If there has ever been any doubt that inside every liberal is a pinko commie bastard dying to get out, look no further than their oft repeated mantra... "separation of church and state" Where the hell did they get that idea??? Well actually they are correct in that, that specific phrase is indeed mentioned in the constitution...Article 52 [Religion] In fact...
Article 52 [Religion] (1) Citizens of the BLANK are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.(2) In the BLANK, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
... only problem is that it is in the The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The Establishment Clause makes no mention nor does it imply that there should be a wall between "church and state". In fact it states the opposite, that there should be NO government interference whatsoever.
Bill of Rights Amendment I
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.
I know I know, before you commies even say it..yes Thomas Jefferson did mention "the Wall" in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 , but that is as relevant as the Pink Floyd album of the same name inasmuch that neither of them are the actual Constitution of The United States of America and have no legal bearing on the issue...and that my friends is the crux of the matter...ask 100 people on the street if "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution and Ill bet you dollars to donuts that the majority would answer that it is.
WRONG JACKASSES!!!
There is no room for interpretation. There is no need to discuss. If the Framers had intended this to be a God-less nation then why the hell would they inundate our political, social, and fiscal culture with Judeo-Christian imagery? Once again the commie secularists use the age old tactic of repeating a falsehood enough times in hope that people will eventually believe it to be fact...unfortunately for America...it's working.
orig posted 9/22/05...Im getting lazy
21 comments:
It's just ridiculous! the only job of the supreme court is to interpret the U.S. Constitution! Using the laws of other countries is just about as far away from that as you can get! That is judicial activism at its apex!
you know hank, i am not a lawyer, and maybe you were banking on that, but the way i read it, that decision was mostly based on ohio v roberts, and according to the information you provided, Scalia expanded on it by referring to the "intent" that he presumed was prevalent at time that the framers wrote the constitution. It was not BASED on old english law, and is very different from going against our own constitution because it wouldn't be popular in europe! Also, i don't think this is the "most important legal decision in recent history" Again i'm no lawyer, but i would think Miranda is a little bit bigger and more important since it affects every single arrest in the country every single day! but hey, maybe i'm wrong, there's a first time for everything!
90% don't get their rights read to them? where did you get that statistic from? maybe the guttenberg website again? those of us who don't get our information from the ACLU don't believe you. by the way, i noticed you didn't defend your position on the scalia b.s. just try to change the subject, good plan. Like i said, i'm no lawyer, so maybe i'm wrong on the miranda thing, that was just off the top of my head, i assume you're well versed in the law, and all you could come up with to defend yourself is crawford?? well, good luck with tax law, or your social work, i gotta believe you're not actually arguing in front of a jury, you don't seem to be up to the challenge. But hey, stick around, you can learn from me, clearly i have a dizzying intellect!
So hank, you're original "point" about removing scalia is of course just your own political agenda. that of course was obvious, and since you obviously know the law, you saying the decision(crawford) was "based" on old english law was a lie to further your political agenda. now we all know to what lengths you will go to further that agenda. now i can't speak intelligently on persuasive authority, but i can say that finding a supposed "right" to sodomy, in the constitution, or saying that we shouldn't have the death penalty for a minor because they don't have it in europe seems to me to be activist. I am not an expert on the law, but if i must i will find many other examples where the judiciary has overstepped its authority. Like imposing taxes etc. that is what i call activist. Long live Jerry Orbach.
Nobody puts miranda in the corner
Hank's my hero.
I'm glad to let somebody else take this one, I fought about this two weeks ago at length.
Lily this was an old argument, it's re post from back in the day. Hank is actually a woman, an ex girlfriend of mine. I hate lawyers, especially hippie lawyers.
Dont you mean was a woman? Im glad the op was a success.
Yeah i know you are, and i still think it's messed up that he/she is you're "life partner" now.
Take it easy man wrastler.
Yes Rhino, thankfully the blessed public school taught me enough to read the "org posted 9/22/05...I'm getting lazy" note in the corner but THANK YOU so much.
I pegged you as a plaid mini skirt kinda chick. No wonder you are so vehemently against religion in school, those nuns at Our Blessed Public School mustve been tough.
OK, let's just kiss and make up, can't we all just get along? I've posted a peace offering honoring you guys.
The key word is fundamentalist Christian, of which I have no tolerance for either. When I originally posted this it was around the holidays and I just dont see the harm of having Nativity scenes at Town Hall or Ten commandments in courtrooms.
Im not going to address JC with you as I am afraid you may eat him, but suffice to say he was a heckuva carpenter. Mills was a racist.
