Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Option D on October 20, 2010, 12:08:29 PM
-
This broad is retarded
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/anderson-cooper-schools-c_n_769836.html
-
This broad is retarded
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/anderson-cooper-schools-c_n_769836.html
She was right. The so called Sep of church and state exists as a result of a letter by Thomas Jefferson. sorry - Mal - she schooled Coons on this who himself did not know the 1st amendment,
-
I posted this elsewhere, but to recap:
I wonder if all those brilliant folk, yapping about seperation of church and state, particularly at that school were O'Donnell and Coons were, just caught Sean Hannity's old clip of Al Gore getting the Holy Ghost at a black church back in '98, talking about how the Republican agenda was the wrong one for black people.
This, of course, was in between wails of "WHEN THE GLORY OF THE LORD SHALL BE REVEALED!!!!". I nearly spit out my protein shake, in laughter. I mean, the only thing missing would have been Gore speaking in tongues.
-
Re-Posted
________________________ _____________
Separation of Church and State,
Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment
Return to Introduction
Who was Thomas Jefferson , and what did he believe?
Next Page three Supreme Court rulings that altered the meaning
of the First Amendment
Today, many Americans think that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." The Courts and the media will often refer to a ruling as being in violation of the "Separation of Church and State." A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution!1 Here is what the First Amendment actually does say.
The First Amendment :
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.
As you can see the First Amendment does not contain the words "Separation of Church and State". The First Amendment gives citizens the Freedom to Worship God without Government interference. Assures that the Government will not establish a State Religion. That people are free to speak their minds without the government arresting them. Granting citizens to publish news that may be critical of the government without fear of arrest or fines, and finely the right of citizens to peacefully gather together or march in rallies or parades. [/color]
So where did the words "Separation of Church and State." come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter. . .
"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, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Read the full text of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association .<< Click on this Link.
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. Notice that the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People! The Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People! Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words "Separation of Church and State" to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes is what the courts have done.
If actions speak stronger then words, it is interesting to note that 3 days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The wall of separation applies everywhere in the country even on government property , without government interference. This is how it is written in the Constitution, this is how Thomas Jefferson understood it from his letter and actions, and this is how the men who wrote the Constitution practiced it.
"The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned."Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist
Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that refer to religion: the establishment clause2 and the free exercise clause3. Today much is said about the establishment clause but there is very little mention of the free exercise clause. (Read Below for a description of these two concepts.)
While the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, they do appear in the constitution of the former U.S.S.R. Communist State4.
At the very heart of Jefferson's idea "Wall of Separation", is the notion that the government will not interfere with people's right to worship God. The very fact that the government has ruled to regulate religious practices, indicates that the government has crossed that "Wall of Separation."
While Congress has never passed a Law that Prohibits Prayer in School, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is Illegal for children to Pray in School because it violates the "Separation of Church and State" which is not in the Constitution. Their faulty reasoning is that Praying Establishes a State Religion, but in fact, this is really Citizens Freely Practicing their Religious faith in God. The Government would be establishing a State Religion if it forced all the children to pray to a God of one type of Religion or Denomination that they did not believe in. However, Prayer in School was alway voluntary and students were free not to be a part of school prayers. Ruling that students can not Pray in School violates the Constitution of the United States by interfering with the Free Practice of Religion. Thus the Supreme Court rulings on School Prayer and Bible Reading are illegal as they violate the Constitution. Thus when the Supreme Court forbids students from praying before a football game asking God to protect the players in the game, the Court is exercising the very tyranny of the minority that our Forefathers tried to stop. The Highest Court in the land has failed to Safe-Guard the Peoples Right to Worship without Government Interference. We have Justices on the Supreme Court that either do not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or have a very dishonest social agenda that they wish to impose on America. In either case they are not qualified to be Justices of the Supreme Court and should be Impeached by the Congress of the United States.
________________________ ____________
Mal - I won't challenge you on medicine - don't pick a fight with me on these issues. you are out of your league by a mile.
-
Also, the next time Bill Maher and Lawrence O'Donnell run their mouths about that, make sure they head STRAIGHT for the black churches in about 18 months and remind Obama, Biden, and a host of other Democrats about this so-called separation of church and state.
-
First Amendment gives citizens the Freedom to Worship God without Government interference. Assures that the Government will not establish a State Religion.
how is that not separation of church and state?
