If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The separation of church and state - one of the core tenets of American democracy - makes Rick Santorum "want to throw up"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 519
    More: Sick, American Democracy, Rick Santorum  
•       •       •

16553 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Feb 2012 at 8:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



519 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-26 09:07:15 PM

funktilious_j: Sock Ruh Tease: Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.

Do the arguments you create ever evolve?

his arguments were created by god, they don't evolve.


But sadly, they aren't very intelligently designed.
 
2012-02-26 09:08:19 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.

Do the arguments you create ever evolve?


They RE-volve, that's kind of close.
 
2012-02-26 09:08:42 PM

ParaHandy: And that was a good thing in your opinion? I believe they also kept slaves and burned witches. Just as society's progress should not stop in the 5th century**, neither should it stop in 1776.

** or whenever that farking bullshiat they use to justify their bigotry was written down


No, it was utter bullshiat. I'm just pointing out that our wonderful history of religious tolerance isn't so wonderful and isn't so historical.

With that in mind, Congress tried to incorporate the protections of the Bill of Rights against the States when it passed the Fourteenth Amendment, so any of those laws that might have still existed would have been struck down. But, the Supreme Court totally farked that one up, and now we're almost done incorporating the amendments individually.
 
2012-02-26 09:08:58 PM

ToeKnee666: They can choose to get involved in politics if they accept that they have to pay the same taxes as all of the rest of us.


They can even retain their tax exempt status if they make their organizational structure meet the requirements for a non-profit corporation and file the right paperwork.
 
2012-02-26 09:09:41 PM
Wanted to make a clever comment about how a faithful Catholic should probably be more cognizant of how terrifically wrong the mixing of religion and politics went in the history of Europe.

But I'm tired. And the Oscars are on.
 
2012-02-26 09:10:52 PM

Close2TheEdge: PLEASE Michigan. I'm begging you. Give this guy the victory. America needs to see how ugly the Republican Party can get. What I wouldn't give to watch Santorum get crushed in the general election, and have him take down a few dozen House Republicans along with him.


If this does come to pass, I really hope that, in the debates, Obama has the guts to flat out and directly say things along the lines of, "What you are saying is so divorced from reality that I really don't know how to respond. You are either flat out lying or are completely deluded. If you actually believe the tripe you are spewing, then I think you may want to seek professional mental help."

/a boy can dream
//doubt Obama would be the one to tell it like it is so bluntly, but man, just once I would love to see it happen
 
2012-02-26 09:11:13 PM

Artcurus: Please don't flame me, but what are the odds of Santorum getting elected? This man scares the hell of me.

We joke about it, but all it might take is a few swing states.


It depends on Obama. It would require a scandal to the level of "dead girl/live boy" for him to lose against someone like Santorum.

If that. Hell if that happened Obama would resign and prop up Biden who would still probably do decently against Santorum.

So...no.
 
2012-02-26 09:11:39 PM

Artcurus: Please don't flame me, but what are the odds of Santorum getting elected? This man scares the hell of me.

We joke about it, but all it might take is a few swing states.


It's a fair question, but I really think the answer is somewhere south of snowball's chance in Hell. Keep in mind that Santorum's (or for that matter any of the GOP candidates) popularity right now is within the party itself, and in the case of Rick, with a minority bloc of evangelicals. Couple that with the media playing up the horse race caused by Romney's weakness as a candidate, and he looks more popular that he really is.

Don't get me wrong. I'd take anybody, even Trump, over Santorum. He is truly that frightening. I just don't see it happening in any way.
 
2012-02-26 09:11:57 PM

StanTheMan: The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated (applied to the states) until 1947!


That's only because of the boondoggle that was The Slaughter-House Cases. Really, it should have been incorporated against the States in 1868, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Nope, but we had to wait until 2010 to have the Second Amendment incorporated against the States, all because Justice Miller had a goddamned brain-fart.
 
