RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC

RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (Full Version)

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

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 12:45:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that, while the phrase does not appear in the constitution, there was the intent to keep church and state separate. Thank you. The first two phrases were the only ones that answered my question. The last bit of the sentence was a justification of people that can read the minds of the founding fathers. They're amazing, they are! So, your assertion that someone said "Separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution" and was mistaken was, in fact, a mistake on your part? Thank you for clearing that up. Michael Actually, we don't have to read the minds of the founding fathers. The Federalist Papers (written by a few of the founding Fathers) make those thoughts quite clear as do the voluminous writings of Thomas Jefferson. An interesting thing about the early debates on Church and State is that one of the primary advocates of separation wasn't so much Jefferson as one of the delegates from Delaware who was a Presbyterian minister. He didn't want his beloved church sullied by involvement with government processes. No, she went on to assert that the constitution in no way implies a separation of church and state, that it is a myth, as did the others I mentioned. In point of fact, the 'moral majority' of the far right have often made the claim that the United States is a 'Christian Nation,' and as such, the government is a 'Christian' government. Also, the famous Trump travel bans were struck down as unconstitutional based on his words on the campaign trail, that he would ban Muslims from entering this country. Then there is the right wing 'anti religious conspiracy theory' that pops up every time someone protests a religious display on public, local government or federally owned property. Just because the phrase does not exist, does not mean there is a separation of church and state. To claim that there isnt is no more valid than the claim that the 2nd amendment was only intended for flintlocks, or that the freedom of the press is only for printed newspapers, or that the right against illegal search and seizure only applies to a person's residence, and not their computers, cell phones or other electronics.

sissificationsub -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 1:07:32 PM)
Lies on average 5 times a day since those pinko Republicans elected the mental cock womble. Cites an average of 5 statements a day 1,500 plus lies, since his election to his electorate, and how they furiously lap up those jobbies and howl for more. I think it will end well myself.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 2:05:14 PM)
That's a valiant effort, jif, but no sale. As a supporter of the 2nd amendment, myself, I appreciate how scrupulously you like to read that amendment. Let's do the same with the 1st? quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." the phrase after that has to do with freedom of speech so not specifically germane, here (I'll argue expressing my religion under the first four phrases at a later date). So, let's read this, literally: quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." Cool! Congress isn't going to tell me what I am required to believe. I like that. quote: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Congress isn't going to prohibit my free exercise of religion. Out-fucking-standing! Where does it say there's a "wall of separation" (Jefferson's words in his "Danbury" letter)? Nowhere, mon frère. The Constitution, as written, does NOT specifically preclude religion from influencing the government. As an example, what would stop every theist in the country from only supporting candidates of which they approved and "loading up" the house and senate with fellow theists? Where in the constitution, as written, could they run a-foul if they publicly stated that they hope the theists they elect will "look to God" before voting on any laws and follow the precepts of the bible (old and new testaments. We all know Muslims are special, already so that's a foregone conclusion) when they do so? Again; nowhere. Moreover, the Constitution does NOT say (in the first amendment) that religion canNOT use government as a tool; just that government can't establish a religion. Look, I think the first fails to address our modern issues, as well. I don't want people whose religion I disagree with passing laws, telling me how to live my life, either, but the assertion that "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution instead of Jefferson's aforementioned letter is patently false. Michael

jlf1961 -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 4:06:38 PM)
So every SCOTUS ruling using the phrase is in error? As I said, the phrase "right to privacy" also does not exist in the constitution, but is implied in the document and amendments. However, you may wish to twist facts, the simple fact is there is an implied separation of church and state just as strongly as the implied right to privacy. As for the claim made in the op. Unfortunately, there is no requirement for politicians, or those running political parties to actually understand the constitution, or the contents of the document or subsequent amendments. The electoral college is indeed a part of the constitution, and stating it is not shows the stupidity of the DNC leader. However, the fact that many laws and executive orders have been written and struck down as unconstitutional in this country's history shows, in exquisite detail, just how ignorant the people we elect to hold office are. FDR, a staunch democrat got many of his pet programs killed by SCOTUS, just as the many republican anti abortion and right to work laws. Ignorance of the constitution is not strictly a democrat issue, it is an issue for both parties, along with ethics, morals, honesty, integrity and just about everything the founding fathers had in vast abundance compared to the crop of politicians we have now.