-
This is another example of typical predictable un-informed, ignorant, inept, far left fools spouting bullshit on subjects they are completely clueless about.
-
This is another example of typical predictable un-informed, ignorant, inept, far left fools spouting bullshit on subjects they are completely clueless about.
Please tell me youre joking...Dude...State wont get in your way of church, State wont make a church...
How the fuck is that not separation of church and state?...i mean what the fuck
-
The First Amendment :
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.
________________________ ________________________
Show me where the so called separation exists?
I agree that it has become accepted constutional norms, but strictly speaking - show me where you find it. While you are at it - show be the basis for gay marraige, abortion, etc.
-
are you playing that game with me right now...the intent of the language of the first ammendment is to define the line between church and state because GB was run by the Church of England.. Dont play this bull shit game with me.
-
333 do you believe in a separation of church and state?
-
333 do you believe in a separation of church and state?
He is playin this bullshit partyline game to defend this retarded broad...
i cant believe it..so fuckin dumb....i didnt think it would come to this level...im almost positive if she said the sky was green he would come on line saying how blue actually has a bit of green in the make up so she is techinally right in saying the sky is green...what the fuck man..this shit has to stop
-
333 do you believe in a separation of church and state?
Yes - but i also have read enough to know what the cost says.
-
Yes - but i also have read enough to know what the cost says.
So you don't agree with the legal interpretations given by the supreme court on this issue solely because the wording doesn't explicitly say - separation of church and state?
-
i officially cant take it anymore.. seriously...if this is gonna be dudes responses to shit.. i will refrain from speaking politics with him.. if he is such a party line scumbag that cant even concede that the gurantee of separation of church and state (not in those exact words) is in the first ammendment ANNNNNNNDDDD is an ESQ. God damn man, there is no point
-
Someone should tell Obama about the concept of separation of church and state, or is Islam exempt from that, too?
-
i officially cant take it anymore.. seriously...if this is gonna be dudes responses to shit.. i will refrain from speaking politics with him.. if he is such a party line scumbag that cant even concede that the gurantee of separation of church and state (not in those exact words) is in the first ammendment ANNNNNNNDDDD is an ESQ. God damn man, there is no point
I am a party line scumbag? Considering you spent two years defending failure from Obama for whatever reason, considering I posted the First Amend verbatim and was asking for the techinical location of the "separation", considering you don't understand how inflation is a tax, etc etc - I really do think you need to cool down bro.
If anyone has been the party hack - well - it aint me.
As for this issue - Levin is a constitutional scholar and knows far more than you or the other dolts on the left.
-
i officially cant take it anymore.. seriously...if this is gonna be dudes responses to shit.. i will refrain from speaking politics with him.. if he is such a party line scumbag that cant even concede that the gurantee of separation of church and state (not in those exact words) is in the first ammendment ANNNNNNNDDDD is an ESQ. God damn man, there is no point
Listen to my clip from Levin you dope. Educate yourself for Gods' sake. More time reading books, less time listening to comedians for your opinions.
-
Dude you and i know that had it been a democrat saying the gurantee that the government wouldnt interfere in your religion wasnt in the first ammendment you would have called her a dumbass...you can play this dumb ass game if you want but you know its wack as hell..you know it...the 1st ammendment is freedom of religion...from the state...as opposed to what was going on in england
-
Dude you and i know that had it been a democrat saying the gurantee that the government wouldnt interfere in your religion wasnt in the first ammendment you would have called her a dumbass...you can play this dumb ass game if you want but you know its wack as hell..you know it...the 1st ammendment is freedom of religion...from the state...as opposed to what was going on in england
Yes - and if you read the article i posted, the clip from Levin, other information, as opposed to the talking points of comedians and jokesters, you will learn that the issue is not as simply as the clowns on Comedy Channel would lead you to believe.
-
Yes - and if you read the article i posted, the clip from Levin, other information, as opposed to the talking points of comedians and jokesters, you will learn that the issue is not as simply as the clowns on Comedy Channel would lead you to believe.
im taking the clip that i saw her speak in..i havent even watched any of my comedy shows. I learned in the 9th grade that the first ammendment guranteed our protection from religious persecution, government religion...thats a separation of church and state...what the fuck are you missing...just because it isnt said in those words...and your partyline candidate fucked it up...you want to twist it.. yeah you reached a new low
-
-
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.
Can you read?Please tell me where that says "seperation of church and state?That particular phrase comes from Jefferson NOT the constitution.Liberals use this phrase to ban religion from public places which is clearly NOT the intent of the law.
