View Full Version : O Donnell exposes her opponent's ignorance on the Constitution!
a completely inoffensive name
10-20-2010, 00:42
"Where does it say 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution?"
You got him Christine! Show those liberals what our Founding Father's really meant!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg
gaelic cowboy
10-20-2010, 00:49
This is the person the Tea Party in Delaware want to represent them.
Opening up a can of worms there Christine what if the local school is a hardline madrassa that teachs death to america etc etc.
PanzerJaeger
10-20-2010, 00:55
Going after the low hanging fruit, eh ACIN? :yes:
a completely inoffensive name
10-20-2010, 01:06
Going after the low hanging fruit, eh ACIN? :yes:
Absolutely! Because running to be 1 out of only 100 Senators governing the entire country means she is low hanging fruit. :thumbsup:
Tellos Athenaios
10-20-2010, 02:27
Going after the low hanging fruit, eh ACIN? :yes:
Well yes. Then again politicians spewing random rubbish without a clue as to what they're talking about are annoying and deserve every hit with the “clue bat” they get.
Rhyfelwyr
10-20-2010, 02:46
IMO it is very difficult to reconcile atheism with the constitution if you consider its historical/political/philosophical roots, as opposed to reading modern values back into it.
And don't just quote the frickin' Treaty of Tripoli again, a whole range of views are expressed by the founding fathers on the role of religion in the state, from radical atheists who wanted to abolish religion from the public sphere ala France, to those who clearly regarded it as the freedom only to worship the true God (the Christian God for them, with toleration for all Christian sects), to the radical sectarians (not sectarianism as you might expect me to use the word, it means simply greater freedom for the sects to be left along by the government) like smaller groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists or such like might be.
Indeed, the Constitution even permits official state churches, Connecticut and Massachusetts both had them for decades after the Constitution was framed, and so given this context it is quite clear that the "OMG unconstitutional theocracy" reflexes at the slightest mention of religion in the state are unwarranted.
gaelic cowboy
10-20-2010, 03:00
IMO the USA Constitution is a bit too revered by Americans it is supposed to be a living breathing and evolving document not the Sacred Text of the Republic.
The founding fathers of USA are pretty much deified now and that maybe is part of the problem in these arguments.
a completely inoffensive name
10-20-2010, 03:01
And don't just quote the frickin' Treaty of Tripoli again, a whole range of views are expressed by the founding fathers on the role of religion in the state, from radical atheists who wanted to abolish religion from the public sphere ala France, to those who clearly regarded it as the freedom only to worship the true God (the Christian God for them, with toleration for all Christian sects), to the radical sectarians (not sectarianism as you might expect me to use the word, it means simply greater freedom for the sects to be left along by the government) like smaller groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists or such like might be.
Indeed, the Constitution even permits official state churches, Connecticut and Massachusetts both had them for decades after the Constitution was framed, and so given this context it is quite clear that the "OMG unconstitutional theocracy" reflexes at the slightest mention of religion in the state are unwarranted.
Too bad it doesn't really matter what the views are of the founding fathers when it comes to the Treat of Tripoli. It was approved unanimously by the Congress of the United States and therefor is an official statement by the Federal government. You might as well be saying, "And don't just keep bringing up the same evidence that proves me wrong time and time again, because that is just lazy."
The Constitution does not permit official state churches and hasn't since the incorporation of the 1st Amendment through the 14th Amendment. State governments must obey all aspects of the Constitution whether they want to or not.
Strike For The South
10-20-2010, 03:03
I love the smell of reactionary anti intellectualism in the morining
Rhyfelwyr
10-20-2010, 03:06
IMO it is not unlike the legalism the English used to apply to their idea of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution, not surprising to see it in America now since I remember InsaneApache pointing out the theory that the American Revolution was the last act of the English Civil War.
Us more civilised Scots found it all quite distateful, Hume was very critical of what he saw as the almost superstitious reverence for the ancient constitution.