2012-02-26 09:12:26 PM

StanTheMan: Look farkheads and subby, as a Republican, I wouldn't vote for this anti-Libertarian social conservative Santorum to get out of a burning phone booth, and he scares the fark out of me in terms of ruining a chance to eject Obama from the White House, but the expression "separation of church and state" is not, in fact, "one of the core tenets of American democracy."

It's a term used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Bible-thumping Connecticut Baptists - who would make Santorum look like Bill Maher - assuring them that yes, you will be able to practice your nice little religion in this new federal system. In fact, Connecticut had an official state religion until 1818 (Congregational Church). New Hampshire had one until 1877!

The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until like 40 years after Jefferson's death. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated (applied to the states) until 1947!

So, to recap, the term "separation of church and state" was not:

1) Ever actually in the Constitution;
2) Written by the author of the First Amendment (Madison);
3) Used by Jefferson to advance the Establishment Clause (it was actually used to advance the Free Exercise Clause).
4) Even relevant to the States until roughly the time of the Roswell incident.

Other than that, spot-on, Fark constitutional historians!


All of which supports the idea we need to get rid of this outdated, 18th century land thief charter and write a new constituion wherein human rights are treated as essential to being human, not as property rights, easements and 3/5's rent-to-own agreements.
 
2012-02-26 09:12:54 PM

mamoru: If you actually believe the tripe frothy excrement you are spewing, then I think you may want to seek professional mental help.


FTFM. :D
 
2012-02-26 09:13:05 PM

xl5150: Gawdzila: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

[Citation needed]


Citation? Sure, look around. It's called REALITY. I don't see them making Eid-al-Adha a national holiday. CHRISTmas, on the other hand....


Really? Having a holiday on Christmas means we have "Christian principles"? Even though Christmas is a celebration that was invented to aid in converting heathens and has absolutely no basis in the Bible or any other article of faith of religious import?

Lol. I hope you have something better than that.
What other of these apparently obvious pieces of reality am I missing that make your point so self-evident?
 
2012-02-26 09:13:22 PM
We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

--Ronald Reagan
 
2012-02-26 09:13:29 PM

mamoru: Close2TheEdge: PLEASE Michigan. I'm begging you. Give this guy the victory. America needs to see how ugly the Republican Party can get. What I wouldn't give to watch Santorum get crushed in the general election, and have him take down a few dozen House Republicans along with him.

If this does come to pass, I really hope that, in the debates, Obama has the guts to flat out and directly say things along the lines of, "What you are saying is so divorced from reality that I really don't know how to respond. You are either flat out lying or are completely deluded. If you actually believe the tripe you are spewing, then I think you may want to seek professional mental help."

/a boy can dream
//doubt Obama would be the one to tell it like it is so bluntly, but man, just once I would love to see it happen


He wouldn't. At least not that bluntly. But you better believe that there will be surrogates lining up to do the job. You would see defections of GOP mouthpieces going after him.
 
2012-02-26 09:13:40 PM
If you are sick of this kind of politics and want a send a message to the candidates, go change your voter registration to independent. If enough people do this, the politicians wont know what to do.

In many states, this gives you the ability to vote in both parties primaries (though in years where both have primaries, you've got to pick GOP or Dems) Which can be fun.

I did it years ago and it really cut down on the political junk mail if nothing else.
 
2012-02-26 09:14:12 PM

Ambivalence: Ed Finnerty: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that Christianity is a Pagan religion based on Pagan principles.

Actually, to be more accurate, it's a Pagan religion based on Buddhist principles.


More like a heretical offshoot of a religion based around a tribal deity. The Buddhist principles are a coincidence.
 
2012-02-26 09:15:01 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: [www.fishink.us image 640x480]


We've come to this: quoting Barry Goldwater in the name of compromise and reason.
 
2012-02-26 09:15:50 PM
Man... This is Obama's election to lose. I mean, seriously... I wonder how many of the GoP are going to distance themselves from Santorum now? Who is their next strongest candidate? Gingrich? O NOES!
 