Now,there is a constitution where "seperation of church and state "exists.Russia had that in their constitution.Not surprising libs would interpret that to mean the same thing in America as most are borderline marxists.
"Article 14 of the Russian constitution states:
The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory one.
Religious associations shall be separated from the State and shall be equal before the law."
-
She was right. The so called Sep of church and state exists as a result of a letter by Thomas Jefferson. sorry - Mal - she schooled Coons on this who himself did not know the 1st amendment,
racist post reported
-
racist post reported
Its not racist - just techincally accurate.
-
dude I know where the term came from and the intent. TJ is one of my most respected historical figures. But for this argument and the intention of the constitution. I'm not looking for the exact term but clearly stating that this country was founded for that exact purpose. Government for and by the people. Not the roman catholic church or the church of England. That is why the separation is there. So you and Billy are playing this party bullshit when you know good and the hell well why it was put in the constitution and it was to ensure that there was a clear line between what the government can do when it comes to religion.
Religion= church
Government/law= state
-
dude I know where the term came from and the intent. TJ is one of my most respected historical figures. But for this argument and the intention of the constitution. I'm not looking for the exact term but clearly stating that this country was founded for that exact purpose. Government for and by the people. Not the roman catholic church or the church of England. That is why the separation is there. So you and Billy are playing this party bullshit when you know good and the hell well why it was put in the constitution and it was to ensure that there was a clear line between what the government can do when it comes to religion.
Religion= church
Government/law= state
I said I agreed with the concept - but disagree with everyone hopping all over COD on this when it was Coons who could not listed what exactly was in the 1st Amend, despite the fact he went to Harvard Law.
-
dude I know where the term came from and the intent. TJ is one of my most respected historical figures. But for this argument and the intention of the constitution. I'm not looking for the exact term but clearly stating that this country was founded for that exact purpose. Government for and by the people. Not the roman catholic church or the church of England. That is why the separation is there. So you and Billy are playing this party bullshit when you know good and the hell well why it was put in the constitution and it was to ensure that there was a clear line between what the government can do when it comes to religion.
Religion= church
Government/law= state
Yes,it was put in their so government couldnt dictate what religion people must follow.Liberals take that to mean a girl at school cant pray.THERE IS NO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!There is a requirement that government can not infringe on the religion of the people.Libs throw that away every single day.
-
He is playin this bullshit partyline game to defend this retarded broad...
i cant believe it..so fuckin dumb....i didnt think it would come to this level...im almost positive if she said the sky was green he would come on line saying how blue actually has a bit of green in the make up so she is techinally right in saying the sky is green...what the fuck man..this shit has to stop
i officially cant take it anymore.. seriously...if this is gonna be dudes responses to shit.. i will refrain from speaking politics with him.. if he is such a party line scumbag that cant even concede that the gurantee of separation of church and state (not in those exact words) is in the first ammendment ANNNNNNNDDDD is an ESQ. God damn man, there is no point
Exactly. The fact that the statement CLEARLY spells out that Congress will make no law in regards to establishing a religion or exercising of one's faith is pretty much point blank telling you that the Church of one's choice is separate from state function and creation.
Hell, if Church and State are NOT separated, can someone tell me what the official State Sponsored Church of Florida is? Because I am going to go and pray for y'alls dumbasses.
-
you are out of your league by a mile.
You are measuring that mile by looking upwards aren't you? Because in clear cut common sense language, you are beneath the average poster's feet. I used to think no one could be this dumb, but I am convinced you are purposely putting effort into it.
-
You are measuring that mile by looking upwards aren't you? Because in clear cut common sense language, you are beneath the average poster's feet. I used to think no one could be this dumb, but I am convinced you are purposely putting effort into it.
;D ;D ;D
(http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u355/shebaface99/owned-subaru.jpg)
-
The U.S. Supreme Court has currently interpreted it since 1947, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.[2][3][4][5][6] from the internets :D
The Roberts Court, 2009
Front row: Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.333386
Back row: Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.BILLY MIMNAUGH ;D
-
;D ;D ;D
(http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u355/shebaface99/owned-subaru.jpg)
::) ::)
Right - I am "owned" when the leftist posters on this site can't make an argument on an issue besides attacks on me individually. Right, I got it.