BamaD -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 4:19:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The phrase ' separation of church and state' is not in the constitution. Neither is the phrase "The government can't confiscate my firearms collection without due process". Your point is? Shall not infringe is. Infringement kicks in long before you get to confiscation.

BamaD -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 4:30:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr That's a valiant effort, jif, but no sale. As a supporter of the 2nd amendment, myself, I appreciate how scrupulously you like to read that amendment. Let's do the same with the 1st? quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." the phrase after that has to do with freedom of speech so not specifically germane, here (I'll argue expressing my religion under the first four phrases at a later date). So, let's read this, literally: quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." Cool! Congress isn't going to tell me what I am required to believe. I like that. quote: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Congress isn't going to prohibit my free exercise of religion. Out-fucking-standing! Where does it say there's a "wall of separation" (Jefferson's words in his "Danbury" letter)? Nowhere, mon frère. The Constitution, as written, does NOT specifically preclude religion from influencing the government. As an example, what would stop every theist in the country from only supporting candidates of which they approved and "loading up" the house and senate with fellow theists? Where in the constitution, as written, could they run a-foul if they publicly stated that they hope the theists they elect will "look to God" before voting on any laws and follow the precepts of the bible (old and new testaments. We all know Muslims are special, already so that's a foregone conclusion) when they do so? Again; nowhere. Moreover, the Constitution does NOT say (in the first amendment) that religion canNOT use government as a tool; just that government can't establish a religion. Look, I think the first fails to address our modern issues, as well. I don't want people whose religion I disagree with passing laws, telling me how to live my life, either, but the assertion that "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution instead of Jefferson's aforementioned letter is patently false. Michael It is simply that government cannot control religion and that religion cannot control government. It does not say (as some Dem Senators have claimed) that a person cannot hold a government position because they are Catholic. But back to the op , it is one thing to read extra meaning into something that is in the constitution , it is a far worse thing to try and pretend that something that is there in black and white does not exist.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 4:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick FR I wonder what the fuck he was trying to say. Something like this... "We Democrats don't want the electoral college around anymore so our power-base cities (New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, etc) can elect all the future Presidents simply based on the number of votes cast...so we can cheat and win."

kdsub -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 5:06:12 PM)
Just imagine what could happen with all the rural Republicans if all national elections were to be decided by the popular vote. Republicans would most likely never win an election and that would be reason for a revolution. Our forefathers were a lot smarter than our leaders today... They realized there had to be a balance between rural and urban so they came up with the electoral college. It has worked as it should and is an essential part of our electoral system. Butch

Nnanji -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 5:19:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Just imagine what could happen with all the rural Republicans if all national elections were to be decided by the popular vote. Republicans would most likely nerved win an election and that would be reason for a revolution. Our forefathers were a lot smarter than our leaders today... They realized there had to be a balance between rural and urban so they came up with the electoral college. It has worked as it should and is an essential part of our electoral system. Butch That's not necessarily true to date. Given that California, New York and a couple of other places will always vote democrats, neither Bush or Trump bothered to spend TV money or time there. They played the game by the rules and won by the rules. Had the vote been a national winner take all, a couple hundred million dollar here in CA or there in NY probably would have picked up enough votes to win the popular vote. It's not something the democrats like to think about while they harp, "But the popular vote...whah whah whah"

Wayward5oul -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 5:29:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It does not say (as some Dem Senators have claimed) that a person cannot hold a government position because they are Catholic. Or that a person cannot hold a government position because they are Muslim, as has been stated within the Republican party.

