O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[Intense]

O'Donnell's correct.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The establishment clause and religious freedom are related, but different concepts in the 1st amendment.

Lets be real, someone like Christine O'Donnell has very strong religious based "opinions" as well as many other views on which direction the country should be going. The truth of the matter is that most religious fanatics are starting to drop in numbers (thank god - lol) and more and more people are starting to see things from a more realistic point of view...bottom line, i dont think people should have religious views shoved down their throats BUT people should have the right to practice any religion their parents choose for them...i mean they were raised to believe...i mean they eventually choose O'Donnell said that evolution is a theory so is gravitation, and i wonder how that worked out for her....

Interesting take. The simple path here is to learn to just say no. For some of us, that just isn't an easy thing to do. So next time you are approached develop that skill. We all think the country should be going one way or another. There is due process, and then there is ignoring due process. Paramount is governing with the knowledge and consent of the governed. Another integral part is knowing what you signed, as in reading it before you sign it, in regard to Legislation. This is not theory, but witness. The ball was dropped long ago, we have been lied to since long before either of us were born. When people apply Marx's Theory to Government, that too, is an unwelcome imposition here.

 

[Vanquish]

Can we all agree, no matter what our partisan alliances are, that the woman is plainly idiotic on this topic, laugh at her and be done with it?

 

[DiveCon]

And yet according to YOU, queen agreed with you that o'donnel wasn't taken out of context so how did she try to argue a point that you never made?? No one is trying to argue a point that you never made. Do you just make shite up as you go along??

This is what YOU said



apparently trying to point out that she wasn't and then queen responded with.



Apparently you both AGREE. Queen made a statement about o'donnell and at no time did she try to argue that YOU said anything but that didn't stop you from ASSUMING that she did.
Then you try to attack queen claiming she made an assumption that you were defending o'donnell even as you made your own assumptions about what you THINK queen was saying. There in lies your hypocrisy and that is what I am laughing at. LOL

no hypocrisy from me, asswipe

LOL once again you turn tail and run from the content as you pretend it doesn't exist. typical.
Keep running coward your and her words are right there. You BOTH agreed that o'donnell wasn't taken out of context and queen never mentioned you. So for you to ASSUME that she was somehow assuming that you were defending o'donnel even as you try to attack queen for assuming, when she didn't but you did, IS hypocrisy on your part.

Ignoring the FACTS won't make them go away. LOL

thanks for once again showing you are nothing but a hyper partisan fucktard

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

If you are totally free to accept or reject any comment of this kind (and you ARE totally free to accept it or reject it) then the Government has neither created a State religion or impeded your right to believe/worship (or not) as you deem fit.

Nope, you're wrong. The mere suggestion by civil authority that we have a duty to trust God is an establishment of religion. Keep in mind, God has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over religion. The civil authorities have no legitimate jurisdiction whatsoever over religion.

 

[Liberty]

Hey, left wing idiots,

We on the right simply want moral people in government. We don't want the government governing morality. Get a fucking grip.

 

[Liability]

If you are totally free to accept or reject any comment of this kind (and you ARE totally free to accept it or reject it) then the Government has neither created a State religion or impeded your right to believe/worship (or not) as you deem fit.

Nope, you're wrong. The mere suggestion by civil authority that we have a duty to trust God is an establishment of religion. Keep in mind, God has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over religion. The civil authorities have no legitimate jurisdiction whatsoever over religion.

Nonsense.

The government writing a motto on a coin imposes exactly and precisely nothing on me or anybody else.

So, as always on this matter, it is you who remains wrong.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The POWER the AWESOME POWER of the Federal Government to place a motto on our coins -- <<shudder>> -- makes me tremble. Oh wait. No. It doesn't.

A law that establishes a motto that recommends we trust God is an establishment of a duty we owe to our Creator, which is prohibited by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Congress has not violated any enumerated power by crafting a national motto

Congress assumed a power not granted to it by the Constitution when it made a law establishing a motto that constitutes advice regarding religion.

it neither creates a State religion

It establishes a duty which we owe to our Creator, which assumes a power not granted and violates the establishment clause.

 

[Liability]

It remains simple.

The Motto on our coins does not require me to accept any religious belief. It establishes no State religion as long as I am free to accept or reject those words without any consequence. And happily, I do remain free to accept or reject those words without any consequence.

Further, those words on coins impede me in no way whatsoever -- that means "none" -- from my ability to believe/worship (or not) as I see fit.

