Seriously?
Comments
-
Straw man ass fucker!SFGbob said:They weren't denying them access to public schools. They were denying them access to a white public school. You Rats have always been about standing in the school house doorways.
You're parroting the exact same arguments the old Southern Rat racists used when the Feds tried to enforce Federal law.
Hardly shocking, you come off like a bigoted dumbfuck in most of your posts here. Good to see you drop the mask.
No one is stopping fat boy from enforcing federal law. That’s why he lost his legal challenge. Why won’t he appeal to scotus GayBob? Southern schools lost the legal argument every time, just like you and trump.
Not surprised a “a man of truth and integrity” like you has to hide behind civil rights era black kids to defend your ignorance. -
You’re making Bull Conner proud
-
-
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law. -
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck -
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck -
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass. -
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat. -
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass. -
Take your grievances to trump.SFGbob said:
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose. -
My grievances? Is this just like your bullshit about how I was supposedly offering financial advise? You just string words together whether the make any sense or not don't ya dumbfuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
Take your grievances to trump.SFGbob said:
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
The fact that you parroting George Wallace isn't one of my "grievances" dumbfuck. And why is it that you can never back up that twat of mouth of yours? According to you I'm such a fucking pussy yet you're the one who is always running and hiding like a Kunt when you're asked a question.
-
One question.SFGbob said:
My grievances? Is this just like your bullshit about how I was supposedly offering financial advise? You just string words together whether the make any sense or not don't ya dumbfuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
Take your grievances to trump.SFGbob said:
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose.
The fact that you parroting George Wallace isn't one of my "grievances" dumbfuck. And why is it that you can never back up that twat of mouth of yours? According to you I'm such a fucking pussy yet you're the one who is always running and hiding like a Kunt when you're asked a question.
Why won’t trump appeal his sanctuary law court losses?
Answer the question GayBob! You are not going to run and hide like a giant fucking trumptastic pussy are you? -
I don't know the answer to your question. When you're not a Kunt its easy CD. I'm unsure of the legal strategy that they are pursuing.
-
Why because they get federal money for the schools?CirrhosisDawg said:
Exact same argument? To an imbecile.SFGbob said:
I believe this was the exact same argument that was used by the people who wanted to keep the "coloreds" out of their kids' schools.CirrhosisDawg said:
Feds should make and enforce federal law.Pitchfork51 said:Sanctuary cities and states should be nuked.
Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility.
California DOJ, DAs, sheriffs and cops enforce local laws. The state does not have an immigration policy nor does it defy federal law.
Fat boy is supposed to enforce federal law. He won’t get one local jail cell or cop for his idiocy. It’s called federalism.
Have you trumptards stopped to consider why fat boy hasnt appealed his sanctuary law court losses?
Denying access to public schools is unconstitutional.
Telling trump to fuck off and enforce, staff and pay for his own MAGAtry is not unconstitutional. It’s not illegal. Immigration is not California’s responsibly you retard and we won’t pay a dime or lift a finger while trump is in office to promote this shitshow.
Why won’t fat boy appeal his sanctuary law court losses GayBob? Why won’t you answer the question?
-
Here's hoping that an illegal wanted by the feds does the dirty to you!CirrhosisDawg said:
Take your grievances to trump.SFGbob said:
"Illegal immigration now, Illegal immigration tomorrow, Illegal immigration forever!!!!"CirrhosisDawg said:
You’ll win next time! Except there isn’t going to be a next time. Why won’t fat boy appeal? The district order stands. It’s like bull Connor? Is that your argument? You should win easily then right?SFGbob said:
You had one District Court judge rule against the Administration. Every step of the way!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You should be on really solid legal standing then, right?RaceBannon said:He's onto to you like I am @CirrhosisDawg
Tell us again how sanctuary laws are illegal, and unconstitutional? You’ve lost every step of the way so far but I’m sure you have a good argument. It’s like Orval Faubus all over again! Except you can’t win the argument in policy or law.
What a dumbfuck
George Wallace lives, and he is still a Rat.
California doesn’t enforce or pay for federal immigration law. It’s not our responsibility. Fat boy is always free to take legal action. He won’t, because just like you, he’s a giant fucking pussy and will lose. -
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back. -
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
So you couldn't find it?MariotaTheGawd said:
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
Another one of that brilliant replies.MariotaTheGawd said:
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
> The laws of the United States contemplate many, many things that aren't precisely spelled out in the Constitution. We could never hope to run a modern society as complex as our own with the precise words, and only the precise words, found in the US Constitution. I know you'll come back and say we can, but that's because you like to be a stubborn mule.
> I will take Jefferson's read of the Establishment Clause over yours. Sorry. I just will.
> We have been, but religion and demographics, like everything, changes with time. And it has changed drastically since the Constitution was penned. We are less of a Christian country, and I would go out on a limb and say that trend will continue.
> Like Scalia, cowards hide behind strict constructionist reading of a 230 year old document. Instead of focusing on that, how about we tackle the real issue and pretend that we have the flexibility to make the best decisions, and forge the best solutions, for our country now? The issue is whether that's the best arrangement, and a great many people think it is. I'll bet when there are more Muslims, or more anything, here than Christians you'll think twice about invoking the government into religious life. There is no good reason for involving government in a matter as private as how, or even whether, one worships. I can say without equivocation that the only people I know personally who want the government in our church fall into one of two categories: they are generally stupid or they are not generally stupid but so drunk on religious life that they can't see anything w/o filtering it through that prism. I won't pretend to know which one you are.
