital building.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/solstice_front%5B1%5D.jpg


There is no reason to go out of your way to put this up other than you have malice in your heart.

Cody Covey
10-20-2010, 03:47 PM
This is an example of an atheistic statement that would normally only be permitted in governmental space if religious symbols were also permitted to be displayed. It would be inappropriate if this were permitted and, say, a nativity scene were not. In fact, the Port of Seattle removed a Christmas tree from the airport after a rabbi requested permission to put up a menorah at the same time. At the same time, the capitol building had a menorah on display and refused a permit request to display a nativity scene. Litigation abounded and ultimately, the decisions was made to allow inclusive displays of which this sign was one. There were religious displays at the same time that are not included in the photo. There is no problem with that legally. The complaints since have come from Christian groups that believe they should receive preferential treatment.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/12/03/2008464578.jpg

The sign shown in the first picture is on the left, while the nativity scene is on the right. A menorah was also on display.

The courts actually have a very mixed position on the display of the ten commandments. Where displays have been established as part of an overall historical display including many other items, the courts have allowed the ten commandments to remain. Where the ten commandments have been displayed as part of a relatively recent action aimed largely at promoting what was viewed as the religious foundations of American law, the courts have generally forced their removal.

Effectively, the court has decided that when the commandments are being put on public property to promote a religious view that they are illegal unless other religious (or non-religious) views have equal opportunity to be displayed.

The notion that the adsence of religious displays evidences preferential treatment of atheism is absurd on its face. Your focus on the notion of a centralized state religion also misses the point. The language of the Constitution did not prohibit Congress from passing laws giving one religion preferential treatment over another, it adopted language prohibiting acts respecting "an establishment of religion," meaning any establishment of religion.

The understanding of that certainly varied from delegate to delegate and even from state to state. However, it clearly was intended to preserve rights of conscience, and to prevent any religious group from being treated preferentially over others (not simply to prevent a group from being designated as the "official" state religion). Madison tended to fear acts of the majority that would infringe on the rights of minorities. Jefferson tended to fear acts by the government and the powerful that would infringe on the rights of the people. Both feared any action that would have the government taking sides, or showing preferences, or interfering in religious practices (This is evident in Madison's correspondence with Jefferson concerning proposals for a Bill of Rights.).

The Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution as adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Instead, is was only drafted after it became clear that the Constitution would not be ratified unless such a Bill of Rights were adopted at the same time. Madison originally proposed twelve amendments of which only ten were approved. The two that were not approved both addressed issues of religion and free speech. One allowed people to be exempted from military service for religious reasons. The other basically imposed the restrictions of the first amendment on the individual states. Once the final ten were adopted as the Bill of Rights, the ratification of the Constitution by the remaining states proceeded to completion in 1789.While I appreciate your knowledge of history I fail to see how a paper or a statue is establishing a religion. If there is the 10 commandments outside the building and when governing you say, "But the 10 commandments outside say, blah" then sure I could see your argument. But to say that just because we have things on or around state or federal buildings that it is an attempt to establish religion seems to me a little like the people who say because we have NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM on our money that the founders were trying to establish a new world order. Both are crazy and should be disregarded...

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 04:53 PM
While I appreciate your knowledge of history I fail to see how a paper or a statue is establishing a religion. If there is the 10 commandments outside the building and when governing you say, "But the 10 commandments outside say, blah" then sure I could see your argument. But to say that just because we have things on or around state or federal buildings that it is an attempt to establish religion seems to me a little like the people who say because we have NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM on our money that the founders were trying to establish a new world order. Both are crazy and should be disregarded...
And yet, imagine the outcry if what was being displayed were from the Koran. Presumably, you would not consider that indicative of a religious bias either.

Cody Covey
10-20-2010, 05:04 PM
And yet, imagine the outcry if what was being displayed were from the Koran. Presumably, you would not consider that indicative of a religious bias either.

You're right I mostly certainly wouldn't. But I also agree that the christian right would throw a fit. The only problem i have with the picture i posted is that its whole purpose is to demean all religion not to promote itself. If it said we believe in yada yada instead of we believe in yada yada and you are all wakkos then i would have no problem with it.

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 05:19 PM
You're right I mostly certainly wouldn't. But I also agree that the christian right would throw a fit. The only problem i have with the picture i posted is that its whole purpose is to demean all religion not to promote itself. If it said we believe in yada yada instead of we believe in yada yada and you are all wakkos then i would have no problem with it.
I actually share your feeling about the poster. I have never understood the need that some atheists feel to proselytize what is essentially a non-belief. However, I have also never understood the reason for the more traditionally religious who tell me that I will burn in hell for eternity because I do not share their beliefs. To each his own, which is presumably the point of the first amendment.

ducknwork
10-21-2010, 06:25 AM
Duck: You gotta help me understand your logic on the open grass thing being a shrine to atheism????

If atheism is the belief of an absence of God, then wherever God is not allowed to 'exist' should make atheists happy.

Again, how can you be offended by something that you believe doesn't exist?

dnf777
10-21-2010, 08:40 AM
If atheism is the belief of an absence of God, then wherever God is not allowed to 'exist' should make atheists happy.

Again, how can you be offended by something that you believe doesn't exist?

Don't ask me--I'm not an atheist!

But I can understand being offended if you feel that you're being judged by a religious standard, rather than the legal standard that binds us as a nation. Oddly, the two standards often overlap, but I think you can understand the feeling of discrimination if a judge has stone tablets over his bench, knows you're an atheist, and is sitting in judgement of you?

BrianW
10-21-2010, 08:43 AM
Four score and seven years ago... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


Without those 2 words, this address loses much of it's impact, imo.

These days the ACLU, atheists etc would (and do) have a tizzy fit at something like this.

YardleyLabs
10-21-2010, 09:17 AM
Four score and seven years ago... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/editor/separator.gif

Without those 2 words, this address loses much of it's impact, imo.

These days the ACLU, atheists etc would (and do) have a tizzy fit at something like this.


But no one does, not the ACLU, libs, or anyone else. Presidents and politicians generally have been calling on God for as long as we have been a country. It's an expression of personal belief (or at least what they would like us to believe) and is fully protected.

A teacher who says, in the context of class discussion, "I believe that there is a deity, some other people believe there are many deities, and some believe there are none.", is not violating any laws. A teacher who comes into a public school class and announces "I believe in one God, whom I call Allah. I am going to say my payer now and you are welcome to join me or not." is violating the law. The difference is that by conducting a prayer, the teacher is creating an implicit pressure on children to join in. I specifically descrubed this condition with a teacher praying to Allah, because most in this country would be outraged. However, many of those outraged people would be perfectly comfortable if the prayer were Christian.

BTW, I think the speech would have been great with or without those two words.

duckheads
10-21-2010, 09:39 AM
And yet, imagine the outcry if what was being displayed were from the Koran. Presumably, you would not consider that indicative of a religious bias either.

The first President of the United States was not sworn in with his hand on a Koran, his hand was on a Bible. How many of our founding fathers were Muslim? The majority of buildings in the capitol of our nation have Christian symbols or referrences on them. Are there any Islamic symbols on any buildings in our capitol or on our money or on anything else?

YardleyLabs
10-21-2010, 10:02 AM
The first President of the United States was not sworn in with his hand on a Koran, his hand was on a Bible. How many of our founding fathers were Muslim? The majority of buildings in the capitol of our nation have Christian symbols or referrences on them. Are there any Islamic symbols on any buildings in our capitol or on our money or on anything else?
I'm not sure I understand your point.

BTW how do you classify the pyramid or the all seeing eye on our currency and the Roman and Egyptian symbols in the Great Seal of the United States? What about all those Greek and Roman symbols are our public buildings, including the Roman god of justice displayed routinely in our courts? Are we secretly reverting to their poly-theistic religions? If not, why do we tolerate such pagan idolatry?

Historical symbols have not been outlawed for public buildings. Adding the ten commandments to courthouses in a religious manner has. You seem to have a problem with that. Is the issue that you believe that Christian symbols should be permitted because the majority of our population is Christian? If so, I would respectfully suggest that you are walking on a very slippery slope.

Buzz
10-21-2010, 10:08 AM
The first President of the United States was not sworn in with his hand on a Koran, his hand was on a Bible. How many of our founding fathers were Muslim? The majority of buildings in the capitol of our nation have Christian symbols or referrences on them. Are there any Islamic symbols on any buildings in our capitol or on our money or on anything else?


I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Help me out...

ducknwork
10-21-2010, 11:15 AM
but I think you can understand the feeling of discrimination if a judge has stone tablets over his bench, knows you're an atheist, and is sitting in judgement of you?

So, you are saying that the atheist should be offended when he is convicted of perjury (lying), adultery, murder, theft, etc. because the 'two stone tablets' say you can't do those? I could understand if he was getting sent to jail for not believing in God, but just because the ten commandments are present doesn't mean that the judge is ruling based on them.

Buzz
10-21-2010, 11:49 AM
So, you are saying that the atheist should be offended when he is convicted of perjury (lying), adultery, murder, theft, etc. because the 'two stone tablets' say you can't do those? I could understand if he was getting sent to jail for not believing in God, but just because the ten commandments are present doesn't mean that the judge is ruling based on them.

I don't think he was saying that at all. You picked out the ones that everyone would agree with and leave out the ones that might pose a problem to anyone who doesn't practice christianity. For example, #1, #2, and #3. And as for perjury. Are all lies #8, perjury??? If so, please explain. Can a judge have you convicted for disobeying 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, or 10? If not, then what place does a display of the commandments have in a court of justice?

Seriously, I don't get it...

1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.

2. You shall not take
the name of the LORD your God in vain.

3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.

4. Honor your father and your mother

5. You shall not kill.

6. You shall not commit adultery.

7. You shall not steal.

8. You shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor.

9. You shall not covet
your neighbor's wife.

10. You shall not covet
your neighbor's goods.

dnf777
10-21-2010, 02:07 PM
So, you are saying that the atheist should be offended when he is convicted of perjury (lying), adultery, murder, theft, etc. because the 'two stone tablets' say you can't do those? I could understand if he was getting sent to jail for not believing in God, but just because the ten commandments are present doesn't mean that the judge is ruling based on them.

That wasn't my point at all. No one religion or societal structure has exclusive rights to a set of common rules.

I'm just saying that if a judge feels the need to post his religious doctrines in a prominent position in his workplace, it *may* make me question whether he is judging based on the law, or on his religious beliefs. While "thou shalt not kill" may be common to both, there are many lesser crimes and charges and variable sentencing guidelines that fall under judical discretion.

Would seeing a statue of Mohammed and passages from the Q'oran on the wall of a surgeon's operating room, that you were about to undergo an operation in, make you comfortable? Would you question if the surgeon was competent, or just placing your middle-class-peasant infidel loins in the hands of Allah?

Unlike the situation above however, you have no choice as to what judge you must be judged by. Unless I was of the same religious persuasion of somone in a black robe flaunting their religious doctrines in the judicial chamber..........I would be quite nervous. Would it be ok in your book to have a judge display the Q'oran in court?

Roger Perry
10-21-2010, 02:18 PM
So, you are saying that the atheist should be offended when he is convicted of perjury (lying), adultery, murder, theft, etc. because the 'two stone tablets' say you can't do those? I could understand if he was getting sent to jail for not believing in God, but just because the ten commandments are present doesn't mean that the judge is ruling based on them.

So you are saying that if if a person doesn't believe in God that person should be sent to jail?

dnf777
10-21-2010, 02:24 PM
So you are saying that if if a person doesn't believe in God that person should be sent to jail?

Come on, Rog....after being educated in the POTUS school of literal intrepretation, even I know that's not what he meant! :D


Meethinks....

Roger Perry
10-21-2010, 02:41 PM
Come on, Rog....after being educated in the POTUS school of literal intrepretation, even I know that's not what he meant! :D


Meethinks....

Ya never know about Ducknwork.

