GOP Candidate In Ohio Argues There Is No Separation Of Church & State

[struth]

We really need to outlaw the goo before they "vote" us back to the stone age.

there was no Christianity in the Stone Age

currently though, with the Xiden admin and the demafasict cult…we are beginning to have to hunt and gather like the stone age due to masa hyperinflation and massive shortages of goods

thanks dembots

 

[struth]

Ohio Republican admits if he's elected he won't follow the Constitution

Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel confessed to a Sunday debate crowd that he wouldn't follow the Constitution if elected to the federal office. While all federal officials are mandated to swear an oath to the Constitution, Mandel has serious issues with the first one. "The media, the...

www.rawstory.com

"Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel confessed to a Sunday debate crowd that he wouldn't follow the Constitution if elected to the federal office. While all federal officials are mandated to swear an oath to the Constitution, Mandel has serious issues with the first one. "They're trying to take God out of all aspects of society," said Mandel. "And they're trying to water down on the Judeo-Christian bedrock of America."

He went on to say that he doesn't want to "water down" Christianity for those of other faiths and religions -- we should dial it up...."We should be instilling faith in the classroom, in the workplace, and everywhere in society," said Mandel. "There's no such thing as separation of church and state."



Aside from the point this guy is obviously pandering and personally doesn't believe a word of what he is saying -- the fact he feels he has to say this to his base proves one thing....A large part of the conservative base wants a religious theocracy...so much so that people running for national office are willing to say it out loud....funny part is, Mandel is Jewish....but he has no problem telling Evangelicals what they want to hear -- even if the fantasy for those Evangelicals doesn't bode well for Jews who refuse to convert to Christianity....

The same folks who go into hysterics over teaching "critical race theory" to kids (even tho it is not being taught to kids) -- those same folks have no problem with public schools "INSTILLING" Christianity into kids in schools...more evidence that these people are full of shit....Because if you truly believe your Conservative-Christian-American version of God is everywhere, how the fuck can anyone "take him out of society"??

where did he say he wouldn’t follow the Constitution?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There were a lot of off topic posts here. The thread is about Mandel's comments regarding the separation of church and state. It's not about abortion, or slavery, or Critical Race Theory or anything else

 

[Votto]

There were a lot of off topic posts here. The thread is about Mandel's comments regarding the separation of church and state. It's not about abortion, or slavery, or Critical Race Theory or anything else

But abortion, slavery, CRT, etc., they all involve religion on some level and the issue is whether the state should lead the charge with any of them or oppose them.

In fact, all our laws are based on a moral judgement as to whether something is good or bad and everyone has a religion of some sort to make moral judgements about them, even atheists.

 

[Rigby5]

There were a lot of off topic posts here. The thread is about Mandel's comments regarding the separation of church and state. It's not about abortion, or slavery, or Critical Race Theory or anything else

And the Constitution does require separation of church and state on the federal level.
But it does not at all prevent state religions, like Quaker's Pennsylvania or the Puritan's Connecticut.

{...
In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[25]

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their right to expressions of religious conscience. The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791 as ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, was one of the earliest political expressions of religious freedom[citation needed]. Others were the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, also authored by Jefferson and adopted by Virginia in 1786; and the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789.

The metaphor "a wall of separation between Church and State" used by Jefferson in the above quoted letter became a part of the First Amendment jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was first used by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Reynolds v. United States (1878). American historian George Bancroft was consulted by Waite in the Reynolds case regarding the views on establishment by the framers of the U.S. constitution. Bancroft advised Waite to consult Jefferson. Waite then discovered the above quoted letter in a library after skimming through the index to Jefferson's collected works according to historian Don Drakeman.[26]
...}

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Still waiting for you or anyone else to refute a single thing I said....

There is a liberal axiom that goes "you cannot disprove a negative" so you may be waiting a very long time
like most liberals who think in reverse your problem is that you are suppose to be the one refuting the claim that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the constitution and not waiting for us to refute the reason/justification you gave for your mistake...

 

[Rigby5]

There is a liberal axiom that goes "you cannot disprove a negative" so you may be waiting a very long time
like most liberals who think in reverse your problem is that you are suppose to be the one refuting the claim that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the constitution and not waiting for us to refute the reason/justification you gave for your mistake...