Rhyfelwyr
10-20-2010, 03:10
Too bad it doesn't really matter what the views are of the founding fathers when it comes to the Treat of Tripoli. It was approved unanimously by the Congress of the United States and therefor is an official statement by the Federal government. You might as well be saying, "And don't just keep bringing up the same evidence that proves me wrong time and time again, because that is just lazy."
The Constitution does not permit official state churches and hasn't since the incorporation of the 1st Amendment through the 14th Amendment. State governments must obey all aspects of the Constitution whether they want to or not.
Yeah and political pragmatism had nothing to do with the language seen in the Treaty of Tripoli with them dealing with a Mohametan nation and all, funny how it doesn't appear elsewhere.
That the founding fathers saw nothing wrong with the existence of state churches which existed during their time is proof you are barking up the wrong tree with your view of secularism, if you really want I can just shout it again and again so don't tell me to not just keep bringing up the same evidence that proves you wrong time and time again, but it wouldn't really help for a very useful or balanced discussion.
Strike For The South
10-20-2010, 03:15
Yeah and political pragmatism had nothing to do with the language seen in the Treaty of Tripoli with them dealing with a Mohametan nation and all, funny how it doesn't appear elsewhere.
That the founding fathers saw nothing wrong with the existence of state churches which existed during their time is proof you are barking up the wrong tree with your view of secularism, if you really want I can just shout it again and again so don't tell me to not just keep bringing up the same evidence that proves you wrong time and time again, but it wouldn't really help for a very useful or balanced discussion.
The Founding fathers were discussing religons place within the framework of the greater state. A debate which is genuine and has its place.
O'donnell is trying to shove a reactionary from a protastentism down our throats which the founding fathers would wince and mock
Context
Rhyfelwyr
10-20-2010, 03:39
The Founding fathers were discussing religons place within the framework of the greater state. A debate which is genuine and has its place.
O'donnell is trying to shove a reactionary from a protastentism down our throats which the founding fathers would wince and mock
Context
Don't get me wrong I am with you 100% these theocrats in the Christian Right couldn't be further removed from what the founding fathers (generally speaking) had in mind.
"Where does it say 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution?"It's not in the Constution...
You got him Christine! Show those liberals what our Founding Father's really meant!I think what they probably meant was: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I know... I'm going way out on a limb, but I think that if they really meant that a school teacher can't wear a crucifix to work- they would have said that.
Case law gives a much broader meaning to the 1A, but on the Constution itself, I don't see a problem with her reading of it. Now, teaching creationism, is another matter....
a completely inoffensive name
10-20-2010, 04:07
Yeah and political pragmatism had nothing to do with the language seen in the Treaty of Tripoli with them dealing with a Mohametan nation and all, funny how it doesn't appear elsewhere.
That the founding fathers saw nothing wrong with the existence of state churches which existed during their time is proof you are barking up the wrong tree with your view of secularism, if you really want I can just shout it again and again so don't tell me to not just keep bringing up the same evidence that proves you wrong time and time again, but it wouldn't really help for a very useful or balanced discussion.
Yes, I am sure the political pragmatism was just so strong that even the die hard Puritanical Christians wanted to tell the Muslim world that America was not Christian. Because when it comes to religion we always find that the religious put pragmatism above their faith.
It's funny how when it suits your argument, you like to group the founding fathers as one entity and when it doesn't suit your purpose you say directly contradicting statements regarding the subject: "a whole range of views are expressed by the founding fathers on the role of religion in the state, from radical atheists who wanted to abolish religion from the public sphere ala France, to those who clearly regarded it as the freedom only to worship the true God (the Christian God for them, with toleration for all Christian sects), to the radical sectarians (not sectarianism as you might expect me to use the word, it means simply greater freedom for the sects to be left along by the government) like smaller groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists or such like might be."