2012-02-26 09:15:52 PM

Gawdzila: xl5150: Gawdzila: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

[Citation needed]


Citation? Sure, look around. It's called REALITY. I don't see them making Eid-al-Adha a national holiday. CHRISTmas, on the other hand....

Really? Having a holiday on Christmas means we have "Christian principles"? Even though Christmas is a celebration that was invented to aid in converting heathens and has absolutely no basis in the Bible or any other article of faith of religious import?

Lol. I hope you have something better than that.
What other of these apparently obvious pieces of reality am I missing that make your point so self-evident?


Gawdzilla is right. I don't remember the Constitution/God/State mandated fealty I was forced to grant that day. I do remember eating a bunch of pie, finding an old Fark redhead thread and falling asleep with an empty Magic Hat Circus Boy in my other hand.
 
2012-02-26 09:15:57 PM
That's interesting, because the very idea of Rick Santorum makes ME want to throw up. I don't know how this country fell as far as it did that someone with his stunning lack of intelligence can be a front-runner for the Presidency, but to say it doesn't scare the shiat out of me would be lying.
 
2012-02-26 09:16:23 PM

StanTheMan: It's a term used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Bible-thumping Connecticut Baptists - who would make Santorum look like Bill Maher - assuring them that yes, you will be able to practice your nice little religion in this new federal system. In fact, Connecticut had an official state religion until 1818 (Congregational Church). New Hampshire had one until 1877!

The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until like 40 years after Jefferson's death. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated (applied to the states) until 1947!

So, to recap, the term "separation of church and state" was not:

1) Ever actually in the Constitution;
2) Written by the author of the First Amendment (Madison);
3) Used by Jefferson to advance the Establishment Clause (it was actually used to advance the Free Exercise Clause).
4) Even relevant to the States until roughly the time of the Roswell incident.

Other than that, spot-on, Fark constitutional historians!


Unless you don't know who Santorum is or what office he's running for, I don't see how any of this is relevant. (Hint: he's not running for governor of a state.)

And sure, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the first amendment. So what? The term "gun" is not in the second amendment either.
 
2012-02-26 09:17:22 PM
Just more proof that the Republicans are intentionally throwing the election, just like in 2008 when they put You Know Who on the ticket as VP.

Or else the party really has completely lost its marbles.

I say 50/50 either way.

/used to be a Republican, until they went crazy
//now registered as Independent
 
2012-02-26 09:17:31 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1 302246.html?frothy


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHH
 
2012-02-26 09:18:55 PM

Phaeon: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_ 1 302246.html?frothy


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHH


LOL. Nice catch.
 
2012-02-26 09:19:10 PM
This is performance art, right? An elaborate troll to see how far this can go?
 
2012-02-26 09:19:21 PM

Coco LaFemme: That's interesting, because the very idea of Rick Santorum makes ME want to throw up. I don't know how this country fell as far as it did that someone with his stunning lack of intelligence can be a front-runner for the Presidency, but to say it doesn't scare the shiat out of me would be lying.


In the college story with Santorum when he said that 'Obama wants everyone to go to college. What a snob' and the people there laughed and cheered, I was sickened.

These people honestly think that ignorance is not only bliss, but a life style. Santorum is a walking insult to the country.
 
2012-02-26 09:19:57 PM

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


I know you're trolling, but for the record:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11

Submitted for ratification by President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson after signing and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797.

I would say that a treaty ratified unanimously by a Senate full of Founding Fathers, with the full support of an administration who was filled with Founding Fathers (much of the Senate were combat vets from the Revolution, if they weren't politicians during the war, they were fighting it), with not a single dissenting vote in the Senate or any historic record of any letters of protest or public outcry against this treaty explicitly saying the United States is not a Christian state is extremely strong evidence that the founders of this nation never intended for this county to be Christian, it is intended to be secular.
 
