Fuck the Liberal Media

[LotsOfZeros]

What are you trying to prove with that link? Where on that website does it say that there isn't separation of church and state?

Show me where it says there is.

Congressional sessions opening with prayer to further invalidate your position.

See this is the problem with Secular Progressives. They hear some left wing college professor with an axe to grind against religion say there is separation of church and state and they believe it. I gets published over and over again in the New York Times, all the liberal students take it at face value and the rest is just a bunch of sheeple regurgitating what they hear on MSNBC.

I get my information from legitimate Constitutional scholars who haven't any political motivations for trying to change our Constitution.

Progressives on the other hand keep preaching how it's a living, breathing document subject to their left wing court's modern interpretations (self serving of course) of what it's all supposed to mean.

The day you will be successful in convincing me of your view on this matter will be the day you can show me "separation of church and state" is right there in the Constitution, right between "a gay's right to marriage" and "a woman's right to kill her unborn child".

You're basically wasting your time. Push your lefty agenda on the college kids, they're easier to fool.

 

[PeerFly]

Show me where it says there is.

Why should I have to do that when you brought the link up in the first place attempting to prove your futile points? The burden of proof lies with you. You're claiming that the establishment clause DOESN'T mean separation of church and state.

In one sentence you say it doesn't mean separation of church and state and then in another you agree it was enacted to separate government from the church and create non-preferential attitude towards religion! It sounds like you just don't like the word separation. How does "division of religion and government" sound?

None of this matters anyway, point is that O'Donnel clearly doesn't know the constitution.

</thread>

 

[fvaldes]

What's your grounds on this statement? I've not seen anything about her that separates her from any other average politician. Palin and O donnell are idiots riding some teabagger wave but I want to caution people about dismissing women in politics in general just because of a few bad apples. If we dismissed all the male counterparts of the two, we would have some major vacancies in our electoral system.

1+

Palin and O'donell do have one positive factor... and that's the entertaining factor. Please, keep them on TV!! but out of politics?

 

[conv3rsion]

.

Can you please tell me what you think the phrase "Separation of Church and State" means to you? I think it would go a long way towards me being able to understand your point, which currently I cannot and it's frustrating.

Also I'd appreciate if we could just discuss this issue without the generalizations for words like progressives, leftists, or college professors. When you do that you are abandoning substance and pulling a Hellblazer.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

None of this matters anyway, point is that O'Donnel clearly doesn't know the constitution.

Then apparently neither does Coons when you watch how she pwned him with the follow up (edited out of your version of course).

@conv3rsion. I'll revisit your questions later since they are valid points that you bring up - I have an important meeting to get to right now

 

[conv3rsion]

I look forward to your response.

And on topic, to quickly just illustrate how amazing that exchange was:

She is running as tea party candidate, and she doesn't know what the 16th amendment is.

Imagine the NRA forming a faux party and running a candidate who doesn't know what the 2nd amendment is.

That's what you have here. That's when you know you are being manipulated.

 

[cougarclaws]

THIS - Tea Party ‘founder’: Palin, Gingrich a ‘joke’ | Raw Story

A financial blogger and ex-CEO credited with being one of the original "founders" of the Tea Party has come out against the movement, saying it has been hijacked by the very people it was protesting and is now obsessed with "guns, gays and God."

 

[nvanprooyen]

THIS - Tea Party ‘founder’: Palin, Gingrich a ‘joke’ | Raw Story

A financial blogger and ex-CEO credited with being one of the original "founders" of the Tea Party has come out against the movement, saying it has been hijacked by the very people it was protesting and is now obsessed with "guns, gays and God."

No surprise there. At all.

 

[hellblazer]

This Jefferson?

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
​

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814


"... I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself."
- letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816


"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

​

Wow, a couple cherrypicked anti-priest quotes! Amazing! Like that cowardly libtard Turbo said, total pwnage dude!!!

This Jefferson:

"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

[ Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man , and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The leftwing extremists have distorted Jefferson's words to mean the total eradication of any vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage from the public square.

The OVERWHELMING majority of the Founding Fathers were Judeo-Christian. These liberal extremists like to cherry-pick quotes from Jefferson or the other lone deists they can find, but the vast majority were some form of Christian.

