Does America Need Be Saved From Theocracy?

[Billy000]

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

I’m sure if you thought you could you would just do it.

There isn't anything I can't do.

As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution.


Nor did Jefferson ever say that religion, morality, should be keep from government.


Only Leftists claim such. Hence, your government school 'education.'


Democrat FDR, who hated minorities of every type, put a KKKer on the Supreme Court, and that KKK official, Hugo Black,
inserted the bogus 'separation of church and state.'


These are the facts.

You know what 'facts' are, don't you?

Your argument that those specific words aren’t used does not somehow change the fact that the clause specifically makes clear that religion can not dictate law. It’s dumb that you are even suggesting that it should. Jefferson illustrates the point by paraphrasing the language as meaning “separation of church and state”. The government cannot force religion on its citizens AND the law cannot be dictated by religion.

 

[LaDairis]

The human species of planet Earth needs to be "saved" from religiously inspired human overpopulation.

 

[Seawytch]

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You just can't do it can you? Just copy and paste either "yes" or "no" to the question. What are you so afraid of? You have no problem sacrificing your "states rights" god, why can't you say whether or not you support repealing the federal law so that people don't have to serve black or interracial couples if they don't want to? Why do anti gay bigots deserve rights not afforded racist bigots?

Did you find anything to disagree with here?
Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




How about explaining your view of what 'racism' is?

...'racism.' Are you opposed to it????

If so....

Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




You have to learn that we do things my way.

Now...write soon, y'hear!

No, “we” don’t. “We” can simply ignore your inane rambling since you seem completely devoid of independent thought to the point that you cannot answer a simple question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You just can't do it can you? Just copy and paste either "yes" or "no" to the question. What are you so afraid of? You have no problem sacrificing your "states rights" god, why can't you say whether or not you support repealing the federal law so that people don't have to serve black or interracial couples if they don't want to? Why do anti gay bigots deserve rights not afforded racist bigots?

Did you find anything to disagree with here?
Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




How about explaining your view of what 'racism' is?

...'racism.' Are you opposed to it????

If so....

Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




You have to learn that we do things my way.

Now...write soon, y'hear!

No, “we” don’t. “We” can simply ignore your inane rambling since you seem completely devoid of independent thought to the point that you cannot answer a simple question.

Earlier, during the time when you Leftists believed you could 'frog march' Trump out via the Mueller fiasco, I asked you a simply question, and you ran and hid.....as you are again guilty of.

This:
I posed this question to you…

Let's see how easy it is to leave you speechless:

A simple question....

Should an individual under investigation expect, and be entitled to, impartiality by the investigating agencies?

im·par·ti·al·i·ty
imˌpärSHēˈalədē/
noun


1. equal treatment of all rivals or disputants; fairness.



Take your time.


You answered:

“Of course. Also, of course, having a personal opinion does not mean you cannot perform your job impartially. “ NEXT!


But when I provided this post….you seem to have run away and hid…

1.The Hillary campaign paid for an anti-Trump Russian creation called the dossier: they used law firm Perkins Coie to funnel money to GPS Fusion and Christopher Steele


2. The Hillary campaign screamed that they had been hacked, but refused to allow any government agencies to inspect the supposedly hacked servers

3. The FBI admitted that they knew the dossier was fake from the start, but used it to get a FISA warrant to surveil Trump and associates

4. A secret cabal at the highest levels of the FBI and the DoJ worked with GPS Fusion to undermine the Trump campaign...before and after the election.

5. FBI found classified data on Huma and Anthony Weiner’s laptop….so they gave them a pass

6. The FBI decided no charges against Hillary before they interviewed her…..with no record kept of the interview, and not under oath.

7. Both Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were found to be lying to the FBI….but given a pass ...and allowed to keep their laptops, and destroy any evidence on same

8. FBI agents Strzok and Page and McCabe talked over a plan to overturn the election….an ‘insurance policy’

9. Loretta Lynch with Comey’s acquiescence, worked to benefit Hillary’s campaign

10. Obama knew about Hillary’s use of unsecured emails, as he conversed with her on same…kept his name out of the reports.

11. BTW…..Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein were all government officials when Hillary received the $145 million bribe for the sale of our uranium.

....Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case. Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney....


12. The FBI offered to pay Christopher Steele if he could corroborate the dossier….so he told Yahoo New’s Michael Isikoff about the dossier, had him print the information….then told the FBI that Isikoff independently discovered the “facts”…

Steele admitted, in a British court, that he leaked the material to Yahoo. September 23 Yahoo ran the story.