Thus, the motto on coinage debate is silly for it clearly and absolutely does not violate either of the dictates of the First Amendment's freedom of religion provisions.

 

[Intense]

The POWER the AWESOME POWER of the Federal Government to place a motto on our coins -- <<shudder>> -- makes me tremble. Oh wait. No. It doesn't.

A law that establishes a motto that recommends we trust God is an establishment of a duty we owe to our Creator, which is prohibited by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Congress has not violated any enumerated power by crafting a national motto

Congress assumed a power not granted to it by the Constitution when it made a law establishing a motto that constitutes advice regarding religion.

it neither creates a State religion

It establishes a duty which we owe to our Creator, which assumes a power not granted and violates the establishment clause.

So let me get this straight, you subscribe to the notion that the Constitution bans Our Creator from Government????? Your Statute doesn't say that. Your Statute bans State Religion, or an Official State Church. Your Statute has no power over God silly!!!!!

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

And while I respect the words of Madison in many many things, I disagree with any such concern in this matter. ALSO, Madison was ACTUALLY fairly AMBIVALENT on the topic. HE was, after all, one of the members appointed to the Committee of the First Congress to establish the rules for the appointment of Chaplains. And he was one of the men voted FOR the bill that provided for the PAYMENT of Chaplains.

The notion that we should interpret the Constitution according to the opinions of James Madison is silly. The Constitution should be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of Construction.

No. It isn't.

Yes, it is.

Anybody has the authority to give such advice.

God has absolute and exclusive authority over religion.

Chaplains have opened lots of sessions of the Senate and of the House.

True. But, that was not the practice of the U. S. Congress for the first 65 years of the Republic.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The POWER the AWESOME POWER of the Federal Government to place a motto on our coins -- <<shudder>> -- makes me tremble. Oh wait. No. It doesn't.

A law that establishes a motto that recommends we trust God is an establishment of a duty we owe to our Creator, which is prohibited by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Congress assumed a power not granted to it by the Constitution when it made a law establishing a motto that constitutes advice regarding religion.

it neither creates a State religion

It establishes a duty which we owe to our Creator, which assumes a power not granted and violates the establishment clause.

You subscribe to the notion that the Constitution bans Our Creator from Government?

I subscribe to the notion that the Constitution excludes religion, the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it, from the cognizance of civil authority.

Your Statute doesn't say that. Your Statute bans State Religion, or an Official State Church. Your Statute has no power over God silly!

My statute? I don't know what you mean.

 

[drsmith1072]

no hypocrisy from me, asswipe

LOL once again you turn tail and run from the content as you pretend it doesn't exist. typical.
Keep running coward your and her words are right there. You BOTH agreed that o'donnell wasn't taken out of context and queen never mentioned you. So for you to ASSUME that she was somehow assuming that you were defending o'donnel even as you try to attack queen for assuming, when she didn't but you did, IS hypocrisy on your part.

Ignoring the FACTS won't make them go away. LOL

thanks for once again showing you are nothing but a hyper partisan fucktard

hey, all I did was post the facts as you posted your baseless claims that run counter to the facts. The FACT that you lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. LOL

I posted all of the facts so it's funny how you edited them out in your response. Oh well this isn't the first time that you have been so dishonest and I doubt it will be the last.

 

[drsmith1072]

Hey, left wing idiots,

We on the right simply want moral people in government. We don't want the government governing morality. Get a fucking grip.

LOL Have you seen the candidates runnning on the right?? Moral?? Now that is hilarious. lol

 

[drsmith1072]

What a crock and such a lame excuse for the party of NO obstructing so much more than their predecessors. LOL

Got any specifics or are we just supposed to take your word for it??

What has the DNC done to threaten Liberty and can you show how every filibuster has been justified in order to protect Liberty??

Your Statist Progressive Agenda is an Offense to Liberty. It is a direct offense. I don't expect you to understand that, without an intervention. A perfect example of the hypocrisy and arbitrary application of flawed reasoning of the left is now playing out with NPR. Liberty, there is no substitute Smith. We need productive contributors, not Parasites. Big Government is the worst of them. You are killing the host.

LOL so in other words you were asked for specifics and all you have to offer is a lame and desperate attempt to smear me with your baseless vague generalities becuase you have NO specifics. Got it.

However, please enlighten me and others by telling everyone SPECIFICALLY what MY "Statist Progressive Agenda" is and please give examples of me supporting what you are going to contionue to assign to me.

Come on intense, I know you at least think that you can do better than this vague generalized bs so how about you give a try?

Still waiting on those specifics intense. You do have them don't you??

 

[Intense]

Hey, left wing idiots,

We on the right simply want moral people in government. We don't want the government governing morality. Get a fucking grip.

LOL Have you seen the candidates runnning on the right?? Moral?? Now that is hilarious. lol

As compared to Barney Frank or Charlie Rengel? It's all hilarious!

 

[DiveCon]

LOL once again you turn tail and run from the content as you pretend it doesn't exist. typical.
Keep running coward your and her words are right there. You BOTH agreed that o'donnell wasn't taken out of context and queen never mentioned you. So for you to ASSUME that she was somehow assuming that you were defending o'donnel even as you try to attack queen for assuming, when she didn't but you did, IS hypocrisy on your part.

Ignoring the FACTS won't make them go away. LOL

thanks for once again showing you are nothing but a hyper partisan fucktard

hey, all I did was post the facts as you posted your baseless claims that run counter to the facts. The FACT that you lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. LOL

I posted all of the facts so it's funny how you edited them out in your response. Oh well this isn't the first time that you have been so dishonest and I doubt it will be the last.

i posted the facts, dipshit
you merely agreed with said facts
but you did it in a snarky way trying to insinuate i meant something other than what i actually said

so again, fuck off moron

 

[drsmith1072]

Hey, left wing idiots,

We on the right simply want moral people in government. We don't want the government governing morality. Get a fucking grip.

LOL Have you seen the candidates runnning on the right?? Moral?? Now that is hilarious. lol

As compared to Barney Frank or Charlie Rengel? It's all hilarious!

Did i make the claim that they were moral?? Nope. Furthermore, how does your comment support, or even address, the spin that "We on the right simply want moral people in government." when you nominate less than moral people to represent you? Oh you mean it doesn't support it and that it is nothing more than a lame distraction tactic because that and a list of moronic vague generalities is all you have to offer. Got it.

 

[Intense]

LOL Have you seen the candidates runnning on the right?? Moral?? Now that is hilarious. lol

As compared to Barney Frank or Charlie Rengel? It's all hilarious!

Did i make the claim that they were moral?? Nope. Furthermore, how does your comment support, or even address, the spin that "We on the right simply want moral people in government." when you nominate less than moral people to represent you? Oh you mean it doesn't support it and that it is nothing more than a lame distraction tactic because that and a list of moronic vague generalities is all you have to offer. Got it.

The lame distraction is you attributing somebody else's position or words as mine. You don't know my position on the subject, yet you presume to. My position is that regardless of which side you are on, Vote for the Person most capable of doing a good job. We all have baggage, now do we seek to disqualify, or do we seek the most capable and competent? Now are we speaking generally or just generally speaking????? ... Thought so.

 

[drsmith1072]

thanks for once again showing you are nothing but a hyper partisan fucktard

hey, all I did was post the facts as you posted your baseless claims that run counter to the facts. The FACT that you lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. LOL

I posted all of the facts so it's funny how you edited them out in your response. Oh well this isn't the first time that you have been so dishonest and I doubt it will be the last.

i posted the facts, dipshit
you merely agreed with said facts
but you did it in a snarky way trying to insinuate i meant something other than what i actually said

so again, fuck off moron

LOL and yet not in this reality. LOL So how did queen both agree with you and try to claim that you said something that you didn't LOL

OMG you and your contradictions are just too damn entertaining. LOL

Thanks for the laughs but I posted the facts and you ignored them and made up your own version of reality. That's really not my problem now is it? LOL

 

[DiveCon]

hey, all I did was post the facts as you posted your baseless claims that run counter to the facts. The FACT that you lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. LOL

I posted all of the facts so it's funny how you edited them out in your response. Oh well this isn't the first time that you have been so dishonest and I doubt it will be the last.

i posted the facts, dipshit
you merely agreed with said facts
but you did it in a snarky way trying to insinuate i meant something other than what i actually said

so again, fuck off moron

LOL and yet not in this reality. LOL So how did queen both agree with you and try to claim that you said something that you didn't LOL

OMG you and your contradictions are just too damn entertaining. LOL

Thanks for the laughs but I posted the facts and you ignored them and made up your own version of reality. That's really not my problem now is it? LOL

there are no contradictions, asswipe
not by me
i didn't say she did moron, i said YOU