Also, your entire use of appealing to the founding fathers is just a call to authority. Who cares what they thought? The Constitution belongs to the living, not the dead. We look at the words of the founding fathers when a rule created by them is unclear and it is needed to be understood for application in a court case. Even then we do not have to subscribe to what the opinions of those who wrote the rule were. Apparently the founding fathers thought it was ok for women and slaves to not have rights since they left them powerless in the Constitution. Later generations disagreed and subsequently changed the Constitution. We do not need to guess what Washington, Jefferson and Adams would feel about abortion in order to make a ruling on it, so why are attempting to do the same when it comes to separation of church and state?
Even if they felt it was ok back then, nowadays most people would agree that having to be raised by a certain denominational church without your consent (or even against it) because you had the good fortune of being born in a county with an established religion is wrong. Luckily as I said, the 14th Amendment makes sure that doesn't happen.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-20-2010, 04:16
I don't think it's an appeal to authority in the way you mean (I assume you're referring to the fallacy of appeal to authority). Among non-experts, it isn't fallacious to refer to the beliefs of important thinkers in the relevant field. For example, most climate scientists believe in global warming. I don't think rhyf was making a "they said it, therefore it must be true" argument, especially considering what he said about respecting the constitution too much in the previous post.
rory_20_uk
10-20-2010, 09:46
IMO the USA Constitution is a bit too revered by Americans it is supposed to be a living breathing and evolving document not the Sacred Text of the Republic.
The founding fathers of USA are pretty much deified now and that maybe is part of the problem in these arguments.
I was surprised to see that the last amendment was as recent as 1992 so it is not set in stone (unsurprisingly it was concerning the Senators' salaries - nothing like self interest to get the job done).
I imagine that doing any significant alteration would only highlight the differences between areas of the country - if every state was do make changes that they would like to see there'd be a vast difference between NY State and Alabama for example.
~:smoking:
Rhyfelwyr
10-20-2010, 18:22
Yes, I am sure the political pragmatism was just so strong that even the die hard Puritanical Christians wanted to tell the Muslim world that America was not Christian. Because when it comes to religion we always find that the religious put pragmatism above their faith.
Actually you will find they overwhelmingly do. Is it really a coincidence the single document some atheists like to fling around so much was one of the relatively few made with a Muslim nation?
It's funny how when it suits your argument, you like to group the founding fathers as one entity and when it doesn't suit your purpose you say directly contradicting statements regarding the subject
Or maybe it is just the case that in some instances there was a broad consensus, and in others there wasn't.
Also, your entire use of appealing to the founding fathers is just a call to authority. Who cares what they thought? The Constitution belongs to the living, not the dead.
"Who cares what they thought?" Are you kidding? The Constitution was a creation of the founding fathers, it should only ever be understood in light of what they understood it to mean.
That is, of course, if you wish to stick rigidly to it as the source of political legitimacy for US government. You did this earlier in the thread, yet now...
We look at the words of the founding fathers when a rule created by them is unclear and it is needed to be understood for application in a court case. Even then we do not have to subscribe to what the opinions of those who wrote the rule were. Apparently the founding fathers thought it was ok for women and slaves to not have rights since they left them powerless in the Constitution. Later generations disagreed and subsequently changed the Constitution. We do not need to guess what Washington, Jefferson and Adams would feel about abortion in order to make a ruling on it, so why are attempting to do the same when it comes to separation of church and state?
Suddenly the Constitution has lost its absolute authority, and if it is simply changed to suit the views of people at various times you have to wonder why people would keep it at all.
That is a serious question, I am not a US constitutionalist remember. I was simply trying to argue that the constitutionalist position would not be what you consider it to be.
If the Constitution can be altered to condemn slavery then I can't help but wonder why you appeal to it's authority at all. Indeed, O'Donnell could just make her theocratic wishes constitutional. :shrug:
HoreTore
10-20-2010, 19:19
It never ceases to amaze me that some people believe that what some other people said 200 years ago is even slightly relevant for our society today.
