Nigel wins the internets today.
HOW dumb is Christine O'Donnell??
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
Nigel wins the internets today.
Where is it misspelled on that site? I didn't see it and I could really use a laugh.
LOL. Too bad it's from a PAC and not her official campaign.
It is funny though. Apparently those running the PAC aren't very good at proofreading.
We're talking about the US Constitution, you pinhead.
Try reading it.
Making NO LAW about establishing a religion and the FREE EXERCISE thereof is hardly separation.
.
It means EXACTLY what it says, no more, no less.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, teach it in the same class you teach of any other theory regarding how life might have originated. If that is a science class, teach it there. It's not strictly a religious belief, it is a theory for how life originated, and it's just as valid and legitimate as the theory of abiogenesis. Would you teach abiogenesis in a comparative religion class too? It can't be proven with science, there is no scientific consensus or evidence to support the theory, it's just a theory. Again, we're not talking about teaching ID as "this is how it certainly happened!" When the subject of how life originated comes up, these are the theories out there, this is what people believe happened, but we don't know anything for certain. That's education, that's what you should teach, not some anti-religious and biased viewpoint that stubbornly refuses to accept reality.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The only place the word "religion" appears in the Constitution, is in the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Where do you come up with this "third" bullshit?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
"... not some anti-religious and biased viewpoint that stubbornly refuses to accept reality."
I think that last line speaks volumes about your "unbiased" views.
From the universal principles of mathematics.
LOL. At least two-thirds of this post were funny.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Look goofball, the concept that something of intelligence designed life, is not uncommon, and not new, and certainly not confined solely to religious beliefs. Whether you like it or agree with it, this theory has been widely considered by many people for many years. THAT IS REALITY! Why wouldn't you teach it in this context? Is education only supposed to include things you personally feel comfortable teaching people? What's next? Do we stop teaching children that black people were once considered property? OMG...They might get the idea that this line of thinking is acceptable or something, maybe we shouldn't be teaching that!
W
WinterBorn
Guest
For those arguing that the 1st amendment does not call for a separation of church and state, do you know the origin of the phrase "separation of church & state"?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me clear up some misconceptions from the idiots here, who seem to think our Founding Fathers constructed a "wall of separation between church and state" in the 1st Amendment. This was never the original intent of the framers, in fact, ALL of the states who ratified the 1st Amendment, had officially adopted state religions at the time! The INTENT of the Establishment Clause was to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national religion! It was NOT intended to prohibit government policy and religion from ever being associated with each other! It just WASN'T!
In fact, it wouldn't be until 1947, that the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling, where this whole "separation of church and state" as we understand it today, came to be! That's right, less than 65 years ago... long after the Founding Fathers were gone! Keep in mind, the Supreme Court also ruled that black people were property, and separate but equal was equal and those were law of the land for just as long. It doesn't mean they were right!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[2] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[3] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[4]
READ AND LEARN, PINHEADS!
In fact, it wouldn't be until 1947, that the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling, where this whole "separation of church and state" as we understand it today, came to be! That's right, less than 65 years ago... long after the Founding Fathers were gone! Keep in mind, the Supreme Court also ruled that black people were property, and separate but equal was equal and those were law of the land for just as long. It doesn't mean they were right!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[2] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[3] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[4]
READ AND LEARN, PINHEADS!
It was in a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbuy Baptists. Did you know that the letter was written to reassure the Danbury Baptists that the federal legislature could not take away their State Official status?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking if you think that is true.
The following is a quote from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
"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." (the boldface is mine)
No correct me if I am wrong, but many of the Founding Fathers were still around in 1802? And most people would consider Thomas Jefferson fairly knowlegeable on the US Constitution.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You're wrong, I corrected you in my previous post. Jefferson was reassuring the Danbury Baptists that the Federal government would not establish a national religion! Not that the Federal government MUST adopt the Religion of Atheism, which is what we seem to currently have!
Here is a long but well written explanation of the mythical "wall of separation."
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse
W