Why, the Declaration of Independence mentions certain inalienable rights endowed by a "creator"! EVERYONE FREAK OUT - establishment of religion there! The Declaration is unconstitutional and violates separation of church and state!

This, in a nutshell, is what these liberal kooks are doing.

God, you people are lame, especially when one thinks he's made an amazing point and all the brainwashed leftist sheeple hop on with "Lulz", "Pwnage", and other assorted cowardly, masturbatory sycophancy.

 

[conv3rsion]

.

Your emphasis just made no sense. Do you even understand what you are arguing at this point? Of course Jefferson believed in and thought highly of religion, but not in the institution of the Church or the interference and corruption in governance.

You got owned because you (as you always do) made false and easily disprovable generalizations.

 

[PeerFly]

The leftwing extremists have distorted Jefferson's words to mean the total eradication of any vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage from the public square.

The entire Jefferson quote you pasted implicitly explains the establishment clause and separation of church and state. Not sure how you're trying to spin that exactly. A separation of church and state doesn't mean that religion should be eradicated from the public square. People are free to exercise their religious rights wherever, however, whenever as long as the government isn't supporting or paying for it. What are you talking about?

The OVERWHELMING majority of the Founding Fathers were Judeo-Christian. These liberal extremists like to cherry-pick quotes from Jefferson or the other lone deists they can find, but the vast majority were some form of Christian.

Again, what are you trying to prove? I could care less if even 100% of them were religious. What's your point?

Why, the Declaration of Independence mentions certain inalienable rights endowed by a "creator"! EVERYONE FREAK OUT - establishment of religion there! The Declaration is unconstitutional and violates separation of church and state!

"Nature's god," "creator," and "divine providence" have nothing to do with religion. Even though the declaration of independence is just a statement and isn't part of our constitution or laws in our country, it never mentions or upholds a particular religion or dogma.

Did you attempt to read the very next sentence in the Declaration?

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

It doesn't get much clearer than that. Let me know if you need me to explain that too.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

People are free to exercise their religious rights wherever, however, whenever as long as the government isn't supporting or paying for it.

Your statement might have some truth to it if churches would be denied their tax-exempt status.

Can you please tell me what you think the phrase "Separation of Church and State" means to you? I think it would go a long way towards me being able to understand your point, which currently I cannot and it's frustrating.

One needs to realize that 'separation' is exclusory. Where neither church or state could ever include the other. The fact that we have a House Chaplain, conduct opening prayer before Congress, have references to God on our money, pledge, etc effectively refutes separation. However, making any requirement for inclusion would go against the first amendment: "The government shall make no establishment of religion" where currently any aforementioned inclusion does not mandate establishment.

Also I'd appreciate if we could just discuss this issue without the generalizations for words like progressives, leftists, or college professors.

Mentioning how progressives are trying to undermine the constitution at it's core is very relevant for this issue. The Constitution was not crafted with the intent of being changed, only amended. Making factual statements identifying the exact groups who have been trying to wage war on the very foundation the Constitution was built upon (protecting the rights and liberties of the people from a tyrannical central government) is in fact substantive. Especially when such attacks are so subtle, organized, methodical and well orchestrated in their attempts to mislead the very public the Constitution was designed to protect.

 

[turbolapp]

THIS - Tea Party ‘founder’: Palin, Gingrich a ‘joke’ | Raw Story

A financial blogger and ex-CEO credited with being one of the original "founders" of the Tea Party has come out against the movement, saying it has been hijacked by the very people it was protesting and is now obsessed with "guns, gays and God."

I think this article deserves more quotes:

A financial blogger and ex-CEO credited with being one of the original "founders" of the Tea Party has come out against the movement, saying it has been hijacked by the very people it was protesting and is now obsessed with "guns, gays and God."

In a "message" to the Tea Party Wednesday, Karl Denninger declared that he "ought to sue" anyone who uses the Tea Party name "for defamation."

"Yeah, that's a joke," he writes. "But so are you. All of you. Especially Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and douchebag groups such as the 'Tea Party Patriots.'"

Denninger writes: "Tea Party my ass. This was nothing other than the Republican Party stealing the anger of a population that was fed up with the Republican Party's own theft of their tax money at gunpoint to bail out the robbers of Wall Street and fraudulently redirecting it back toward electing the very people who stole all the ****ing money!"