The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
The purpose, intent, and effect obviously is to create a separation between church and state, at a federal level.
It does not at all prohibit state or municipal religions however.
That is easy to prove, since there were states with established state religions, like Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

Establishment Clause: Separation of Church and State

Establishment clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.

www.mtsu.edu

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

And as a lapsed catholic and atheist I agree with that, but why are you telling me this? I know what it "does say" I want you to understand what it "does not say" and that is proving to be a Herculean task for such a small matter...
so without explanation and/or excuse I would request you find an online copy of the constitution to copy/cut and paste the passage from the constitution that reads "separation of church and state"...
it has become so hard for the left in this country to admit that the phrase appears nowhere in our constitution and that is why it is so much fun hitting them over the head with it

The purpose, intent, and effect obviously is to create a separation between church and state, at a federal level.

no, it is obvious that was just to separate the state and an established religion, the right to worship in government is guaranteed in the incomplete clause you posted, just finish reading it and you will see that guarantee

It does not at all prohibit state or municipal religions however.
That is easy to prove, since there were states with established state religions, like Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

The ruling is an interpretation,[like all or most rulings in these matters] one that must be abided by [unless/until changed/corrected,] but only because the court says it must, not because it is an absolute

 

[Rigby5]

And as a lapsed catholic and atheist I agree with that, but why are you telling me this? I know what it "does say" I want you to understand what it "does not say" and that is proving to be a Herculean task for such a small matter...
so without explanation and/or excuse I would request you find an online copy of the constitution to copy/cut and paste the passage from the constitution that reads "separation of church and state"...
it has become so hard for the left in this country to admit that the phrase appears nowhere in our constitution and that is why it is so much fun hitting them over the head with it


no, it is obvious that was just to separate the state and an established religion, the right to worship in government is guaranteed in the incomplete clause you posted, just finish reading it and you will see that guarantee

The ruling is an interpretation,[like all or most rulings in these matters] one that must be abided by [unless/until changed/corrected,] but only because the court says it must, not because it is an absolute

Can't tell what you are saying.
But clearly if the federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion, then that is an effective separation of church and state.
It implies there are many religions, and if the government were to push one, that would illegally infringe on others.
So federal government has to be totally isolated from the effects or influence of any one particular religion.
I think even the phrase stamped on coins, "In God We Trust" is illegal because it infringes on those who believe in pantheism.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Can't tell what you are saying.

Otherwise you would have shown me where it says "separation of church and state" in the constitution"?

But clearly if the federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion, then that is an effective separation of church and state.

did you mean "effectively" as opposed to "effective" because that changes the dynamic and context of your claim.

 

[Rigby5]

Otherwise you would have shown me where it says "separation of church and state" in the constitution"?


did you mean "effectively" as opposed to "effective" because that changes the dynamic and context of your claim.

What I meant was that I think the Founders intended a separation of church and state by the non-establishment clause.
By that I don't mean that the Founders wanted to suppress religion, but that they did not want one religion to be pushed over any other.
I think I see your point as to my wording, and I suppose "effectively" is better than "effective" as far as what I should have said.

 

[busybee01]

The constitution does not protect government or its agencies, if the church is a separate entity from government then the constitution does not cover it...
and the post reads more like it is responsible of what you accuse the candidate of than what he actually said...
Separation of church and state is OK with me, but lets not make believe those words appear anywhere in the document..
We have a right to privately and publicly criticize and condemn [even incorrectly] anything that has official recognized use of our tax dollars [as well as government institutions] but those things that are privately funded and legally run are not open to government scrutiny, it's a good system.

The Constitution clearly states there is a separation of church and state. The founding fathers did not want a state church such as the Church of England. They wanted secular laws that were not based on theology.

Churches should have to obey the same laws that every other organization or person has to follow. Yet the Supreme Court has carved out a special exemption for churches. Most of the anti-abortion laws rely on theology rather that secular data.

I disagree with you when you say that what he said is responsible. When he talks about teaching faith, one should ask which faith are we talking about. What he has said is alarming especially when he says he he would not follow the Constitution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Otherwise you would have shown me where it says "separation of church and state" in the constitution"?

Sure, as soon as you show us where it says you have a right not to get vaccinated. Or a right to carry a gun in Walmart. Or a right not to have to register your gun.