2012-02-26 09:20:48 PM

Gawdzila: Lol. I hope you have something better than that.
What other of these apparently obvious pieces of reality am I missing that make your point so self-evident?



Link (new window)



itodyaso.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-26 09:21:43 PM

Phaeon: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_ 1 302246.html?frothy


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHH


Thank you for pointing that out to us I hadn't seen it
 
2012-02-26 09:23:35 PM
I'm reminded of this bit from a recent Daily Show (new window)

JON STEWART: Wow. Now, what is it about Santorum that has Republicans so alarmed?

JOHN OLIVER: Because, Jon, as you saw in the debates, he's a little too open and honest about his thoughts and feelings.

JON STEWART: But they are conservative thoughts and conservative feelings. Why is that a problem?

JOHN OLIVER: Because Republicans aren't idiots, Jon. They know that America likes its conservatism cut with plenty of baking powder. Because one hit of the pure stuff, and you'll wake up with Eric Stoltz straddling you, having just plunged an adrenaline needle into your heart. And Santorum doesn't get that, Jon. ... It's just like the contraception debate, which Santorum was stupid enough to make about contraception.

RICK SANTORUM (10/17/2011): Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's OK. I mean, you know, contraception's OK." It's not OK. It's a license to do things in the sexual realm, that is counter to what... how things are supposed to be.

JOHN OLIVER: Is this your first day in politics, Rick? You just made this about controlling a woman's access to health care based on imposing your code of morality upon others.

JON STEWART: But that is what's it's about. That is what they're doing.

JOHN OLIVER: Right, but you don't tell them that! Jon, this is what you tell them.

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WI (2/19/2012): It's really not about contraception, it's about violating our First Amendment rights to religious freedom, and of conscience.

JOHN OLIVER: I'm a religious man. I have no interest in your lady parts. I just wish to pray in peace.

JON STEWART: So it's like the states rights arguments during the early '60s. It was really about segregation, but you need some sort of agreed-upon code.

....

JON STEWART: So he's not afraid to state explicitly Republican dogma. It's kind of refreshing. This is what we should be doing in debates, put ideas out there in the marketplace in their bare form, and let the voters decide. It's free market.

JOHN OLIVER: No, no, no. We should not be doing that Jon, and I'll show you why. Because then, voters have to take your platform to its logical conclusion.
 
2012-02-26 09:27:21 PM
MrEricSir: Unless you don't know who Santorum is or what office he's running for, I don't see how any of this is relevant. (Hint: he's not running for governor of a state.)

Of course, current events expert, Santorum has been criticizing the "right to privacy" created by fiat by SCOTUS, a case known as Griswold v. Connecticut, which prevented states from outlawing birth control. This topic has been kept alive since Romney's flailing on it when asked by George Stephanopoulos about it in a debate.

Try to keep up.
 
2012-02-26 09:27:51 PM
FTFA: "[Obama believes in] some phony ideal, some phony theology ... not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology," he said.

So, I'm guessing he only cares about one church. He's going to be sad when he realizes that his church is not the only one gunning for this position. Because they fit the definition of that which he wants so dearly, and yet not.

He probably doesn't even see the irony in his statements.
 
2012-02-26 09:28:35 PM

Johnny Swank: God damnit Republicans? Why are you so god damn retarded?

You "moderate" republican sheep can kiss my ass. You sat around with your collective thumbs up your asses for a generation while the biblethumpers took over the GOP and you didn't say a farking peep. Enjoy the ramifications.



this
 
2012-02-26 09:29:04 PM
Democrats and Independents need to stop voting for this guy in the primarys for the lulz. Seriously, knock that shiat off.
 
