RE: The Tea party Candidate....

RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 9:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Pops loves her.He`ll be her #1 fan......... Owner, my first love is Hillary Clinton, you know that! I wonder if this Coons guy would go down to the Teamsters Union loading docks to "talk to the guys?" Hey, he could ride his polo pony! "Hi-Ho! Ok guys, show of hands, how many here went to Amherst College? ...Anyone?"

Moonhead -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 9:24:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I"d do her We know. Believe me, we know. You have a thing for crazy Republican women. Now I can see O'Donnell, maybe even Palin, but if you start saying you would do Sharron Angle or Jan Brewer we are going to have to find you some help. To be fair, I don't think he's mentioned Coulter yet.

Real0ne -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 11:18:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne now I realize that for some of you constitutional phd extraordinaires this is beyond your comprehension so allow me to translate for you what was said based on attorney jeffffffffs post. quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff "Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools." That means you can teach any damn thing you want in PRIVATE just like people can masterbate in private and that means that you can not teach masterbation in PUBLIC neither can you masterbate in public. Good tip RealOne. I was just out this morning masturbating on my front porch. Who knew? it just goes to show you that people are clueless as to what their rights are and there is an old saying......if you do not know your rights you aint got none because no one gives them to you, rights you need to assert, permission(privileges) are given for free.

mnottertail -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 11:24:17 AM)
Well, he asserts the right to pound pud perched 'pon the porch, perhaps you have an article or amendment to the constitution that prohibits it?

Moonhead -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 12:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne now I realize that for some of you constitutional phd extraordinaires this is beyond your comprehension so allow me to translate for you what was said based on attorney jeffffffffs post. quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff "Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools." That means you can teach any damn thing you want in PRIVATE just like people can masterbate in private and that means that you can not teach masterbation in PUBLIC neither can you masterbate in public. Good tip RealOne. I was just out this morning masturbating on my front porch. Who knew? it just goes to show you that people are clueless as to what their rights are and there is an old saying......if you do not know your rights you aint got none because no one gives them to you, rights you need to assert, permission(privileges) are given for free. Rilly? And there was me thinking that the point of that Constitution thing you can't shut up about was to thrust rights upon everybody, whether they wanted them or not. If the founding fathers hadn't been into the idea of rights for all, you'd still be paying tea tax. (And whining about it, no doubt...) (apart from women, negroes and all that sort of rifraff, obviously)

servantforuse -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 12:39:14 PM)
Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state.

servantforuse -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 12:47:37 PM)
The first 16 words of the 1st amendment...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof. No where does it say they must be separate.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 12:50:55 PM)
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. You tell me what that says if it doesnt say to seperate church from state?

mnottertail -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 12:52:54 PM)
well, regardless of the exact wording, the SCOTUS believes that it means that. Since 1947 anyway.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 12:55:27 PM)
It was designed to keep the state out of religion, to keep the state from setting up one religion over another, to keep[ religion from infriging upon the non-religious and to keep the non-religious from infringing upon the religious. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment. The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state. That's because the Constitution was designed as a broad, deliberately vague document that was never intended to cover every legal issue. That is also why we have an equal judicial branch of government to interpret laws and define meanings. The branch which has fairly consistently interpreted the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to mean just that, the separation of church and state.

pogo4pres -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:05:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state. 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. Now I could be wrong, but, the Congress shall make no law par implies (to me at least) there is to be NO STATE RELIGION; therefore a separation of church and state (ie government). Add in Jefferson's letter of 1 Jan, 1802, to the Danbury Baptists in which he says this : "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." It is pretty god damned clear he and the rest of the founders wanted no parts of religion to be involved with governance. By the Way that "establishment clause" while giving the religious the right to worship as they please also, implies MY right to be FREE OF THE BULLSHIT, known as religion. Religuliously, Some Knucklehead in NJ

Moonhead -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:14:34 PM)
I wonder if they could find a better candidate in Manchuria?

rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:20:22 PM)
This is a good summary for you Servant: Church and State: How the Court Decides The Constitutional guarantee for separation of church and state is provided for in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools, the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment Clause. The Lemon Test Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if: It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose. The practice either promotes or inhibits religion. Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion. The Coercion Test Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that "Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors." The Endorsement Test Finally, drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted' over other beliefs." Source: FindLaw's Constitutional Law Center

servantforuse -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:21:00 PM)
The House and Senate starts every session with a prayer. Separation of church and state ? Christine got this one right.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:21:57 PM)
The members can be religious. They cannot estabilsh a religion for the country. Are you truly this dense on the subject?

DomKen -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:44:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Christine O'Donnell is right. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state. Let's see what the guy who wrote it thought: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:46:29 PM)
Your OP is based on a false premise... that CNN reports the news. See, this is a good example of why CNN is being pummeled in the ratings so badly by FOX, CNN edited O'Donnels words to make it appear that she said something other than what she said. quote: CNN devoted several segments on Tuesday and Wednesday to Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell's apparent gaffe on the First Amendment, but barely acknowledged her opponent Chris Coons's own gaffe on the amendment. Analyst Jeff Toobin spun O'Donnell's remark as demonstrating that "she didn't seem to know" the amendment. It took conservative Dana Loesch on AC360 to bring up Coons's own gaffe. Anchor Wolf Blitzer played an edited clip of O'Donnell's questioning of Coons on the First Amendment issue during Tuesday morning's WDEL Delaware Senate candidate debate on his Situation Room program. Blitzer did not play the part where the Republican clearly asked, "You're telling me the 'separation of church and state'- the phrase, 'the separation of church and state' is found in the First Amendment?" [audio available here] After playing the edited sound bite, Blitzer continued that "O'Donnell's spokesman later said she was not questioning the concept of church and state subsequently established by the courts, she simply made the point, he says that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution, 'separation of church and state.'" This is an accurate summary of the candidate's line of questioning, but since the anchor didn't play the part where she used the term, "the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" he made it seem like the spokesman was giving a clarification. Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/10/20/cnn-barely-covers-coons-gaffe-1st-amendment-highlights-odonnell#ixzz12vxuZPaX

mnottertail -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The House and Senate starts every session with a prayer. The house and senate doesn't have a prayer and hasn't had one since before Reagan.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The members can be religious. They cannot estabilsh a religion for the country. Are you truly this dense on the subject? way too easy ....however Im behaving... for a while anyway:)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125