FYI the constitution does not speak about the separation of church and state

[theking]

Some people mistakenly believe that the constitution speaks to the "separation of church and state" and it does not.

The phrase originates in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.

Jefferson's letter...

Taken from Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol., 16, pp. 281-282.

Gentlemen,
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, and 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 and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State. 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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Amendment I
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.

This is all that the constitution has to say about any "separation of church and state".

As regards the 10 Commandment monument that was removed by court order...

There is no law that allows for the Court to order the removal of the monument...other than judicial precedent...which in and of itself does not constitute a law...merely the legislating of law from the bench...which in theory the Courts are not allowed to do...not even the Supreme Court...but they do it anyhow.

[SexySarah]

loser.

[The Truth Hurts]

The First Amendment was never intended to bar Christians from the political process, nor prevent religious morals from influencing public policy. So where did the "Separation between church & state" come from? This phrase is not found anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It originates, not from the Constitution or any other foundational document of our country, but from a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists Association in 1802, 13 years after Congress passed the First Amendment. The Baptists in Danbury were being discriminated against and not allowed to participate in government because they were Baptists. Jefferson wanted to reassure the Baptists that there would be no official denomination for the country. Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. The letter was very private and personal.



It was not until 1947 that our current understanding of separation between church & state came into being. It was in the Supreme Court case, Everson vs. Board of Education, in which the court interpreted the First Amendment to remove prayer in public schools. The Court however, only quoted eight of Jefferson's words from his letter (which talked about a wall of separation between church and state). These eight words were taken out of context and have been misused ever since.

[theking]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts

These eight words were taken out of context and have been misused ever since.

Exactly...the court in essence legislated from the bench...which they are not supposed to do...setting judicial precedent...which is not a law in and of itself...and the judicial precedent has been used (misused) by many courts ever since.

[theking]

From...my view point...it is the Court that has violated the constitution...as the 1st Amendment...only addresses Congress making a law.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

DO you understand what the First Amendment is saying?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Focus on that for a minute. Oh...
And get some english literacy courses.

[theking]

Originally posted by AlienQ
DO you understand what the First Amendment is saying?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Focus on that for a minute. Oh...
And get some english literacy courses.

That is the point...Congress has not made a law...the court is legislating from the bench. And thanks for the suggestion but I do not need any literacy courses...been there and done that...during the college years.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by AlienQ
DO you understand what the First Amendment is saying?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Maybe you should take up a course in continuing to read until you hit a stop... fucking selective readers.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

So it is OK in your books to put say a statue of Kali or Sheeba in front of a court house?
For example...
Why not just put a statue of Bin Laden there also ehh? Maybe have BIn Laden even holding the Ten Commandments! Outrage shouldnt be that bad after all the judge of that court house really thinks Bin Laden is the shit and no one would mind, and well the judge puts it there without authorization to...

Why not cover up the tits to statues in the Whitehouse? Oh the religeous fuck faces already done that.

Hey how about the judges have pictures of Jesus on the walls in the courtroom while putting Arabs, Jewish and Hindu's to trial?

Lets really fuck with the genuine gift of diversity that the United States was built for under the term "Justice For All", while those we judge in the process of law should know that Jesus has a bigger dick and the inferior religeons are really nothing in contrast to the true god of christianity.

Hey I might feel like I had a fair trial if I entered a court room with a Pentagram at the front but certainly not some court room with fucking stone's scribing the laws of a barbaric and brutal religeon that has commited genocide throughout the age of modern mankind! THose stones stand for hypocracy.

[theking]

Originally posted by AlienQ
So it is OK in your books to put say a statue of Kali or Sheeba in front of a court house?
For example...
Why not just put a statue of Bin Laden there also ehh? Maybe have BIn Laden even holding the Ten Commandments! Outrage shouldnt be that bad after all the judge of that court house really thinks Bin Laden is the shit and no one would mind, and well the judge puts it there without authorization to...

Why not cover up the tits to statues in the Whitehouse? Oh the religeous fuck faces already done that.

Hey how about the judges have pictures of Jesus on the walls in the courtroom while putting Arabs, Jewish and Hindu's to trial?

Lets really fuck with the genuine gift of diversity that the United States was built for under the term "Justice For All", while those we judge in the process of law should know that Jesus has a bigger dick and the inferior religeons are really nothing in contrast to the true god of christianity.

Hey I might feel like I had a fair trial if I entered a court room with a Pentagram at the front but certainly not some court room with fucking stone's scribing the laws of a barbaric and brutal religeon that has commited genocide throughout the age of modern mankind! THose stones stand for hypocracy.