The founding fathers lived in the 18th century. We live in the 21th century. Get with the program, people!
a completely inoffensive name
10-20-2010, 19:47
Actually you will find they overwhelmingly do. Is it really a coincidence the single document some atheists like to fling around so much was one of the relatively few made with a Muslim nation?
Actually I find that most religious people are not pragmatic when it comes to faith. Not really pragmatic to exile your son or daughter because he/she is gay. But whatever, you are biased by your faith and I am biased in my lack of faith.
Or maybe it is just the case that in some instances there was a broad consensus, and in others there wasn't.To say there was broad consensus on anything regarding the structure of power and especially its involvement with religion is a bit stretching the truth. There was very, very, little that everyone agreed to, it's kind of why the Constitution in the first place is very open to interpretation in the first place, because they couldn't get a solid enough consensus to achieve anything but the basic outline of how it is structured. How much of the present day federal government that is vital to our operation is talked about in the Constitution? Where does it talk about the bureaucracy? The Cabinet? The Federal Reserve? But you are telling me when it came to state churches, everyone was in solid agreement and had a clear set standard?
"Who cares what they thought?" Are you kidding? The Constitution was a creation of the founding fathers, it should only ever be understood in light of what they understood it to mean.
That is, of course, if you wish to stick rigidly to it as the source of political legitimacy for US government. You did this earlier in the thread, yet now...This statement makes no sense. "In order for our Constitution to be legitimate, it has to be interpreted in the way it's authors meant it." The Constitution is legitimate because we say it is legitimate not because the "founders will" is expressed through it. You are deifying the founders to the point where they are omnipotent gods who's opinions must be followed because only through them will we still be a country. It's just ridiculous. The founders themselves left the Constitutional Convention knowing it was not perfect and that some parts of it would probably need to be changed at some point. It's the entire reason why there is an amendment process in the first place, so that future generations can improve upon the ideas of what the Founder's created.
If the public decides the founders are wrong and that Senator's should be elected by the public and not by the state representatives, then it is their right to do so. If the public wants to ban alcohol and then a decade later bring it back then it is their right to do so. If the Constitution was supposed to be a dead document, not to be interpreted differently, then there would not have been an amendment process in the first place.
"The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead."
-24 June 1813 (Thomas Jefferson)
Suddenly the Constitution has lost its absolute authority, and if it is simply changed to suit the views of people at various times you have to wonder why people would keep it at all.
That is a serious question, I am not a US constitutionalist remember. I was simply trying to argue that the constitutionalist position would not be what you consider it to be.
If the Constitution can be altered to condemn slavery then I can't help but wonder why you appeal to it's authority at all. Indeed, O'Donnell could just make her theocratic wishes constitutional. :shrug:
People would keep it because different views bring different ideas and different ideas bring different results to problems that have been around since the founding of the country. The entire spectrum of political thought had not already been thought of and published by the founding of the country. Your entire argument is illogical. "If it doesn't have a clear definition and meaning, then it is absolutely pointless!" (I'm guessing you hated the ending to the movie "Inception") No, it means we get to choose what it's meaning is. And if our interpretation turns out to be a dud, then the next generation will interpret it differently and attempt better results.
And I am saying the Constitutionalists position is what I consider it to be. A view that Constitution is almost perfect simply because the founders wrote it and that any deviation from what the founders might have wanted makes the paper useless. That is just a flawed point of view. No, the paper is still our highest law and just because we have different opinions then the founders (I don't think we should own slaves.) and we use the vague wording of the Constitution (which btw was done on purpose because they couldn't reach a consensus on the principles behind the structure, what is The General Welfare?) to justify our interpretation doesn't mean the paper should be scrapped, it means it is reflecting the public's will of the present day and not of the 1780s-1790s.
O'Donnell couldn't make her theocratic nonsense Constitutional, unless the public was truly behind her. It takes a lot in order to alter the Constitution, which was done on purpose to make sure that any changes would have to really have wide support across all people. If that did manage to happen, I would have obey the new wording because it is still legally the highest law in the land. I don't reject the law simply because I don't agree with it.