2012-02-26 09:30:11 PM
Article VI of the Constitution establishes that ratified treaties, along with the Constitution itself, are the supreme law of the land. The relevant passage is as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article 11 if the first Treaty of Tripoli states, in relevant part:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

There is some manufactured controversy regarding this paragraph, as it does not appear in the Arabic version of the treaty. That said, it was the English version that was submitted to, and unanimously ratified by, the US Senate in 1797. As there were still non-zombie Founding Fathers(tm) available at the time, and as its publication in the newspapers of the era caused no great outcry, it can be inferred that the treaty and its contents were not controversial, that is, they were in line with the intent of the founding of the nation.

TL;DR - An explicit denial pf the idea of the US as a Christian nation appears in a document held to be a part of the supreme law of the land.
 
2012-02-26 09:30:15 PM
i86.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-26 09:30:17 PM

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


You and your ilk want a Christian theocracy.

We won't let you have it.
 
2012-02-26 09:33:18 PM
I think the whole goal was freedom of religion....not freedom from religion. This separation of church and state has gotten blown so far out of proportion that people can't say "Merry Christmas" even if they work at a private company or someone will sue. And no matter what people say there is a huge bias involved against Christians. A Christian has a decorative candle of the Virgin Mary and will be forced to take it down because it could offend people but a Hindu can have a decorative candle of Vishnu and it's no problem.

It's just BS and I can't figure out how anyone can defend it. I recently moved to NYC and was suprised to see that my kid has jewish holidays off...but no Christian holidays off at all.

Why is nobody complaining about my kid being forced to miss school because of some jewish holiday??
 
2012-02-26 09:34:04 PM

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


The phrase "wall of separation" is not invisible in the Constitution, because it is not in the Constitution! But, that is irrelevant because the "wall of separation" is still legally binding! The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "a wall of separation between church and state."
 
2012-02-26 09:34:40 PM
Since churches can influence the government the same way as everyone else and because my minister is now my congressman I think about the only separation we have is when it comes to paying taxes. Due to several churches in my ares becoming "real estate tycoons" and owning a large portion of the property in my town , our tax base and revenues are dwindling. I think it's time for the churches to start paying taxes on their real estate and profits (except for their main chuch properties) just like everybody else. Real Estate is big business to these churches and should be taxed as such.
 
2012-02-26 09:34:54 PM

StanTheMan: MrEricSir: Unless you don't know who Santorum is or what office he's running for, I don't see how any of this is relevant. (Hint: he's not running for governor of a state.)

Of course, current events expert, Santorum has been criticizing the "right to privacy" created by fiat by SCOTUS, a case known as Griswold v. Connecticut, which prevented states from outlawing birth control. This topic has been kept alive since Romney's flailing on it when asked by George Stephanopoulos about it in a debate.


The thing about saying any right was "created" by SCOTUS is to show ignorance of the US Constitution, which he has already demonstrated abundant ignorance of.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment IX, US Constitution

Translation from late 18th century English to 21st century English: "Just because the Constitution doesn't specifically list a right doesn't mean you don't have that right."
 
2012-02-26 09:35:00 PM
Gawdzila
xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

[Citation needed]

Here ya go:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-02-26 09:35:34 PM
Wait, at what point did crap mixed with lube gain the ability to throw up?
 
2012-02-26 09:35:43 PM

xl5150: Gawdzila: Lol. I hope you have something better than that.
What other of these apparently obvious pieces of reality am I missing that make your point so self-evident?


Link (new window)


I know you're trolling, so I don't want to take the time to pick apart your link quote-by-quote.
Suffice to say, it is pretty ridiculous. Not one of the things it lists has anything to do with granting the country or its laws any sort of intrinsic Christian nature. At best it shows that some of the people who founded the country were Christian, which is no big surprise. But they specifically constructed the Constitution so that it would not be impregnated with the fibers of any of their own personal beliefs.
 