Everything that you just said has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is the 1st Amendment is clear...it addresses Congress and Congress has not made any law regarding religion...but the Courts are legislating from the bench and that is not supposed to be the role of the Court.

[The Truth Hurts]

The laws of this country weren't built around any of the far-fetched comparisons you people against this keep trying make, and that is the fatal point in your flawed arguement.

[Mr.Fiction]

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals owning guns, only militias.

So turn over all your guns.

[Joe Average]

The religious loonies talk a lot about freedom OF religion... well how about freedom FROM religion?

All governments should be secular and govern for ALL the people irrespective of religion. Getting the government and/or the judiciary infected with theism is the first step towards theocracy and totalitarianism.

Superstition and myth has NO place in government whatsoever.

[Centurion]

Originally posted by theking
From...my view point...it is the Court that has violated the constitution...as the 1st Amendment...only addresses Congress making a law.

Who cares? This is one of your more POINTLESS threads ever!

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by Joe Average
The religious loonies talk a lot about freedom OF religion... well how about freedom FROM religion?

Who FORCED anyone to read the monument?

[Mr.Fiction]

The countries in the world that do not separate government from religion are some of the most fucked countries in the world.

Does anyone disagree?

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by Centurion


Who cares? This is one of your more POINTLESS threads ever!

Nobody forced you to read it, or respond.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
The countries in the world that do not separate government from religion are some of the most fucked countries in the world.

Does anyone disagree?

Where are you from?

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Take a real good read here...

Separation: Good for Government

I swear if American Values were up to you two tards...
Well...

I simply couldnt imagine.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by AlienQ
Take a real good read here...

Separation: Good for Government

I swear if American Values were up to you two tards...
Well...

I simply couldnt imagine.

Is there something wrong with the values put forth in the 10 commandments?

[Joe Average]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts



Is there something wrong with the values put forth in the 10 commandments?

Absolutely.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by AlienQ
Take a real good read here...

Separation: Good for Government

I swear if American Values were up to you two tards...
Well...

I simply couldnt imagine.

Click the next link on that page...
they go on and on about "Violations of the Separation of Church and State", still looking for that one in the constitution.....
Credibility: zero.

[theking]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
The 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals owning guns, only militias.

So turn over all your guns.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Since militia's are made up of people...then "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[The Truth Hurts]

Alien apparently has a problem reading sentences all the way to the end.

[PornoDoggy]

I personally think the Judge in Alabama should have been treated like a red-headed step-Arab once he defied the orders of a court of the United States. Fuck a piss-ant $


And really ... I think that pornographers who are up in arms defending the bible-thumpers behind all this are from a different planet.

Uranus comes to mind.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

The 10 Commandments is silly. Why 10? 4 Of them council each other out and 2 of them are merely re-iterations of a later.

So...

The murder part is just common sense.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

If ya not keeping up on recent events the Constitution is often Amended and definatly not for the better.

American Values are eroding and soon we will be killing each other.

[theking]

Originally posted by AlienQ
Take a real good read here...

Separation: Good for Government

I swear if American Values were up to you two tards...
Well...

I simply couldnt imagine.

That is not the issue...the issue is the Courts legislating law from the bench...as there is not any law in existence that was being violated by the monument...and the "separation of church and state" is not any part of the constitution.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by AlienQ
American Values are eroding and soon we will be killing each other.

Geez, I wonder why.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by theking


That is not the issue...the issue is the Courts legislating law from the bench...as there is not any law in existence that was being violated by the monument...and the "separation of church and state" is not any part of the constitution.

What is it about reality that you don't like?

[theking]

Originally posted by Joe Average


Absolutely.

One mans opinion...based upon personal thought...and does not have anything to do with the issue presented in this thread.

[theking]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy
I personally think the Judge in Alabama should have been treated like a red-headed step-Arab once he defied the orders of a court of the United States. Fuck a piss-ant $


And really ... I think that pornographers who are up in arms defending the bible-thumpers behind all this are from a different planet.

Uranus comes to mind.

Another mans opinion and does not have anything to do with the issue presented in this thread.

[theking]

Originally posted by AlienQ
The 10 Commandments is silly. Why 10? 4 Of them council each other out and 2 of them are merely re-iterations of a later.

So...

The murder part is just common sense.

Your post does not deal with the issue presented in this thread.

[Honeyslut]

Smart men make me horny

[The Truth Hurts]

Starting to see why some people thought I was actually theking the other day..

[theking]

Originally posted by AlienQ
If ya not keeping up on recent events the Constitution is often Amended and definatly not for the better.

American Values are eroding and soon we will be killing each other.

