Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[Sun Devil 92]

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

first of all, loser.... it's jillian. there is nothing remotely haggish about me....except of course to misogynist rightwingnut pond scum.

i have answered you. you're an ignorant twit who relies on nonsense from a dissent by rhenquist....

Please show me where I relied on that dissent.....you can't even keep up. I've never used that in my argument.

You really should ask for your money back....whoever educated you....screwed you.

Jillihag fits quite well. Your vapid name calling is your MO. When you stop posting like a bitter old woman.....you'll get some respect.

Looking foward to that link to where I quoted Renquist....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Time to teach you the law....


The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.


From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

 

[jillian]

Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.

there is that.

 

[jillian]

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.

the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.

 

[jillian]

you do understand that a dissent is meaningless....especially from rnenqist who was never correct.

you're welcome, dearie

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.

It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.

Christian of course.

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.

which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.

you're welcome

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.

the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.

That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....

Are you drunk.....?

We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.

Stay out of things you know nothing about.

And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.

For NYcarbineer

An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....

There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....

My point was that PC at least strings it together.....

Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Of course Rehnquist was correct.

"...nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

And you're actually denying that.

What a good little fascist you've become.

The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.

It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.

Christian of course.

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.

which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.

you're welcome

Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.

Still no link ? Didn't think so.

Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.

I already pointed out how the 14th applies (about two pages ago).

Why don't you meander over to the Cretin forum. You'll still look stupid...but not as.....

 

[jillian]

The religion test prohibition in the Constitution does require the government to be strictly neutral between religions and whatever irreligion is supposed to be.

It's telling, take note, how many RWnuts are in this thread expressing their support for a theocratic government.

Christian of course.

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.

which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.

you're welcome

Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.

Still no link ? Didn't think so.

Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.

what is it you think you need a link to?

you're making things up. i'm telling you they're incorrect.

you certainly don't need a link to tell you that the states cannot override the federal courts.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.

which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.

you're welcome

Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.

Still no link ? Didn't think so.

Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.

what is it you think you need a link to?

you're making things up. i'm telling you they're incorrect.

Post 216...you said I rely on a dissent by Renquist.....

I have not quoted or alluded to anything he said.....

You can't produce....you are a liar and a fraud.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As long as we are clear on the first sentence.

As to the rest, I don't know.

This whole "We are a Christian Nation" stuff really bothers me.

Somehow, I think the Almighty would rather be behave line one instead of handing out tee-shirts claiming to be one.

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.

which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.

you're welcome

Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.

Still no link ? Didn't think so.

Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.

what is it you think you need a link to?

you're making things up. i'm telling you they're incorrect.

What am I making up ?

History ?

You are one sad excuse for a homosapien.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Based on her posts,

PoliticalChic's brain is like a sewer, what comes out of it depends on what went into it.

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.

the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.

That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....

Are you drunk.....?

We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.

Stay out of things you know nothing about.

And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.

For NYcarbineer

An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....

There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....

My point was that PC at least strings it together.....

Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.

Ridicule is another form of fallacious argument, which happens to be what you're doing with jillian.

 

[jillian]

the first sentence was in error and is false. it is rhenquist's wishful thinking. and it certainly is unsupported by any actual decision.

the first amendment absolutely requires government to be neutral.

otherwise whose religion takes preference?

mine? yours? a muslim? a buddhist?

and if it were to be christian....whose brand of christianity....there are like a thousand.

It required the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be neutral.

which requires the states to be neutral....or it vitiates the federal law.

you're welcome

Meaningless in the context of the conversation...as usual.

Still no link ? Didn't think so.

Besides being an ignorant ass, you are a liar.

what is it you think you need a link to?

you're making things up. i'm telling you they're incorrect.

Post 216...you said I rely on a dissent by Renquist.....

I have not quoted or alluded to anything he said.....

You can't produce....you are a liar and a fraud.

you're kind of a moron.

the link that keeps getting reposted in this thread which says the federal government does not have to be neutral between belief and non belief.

that statement is from a dissent...which is not law and which files in the face of actual law.

do you need a basic primer on law to tell you that a dissent is not law that is why it is a *dissent* and not the *opinion*?

do you need some link telling you about the supremacy clause of the constitution which prohibits the states from granting fewer rights that the federal government?

grow up. learn something. stop being a bitter twit because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[jillian]

Please point to where Jillhag has ever posted the kind of step by step argument (right or wrong) that PC posts.

I don't agree with PC on many things. But the other twit only continues to cloud threads with her 3rd grade commentary.

Looking forward to that link.

I'd just settle for a post where she has more than five sentences.

The fact that PoliticalChic can be excruciatingly verbose does not in any way translate into her making winning arguments.
I've proven that to the point where she now has me on ignore because she couldn't take being thrashed any more.