Hosakawa Tito
10-21-2010, 00:32
Hehehe, you'll really be laughing when she turns all y'all into a newt.:wizard:
Rhyfelwyr
10-21-2010, 00:52
I'll stick to the point below since it is the heart of the debate...
This statement makes no sense. "In order for our Constitution to be legitimate, it has to be interpreted in the way it's authors meant it." The Constitution is legitimate because we say it is legitimate not because the "founders will" is expressed through it. You are deifying the founders to the point where they are omnipotent gods who's opinions must be followed because only through them will we still be a country. It's just ridiculous. The founders themselves left the Constitutional Convention knowing it was not perfect and that some parts of it would probably need to be changed at some point. It's the entire reason why there is an amendment process in the first place, so that future generations can improve upon the ideas of what the Founder's created.
I am not deifying the founding fathers, I am simply stating that the constitution should be interpreted the way they interpreted it (though of course their interpretation was not uniform, we know there was a broad consensus on it's most central points since the rest are as you said deliberately ambiguous). The constitution is the thoughts of those figures, that's what is it is by its own nature. If you don't understand it in light of how they understood it, then you are just rather randomly deifying a piece of paper. Hence why you have to see the spirit of the constitution. If it was written in 1000 AD and banned citizens from carrying swords, would you then argue that nowadays it would be permissable for citizens to carry guns? I doubt it, since though it might be technically correct if you treat the constitution as a document removed from those who actually wrote it, it is clearly not what the document itslelf ever intended to allow for.
This is the fundamental problem with all constitutions. They are supposed to be the framework for the rest of the political system, and yet what actually gives them this authority? In the past ignorance has allowed this issue to be avoided, with the Spartans claiming they got their constitution directly from the gods, and the English that their came from 'time immemorial', rooted in the natural law of reason etc.
The constitution should only ever be understood in light of its roots.
a completely inoffensive name
10-21-2010, 21:33
I'll stick to the point below since it is the heart of the debate...
I am not deifying the founding fathers, I am simply stating that the constitution should be interpreted the way they interpreted it (though of course their interpretation was not uniform, we know there was a broad consensus on it's most central points since the rest are as you said deliberately ambiguous). The constitution is the thoughts of those figures, that's what is it is by its own nature. If you don't understand it in light of how they understood it, then you are just rather randomly deifying a piece of paper. Hence why you have to see the spirit of the constitution. If it was written in 1000 AD and banned citizens from carrying swords, would you then argue that nowadays it would be permissable for citizens to carry guns? I doubt it, since though it might be technically correct if you treat the constitution as a document removed from those who actually wrote it, it is clearly not what the document itslelf ever intended to allow for.
This is the fundamental problem with all constitutions. They are supposed to be the framework for the rest of the political system, and yet what actually gives them this authority? In the past ignorance has allowed this issue to be avoided, with the Spartans claiming they got their constitution directly from the gods, and the English that their came from 'time immemorial', rooted in the natural law of reason etc.
The constitution should only ever be understood in light of its roots.
