What is a liberal?

[ArmChair General]

That's a nice try of deflection but discussing how my typing seems to run together to you is subjective, irrelevant not worth the waste of post. You must be certified or something to question my statement that the ohara vs the state trial ruling was unconstitutional. It was. It's a fact whether you want to realize that or spin it or not. You can't change the facts by typing, you can only manipulate which is what you're trying to do like any atheist tries to do. Ohara was an atheist just like you are. She was brutally murdered too. I like your name-calling though and condescending talk. It makes you look really intelligent and not a silly fool. If anything, people should talk that way to you because you're so self-righteously ignorant about Christianity and all it has done.

f you respond to this with stupid comments far and wide that have nothing to do with eachother, you're a brainless spectator.

Ah, another Christian spreading messages of love.

 

[palerider]

No.

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle.

Make up your mind. You were just lamenting on how a majority of religious people can, within the constitution, express their moral and religious positions as law.

There exists no wall or anyting else that can separate the church from the state. The only thing the congress may not do is establish a national religion, or write federal law that gives preference to one religion over another. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[palerider]

It's not that at all.

It's just you can only cut and paste so much. The information is all out there. Everyone already knows my "personal" opinion. There was a definite and intentional separation of church and state and the founding fathers had good reason to want to set things up that way.

Had it been thier intention to set up a separation of church and state, they would have written it into the constitution. No such separation was written, nor was there even an attempt to write in such a separation. The words say what they say. Feel free to address my points, or shuck and jive around them as you like.

 

[palerider]

Well, your history is mostly in order. However, what the Supreme Court says, for better or for worse, goes.

The supreme court has reversed itself no less than 80 times. What the court says goes for now.

 

[palerider]

This is such a good post I can't even think of one thing to add to it... and I'm a talker...

Talker, but clearly not a thinker. Kindly show me which part of the constitution the court drew upon in order to justify those tests. If you support the court in unconstitutional decisons that you like, you will inevetably be burned when they begin making unconstitutional decisions that you don't like.

 

[vyo476]

The supreme court has reversed itself no less than 80 times. What the court says goes for now.

That is a better way of putting it. By saying that what the Court says goes, I ought to have included the fact that later versions of the Court can reverse what previous Courts have ruled. Thank you.

 

[ArmChair General]

Make up your mind. You were just lamenting on how a majority of religious people can, within the constitution, express their moral and religious positions as law.

There exists no wall or anyting else that can separate the church from the state. The only thing the congress may not do is establish a national religion, or write federal law that gives preference to one religion over another. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry, let me dumb it down for you.

There is a clear seperation now, but it could be changed in the future if the majority changed.

Laws and court decisions can be overturned, thats how our government was set up.

However, I think its obvious that the line between church and state has been drawn in both spirit and precedence. Therefore anyone who does try to erase the so called line, would be considered as acting against the intentions of our founders, and frankly being un-american.

 

[palerider]

There is a clear seperation now, but it could be changed in the future if the majority changed.

Show me, in the constitution, a clear separation. The constitution has not been amemded to create a clear separation and we have already established that the courts are perfectly capable of making unconstitutional decisions.

However, I think its obvious that the line between church and state has been drawn in both spirit and precedence. Therefore anyone who does try to erase the so called line, would be considered as acting against the intentions of our founders, and frankly being un-american.

You lost it when you harkened back to the founders. I provided the entire evoloution of the establishment clause and there was never a form that suggested a separation between church and state. Furthermore, there were at least 6 states that had state sponsored religions. That is, you couldn't be elected to office if you weren't a member in good standing of those churches and some of them continued to exist for at least a decade after the constitution was signed and the fed never took a single action against a single one of them.

 

[Justinian]

Hey Folks

Ah, another Christian spreading messages of love.

Who ever said Christianity was about love?

 

[Think for myself]

Who ever said Christianity was about love?

Enlighten us. What is Christianity about then, in your opinion.

 

[Justinian]

Yeah

Who ever said Christianity was about love? I liove my family and I love my friends but I'll give my enemies a mouthfull of teeth. If that's not enough, perhaps they would like to taste the ground...? Oh and Liberals are starving rat puke.

 

[Think for myself]

Who ever said Christianity was about love? I liove my family and I love my friends but I'll give my enemies a mouthfull of teeth. If that's not enough, perhaps they would like to taste the ground...?

How very Christian.

Matt 5:43-44
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you;