Nobody said winning.....I only said step by step.....whether sound or unsound...there are arguments and a conclusion.

At least you've got something to chew on.

You thrashed her....???? Now that's funny.

it is irrelevant whether you think it is sound or unsound.

the law is the law. you might not like it...but it wasn't correct when rhenquist was alive and polluting our caselaw or now.

That first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.....

Are you drunk.....?

We are talking about a poster's style you ignorant fatassed witch.

Stay out of things you know nothing about.

And you've yet to produce that post.....like you never produce anything.

For NYcarbineer

An argument is a series of statements that are put forth to support a conclusion.....

There are any one of a number of fallacies that can be committed in doing so....

My point was that PC at least strings it together.....

Jillihag does nothing but drop little one line turds that seem to come from a peabrain that actually believes people care what she says.

Ridicule is another form of fallacious argument, which happens to be what you're doing with jillian.

thank you. but that's what not-so-bright people like doing to people who know more than they do...especially rightwingnut mysogists in their discussions with women. (note, particularly the use of the word hag simply because he disagrees politically and isn't bright enough to prevail in any actual discussion).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

 

[Dot Com]

You've been proven wrong repeatedly on this. The American Civil War was bloodier than the French Revolution.

The French Wars of Religion were bloodier than the French Revolution.

Both of those facts go unrefuted. You lose.

Now throw us another of your memorable tantrums.

Is that OP (PoliSpice)?

 

[Dot Com]

lol

You can’t be serious.

This thread’s moronic premise is nothing but a rightwing whine-fest; all conservatives do is complain – everything’s ‘bad,’ everything’s ‘wrong,’ and Christians are always ‘the victims.’

^ that

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.

"Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy."

No,we're not, you dunce.

I used to be amazed at how stupid people buy the Leftist victimology.

1. Define “poor”: No home, no heat, no food. It is important to remember that this is not an enduring class of people: it is a definition that applies for this moment. The same is true for those in the top 10 or 20 percent: a snapshot. This is a nation of opportunity, and economic mobility.
   1. “Of individuals who were in the lowest income quintile in 1975, 5.1 percent were still there in 1991, 14.6 percent had moved up to the second quintile, 21 percent to the middle quintile, 30.3 percent to the fourth quintile and 29 percent to the highest quintile. Of those in the highest quintile in 1975, 62.5 percent were still there in 1991, while 0.9 percent had fallen all the way to the bottom fifth.” http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf
   2. The transience of individuals in low income brackets, it becomes easier to understand anomalies as hundreds of thousands of families with incomes below $20k living in homes worth $300k or more. And, the average person in the lowest fifth in income spends twice as much annually as his or her annual income. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, “Myths of Rich and Poor,” p. 16.
   3. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution…In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer. http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf
2. The U of Michigan study noted by the Dallas Fed, followed tens of thousands of individuals over a period of decades. Only 5% of those in the bottom 20% remained there 16 years later; during that same period, 29% had risen all the way into the top quintile. And, more than half had been in the top quintile at some point during those years.

Now...get this, you moron:
3.
For those households that were in the highest earnings quintile (top 20 percent) in 2001, 34 percent had moved to a lower quintile by 2007, and 5 percent of those households had moved all the way to the bottom quintile.
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


I understand how the government schools got you to be so stupid....but how do you stay this stupid??????

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your Google results are based on what you have previously searched for. If you're a wingnut, you'll get results from other wingnuts.

Just another subject you're ignorant about.

Get used to it: I'm never wrong.


"Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!)

Read more: Families Are Outraged to See Michelle Obama-Approved School Lunches (YUCK!) - The Political Insider

More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler.

"More wingnut results from a wingnut Googler."

I was kinda hoping to get you to stick your foot in your mouth again....I posted one from the Washington Post.

if only you knew as much as you wished you did

How about we simply say I'm somewhere between you and educated, and leave it at that.

I wonder if PC realizes that in the above statement she declares herself to be uneducated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well if we are a nation based on judeo christian values we are doing a poor job. Jesus was all about taking care of the less fortunate, not protecting the wealthy. Yet here we are...on the throws of a plutocracy.

there is that.

Another moron.

No, there isn't 'that.'

 

[Dot Com]

"They were thrown into a hole in the ground...the ground was moving..." Many were buried alive.



So.....yeah....really, you dunce.

And how was that any different than what we did to the Native Americans and Filipinos, what the British did all over their empire, or what the God-fearing Nazis did all over Europe with the Pope's blessing.

Human beings tend to be pretty shitty to each other. They are shittier when they believe a magic fairy in the sky approves of their actions.

yeah PoliSpice. Sheesh!!!