The FBI took the Isikoff Yahoo story to the FISA court to get the warrant….then fired Steele for sharing it with news outlets.

13. After the FBI fired Steele, he continued to confer with Bruce Ohr and the DoJ…and Rod Rosestein and Sally Yates.

In September of 2016, this was Steele’s statement to Bruce Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trumpnot get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”


14. And in another stunning revelation, the memo asserts that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr was used to pass information from the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, to the DOJ.
Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked at the time for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm research firm that commissioned the dossier. Bruce Ohr, who worked closely with Deputy Attorney Generals Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, passed his wife’s opposition research on Trump to the FBI, the memo says.


15. Fired by the FBI as untrustworthy, Steele is maintained by the DoJ as a contact, and all the while, Bruce Ohr’s wife is drawing a salary from the group Hillary hired to produce the dossier….GPS Fusion.

Bruce Ohr’s wife’s connections to Hillary’s paid dossier-producers, GPS Fusion, was never disclosed to the FISA court.

16. Not Hillary Clinton’s Campaign, nor the DNC, nor Christopher Steel, nor Fusion GPS, nor Bruce Ohr’s wife, the roles of none of these participants in the creation of the dossier….not a one was revealed to the FISA court.

17. The memo also says that the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, told Congress that a FISA warrant against the campaign adviser, Carter Page, would not have been granted without use of the dossier. That despite the FBI later determining that very little of the Democrat-funded document was corroborated


18. Let’s compare the zealous and very aggressive action by Mueller against Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Carter Page with the immunity and passes given above…..

19..The memo notes that the Papadopoulos information “triggered” the FBI investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion.
It says that there is no evidence that Page and Papadopoulos engaged in a conspiracy. “
Spy Warrant Granted Based On Dossier And News Stories Planted By Fusion GPS



…and lots of evidence of associations of Democrats with the Kremlin….

…completely different treatment.

20. And all of the players in on the fix were demanding the Memo not be released….and lied about why it should not be released.




Is this an impartial investigation?

Would you like another chance to prove your honesty ?



And, like every low-life lying cur of the Left....you hid and retreated.


Same today.....leopard can't change its spots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

I’m sure if you thought you could you would just do it.

There isn't anything I can't do.

As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution.


Nor did Jefferson ever say that religion, morality, should be keep from government.


Only Leftists claim such. Hence, your government school 'education.'


Democrat FDR, who hated minorities of every type, put a KKKer on the Supreme Court, and that KKK official, Hugo Black,
inserted the bogus 'separation of church and state.'


These are the facts.

You know what 'facts' are, don't you?

Your argument that those specific words aren’t used does not somehow change the fact that the clause specifically makes clear that religion can not dictate law. It’s dumb that you are even suggesting that it should. Jefferson illustrates the point by paraphrasing the language as meaning “separation of church and state”. The government cannot force religion on its citizens AND the law cannot be dictated by religion.

1."Your argument that those specific words aren’t used ..."
Actually, you claimed that that was in the Constitution.....I simply proved your knowledge in this area is as flawed as in every other area.
There was no argument...you were simply talking through your....hat.


2. "...does not somehow change the fact that the clause specifically makes clear that religion can not dictate law."
What 'law'????

The Constitution is the law of the land....not a judges pronouncement.



3."Jefferson illustrates the point by paraphrasing the language as meaning “separation of church and state”.

Jefferson wrote a letter to placate the Danbury Baptists....it has nothing to do with 'law,' you dunce.


4. The claim you have been tricked into believing is based on Marx/Hegel Leftism that hates religion, hates America, and has infected the school.

5. I proved you wrong, and you have defaulted to the usual Liberal 'is not, isssssss nooooottttttt!!'

Once again, among the least intelligent, indoctrination is indelible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The human species of planet Earth needs to be "saved" from religiously inspired human overpopulation.

There is no overpopulation of any origin.

What need be saved is folks suffering from your sort of ignorance.

"The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!

1. People freak out all the time about how we’re overpopulating Earth and we’re all going to die, because we can’t sustain ourselves. There isn’t enough land to produce enough food to sustain us, let alone have any space to move around at all. There are 6.8 billion people on Earth.

2. Calculations show that if we wanted to make everyone in Earth live on a space that had the same population density as New York City, we could fit everyone in about 666,265 square kilometers, which is less than the size of Texas!

3. Not only does that leave the other 49 United States open, but it leaves all the other countries clear and open, too. So, it is pretty safe to say that we have enough space, the entire world except Texas, to farm and ranch for our food supply.