YardleyLabs
10-21-2010, 03:10 PM
Actually, only two of the ten commandments are crimes under the law: murder and theft. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is legal unless it steps over the bounds of libel or is done in a context (e.g. police report or sworn testimony) where it is prohibited by law. None of the others rise to the level of crimes, although some could become the basis for civil action. This alone should be indicative of how inappropriate the commandments are as a display in a government facility.

david gibson
10-21-2010, 03:15 PM
Actually, only two of the ten commandments are crimes under the law: murder and theft. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is legal unless it steps over the bounds of libel or is done in a context (e.g. police report or sworn testimony) where it is prohibited by law. None of the others rise to the level of crimes, although some could become the basis for civil action. This alone should be indicative of how inappropriate the commandments are as a display in a government facility.

try doing number 2 in court and see where that gets you.

ok that didn't come out right. no pun intended there, but that number two would get you the same....

Buzz
10-21-2010, 03:43 PM
Actually, only two of the ten commandments are crimes under the law: murder and theft. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is legal unless it steps over the bounds of libel or is done in a context (e.g. police report or sworn testimony) where it is prohibited by law. None of the others rise to the level of crimes, although some could become the basis for civil action. This alone should be indicative of how inappropriate the commandments are as a display in a government facility.


I didn't mean to imply that #6 was a criminal act, leaving it off my list was an oversight in my typing... Breaking #6 can cost you a lot of money in court though can't it? lol!

BrianW
10-22-2010, 07:07 PM
But no one does, not the ACLU, libs, or anyone else.
Even the ACLU on it's website (while it does defend religious freedom in certain instances) admits that it is often better known for its work preventing the government from from involvement in religious activities.

"The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion. " (and by corollary, keeping religion out of government - parenthetical mine)

YardleyLabs
10-22-2010, 07:37 PM
Even the ACLU on it's website (while it does defend religious freedom in certain instances) admits that it is often better known for its work preventing the government from from involvement in religious activities.

"The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion. " (and by corollary, keeping religion out of government - parenthetical mine)
Absolutely true. However, you have never seen the ACLU complain about any politician expressing personal religious belief. That is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and not given up by virtue of being elected to office.

I grew up in a town where all but one member of the board of education belonged to the same Baptist church. That was not a problem. It was a problem that they allowed and encouraged the public schools to become extensions of the church. Bible readings were required every morning. If my 5th grade teacher knew you were Jewish she would assign sections of the new testament for you to read. I was very happy when the supreme court found that type of practice to be illegal and was very happy that the litigation was supported by the ACLU and by my own church as well.

What I have never understood is how having government resources be used for religious purposes furthers religious freedom. My suspicion is that those who want such governmental involvement are simply assuming that theirs will be the religion supported. However, that can back fire quickly. BTW, do you disagree with the quote from the ACLU site? If so, why?

road kill
10-24-2010, 02:00 PM
Absolutely true. However, you have never seen the ACLU complain about any politician expressing personal religious belief. That is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and not given up by virtue of being elected to office.

I grew up in a town where all but one member of the board of education belonged to the same Baptist church. That was not a problem. It was a problem that they allowed and encouraged the public schools to become extensions of the church. Bible readings were required every morning. If my 5th grade teacher knew you were Jewish she would assign sections of the new testament for you to read. I was very happy when the supreme court found that type of practice to be illegal and was very happy that the litigation was supported by the ACLU and by my own church as well.

What I have never understood is how having government resources be used for religious purposes furthers religious freedom. My suspicion is that those who want such governmental involvement are simply assuming that theirs will be the religion supported. However, that can back fire quickly. BTW, do you disagree with the quote from the ACLU site? If so, why?

But you are perfectly comfortable with "secular progressives" on school boards encouraging the public schools to become extensions of thier ideology?:rolleyes:


RK

YardleyLabs
10-24-2010, 02:06 PM
But you are perfectly comfortable with "secular progressives" on school boards encouraging the public schools to become extensions of thier ideology?:rolleyes:


RK
Once again you are equating the absence of religious teaching as being the equivalent of teaching atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Teachers are not permitted to teach against religion any more than they are permitted to teach in favor of it. If you are depending on schools to teach religion to your children, send them to a religious school. BTW, I sent my son to a Quaker school where he was required to attend meeting twice each week. Oddly, less than 20% of the students attending the school were Quaker.

