Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Oddball]

That's the part they don't like. The oft mistake the word OF to mean FROM.

I blame it on illiteracy.

No, it's willful debauchery of the English language...Both Orwell and Rand talked at length about it, as a necessary tool of collectivist tyrants of all stripes.

Ah, you give people credit for being smarter than I think they are.

The ones doing the debauchery and cheapening of the language are the relatively smart ones.

The rubes that get sucked in by it are the dupes...Like Obammy voters.

 

[Big Fitz]

Broader than no state religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There you have it.

Yes, free to worship as one chooses, OR chooses not.

This also mean in private or in public. On or off government land.

Government may not force you to choose a religion. It cannot by the original definition REFUSE the use of government facilities the practice of your religion FOR religious reasons.

 

[Oddball]

There you have it.

Yes, free to worship as one chooses, OR chooses not.

This also mean in private or in public. On or off government land.

Government may not force you to choose a religion. It cannot by the original definition REFUSE the use of government facilities the practice of your religion FOR religious reasons.

I'm pretty certain that religious people pay taxes too.

 

[Ironmankg]

It always baffles me that they point to the "amendments to the bill of rights" while totally ignoring the "actual original bill of rights" in these discussions. It is VERY clear what our founding fathers had in mind, and a VERY clear separation of church and state (absolutly) as well as a VERY limited ability to infringe on "OUR PERSONAL INDEPENDENT RIGHTS" is clearly what was intended.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

No, it's willful debauchery of the English language...Both Orwell and Rand talked at length about it, as a necessary tool of collectivist tyrants of all stripes.

Ah, you give people credit for being smarter than I think they are.

The ones doing the debauchery and cheapening of the language are the relatively smart ones.

The rubes that get sucked in by it are the dupes...Like Obammy voters.

I can concede that point.

 

[Peach]

BTW folks, in case you forgot, it was RICK SANTORUM who said that the 'separation of church' and state, the bedrock of our country, 'makes him sick'.

Why are we fighting each other when THAT is, or should be, the enemy of every true American?

Way to fail AGAIN on the first amendment and sidestepping the points that were brought up. Continue to be the partisan hack that you always are....

I see Santorum's statement as his position is that those WITH strong religious BELIEFS should not be excluded from authority.

 

[Lakhota]

IF Santorum doesn't wish to recognize the separation of church and state, then the First Amendment would also allow Islam, Scientology, and any other religion just as much power as Christianity in the U.S. legal system. He can't have it both ways to promote his theocracy agenda.

Hey stupid, they DO have as much power. Muslims are more than welcome to try to influence our laws , as long as what they want doesn't violate provisions of the COTUS.

IOW NO religion could for instance petition for the law to read that thieves have their hands chopped off, because that violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Same with Christians couldn't vote to stone an adulteress to death, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

Likewise Congress opens every session with a prayer. Religious leaders from EVERY major religeon have led those prayers over the years.

See how that works dummy?

Do you honestly think that's what Santorum has in mind? Santorum is like many other Christian extremist fundamentalists in America - he would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

It always baffles me that they point to the "amendments to the bill of rights" while totally ignoring the "actual original bill of rights" in these discussions. It is VERY clear what our founding fathers had in mind, and a VERY clear separation of church and state (absolutly) as well as a VERY limited ability to infringe on "OUR PERSONAL INDEPENDENT RIGHTS" is clearly what was intended.

yes , it is QUITE clear that the founding father's opened their session with a prayer and then declared that they wanted separation of church and state

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

IF Santorum doesn't wish to recognize the separation of church and state, then the First Amendment would also allow Islam, Scientology, and any other religion just as much power as Christianity in the U.S. legal system. He can't have it both ways to promote his theocracy agenda.

Hey stupid, they DO have as much power. Muslims are more than welcome to try to influence our laws , as long as what they want doesn't violate provisions of the COTUS.

IOW NO religion could for instance petition for the law to read that thieves have their hands chopped off, because that violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Same with Christians couldn't vote to stone an adulteress to death, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

Likewise Congress opens every session with a prayer. Religious leaders from EVERY major religeon have led those prayers over the years.

See how that works dummy?

Do you honestly think that's what Santorum has in mind? Santorum is like many other Christian extremist fundamentalists in America - he would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible.

So what? he has the right to try as long as he doesn't violate the COTUS. Which your silly little separation of church and state is NOT in the COTUS.

 

[Oddball]

Do you honestly think that's what Santorum has in mind? Santorum is like many other Christian extremist fundamentalists in America - he would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible.

Good God, are you one ******* hysterical crackpot!

 

[Peach]

[That's correct, It's vague when it comes to many constitutional questions, it's why the supreme court defined it further to mean that there is a wall that the founders were too negligent to build.

The Supreme Court doesn't have that authority.

MARBURY v. MADISON (1803)

 

[Peach]

Hey stupid, they DO have as much power. Muslims are more than welcome to try to influence our laws , as long as what they want doesn't violate provisions of the COTUS.