-
We are very consciously not a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc nation. The separation of the church and the state was a uniquely Western European notion; it’s about 1000 years old now. It is one of the single best arguments for the superiority of Western Civilization. Try not to be a moron, please.Sledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
He thinks the bill of Rights, Including the right to bear arms, is God given.MariotaTheGawd said:
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
Yeah he's trying to figure out where it came from now. Gonna take a while as it is a quote from an actual American. He doesn't know much about them.SFGbob said:
Another one of that brilliant replies.MariotaTheGawd said:
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
lolSFGbob said:
Another one of that brilliant replies.MariotaTheGawd said:
I pray this post was a jokeSledog said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?creepycoug said:
Fair enough.SFGbob said:
O'Keefed has a long, history of squirting tears over child killers who are facing the death penalty. And for all I know the clergyman could have been a prison guard who was also a pastor.creepycoug said:
If we're actually trying to get to the point, maybe it ought to include a discussion of why a Christian clergyman is a state employee.SFGbob said:
No because he wasn't a state employee. Do you think lying helps your case O'Keefed?HHusky said:Fact: he couldn’t have his clergyman in the room because he was not a Christian.
No, it's not a constitutional crisis. But it's a fair question/point to raise.
What the guy did, and false allegations of people supporting him on anything other than the one raised, appears to be someone fucking straw man ass.
Keeping religion out of the state's hands, event the religions we like (perhaps especially the ones we like), still seems like a very good arrangement.
I know, I know, there are these little historical inconsistencies, like In God We Trust, invoking prayer at Congressional events, the Pledge, etc. But we ought not to use those isolated inconsistencies as a rationale for tossing out the entire approach. If you're a Christian, especially so now that the House at least is starting to diversify a bit more than usual.
If the guy had an option to have a non-denominational pastor in the room, I suppose that's one thing.
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, because our system, and we, are imperfect and we make mistakes. That one is hard to take back.
We are and have been a Christian nation. -
The US is a secular government and purposely set up to prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. And with good reason - given the absooute power is the King and the Church of England and the Pope/Catholicism. The Founders were wise to acknowledge there was more than one prism with which to view the Almighty or not.
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
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.
-
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?PurpleThrobber said:The US is a secular government and purposely set up to prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. And with good reason - given the absooute power is the King and the Church of England and the Pope/Catholicism. The Founders were wise to acknowledge there was more than one prism with which to view the Almighty or not.
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
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.
We are and have been a Christian nation. Therefore, .... um .....
So, I'm not sure where to go from here, but it sounded good when bobsled said it. -
Bob needs to speak for himself. It's bolded and in italics as to what the Constitution says.creepycoug said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?PurpleThrobber said:The US is a secular government and purposely set up to prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. And with good reason - given the absooute power is the King and the Church of England and the Pope/Catholicism. The Founders were wise to acknowledge there was more than one prism with which to view the Almighty or not.
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
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.
We are and have been a Christian nation. Therefore, .... um .....
So, I'm not sure where to go from here, but it sounded good when bobsled said it.
If you want to debate semantics on 'separation of church and state', well...OK! It's there in black and white - the Gubmint can't start it's own religion. The gubmint can't stop anyone from practicing their own religion.
-
To talk to some adults again, it is an interesting conundrum.creepycoug said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?PurpleThrobber said:The US is a secular government and purposely set up to prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. And with good reason - given the absooute power is the King and the Church of England and the Pope/Catholicism. The Founders were wise to acknowledge there was more than one prism with which to view the Almighty or not.
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
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.
We are and have been a Christian nation. Therefore, .... um .....
So, I'm not sure where to go from here, but it sounded good when bobsled said it.
In Christian and Christian derived religions there is a built in separation between private spiritual religious life and public citizen life. "Render unto Caesar" is a really, really important line from a historical perspective that allowed this divide.
Not all religions recognize, or even acknowledge, that there is or can be a separation. For many religions, the word is the law, the law is the state.
Where we, as a liberal and tolerant society come into conflict with such religions within the state isn't an easy solution as just to separate the two. Early 20th century politicians, philosophers, and activists fretted over what to do with Orthodox Jewish communities who were governed by their religious doctrine and not the modern state. The imperfect solution then was Jewish ghettos where Jewish law took precedent. The subject obviously became less pressing with the holocaust and the founding of a Jewish state as well as the growth of modern reform Judaism.
The same issue still rears its head in the modern world with any minority that might not share such a historical division between church and state(including fundamentalist Christian groups). -
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?PurpleThrobber said:The US is a secular government and purposely set up to prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. And with good reason - given the absooute power is the King and the Church of England and the Pope/Catholicism. The Founders were wise to acknowledge there was more than one prism with which to view the Almighty or not.
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
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.
We are and have been a Christian nation. Therefore, .... um .....
So, I'm not sure where to go from here, but it sounded good when bobsled said it.
Usually, I understand your point. Today, I don't.PurpleThrobber said:
Bob needs to speak for himself. It's bolded and in italics as to what the Constitution says.creepycoug said:
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?PurpleThrobber said:The US is a secular government and purposely set up to prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. And with good reason - given the absooute power is the King and the Church of England and the Pope/Catholicism. The Founders were wise to acknowledge there was more than one prism with which to view the Almighty or not.
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
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.
We are and have been a Christian nation. Therefore, .... um .....
So, I'm not sure where to go from here, but it sounded good when bobsled said it.
If you want to debate semantics on 'separation of church and state', well...OK! It's there in black and white - the Gubmint can't start it's own religion. The gubmint can't stop anyone from practicing their own religion.
I know what it says, and further, I know how that's been applied. So much of the Constitution doesn't get you there on the face of its language. What does it mean for the "government to start its own religion"? How do you regulate that particular mandate other than to keep yourself out of the religion business other than to assure everyone their right to practice as they see fit.