Same as the Stim Bill, same as ObamaCare, same as the mosque, same as the NYC Terror trials, same as almost every issue you freaks have been proven wrong on, yet i am owned?
Whatever - again, how about you morons actually read something for once instead of getting your talking points from comedians?
-
If Church and State are not separated, then what is the official state sponsored church? What is the official religion?
-
Right - I am "owned" when the leftist posters on this site can't make an argument on an issue besides attacks on me individually. Right, I got it.
Obviously, you don't. An argument on the issue and topic here was made that you are unable to refute in a way that expresses an articulate point and evidence.
And since when is telling the truth about you considered attacks? If you can't handle the truth, try adopting a new behavior pattern.
-
If Church and State are not separated, then what is the official state sponsored church? What is the official religion?
Its a fine distinction - but at the time of the founding and adoption of the U.S. Cons., many states adopted official religions for their individual states. The U.S. const 1, st amend - was meant to prohibit the Federal Govt from creating a National Religion, but not prohibit the States from doing so since many states were afraid thatt he national govt would infringe on the states rights regarding religion. This was more a states issue as opposed to a "separation" issue.
However, later on the incorporation doctrine was interepreted to apply to the states via the 14th Amend to the BOR and apply the same standards to the states as well as the Fed Govt. Thus, the states were prohibited from certain things the same way the national govt was. Its a techincal legal interpretation issue, but the incoorporation doctrine has a lot to do with this. TRUST ME - I DONT THINK ODONNELL IS AWARE OF THESE FINE POINTS AND DISTINCTIONS.
The so called "seperation" was interepreted through case law, common law, and other judicial rulings, but its not exactly in the Const itself. COD was right in a narrow sense, but I really don't think she was arguing against the premise itself.
Now - as a practical matter - of course i agreee with the separation of church and state and wish there were even more of it. However, to trash her over this is misguided IMHO considering the history behind the adoption of the BOR as it applied to religions and the concerns many states had at the time that the Fed Gov would impose a national religion and infring upon a states' ability to declare its own.
-
If Church and State are not separated, then what is the official state sponsored church? What is the official religion?
We agree that the first ammendment bans the attempt by government to put in a state sponsored religion.EVERYONE agrees with that.However,the first ammendment doesnt totally seperate church and state as proven by the fact that congress opens their daily activities with a prayer.No seperation of church and state there is there?
-
Opening Congress with a prayer doesn't mean there is any inclusive connection between Church and State. It simply means members of Congress are practicing their faith, as they are free to do. Nothing more.
That is like attempting to prove separation doesn't exist because Congress people actually go to church and sit in the pews. Hey... Congress is here so they can't be separate huh?
If there is no separation, then why can't Congress pass a church tax?
-
Opening Congress with a prayer doesn't mean there is any inclusive connection between Church and State. It simply means members of Congress are practicing their faith, as they are free to do. Nothing more.
That is like attempting to prove separation doesn't exist because Congress people actually go to church and sit in the pews. Hey... Congress is here so they can't be separate huh?
If there is no separation, then why can't Congress pass a church tax?
It's not the same thing. Opening Congress with a prayer means members of Congress are practicing their faith at work, a Federal government job at a Federal government building.
I see you guys arguing back and forth and the only explanation I see is that there are many contradictions. There is supposed to be this separation of church and state, yet Congress opens with a prayer, there are Judeo-Christian symbols all over DC's government buildings, Moses holding the 10 commandments is plastered on the Supreme Court building, etc. Just a bunch of contradictions and double standards.
-
It's not the same thing. Opening Congress with a prayer means members of Congress are practicing their faith at work, a Federal government job at a Federal government building.
I see you guys arguing back and forth and the only explanation I see is that there are many contradictions. There is supposed to be this separation of church and state, yet Congress opens with a prayer, there are Judeo-Christian symbols all over DC's government buildings, Moses holding the 10 commandments is plastered on the Supreme Court building, etc. Just a bunch of contradictions and double standards.
So obviuosly there is no seperation.We are allowed to practice our faith on government property,in government buildings etc.The only thing the first ammendment says is government cant force us to follow a state sponsored religion.
-
::) ::)
Right - I am "owned" when the leftist posters on this site can't make an argument on an issue besides attacks on me individually. Right, I got it.
Same as the Stim Bill, same as ObamaCare, same as the mosque, same as the NYC Terror trials, same as almost every issue you freaks have been proven wrong on, yet i am owned?