IOW NO religion could for instance petition for the law to read that thieves have their hands chopped off, because that violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Same with Christians couldn't vote to stone an adulteress to death, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

Likewise Congress opens every session with a prayer. Religious leaders from EVERY major religeon have led those prayers over the years.

See how that works dummy?

Do you honestly think that's what Santorum has in mind? Santorum is like many other Christian extremist fundamentalists in America - he would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible.

So what? he has the right to try as long as he doesn't violate the COTUS. Which your silly little separation of church and state is NOT in the COTUS.

So what? he has the right to try as long as he doesn't violate the COTUS.
**************************************
True.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Do you honestly think that's what Santorum has in mind? Santorum is like many other Christian extremist fundamentalists in America - he would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible.

Good God, are you one ******* hysterical crackpot!

well now think about it. Perfectly reasonable to believe anyone would believe that the Bible is an appropriate document to base a government off of.

 

[Big Fitz]

IF Santorum doesn't wish to recognize the separation of church and state, then the First Amendment would also allow Islam, Scientology, and any other religion just as much power as Christianity in the U.S. legal system. He can't have it both ways to promote his theocracy agenda.

Hey stupid, they DO have as much power. Muslims are more than welcome to try to influence our laws , as long as what they want doesn't violate provisions of the COTUS.

IOW NO religion could for instance petition for the law to read that thieves have their hands chopped off, because that violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Same with Christians couldn't vote to stone an adulteress to death, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

Likewise Congress opens every session with a prayer. Religious leaders from EVERY major religeon have led those prayers over the years.

See how that works dummy?

Do you honestly think that's what Santorum has in mind? Santorum is like many other Christian extremist fundamentalists in America - he would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible.

So we should have a humanist extremist in the white house? Or an atheist extremist? Or a Pagan extremist? How about a Muslim extremist? Jewish Extremist?

Can you define for us what exactly Santorum's election (if it happens) will change in this nation? Can you formulate any analysis IN YOUR OWN WORDS AND THOUGHTS on this front?

Don't link. I don't give a **** what someone else has to say. I want YOUR thoughts.

 

[Big Fitz]

Do you honestly think that's what Santorum has in mind? Santorum is like many other Christian extremist fundamentalists in America - he would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible.

So what? he has the right to try as long as he doesn't violate the COTUS. Which your silly little separation of church and state is NOT in the COTUS.

So what? he has the right to try as long as he doesn't violate the COTUS.
**************************************
True.

And even then, what does it matter if nobody holds him to account when he does? He violates his office all the time and congress has done jack shit... and jack left town with shit on his heels.

 

[Leweman]

Dude you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution.

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

Isn't that the problem we are talking about? The common law system?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Dude you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution.

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

Isn't that the problem we are talking about? The common law system?

Why is it a problem? We have been using it for over 250 years quite effectively and fairly.

What would you propose we replace it with?

 

[Oddball]

Dude you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution.

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

Isn't that the problem we are talking about? The common law system?

That's kind of like the people who blame capitalism of the housing and Wall Street crashes....Kind hard to make that claim when that's not the real world paradigm in place.

 

[Peach]

Rick Santorum on Sunday took on of separation of church and state.

As opposed to jobs and the economy – one of the many reasons why Obama will be reelected.



Fortunately no one cares what Santorum thinks, and it’s not his call to make. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and determine the Framers’ intent.

The case law is clear and settled: the Framers indeed intended to establish a wall of separation between church and State.

Santorum’s desire to violate the Constitution and the Framers’ intent is obviously predicated on the authoritarian nature of conservatism, where all must conform and diversity must be punished, particularly with regard to matters of religion.


It’s right here:



There’s also no mention of an individual right to own a handgun in the Second Amendment, but I don’t hear you or others on the right complaining about that.

Remember that the Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.



Incorrect. See: Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

The Supreme Court doesn't have that authority.

Incorrect. See: Marbury v. Madison

Dude ... you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution, just more examples of the court doing things they don't have the power to do.

MARBURY v. MADISON is from 1803! It explains the power of judicial review. STILL good law.

 

[FA_Q2]

BTW folks, in case you forgot, it was RICK SANTORUM who said that the 'separation of church' and state, the bedrock of our country, 'makes him sick'.

Why are we fighting each other when THAT is, or should be, the enemy of every true American?

Way to fail AGAIN on the first amendment and sidestepping the points that were brought up. Continue to be the partisan hack that you always are....

I see Santorum's statement as his position is that those WITH strong religious BELIEFS should not be excluded from authority.

BINGO, and that is perfectly in line with not only the constitution but also with any way it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS ever. The OP is disingenuous to claim otherwise and being a partisan hack in attacking him for this statement. Not that this surprises me..


There is plenty of actual points to attack him on but the OP picks this tripe and then falsely alludes that it is not in agreement with the first amendment.