Recommended Posts
QuoteI see where she's coming from. The Consitution recognizes the Government as being a God-given institution, and it was only the insertion of seditious language in the form of amendments that denied that obvious fact. Thus, we are now on the slippery slope to disaster.
You could not be any more wrong, even if you gave it an ounce of thought! You should take some time and learn what you do not know.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
From the web page:
QuoteIt has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is ex-positive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
There was a reason that Jefferson and the Framers left religion out of the Constitution - religious persecution. One of the reasons many left Europe for America.
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist put it in simple terms that any intelligent person could understand.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
The slippery slope would to be a specific religion as law, thus condemning all other faiths.
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
winsor 236
QuoteQuoteI see where she's coming from. The Consitution recognizes the Government as being a God-given institution, and it was only the insertion of seditious language in the form of amendments that denied that obvious fact. Thus, we are now on the slippery slope to disaster.
You could not be any more wrong, even if you gave it an ounce of thought! You should take some time and learn what you do not know.
Gosh, how could I have been so thoroughly in error? I mean, if I was being facaetious I would have been legally required to include the appropriate emoticon to clue in the hard-of-thinking.
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
winsor 236
QuoteI took your post to be serious. I apologize. Yet, there are many who do believe that our Constitution and God go hand in hand.
No problem.
If you look closely at the Constitution, it is obvious that the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched it with his Noodly Appendage.
QuoteQuoteI took your post to be serious. I apologize. Yet, there are many who do believe that our Constitution and God go hand in hand.
No problem.
If you look closely at the Constitution, it is obvious that the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched it with his Noodly Appendage.
And all of the Amendments are meatballs!
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Andy9o8 2
QuoteSo in other words - you don't like the obvious answer to the question, so your only recourse is to change the question to suit an answer that you think better suits what you want to believe in. Is that accurate?
You debate on a silly level. I'm just not willing to play your game.
turtlespeed 220
QuoteQuoteSo in other words - you don't like the obvious answer to the question, so your only recourse is to change the question to suit an answer that you think better suits what you want to believe in. Is that accurate?
You debate on a silly level. I'm just not willing to play your game.
Thank you for reittrating my point so well.
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Prior23 0
QuoteQuoteNobody parades around spewing ignorance more than Christine O'Donnell. How stupid do you have to be to think that "Intelligent Design" and Creation are two different things, and to go and say that Evolution is "just a theory" and that it is not a scientific accepted fact. That alone is the most destructive thing she could have said in my eyes.
You also gotta love the little "where in the constitution is the separation of church and state???"
Give me a break GOP...
On another note
Please show me where separation of church and state are printed in the Constitution? I know where the congress shall write no law is but I am interested in your input
Also, I dont think anyone denies that speicies evolve and change but, taking it to the man from monkeys level is yet just a theory ?
I do know the media is having fun with this and you seem to be drinking the kool aid
Good place to leave this I guess
Are you really asking me where in the Constitution does it say that?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Make no law for ESTABLISHING a religion, therefore the government cannot establish a religion, in dumb plain English the church (religion) the state (government) shall not be together in other words once again, separate. I feel like I'm wasting my time even trying to water down something that is so easy to understand. That's like asking where in the 3 Little Pigs is there a reference to the wolf...
As for the topic of evolution, you clearly lack the very rudimentary understanding of evolution. No scientist has ever said we came from apes and we evolved from monkeys like you usually like to claim. We share a common ancestor with primates, I'm not going to argue the facts with you because evolution is an accepted scientific fact, it does not matter how much evidence we have for it (which there is a plethora) it is concrete.
Open a text book. Please.
Andy9o8 2
kallend 2,026
QuoteWhich would you rather have in office, Alvin Greene or C. O'Donnell?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. A moron by any other name....
I agree that either party is capable of coming up with a lowest-common-denominator candidate, and that either of these people are at the low end of the short-bus population.
To argue for either of them is like discussing whether horse or mule droppings are "superior" - anyone who is willing to go for a taste test is free to do so, but I will take it on faith that they are interchangeable.
Mediocrity has no political affiliation (though saying that either of these candidates is merely "mediocre" is giving them unwarrented credit).
BSBD,
Winsor
There IS a party in which O'Donnell and her supporters would be right at home.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Nice personal attack on this another poster. Did the greenies let this one slide because they have yet to see it? Or do the DorkZone greenies have some other agenda going on here?
Back on topic ... Christine O'Donnell appears to be a very poor candidate. But so is her opponent. What is up with the people of Delaware? Are these two the best you could come up with? Dang!!! Glad I don't need to worry about voting in Delaware. If I was, I would definitely be penciling in "None of the Above" on my ballot.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites