The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 102

Thread: Flabbergasting!

  1. #31
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Horstman View Post
    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.
    Last edited by YardleyLabs; 10-19-2010 at 05:14 PM.

  2. #32
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starjack View Post
    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.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  3. #33
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    So there is a slight chance we are relatives...very cool...wouldnt that make for one heck of a family dinner
    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.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    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)

  5. #35
    Senior Member starjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    891

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    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 !!!

  6. #36
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cody Covey View Post
    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??

    Who'd of ever thunk it??


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  7. #37
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    and you guys call yourselves "independents"

    thats got to be the funniest part of it all

  9. #39
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    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.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    So, are you saying a "complete moron" out smarted dnf??

    Who'd of ever thunk it??


    RK
    yes i am

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •