one nation, under god

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to. SCOTUS accepts that it is there, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Tuff. I honor your service but not your misguided concept of what religious patriotism means. Those days are almost over, praise heavens.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't have to. SCOTUS accepts that it is there, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Tuff. I honor your service but not your misguided concept of what religious patriotism means. Those days are almost over, praise heavens.

I'm sorry, when did the court rule that there was separation of church and state? And why does the congress still open with a prayer?

And I don't have religious patriotism. I never speak of my religion. But I do speak of the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution. It's not there. You cannot show me it is there.

Sure he can, it’s right here:

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Remember, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Otherwise, you don’t believe there’s a Constitutional right to self-defense and an individual right to own a handgun.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to. SCOTUS accepts that it is there, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Tuff. I honor your service but not your misguided concept of what religious patriotism means. Those days are almost over, praise heavens.

I'm sorry, when did the court rule that there was separation of church and state? And why does the congress still open with a prayer? And I don't have religious patriotism. I never speak of my religion. But I do speak of the constitution.

Then, bluntly, you know not of what you talk. Take it up with SCOTUS, not me. And read the post immediately above.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I have to follow up on this tomorrow, I'm not feeling well tonight. I may have to sign off for a while..............

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The catholics put it there. Then as now, they're calling the shots. Especially interesting since the rw's were so afraid the pope would own JFK.

My question is - Whose god is it?

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not there. You cannot show me it is there. Sorry but it is from a letter written to a church. Everyone knows this.

Actually I think it was Hugo Black that resurrected Jefferson's 'wall of separation' as he expressed it in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Black, as so many secularists are wont to do, misused the phrase in his comments on Emersen v the Board of Education (1947). There is an excellent discussion of that here:

The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church

In any case you are absolutely right that there was no intent of the Founders and there was nothing written in the Constition to prevent intermingling of religion and government. There was intent clearly expressed that government should not have any jurisdiction over religion and the Church shall have no jurisdiction in government. Otherwise the intent was that government and religion coexist peacefully and productively.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not there. You cannot show me it is there. Sorry but it is from a letter written to a church. Everyone knows this.

Actually I think it was Hugo Black that resurrected Jefferson's 'wall of separation' as he expressed it in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Black, as so many secularists are wont to do, misused the phrase in his comments on Emersen v the Board of Education (1947). There is an excellent discussion of that here:

The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church

In any case you are absolutely right that there was no intent of the Founders and there was nothing written in the Constition to prevent intermingling of religion and government. There was intent clearly expressed that government should not have any jurisdiction over religion and the Church shall have no jurisdiction in government. Otherwise the intent was that government and religion coexist peacefully and productively.

Even in your convolution, you have described a de facto separation of church and state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have to follow up on this tomorrow, I'm not feeling well tonight. I may have to sign off for a while..............

Must be aids from all that gay sex you are having.

What is wrong with you? Disagree with him, yes, (I do) but why the language. Absolutely worthless.

 

[Mustang]

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution.

Christianity isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is God.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"anno domini" is in the Constitution, as a required format for legal attestation of a document.

That is not the same thing as the signers saying "This is a Christian nation" or "This is a nation founded on Christian principles" or "**** Tom Jefferson eleven years ago, we are a Christian empire."

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's not there. You cannot show me it is there. Sorry but it is from a letter written to a church. Everyone knows this.

Actually I think it was Hugo Black that resurrected Jefferson's 'wall of separation' as he expressed it in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Black, as so many secularists are wont to do, misused the phrase in his comments on Emersen v the Board of Education (1947). There is an excellent discussion of that here:

The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church

In any case you are absolutely right that there was no intent of the Founders and there was nothing written in the Constition to prevent intermingling of religion and government. There was intent clearly expressed that government should not have any jurisdiction over religion and the Church shall have no jurisdiction in government. Otherwise the intent was that government and religion coexist peacefully and productively.

Interesting, again I'll have to read it tomorrow.....

 

[SFC Ollie]

Hell I call myself an asshole, it used to be in my job description............

We all know you are a male escort for black men.you dont have to remind us each time you log on.

Wow, such intellectual dribble. 4th grade graduate?

 

[Againsheila]

**** you....

Such a teacher in a public school must be dismissed if he or she tries to unconstitutionally force passive indoctrination into any student setting.

Separation of church and state means that neither agency can use state employees to further such an agenda.

correct, sitting in your seat in silence is still giving respect. dipshit ollie wants people to submit.

No it's not, and if one of our representatives goes to another nation and sits during their pledge or anthym you can bet there will be an international incident.

 

[del]

Such a teacher in a public school must be dismissed if he or she tries to unconstitutionally force passive indoctrination into any student setting.

Separation of church and state means that neither agency can use state employees to further such an agenda.

correct, sitting in your seat in silence is still giving respect. dipshit ollie wants people to submit.

No it's not, and if one of our representatives goes to another nation and sits during their pledge or anthym you can bet there will be an international incident.

 

[Valerie]

We all know you are a male escort for black men.you dont have to remind us each time you log on.

Wow, such intellectual dribble. 4th grade graduate?

5th even!

please go on and tell us how you are a real person

Cut the crap and leave Ollie alone, you oaf... Focus on the topic or STFU.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Must be aids from all that gay sex you are having.

What is wrong with you? Disagree with him, yes, (I do) but why the language. Absolutely worthless.

Because i find humor in it....I am twisted like that....

Yes, you are a twisted freak, so I will leave it to you as the butt hurt flows through you.

 

[Ravi]

I made a simple statement, I spelled it out for you in plain simple terms, and some here are too stupid to understand it.

Let's review what I have said in this thread:

Post 174:
"The 2 words should be removed if the majority wants them removed.

The 2 words should not be removed to please a small minority. "

Post 225

"They shouldn't be forced to say or even learn the pledge, but when it is being said they should at least learn the respect to stand quietly."


Post 261
"Once again, remove the words if the majority wants them removed.

Leave them be if they are to be removed for a small minority. Which seems to be the case.

Unfortunately the majority today won't care unless their handlers tell them to.... Left or right......"


Now I have tried to reason with some of you over these basic concepts of Respect for the flag and respect for others in the room. But it seems as though respect is not what we want our children to learn........ That is not my America........

I can't help but think that if the pledge said "under allah" you would think it everyones patriotic duty to remain seated.

I'm also kind of surprised that you support the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Ravi]

yeah i think so. You want to force people to stand and submit to your opinion or now they are not americans.

Irony

Hey asshole, all I ask for is respect. Isn't that something that we are supposed to teach our children? Or is that something you don't believe in too?

you have to give it to get it

Well, there you go. Should be the thread killer.

 

[Ravi]

Religion was never a litmus test for being an American.

Including "under God" in the pledge makes it a litmus test.

Not unconstitutional, but wrong and against what our country was founded on.