This literalist ALamo you guys attempt is always silly.

 

[busybee01]

The source is the left wrong-wrong lies and propaganda site, Raw Story, so just from this alone, we can know that the story is almost certainly composed mostly, if not entirely, of complete bullshit.

Assuming that Mr. Mandel said what this propaganda piece quotes him as saying, he's absolutely right. The statement that “Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel confessed to a Sunday debate crowd that he wouldn't follow the Constitution if elected to the federal office.” is just Raw Story's own LIbtARd lie, based on trying to twist the Constitution to fit its degenerate agenda, rather than reading it for what it actually says.

Some of these are direct quotes. That is your standard excuse when you can't refute what he said.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution clearly states there is a separation of church and state.

The Constitution does not say any such thing.

 

[Rigby5]

Sure, as soon as you show us where it says you have a right not to get vaccinated. Or a right to carry a gun in Walmart. Or a right not to have to register your gun.

This literalist ALamo you guys attempt is always silly.

To make your own medical choices is pretty obviously an inherent right.
But I agree there was no attempt to list rights in the Constitution.
One could not try to list rights because they are infinite.

With Typhoid Mary, they could not legally remove her infected gallbladder that killed 20 people, but since she refused the operation, they did quarantine her for the rest of her life.

With carrying a gun into Walmart, that is protected by the 4th amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons".
There is absolutely no way to be secure from harm without being armed.
Registration is different, and I see no obstacle to that, as long as it is not federal.

 

[Rigby5]

The Constitution does not say any such thing.

How does the ban on the government establishing a religion, not separate church and state?

 

[busybee01]

I don't believe in your gods. The government is not my hope of collective salvation, neither is global warming our apocalypse of doom that only idiots on the Left can save us from.

I don't believe that taxation and government regulation can cleans us from our sins, nor do I think legislating such morality is making out society better in any way.

Look around, society is falling apart. Since God has been taken out of the class room in the 1960's it has been on a spiral downward. Crime rates are off the charts, the nation is divided more than ever, and when kids bring guns to school to shoot them up all we hear about is how evil guns are and not why this has started in the modern era and not the days of old.

You have no answers other than more government and that God and Orange man are bad. and to try and take all sharp objects away from a society that is now increasingly amoral so they don't hurt themselves and others.

There is no evidence to support that. Different religions have different versions of God. Are you just going to teach just the Christian version of God? This country is more multi-cultural than it was then.

 

[busybee01]

To make your own medical choices is pretty obviously an inherent right.
But I agree there was no attempt to list rights in the Constitution.
One could not try to list rights because they are infinite.

With Typhoid Mary, they could not legally remove her infected gallbladder that killed 20 people, but since she refused the operation, they did quarantine her for the rest of her life.

With carrying a gun into Walmart, that is protected by the 4th amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons".
There is absolutely no way to be secure from harm without being armed.
Registration is different, and I see no obstacle to that, as long as it is not federal.

Making medical choices that can affect others is not a inherent right. That is why Washington mandated vaccines for his troops. That is why the Constitution gives a President the power to suspend habeas corpus in certain situations.

Carrying a gun into Walmart is not protected by the 4th Amendment. Businesses have property rights to determine what can be done on their property. You cannot use free speech rights to distribute literature or preach without their permission.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The Constitution clearly states there is a separation of church and state.

It says that nowhere in the constitution never mind "clearly"

The founding fathers did not want a state church such as the Church of England.

nor do I

They wanted secular laws that were not based on theology.

as do I

Churches should have to obey the same laws that every other organization or person has to follow.

You really don't understand the constitution do you? that's the part the constitution is clear on, if you do not wish to live with a state religion you cannot bring it under the auspices or tutelage of the government and expect it to remain benign, governing the church would then make it part of the state

Yet the Supreme Court has carved out a special exemption for churches.

actually the constitution has carved out the exemption the SC has just defined that/those exemption

Most of the anti-abortion laws rely on theology rather that secular data.

except the part about the heartbeat and I am for keeping it, at the very least, available and accessible.

I disagree with you when you say that what he said is responsible.

show me that quote please!

When he talks about teaching faith, one should ask which faith are we talking about. What he has said is alarming especially when he says he he would not follow the Constitution.

Nothing to do with anything I am talking about. Jibber-Jabber