on this topic. They are members of the Sandpoint Tea Party and are right wing fundies.
You need to read from the bottom up.
http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_f99d1264-d9a5-11df-b759-001cc4c002e0.htmlmike from sagle posted at 10:50 am on Mon, Oct 25, 2010.
O'Donnell: "So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is found in the First Amendment?"
It's not. Period. But the audience of law students laughed at her, and lefties are STILL trying to spin the statement dizzy, but it's a done deal. Except for the arrogant mockery, which is something I am still enjoying as typified by Mr. Retard Pitts jr. this very morning. Arrogant laughter is something even Obama enjoys, as was shown when he laughed in the face of the black woman at the town hall meeting who chastised him for not delivering on his promises.
Keep on laughing, Nov. 2 is getting closer every day.
• Timmy2 posted at 8:35 am on Mon, Oct 25, 2010.
I wonder how many atheists there were in that mine in Chile
• Frank's posted at 11:44 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Independent,
You made our point. This phrase is in the Library of Congress and not
in the U.S. Constitution. The similar phrase “separation of church and
state” is also in the Soviet Union’s constitution and not in the
U.S. Constitution.
I believe Madison penned the 1st Amendment.
• Independent posted at 10:05 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
Frank, I'm not the left and I'm not out to get anyone. The document which contains the phrase 'thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" lies in the Library of Congress and is signed by Thomas Jefferson on the date as listed below. You three need to educate yourselves because at this point you are pretty ignorant. That is why Christine was laughed at by the law students.
• Frank's posted at 9:30 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
I suspect that the Founding Fathers did not insert the phrase “a wall
of separation between church and state”, because they knew the enemies
of Christianity would use this phrase to attack the freedom of religion in
America.t’s apparent the left needs such legalistic arguments to mask their lawless
revolutionary goals.
• mike from sagle posted at 1:40 pm on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
all well and good, independent, but you are STILL missing the point which is that the phrase "separation between church and state" is NOT in the constitution, and that's all O'Donnell said. Do yourself a favor and go to Youtube for a replay of the exchange.
• Independent posted at 1:31 am on Sun, Oct 24, 2010.
"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." Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802.
• mike from sagle posted at 11:59 am on Sat, Oct 23, 2010.
Great point, Frank, and what's more alarming than the fact the left smeared O'Donnell for her comment is that the attending audience of LAW STUDENTS laughed at her when she said it. Sad to say the chasm between law and morality is widening daily.
• Frank's posted at 7:01 pm on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
The separation of church and state edict is a perfect example of leftist
revolutionaries in black robes remaking the Constitution to fulfill their
radical goals. The 1st Amendment is quite clear, that “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.” This statement is quite simple and straight forward.
Congress cannot establish a state religion by law, nor can it interfere in religion.
So, if a pastor desires to have Sunday service on public property or display
religious symbols on public property, the Federal Government cannot stop
him. In fact the Federal Government has to enforce the pastor’s Constitutional
1st Amendment right for the free practice of his religion. There is nothing in
the 1st Amendment that would deny this.
However, the phrase separation of church and state, which is no where to be
found in the 1st Amendment, gives power to the Federal Government to
restrict religion. Some say that this phrase is found in a letter to a Baptist
minister written by Jefferson or in the Soviet Union’s constitution. Nevertheless,
the lawless act of separation of church and state restricts the practice of religion
in the name of religious freedom, and becomes a even more powerful tool against
religion as the state increases its power in the lives of the American people.
This edict is crucial if the left has any chance to de-Christianize America and
create a new society.
O’Donnell told the truth and the left smeared her for it.
• Timmy2 posted at 8:08 am on Fri, Oct 22, 2010.
It means congress should leave religion alone. It doesn't say religion has no place in government
Does it really bother you to have "In God we trust" on your money?
11 days until the great cleansing tsunami hits
• mike from sagle posted at 11:22 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Oh, one litte-bitty footnote to this topic I forgot to post. While everyone is screaming about the O'Donnell fracas, it seems almost no one is paying any attention to the misuse of taxpayer money for an Islamic public charter school in Minnesota, and how the muslim brotherhood is putting muscle behind it. After all, muslims don't care to know anything about our Constitution, and even if they did, it is completely incompatible with their sharia law.
By the way, if you are new to the TIZA story, the school is named after Tariq ibn Ziyad, a Muslim military leader who conquered Hispania in 711 CE. The school also refused to fly the American flag until they were outed, and then claimed they didn’t know how to use the flag pole. Here's a couple of links about it to chew on while you stress over O'Donnell's sideways perspective of the separation of church and state.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/minnesotas-taxpayer-funded-islamic-school-continues-its-legal-jihad/http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html • mike from sagle posted at 10:52 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Independent, you need to back-track a little and read what I've been talking about.
It's not about Constitutional interpretation, it's about what O'Donnell SAID.
During the Tues. debate, she said "You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
In a follow up interview two days later, she said:
"Well I think it says exactly what it says: that the government will not create - will not dictate - that every American has to believe a certain way, but it won't do anything to prevent the free exercise thereof."
Wow, what a tard! She is so obviously clueless, huh?
I mean, the Constitution is worded so clearly and literally that even a bimbo like O'Donnell can understand it, right? That must be why the 2nd Amendment currently has liberal crosshairs on it. Don't they know that the phrase "the right to bear arms" is in there? It's in there, ain't it? (gulp) My paw TOLE me it wuz, dag-nabbit! An we lernt all about in the thurd grade. An the earth is flat too. All you gotta do is look at it fer yerself. It don't look round to me, even when ahm up on top of a ladder. Yep, its flat alright. Never trusted them round earthers anyway. Hmmpf.
• Independent posted at 8:18 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
OK, Timmy what does “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " mean to you?
To me and the courts and Constitutional scholars and attorneys say it means separation of church and state. So, separation of church and state is in the first amendment. Christine and Mike are wrong.
I have proved nothing about Mike's point because separation of church and state IS in the first amendment in black and white.
• Timmy2 posted at 4:32 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
independent is proving Mike's point, to the letter, and doesn't even see it
• Independent posted at 3:49 pm on Thu, Oct 21, 2010.
Mike, the words separation of church and state do not have to be in there, the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " means separation of church and state, so say the courts. You re hung up on semantics, as was Christine, which was why the audience gasped and laughed at her. Every court has ruled and accepts this clause to interpret as separation of church and state.
How do you interpret “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