Well, I am stating the exact opposite. Again, you repeated what I am saying is an illogical argument. A book becomes more then what its author intended as soon as another human being processes the words the author put down. Same goes for poetry, music and even law. To hold the words of any document or piece of art to the specific context of which it was written and to refuse to apply these words to our present day is to hold it back. Is it important to know how they interpreted it, yes, I am not arguing against knowing what they thought. But is it the only way in which we must look at it? Absolutely not. By saying that we must only look at the Constitution through their eyes means that you are saying that we must live our lives and structure our society to their ideals, the ideals of men 200+ years ago and not the ideals of ourselves. That in my mind is tyranny. They got to decide how government should behave when they were alive, we should have the same right today. If our Constitution was written in 1000AD and banned citizens from carrying swords I would argue that it is up to the public (or more realistically the judiciary) to decide on whether or not the principle of denying weaponry to the public is still even applicable in this new age. It's not so clear cut. Even the gun debate of present day until recently was not straightforward in the direction it was going to take. We know that the Founders wanted everyone to have the right to own weapons, but the firearms of 1770s-1790s are in a different technological era of firearms of today. The circumstances have changed, and what we have seen is that instead of clear cut "This is what they thought, so we still must have weapons.", we have noticed an internal struggle over how we are going to define the words in the Second Amendment. How are we going to apply what the Founders thought to our new modern society so different then the one they lived in? Are we to simply take the ideas of 18th century men in an 18th century context and apply it unto the 21st century society? In the end it seems likely that we will indeed go along with what the Founders agreed upon in that we will keep our semiautomatic and automatic weapons even, because we agree for whatever reason that the Second Amendment still protects your right to have firearms. But there wasn't a clear concensus straight from the beginning, we chose to agree with the Founders that we should have weapons. Hell for all we know in your example, swords were banned because the strongest were usually men and they didn't want armed men forcing themselves upon weaker women. But now, guns equalize the playing field for men and women so are we to still ban guns under the premise of long deceased people that it is to protect women?
There is no fundamental problem with Constitutions as you describe it. You ask what gives them authority? We do. I have already stated this in a previous post. When the Constitution was written in the first place, its writers decided it was to have authority and everyone agreed (the ratification of the Constitution across the states) and so the document was given authority. And now as successive generations have replaced the first they do believe it has authority as well and thus it has so. If everyone suddenly didn't care about the Constitution, then suddenly it would become meaningless.
The Constitution should be viewed through its roots but understood by either the concurring or dissenting views of the present day public.
EDIT: Relevant Colbert Report clip:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/360495/september-29-2010/the-word---original-spin
Rhyfelwyr
10-22-2010, 00:07
I agree with the difficulties you raise, until the bit quoted below:
There is no fundamental problem with Constitutions as you describe it. You ask what gives them authority? We do. I have already stated this in a previous post. When the Constitution was written in the first place, its writers decided it was to have authority and everyone agreed (the ratification of the Constitution across the states) and so the document was given authority. And now as successive generations have replaced the first they do believe it has authority as well and thus it has so. If everyone suddenly didn't care about the Constitution, then suddenly it would become meaningless.
This is not an accurate description of how a constitution works. You make it sound as if every generation can simply decide whether or not to follow the document, presumably a decision they would take based on majority rule. Which, of course, defeats the entire purpose of a constitution that prevents individual liberties from a tyranny of the majority.
So, you may ask, how then can a constitution ever have any authority at all? Why make a document designed to protect from a tyranny of the majority, if majority rule can overrule it!
And that is a very good question, and one relevant to the question on God/religion. Certainly, the authority of the English ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution (in which the US Constitution has its earliest roots) was based on the idea that it was the political order appointed by God, which all men had a duty to obey and actively defend (Romans 13).
For the Constitution to have any value to Americans as a mechanism for protecting the individual from majority rule (which is if you think about it it's chief function), you must find a source of authority for it. Otherwise adherence to it will only last so long as the majority support it, defeating it's entire purpose!
a completely inoffensive name
10-22-2010, 01:07
This is not an accurate description of how a constitution works. You make it sound as if every generation can simply decide whether or not to follow the document, presumably a decision they would take based on majority rule. Which, of course, defeats the entire purpose of a constitution that prevents individual liberties from a tyranny of the majority.
So, you may ask, how then can a constitution ever have any authority at all? Why make a document designed to protect from a tyranny of the majority, if majority rule can overrule it!
And that is a very good question, and one relevant to the question on God/religion. Certainly, the authority of the English ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution (in which the US Constitution has its earliest roots) was based on the idea that it was the political order appointed by God, which all men had a duty to obey and actively defend (Romans 13).