As I've said before, true Libertarians should be outraged at the Tea baggers. I'm still pissed these morons have now ruined a fantastic historical event with their own stupidity.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

The media, working as propaganda agent for a centralized regime, will use anything and everything at their disposal to try to marginalize a true grass roots movement.

If the Tea Party, Palin, et al were the dolts the news would have you believe they are, they wouldn't work so tirelessly to destroy them.

The elites are threatened by the ground swell.

 

[nvanprooyen]

I just don't think tea party (in it's current incarnation) == a true grass roots movement. It's morphed into something else all together, IMO. I don't think it started that way, but it's what it's turning into. Just a new label, on the same old bullshit.

 

[hellblazer]

The entire Jefferson quote you pasted implicitly explains the ... separation of church and state.

Separation between church and state. Between, not of. The distinction might seem irrelevant to some, but it's not.

Jefferson wanted to stop the government from going after churches. But he also wanted no national religion, i.e. he didn't want the government to establish a religion.

The leftist distortion of that quote envisions a world where they separate what they portray as the "church" from the state, thus the tsunami of ACLU-fueled legal assaults against the remnants of our Christian heritage.

The extreme left wing in this country have taken innocuous Christian symbols and historical artifacts and attempted to make the wholly disingenuous claim that they constitute "establishment" of a religion, thus meriting their removal and eradication from the public square.

Of course, nothing could be more absurd and further from the truth. But that's not to say these radical extremists haven't met a degree of success:

Schools and courthouses in eastern Kentucky are removing their displays of historical documents - including the Mayflower Compact, an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the national motto, "In God we trust", and the preamble to the state's constitution - to comply with an order from Federal District Judge Jennifer Coffman, who said the displays are a violation of the First Amendment.

This is what patriotic Americans like Christine O'Donnell implicitly understand and what she was saying. She was attacking the very foundation on which the godless ACLU has built its filthy Christianity-attacking war machine and Coons was pretending not to understand.

"Nature's god," "creator," and "divine providence" have nothing to do with religion.

This can't possibly be a serious statement. Explicit references to god, a creator, and divinity have "nothing to do with religion"?

You see, this is the paradox upon which this entire effort is built and a lie that you guys have to make. Because if references to god, a creator, and divinity in historical documents don't constitute "establishment" of religion, how could the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, the Mayflower Compact, or any other one of the hundreds of historical documents speaking to our Christian history?

The whole atheist anti-Christian crusade is a house of cards built upon a lie.

 

[PeerFly]

The extreme left wing in this country have taken innocuous Christian symbols and historical artifacts and attempted to make the wholly disingenuous claim that they constitute "establishment" of a religion, thus meriting their removal and eradication from the public square.

Again, you're confusing the "public square" with government funded sites or activities. Your excerpt refers to government funded schools and courthouses.

This can't possibly be a serious statement. Explicit references to god, a creator, and divinity have "nothing to do with religion"?

None of those have anything to do with religion. Religion is a set of beliefs bounded by principals and practices which can include a god or gods. God != religion and religion != god. Some people believe in a higher power of sorts but don't adhere to any religion. Likewise, buddhism is the 4th largest religion and has no god.

Besides, those words were chosen wisely so that preferential treatment wasn't given to a specific religion or lack of religion thereof. They tried to be as religiously broad as possible and definitely succeeded.

 

[PeerFly]

Your statement might have some truth to it if churches would be denied their tax-exempt status.

Actually, churches fall under the charity tax status because they are supported by their tax paying members and aren't looking for a profit. Aside from religious stuff, lots of churches have community outreach programs further constituting them as charities.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Plus, it's not just christian churches that are tax exempt, so that argument is invalid.

 

[turbolapp]

Separation between church and state. Between, not of. The distinction might seem irrelevant to some, but it's not.

Jefferson wanted to stop the government from going after churches. But he also wanted no national religion, i.e. he didn't want the government to establish a religion.

The leftist distortion of that quote envisions a world where they separate what they portray as the "church" from the state,

You made no distinction. Separation of and Separation between, it's semantics. Whatever Jefferson's motives (whether protection of the state from the church or protection of the church from the state or both) it doesn't matter. The keyword is Separation.

You know all this, but you just don't like your country not being a religious institution do you? That kind of thinking is more in line with your middle eastern brethren than this Republic.