Amendments

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

Amendment XI [Suits Against a State (1795)]

Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)]

Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]

Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]

Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)

Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]

Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)

Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]

Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]

Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]

Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)]

Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)]

Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)]

Often??? It is more than two hundred years old.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by theking


Another mans opinion and does not have anything to do with the issue presented in this thread.

You raised no issue in this thread ... you did a cut 'n paste from some website that spouts off a bunch of high-fallutin' hogwash that means NOTHING. The legal theories that back up the thoughts you ripped off are proven to be bunk by 200+ years of the existence of the United States. You better put your tinfoil hat back on before the microwave transmitters of the revenuers rot your brain even further than it already has been.

[theking]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts
Starting to see why some people thought I was actually theking the other day..

Thread please?

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Your right. There oughtah be a law about preventing this sorta outrage again.

Seems a law should be made to prevent religeous memorabilia from being presented in government facilities.

Oh...
Wait the government endorsed the creation of that monument...

Oh wait...
That Judge put it there using Government money without authorization.

So there goes your argument.

Now make another religous thread...

The Separation of Church and state has been established through precedence. Read more talk less.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by AlienQ


Oh wait...
That Judge put it there using Government money without authorization.

So there goes your argument.

'

Wrong again.

[theking]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy


You raised no issue in this thread ... you did a cut 'n paste from some website that spouts off a bunch of high-fallutin' hogwash that means NOTHING. The legal theories that back up the thoughts you ripped off are proven to be bunk by 200+ years of the existence of the United States. You better put your tinfoil hat back on before the microwave transmitters of the revenuers rot your brain even further than it already has been.

This is fact...and my words.

Some people mistakenly believe that the constitution speaks to the "separation of church and state" and it does not.

This is the issue...and my words.

There is no law that allows for the Court to order the removal of the monument...other than judicial precedent...which in and of itself does not constitute a law...merely the legislating of law from the bench...which in theory the Courts are not allowed to do...not even the Supreme Court...but they do it anyhow.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by theking


Thread please?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=168059

[PornoDoggy]

Look. I'm sorry that so many right-wingers have gotten their tit in the wringer over the fact that a publicity-hungry state judge deliberately set about to create a controversy with an outcome as predictable as a Mike Tyson/Gary Coleman boxing match.

I do feel very sorry for people who spout off the same tired claptrap about how THEY understand the United States Constitution. It is unfortunate that 200 years of legal precedent don't influence their understanding of reality.

Welcome to the 19th Century.

[The Truth Hurts]

200 years of legal precedent ?

[theking]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts



http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=168059

By the way I have never linked to an obscure government web site to prove my point...as stated by the tranny. Goverment websites yes...obscure...no.

[CoolE]

Hurts and King,

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has spoken. As a matter of fact they have spoken so clearly on the subject of the seperation of church and state that they won't even hear cases from nutjobs like Judge Moore any more. It's over; it's done; the (case) law is clear.

So get over it, or plan a coup.

[Joe Average]

Originally posted by theking


One mans opinion...based upon personal thought...and does not have anything to do with the issue presented in this thread.

There's only one rule human beings need to obey to bring peace to the world. And it's a simple one. It's called the Golden Rule. I'm sure you know it.

And don't try and tell me the bible came up with that one. The Golden Rule is a lot older than Christianity or Judaism.

[theking]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy
Look. I'm sorry that so many right-wingers have gotten their tit in the wringer over the fact that a publicity-hungry state judge deliberately set about to create a controversy with an outcome as predictable as a Mike Tyson/Gary Coleman boxing match.

I do feel very sorry for people who spout off the same tired claptrap about how THEY understand the United States Constitution. It is unfortunate that 200 years of legal precedent don't influence their understanding of reality.

Welcome to the 19th Century.

200 years???

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts

It was not until 1947 that our current understanding of separation between church & state came into being. It was in the Supreme Court case, Everson vs. Board of Education, in which the court interpreted the First Amendment to remove prayer in public schools. The Court however, only quoted eight of Jefferson's words from his letter (which talked about a wall of separation between church and state). These eight words were taken out of context and have been misused ever since.

[PornoDoggy]

200 years of that whole pesky "federal supremacy" concept.

Cute logic, though. It hasn't worked for anyone aruging it in court, but hey ... whatever floats your boat.

[The Truth Hurts]

Originally posted by CoolE
Hurts and King,

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has spoken. As a matter of fact they have spoken so clearly on the subject of the seperation of church and state that they won't even hear cases from nutjobs like Judge Moore any more. It's over; it's done; the (case) law is clear.

So get over it, or plan a coup.

They don't have the balls to hear it, because they'd have to answer the simple question....... Where, in law, does it say anything about the seperation of church and state?