4. Would water be a problem, though? It's calculated that we need 350 billion liters of water per day to properly hydrate 6.8 billion people. It seems like a lot, but the Columbia River alone could produce that amount in less than a day. By the way, the Columbia River is the U.S.’s fourth largest river. So, again, that leaves the rest of the world’s water supply open and ready to servehttp://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10333/The-entire-world-population-could-fit-in-the-state-of-Texas-and-it-d-only-have-the-population-density-of-New-York-City

"If it comes down to the numbers the entire world’s population can fit in Texas. This has been said many times and when it comes down to basic math, it is true. Texas is 268,581 Square miles, if some amazing engineer were to design the father of all complexes; basically a China housing unit on steroids is the only thing that would work. The building would cover the entire state of Texas. Rivers, ponds, and creeks included; literally every square inch of Texas would be engulfed in this building. There would be one thousand square feet per person." The Entire World Population can Sink into the State of Texas


"According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth." Episode 1: Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth - Overpopulation is a myth





Get it now, Chicken Little???

 

[PoliticalChic]

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You just can't do it can you? Just copy and paste either "yes" or "no" to the question. What are you so afraid of? You have no problem sacrificing your "states rights" god, why can't you say whether or not you support repealing the federal law so that people don't have to serve black or interracial couples if they don't want to? Why do anti gay bigots deserve rights not afforded racist bigots?

Did you find anything to disagree with here?
Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




How about explaining your view of what 'racism' is?

...'racism.' Are you opposed to it????

If so....

Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




You have to learn that we do things my way.

Now...write soon, y'hear!

No, “we” don’t. “We” can simply ignore your inane rambling since you seem completely devoid of independent thought to the point that you cannot answer a simple question.

If you return, I'll deliver another spanking.

Be warned.

 

[anynameyouwish]

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

I’m sure if you thought you could you would just do it.

There isn't anything I can't do.

As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution.


Nor did Jefferson ever say that religion, morality, should be keep from government.


Only Leftists claim such. Hence, your government school 'education.'


Democrat FDR, who hated minorities of every type, put a KKKer on the Supreme Court, and that KKK official, Hugo Black,
inserted the bogus 'separation of church and state.'


These are the facts.

You know what 'facts' are, don't you?

"

"As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution."


and there is also NO SUCH WORDS as "the USA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION"


there is, however, this; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


The USA is a secular nation and religious laws have no place.

laws should be based on logic, reason and necessity, NOT any religion.

 

[LaDairis]

There is no overpopulation of any origin.

As long as your preacher says so....

Earth is finite. The reason why the Amazon burned this year is because those Latinos down there listen to their preachers, who tell them to have 10 kids per couple, and if you run that program for 200+ years, you suck all the fresh water out of the Amazon, even with sending "excess" to the US....


At some point, we need to put the proverbial "gun to the head" of religious leaders advocating large families.

The "migration" issue worldwide is 100% about it.

Muslims and Latinos are "migrating" because they are the ones having 10 kids per couple....

 

[initforme]

There's no overpopulation and there's no reason to be concerned when the birthrate drops. None whatsoever. As for theocracy, how do people think all this universe came to be? Magic? Random? A higher power had to create it.

 

[anynameyouwish]

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You just can't do it can you? Just copy and paste either "yes" or "no" to the question. What are you so afraid of? You have no problem sacrificing your "states rights" god, why can't you say whether or not you support repealing the federal law so that people don't have to serve black or interracial couples if they don't want to? Why do anti gay bigots deserve rights not afforded racist bigots?

Did you find anything to disagree with here?
Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




How about explaining your view of what 'racism' is?

...'racism.' Are you opposed to it????

If so....

Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




You have to learn that we do things my way.

Now...write soon, y'hear!

for someone who DEFENDS FREE SPEECH the way you do you sure spend a LOT OF TIME denouncing the FREE SPEECH of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

I’m sure if you thought you could you would just do it.

There isn't anything I can't do.

As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution.


Nor did Jefferson ever say that religion, morality, should be keep from government.


Only Leftists claim such. Hence, your government school 'education.'


Democrat FDR, who hated minorities of every type, put a KKKer on the Supreme Court, and that KKK official, Hugo Black,
inserted the bogus 'separation of church and state.'


These are the facts.

You know what 'facts' are, don't you?

"

"As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution."


and there is also NO SUCH WORDS as "the USA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION"


there is, however, this; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


The USA is a secular nation and religious laws have no place.

laws should be based on logic, reason and necessity, NOT any religion.