I dont assume every secularist is a pinko, but every pinko is a secularist.
But you are probaly right that FZ woulda hated me, but most people do as I am an admitted Jackass
Ben's pretty hot for an admitted pseudo-libertarian materialist. AND he's playing at CBGB's?
Establishment also pertains to preferential religion, having a nativity scene is preferential. You are essentially using tax payer's money to support a religion PREFERENTIALLY when you display a nativity at Christmas.
Further, the Churches ALREADY have a tax exemption, are you suggesting they double dip?
Where's the harm in simply letting people with PRIVATE propoerty do what they want, display what they want? I personally think anything other than white lights and a wreath should be banned, but one cannot legislate good taste. If we stopped a private homeowner from decorating with Jesus that would be a different matter. There would be harm in that.
The trouble is that people with your positions always ask "Whats the harm in Baby Jesus" well, whats the harm in NOT having baby Jesus? Will God smite you, will the world collapse?
Seriosuly, what is the harm in not permitting you to further commercialize a holiday many of you already disrespect?
If I had a dollar for every Christian that cried about the Ten Commandments but lied, stole, cheated, killed, coveted, molested, or took names in vain, I'd be pretty wealthy. And then I'd become a Republican.
As always Lily your arguments are bunk, but we still like you.
Smite? Its always about the smite with you. I know you love that argument since you think it has some meat to it, and it makes Christians look like zealots, but its crap. What happens when all of the religions (or major ones at least are involved) and there is no preference, why then the problem? And like it or not our laws our based on Judeo-Christian principles henceforth the 10 C's are approtiate. Is it because your goal as a secularistic anti-christian is a godless moral decaying lawless if it feels good do it society? There is a war on Christianity in this country and if y'all win the country will be worse of for it
...and I never killed anybody (that didnt deserve it)
I dont consider myself a Christian and am not a "religious" person per se. The big guy and me have an understanding...He dont fuck wit me, I dont fuck with him.
As always Lily your arguments are bunk, but we still like you.
Smite? Its always about the smite with you. I know you love that argument since you think it has some meat to it, and it makes Christians look like zealots, but its crap. What happens when all of the religions (or major ones at least are involved) and there is no preference, why then the problem? And like it or not our laws our based on Judeo-Christian principles henceforth the 10 C's are approtiate. Is it because your goal as a secularistic anti-christian is a godless moral decaying lawless if it feels good do it society? There is a war on Christianity in this country and if y'all win the country will be worse of for it
...and I never killed anybody (that didnt deserve it)
I dont consider myself a Christian and am not a "religious" person per se. The big guy and me have an understanding...He dont fuck wit me, I dont fuck with him.
is there an echo in here?
But the Jefferson letter does show the intent of at least one of the Founders--"original intent", isn't that what conservatives are always talking about?
Let me ask one question: why did the Founders leave God out of the Constitution--not one mention? Many of them believed in a God of some sort (although most were not Christians as today's theocrats understand the term)--yet they did not even put their own religious views in the constitution. Do you think this fact went unoticed at the time? The constitution was denounced by critics as "godless." Think about it.
You always assume that I am not a Christian, first of all. Second, you think that my religion has some bearing on what I think of the intent and language of the constitution. I can be a separationist AND a Christian. I can oppose preferential religion as a RESOURCE issue and still be a Christian.
Lawlessness might indeed ensue if the wingnut faction does not succeed in distorting points of law but given how many wars and conflicts have religion at their core, perhaps the spectre of lawlessness you presume is not unlike the lawless corrupt culture we have right now.
For your point to be cogent, we would have to presuppose that a faith based society is more lawful than one that is distinctly separate but still open to all expressions of personal faith.
So, for example, many theocracies in the Middle East are faith based. Are they more lawful? How about the Taliban, more lawful? Or are only Judeo-Christian theocracies inherently lawful?
See I am not in agreement with the government getting into my brain, my soul, or my bedroom. I favor more limited "powers" where this is concerned. Just as I am capable of self determination on many other issues, religion falls in the domain of a place government simply does NOT belong. MY religion is my business, and we don;t pay government to get into that business.
I am not an atheist, I just don't 'give it all up' to the Fed as easily. I don't think everything needs to be legislated, Donkey. Call that bunk, fine.
You really are cute with your paragraphs of nothingness. You always write alot and say nothing. Such a cute hippie. You already said dad was a gop, is hubby /ex too and that where your resentment lies??? Whats up next semester at the New School?
Post a Comment