Whatever - again, how about you morons actually read something for once instead of getting your talking points from comedians?
absolutley not...i dont argue with attacks.
-
So obviuosly there is no seperation.We are allowed to practice our faith on government property,in government buildings etc.The only thing the first ammendment says is government cant force us to follow a state sponsored religion.
Not only do members of Congress practice their faith in a Federal government building. They do it during work hours. It's not like they are having a Bible study or prayer meeting after work, during their lunch break or something like that. They are at work.
-
Not only do members of Congress practice their faith in a Federal government building. They do it during work hours. It's not like they are having a Bible study or prayer meeting after work, during their lunch break or something like that. They are at work.
But thats not what the language of the constitution says.. The separation of church and state isnt as LOCO or Billy from getbig interpret it to be...it is that a religion cant be forced on you and the government wont put one religion over another...
-
But thats not what the language of the constitution says.. The separation of church and state isnt as LOCO or Billy from getbig interpret it to be...it is that a religion cant be forced on you and the government wont put one religion over another...
I agree with that.Government can not put in a state religion that people must follw.But that is far different from trying to pull "IN GOD WE TRUST" off the dollar bill as libs try to interpret it.
-
But thats not what the language of the constitution says.. The separation of church and state isnt as LOCO or Billy from getbig interpret it to be...it is that a religion cant be forced on you and the government wont put one religion over another...
Where do I say how I interpret the constitution? I agree that no faith should be forced on anybody. But many people use this "separation of church and state" to prevent others from practicing their faith, like forbidding kids from praying in public school. Yet members of Congress can pray at work on Federal government property.
-
your kid can pray all he wants in school
-
your kid can pray all he wants in school
Okay, can a public school teacher start the class with a prayer, like Congress does?
-
no , and i don't want them to
-
no , and i don't want them to
Why not? If it's not legal, why can the member of Congress pray, but the teacher can't?
-
Why not? If it's not legal, why can the member of Congress pray, but the teacher can't?
They can pray and the government can stop them from praying. But the government also cant force a kid to pray if he or she dosent want to
-
They can pray and the government can stop them from praying. But the government also cant force a kid to pray if he or she dosent want to
Is that a typo? The public school teacher can or cannot start the class with prayer?
-
Is that a typo? The public school teacher can or cannot start the class with prayer?
In most schools they probably start with a demo of how to put a condom on a cucumber.
-
Is that a typo? The public school teacher can or cannot start the class with prayer?
i ment the government Cant stop them...
-
It's not the same thing. Opening Congress with a prayer means members of Congress are practicing their faith at work, a Federal government job at a Federal government building.
In that case, an atheist who doesn't join in with the praying can lose his job under those conditions.
-
Again, if there is no separation why CAN'T Congress pass a church tax?
-
Again, if there is no separation why CAN'T Congress pass a church tax?
I never said whether or not there is separation. I am asking why members of Congress can pray at work on Federal government property.
-
I never said whether or not there is separation. I am asking why members of Congress can pray at work on Federal government property.
Exactly. And I am furthering the point you are making by asking why Congress can't pass a church tax if there is no separation involved between the two.
No one is answering.
-
Exactly. And I am furthering the point you are making by asking why Congress can't pass a church tax if there is no separation involved between the two.
No one is answering.
Well this is a tricky one, first you would have to look at the 501c3 of the tax code Since 1954 for some reason churches have been applying for tax exempt status even though they don't need to. The whole issue on this is somewhat confusing. It appears to be a slight of hand perpetrated by LBJ to shut the church up. So to answer your question, no the government cannot tax the chuck with or without the tax code
-
no the government cannot tax the chuck with or without the tax code
Why?
-
Why?
Because religion cannot be free if you have to pay for it, even via taxation
-
I never said whether or not there is separation. I am asking why members of Congress can pray at work on Federal government property.
Because not all laws apply to Congress, ex: Healthcare. The big ones you will usually hear about are Freedom of Information Act, EEO, and OSHA - none of which apply to Congress (though they will often respond to FOIA requests).
I'm not a lawyer so I can't tell you all which laws apply and which don't, but if you think that just because it applies to the American people, it applies to Congress - well, it just doesn't work that way.
-
Because religion cannot be free if you have to pay for it, even via taxation
There is another reason. What is it?
-
There is another reason. What is it?
That the church/religion is outside the jurisdiction of civil government
-
That the church/religion is outside the jurisdiction of civil government
So there is a separation?