"... there is also NO SUCH WORDS as "the USA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION"

More bloviation from a Leftist windbag.
No one claimed such, you fool.



But the USA is a religious nation, based on believe in a Creator who has given each of us inalienable rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no overpopulation of any origin.

As long as your preacher says so....

Earth is finite. The reason why the Amazon burned this year is because those Latinos down there listen to their preachers, who tell them to have 10 kids per couple, and if you run that program for 200+ years, you suck all the fresh water out of the Amazon, even with sending "excess" to the US....


At some point, we need to put the proverbial "gun to the head" of religious leaders advocating large families.

The "migration" issue worldwide is 100% about it.

Muslims and Latinos are "migrating" because they are the ones having 10 kids per couple....

"As long as your preacher says so...."

What 'preacher' was quoted, moron?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You just can't do it can you? Just copy and paste either "yes" or "no" to the question. What are you so afraid of? You have no problem sacrificing your "states rights" god, why can't you say whether or not you support repealing the federal law so that people don't have to serve black or interracial couples if they don't want to? Why do anti gay bigots deserve rights not afforded racist bigots?

Did you find anything to disagree with here?
Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




How about explaining your view of what 'racism' is?

...'racism.' Are you opposed to it????

If so....

Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




You have to learn that we do things my way.

Now...write soon, y'hear!

for someone who DEFENDS FREE SPEECH the way you do you sure spend a LOT OF TIME denouncing the FREE SPEECH of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Quote were I denounced free speech or admit you're so full of manure your eyes are brown.

 

[LaDairis]

There's no overpopulation

Another "expert" who never asks the following questions.....


Why do Jews not believe in Jesus given that Jews were the only demographic that actually observed him?
When he said "give up everything and follow me" um, like, WHO GOT EVERYTHING? (a Jew will answer that, a Christian won't)
If he was really "healing" everyone, why did he lose a popularity contest to a convicted murderer?
Why did his "Disciples" bolt on him when the "authorities" showed up to arrest him?

The "New Testament" only fools real idiots.

 

[LaDairis]

What 'preacher' was quoted, moron

LOL!!!


What caused the Amazon to burn this year, moron?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What 'preacher' was quoted, moron

LOL!!!


What caused the Amazon to burn this year, moron?

So no preacher was mentioned, and there is no overpopulation outside of your fevered imagination.

Now get back in the cage.

 

[LaDairis]

So no preacher was mentioned

You PARROT your preacher, because your pathetic excuse of a brain hasn't developed enough to ask questions....

 

[Billy000]

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

I’m sure if you thought you could you would just do it.

There isn't anything I can't do.

As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution.


Nor did Jefferson ever say that religion, morality, should be keep from government.


Only Leftists claim such. Hence, your government school 'education.'


Democrat FDR, who hated minorities of every type, put a KKKer on the Supreme Court, and that KKK official, Hugo Black,
inserted the bogus 'separation of church and state.'


These are the facts.

You know what 'facts' are, don't you?

Your argument that those specific words aren’t used does not somehow change the fact that the clause specifically makes clear that religion can not dictate law. It’s dumb that you are even suggesting that it should. Jefferson illustrates the point by paraphrasing the language as meaning “separation of church and state”. The government cannot force religion on its citizens AND the law cannot be dictated by religion.

1."Your argument that those specific words aren’t used ..."
Actually, you claimed that that was in the Constitution.....I simply proved your knowledge in this area is as flawed as in every other area.
There was no argument...you were simply talking through your....hat.


2. "...does not somehow change the fact that the clause specifically makes clear that religion can not dictate law."
What 'law'????

The Constitution is the law of the land....not a judges pronouncement.



3."Jefferson illustrates the point by paraphrasing the language as meaning “separation of church and state”.

Jefferson wrote a letter to placate the Danbury Baptists....it has nothing to do with 'law,' you dunce.


4. The claim you have been tricked into believing is based on Marx/Hegel Leftism that hates religion, hates America, and has infected the school.

5. I proved you wrong, and you have defaulted to the usual Liberal 'is not, isssssss nooooottttttt!!'

Once again, among the least intelligent, indoctrination is indelible.

What point are you even trying to make? Good god lol. Yes, those specific words are not in the constitution. And? The clause is what it is. It means what it means. Religion cannot dictate law. Period. This is a pointless conversation lol

 

[LaDairis]

Religion cannot dictate law

"Religion" dictates "thought" of sub humans....