Buzz
10-24-2010, 02:20 PM
But you are perfectly comfortable with "secular progressives" on school boards encouraging the public schools to become extensions of thier ideology?:rolleyes:


RK


What has their religious view got to do with a good education?

My daughter goes to school to learn math & reading. She goes to catechism to learn about her religion. I'd like to see it stay that way...

road kill
10-25-2010, 06:15 AM
What has their religious view got to do with a good education?

My daughter goes to school to learn math & reading. She goes to catechism to learn about her religion. I'd like to see it stay that way...

That is exactly what I was asking Yardley....


Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
I grew up in a town where all but one member of the board of education belonged to the same Baptist church. That was not a problem. It was a problem that they allowed and encouraged the public schools to become extensions of the church. Bible readings were required every morning. If my 5th grade teacher knew you were Jewish she would assign sections of the new testament for you to read. I was very happy when the supreme court found that type of practice to be illegal and was very happy that the litigation was supported by the ACLU and by my own church as well.



So progressives pushing an ideology is OK, but Christians living in faith is not.

Assuming of course that maybe at least one Christian is a decent person.:rolleyes:

And assuming that just maybe at least one progressive has an agenda.

I read what you guys post and aside from the appearance that Yardley knows everything about every subject brought up here, the progressive crowd points out that;
Not all Muslims are bad, only a small handful.
All Christians are religious zealots.
Progressives will save us all from our selves.

It's pretty funny.

I also saw that most of the "rightys" didn't post much this weekend, they were hunting and such.

The "leftys" ran wild.

Speaks volumes.........:cool:


RK

YardleyLabs
10-25-2010, 06:33 AM
That is exactly what I was asking Yardley....



So progressives pushing an ideology is OK, but Christians living in faith is not.

Assuming of course that maybe at least one Christian is a decent person.:rolleyes:

And assuming that just maybe at least one progressive has an agenda.

I read what you guys post and aside from the appearance that Yardley knows everything about every subject brought up here, the progressive crowd points out that;
Not all Muslims are bad, only a small handful.
All Christians are religious zealots.
Progressives will save us all from our selves.

It's pretty funny.

I also saw that most of the "rightys" didn't post much this weekend, they were hunting and such.

The "leftys" ran wild.

Speaks volumes.........:cool:


RK
I think you would have trouble substantiating your comment without (as you sometimes do) grossly distorting what was actually written.

A more accurate summary might be:


Public schools should be engaged in any promotion of religious or atheistic ideals. People can deal with those issues in their own homes and/or religious institutions. Why would you want the government involved in religion at all?
Most Christians and Muslims (and even "Progressives") are reasonable people.
There are zealots claiming (falsely) to represent all forms of belief. They deserve to be treated with disdain.

Uncle Bill
10-28-2010, 04:51 PM
O'Donnell's comment was not a "mis-speak". Actually, the religious right, with whom O'Donnell identifies when she is not playing with candles and crystals, has been saying for years that the first amendment was never intended to impose a separation of church and state. Rather, the argument is made that the first amendment was intended solely to keeo government from interfering with religion, not to keep religion out of government.

Not a bad statement from an atheist. Too bad your independant Dr doesn't understand that.



Of course, the laughter from the audience suggests that she might want to pick better audiences than a law school if she wants to spout such drivel.

You mean, like the class your independant Dr was educated in??? Where he larned that separation of church and state WAS drafted in the first amendment?



While the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, historical evidence certainly suggests that was the common understanding of the establishment clause in the first amendment when the Constitution was drafted and adopted.


And finally we have the GREAT INTERPRETATION! Not enough to put down your independant buddy's ignorance...but you in your eloquent erudition must further the belief of the "common understanding", via no less than "historical EVIDENCE"??????

Of course an atheist would call what ignorance 'suggests' to be EVIDENCE. Of this you are 'certain'? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your pomposity.

If you were on the opposite side of the 2nd amendment, I can't imagine how you would interpret the founders words in that statement.

UB