2012-02-26 09:37:06 PM
>The separation of church and state - one of the core tenets of American democracy

Well......Except not really. This is yet another modern example of the complete failing of history and civics education in the USA. Several of the states ALREADY HAD established state religions, like Mass which even required all adule males to be members of the church and pay it tithing by law, which the states kept for many many years after ratification. The reason for religion being in the 1st amendment in the first place is actually is because they did not want the federal government from establishing its own official religion, eg they did not want the nation religion to be anglican when Massachusetts was officially catholic etc...

The original religion clauses for the First Amendment that James Madison introduced in the House of Representatives read as follows: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext, infringed."

One should notice also that the congressional committee that worked on the final versions for the amendment, in the reworded final clause in the 1st amendment says "respecting any establishment of religion" rather than "respecting the establishment of a religion."

The key term in this significant revision was "respecting," a word meaning "in regard to," according to Noah Webster's 1806 Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, the dictionary of American usage closest in time to the writing of the First Amendment. That meaning was also given in Webster's more scholarly, more comprehensive dictionary of 1828, An American Dictionary of the English Language, which defined "respecting" as "regarding; having regard to; relating to."

The conference committee rejected wording that would have applied only to Congress's passing a law to establish a religion; the chosen wording denied Congress that power, of course, but it also denied Congress the power to negate or modify by federal law any of the religious establishments in the states.

Thus, the final wording of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that three-fourths of the states ratified in 1791 contained a double prohibition on federal authority. It forbade Congress from enacting an establishment law of its own and from interfering with any state's existing establishment.


The ratification history shows this to be correct. The congress was strictly trying to keep the federal government out of the business of the states who already had established state religions. The 1st amendment had zero intent of providing any sort of silly wall between religion and the state except it took the topic of religion off the table for the federal government, it had no intent of interfering with the people of the state who were free to do whatever they wanted with regard to their religion in their own state governments.


The purpose of the political promise made during the state ratifying conventions-to write a Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution, a promise the First Congress duly kept-was to encourage ratification of the Constitution. The Establishment Clause likewise had a political purpose-to encourage ratification of the First Amendment. For it accommodated the seven states that had establishments of religion by stipulating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which satisfied them that under no circumstances would the powers being granted the federal government include the authority to interfere with their religious establishments.

The establishment and free-exercise clauses in the First Amendment were thus complementary constitutional provisions with a common purpose. Each restricted federal authority with regard to religion, and together they prohibited the federal government from trespassing on the authority of the states to decide religious matters, even when that authority was used to establish a religion.

Sorry to say, the whole idea of 'separation' is totally made up and false and just not true to anyone who knows the real history.
 
2012-02-26 09:38:08 PM

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


Once again another moran does not know the correct definition of the word "THEORY."
 
2012-02-26 09:38:09 PM
Fine. Let's just move the farking capital to Rome already then, goddamn papist.
 
2012-02-26 09:38:18 PM

Mugato: I don't know who's advising this guy but he needs to know that the batshiat crazy shiat he spews isn't going to gain him any support. It only appeals to the lunatic fringe who will vote for him anyway, no matter what.


But you forget that this lunatic fringe feels it's a silent majority.

How else do you explain the logic when they say that "Obama won in 2008 because McCain was too liberal for voters (Because conservatives would rater vote for a guy who is to the left of Stalin in their eyes than a moderate), which is why we should run a "true conservative" who is much further to the right to win over the voters who voted for the guy we think was to the left of Stalin."

If any of you guys are able to decipher the logic behind that, let me know. Because I'm stumped.
 
2012-02-26 09:38:20 PM

RulerOfNone: You and your ilk want a Christian theocracy.

We won't let you have it.


Religious warfare and race warfare are just distractions from the necessary class warfare. They are steroid rage for the masses.
 
2012-02-26 09:38:22 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Democrats and Independents need to stop voting for this guy in the primarys for the lulz. Seriously, knock that shiat off.


This. The people who think voting for him to get the nomination for the laughs and because they think Obama will sweep him easily in the votes for the election are naive. Remember, shiat happens, and some voters put emotion before logic.
 
Displayed 50 of 519 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report