kdsub -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 5:37:49 PM)
lol... sure and a few more bucks for the democrats in Wisconsin and Clinton would have won...Republicans have a hard time winning in states dominated by urban populations and it is hard for democrats to win in rural dominated states. This would generally mean vast areas of land with small populations would not be represented properly. This can only mean trouble as the problems in cities are usually different than problems in the country. The electoral college helps at least to balance the needs of both. It gives small population states a say in the election that they would not have in a popular vote election. Butch

bounty44 -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 5:47:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The phrase ' separation of church and state' is not in the constitution. no, but the implication is, as per every part of my post. But, by the same token, the phrase 'right to privacy' does not appear in the constitution either, but that too has been upheld. sorry---maybe this is already answered later in the thread, but your thinking is way off and this issue has been addressed countless times in life and multiple times here in the forum. the whole notion of "separation of church and state" merely has to do with the state not establishing an official religion or in running the church. any other decisions of seemingly lesser import than that are, i think unfortunately, fought over on a case by case basis.

jlf1961 -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:04:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The phrase ' separation of church and state' is not in the constitution. no, but the implication is, as per every part of my post. But, by the same token, the phrase 'right to privacy' does not appear in the constitution either, but that too has been upheld. sorry---maybe this is already answered later in the thread, but your thinking is way off and this issue has been addressed countless times in life and multiple times here in the forum. the whole notion of "separation of church and state" merely has to do with the state not establishing an official religion or in running the church. any other decisions of seemingly lesser import than that are, i think unfortunately, fought over on a case by case basis. or religion running the government.

BoscoX -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 or religion running the government. Rarely do leftists really believe in democracy

Nnanji -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It does not say (as some Dem Senators have claimed) that a person cannot hold a government position because they are Catholic. Or that a person cannot hold a government position because they are Muslim, as has been stated within the Republican party. Sure, and I read today how a university professor says teaching math just inflicts white privilege. There are idiots everywhere. Some of them very educated and/or successful.

Nnanji -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:20:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub lol... sure and a few more bucks for the democrats in Wisconsin and Clinton would have won...Republicans have a hard time winning in states dominated by urban populations and it is hard for democrats to win in rural dominated states. This would generally mean vast areas of land with small populations would not be represented properly. This can only mean trouble as the problems in cities are usually different than problems in the country. The electoral college helps at least to balance the needs of both. It gives small population states a say in the election that they would not have in a popular vote election. Butch I agree with you. I agreed with you when I made my previous post. I was just pointing out a reasonable scenario where Trump or Bush could have won the popular vote if that were what the rules required.

bounty44 -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Just imagine what could happen with all the rural Republicans if all national elections were to be decided by the popular vote. Republicans would most likely nerved win an election and that would be reason for a revolution. Our forefathers were a lot smarter than our leaders today... They realized there had to be a balance between rural and urban so they came up with the electoral college. It has worked as it should and is an essential part of our electoral system. Butch That's not necessarily true to date. Given that California, New York and a couple of other places will always vote democrats, neither Bush or Trump bothered to spend TV money or time there. They played the game by the rules and won by the rules. Had the vote been a national winner take all, a couple hundred million dollar here in CA or there in NY probably would have picked up enough votes to win the popular vote. It's not something the democrats like to think about while they harp, "But the popular vote...whah whah whah" I don't recall if I posted the article, just the headline, or just made mention of it, but someone ran some numbers and asserted that trump would have won the popular vote too had gary Johnson not run.

bounty44 -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:23:45 PM)
sure, but "[nor] religion running the government" in no way means that individual believers in government service cannot use their faith life to guide their decisions.

jlf1961 -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 sure, but "[nor] religion running the government" in no way means that individual believers cannot use their faith life to guide their decisions. There aint a fucking politician that uses faith to make decisions, they use the highest bidder method. If, they did, half the crap that gets passed would not happen.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC (10/27/2017 6:35:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It does not say (as some Dem Senators have claimed) that a person cannot hold a government position because they are Catholic. Or that a person cannot hold a government position because they are Muslim, as has been stated within the Republican party. Sure, and I read today how a university professor says teaching math just inflicts white privilege. There are idiots everywhere. Some of them very educated and/or successful. Agreed. My point was to show that it is not just a dem issue, as implied.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875