For the Constitution to have any value to Americans as a mechanism for protecting the individual from majority rule (which is if you think about it it's chief function), you must find a
source of authority for it. Otherwise adherence to it will only last so long as the majority support it, defeating it's entire purpose!
So if I am following you right, you are putting the source of authority in the hands of the authors (the Founding Fathers) and thus if we are to bestow them with authority then we must know and maintain what they meant in regards to the document itself when analyzing and applying it. Well, that will just create long term problems as we now saddle ourselves with the task of attempting to always having to completely bridge the growing gap between the world of the Founders and the world of today. And now I am back to the problem I just described in my last post where we ultimately disregard the Founders viewers and choose our own view anyway. Some authority they have if we are choosing whether or not some of their views are irrelevant today!
If we are to be honest about where the continuing authority of the Constitution come from, it is not from the Founders, or God or even us. It is the Federal government (also state governments) that the Constitution created and its power that establishes the authority for the document among all of us. The document has the full armed forces backing it up and no one wants to disagree with a loaded gun. But what does this realization mean? That the Constitution generates its own authority?
EDIT: Also there was a generation where a large group decided not to follow the Constitution any more. They were the Confederate States and they made their own Constitution after rejecting the Union's.
Devastatin Dave
10-22-2010, 01:27
Mentally retarded chicks who appearantly ate paint chips as a child seeking higher office make me horny....
Mentally retarded chicks who appearantly ate paint chips as a child seeking higher office make me horny....
Can't sum it up any better than that. Idiot politicans are HAWT.
Mentally retarded chicks who appearantly ate paint chips as a child seeking higher office make me horny....
Does not everything make you horny?
Devastatin Dave
10-23-2010, 16:19
Does not everything make you horny?
Especially dudes quoting my posts make me horny....
Yes, this chick is a about as bright as a black hole but really, are there really any "intelligent" politicians in the United States. i remember when everyone was claiming Obama was some sort of super human intelligent man because he's a black guy that doesn't say "know wut I mean" after every sentence, then you take him off the teleprompter and he sounds like George Bush after a heavy night of drinking and doing coke after a severe stroke. I've come to the conclusion that if someone is seeking office their window licking retards controlled by a thousand different strings. This in itself, makes me horny.
This in itself, makes me horny.
Your whole post leaves me quivering with arousal and erotic need. Even more than an idiot politican, and that's saying something.
PanzerJaeger
10-23-2010, 18:27
i remember when everyone was claiming Obama was some sort of super human intelligent man because he's a black guy that doesn't say "know wut I mean" after every sentence,
:laugh4:
:laugh4:
Devastatin Dave
10-24-2010, 07:08
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_teleprompter-to-make-a-debut-in-parliament-when-obama-speaks_1456549
Strike For The South
10-25-2010, 16:46
Especially dudes quoting my posts make me horny....
Yes, this chick is a about as bright as a black hole but really, are there really any "intelligent" politicians in the United States. i remember when everyone was claiming Obama was some sort of super human intelligent man because he's a black guy that doesn't say "know wut I mean" after every sentence, then you take him off the teleprompter and he sounds like George Bush after a heavy night of drinking and doing coke after a severe stroke. I've come to the conclusion that if someone is seeking office their window licking retards controlled by a thousand different strings. This in itself, makes me horny.
lulz
....and here's another Senate candidate saying the same thing:
Last week, Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell raised eyebrows by questioning the separation of church and state. Now liberal blog Think Progress has dug up video of Colorado's Ken Buck, who is challenging Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), arguing against the division last year.
"I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state," Buck said at Republican Senate candidates' forum. "It was not written into the Constitution. While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not going to have a religion that's sanctioned by the government, it doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion. And so that, that concerns me a great deal." As an example of what concerned him, he said that President Obama had decided to call the Christmas tree in the White House a "holiday tree." (In fact, that was an email rumor -- the Obamas had a "Christmas tree" in 2009.)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/10/ken-buck-said-he-opposes-separ.html
I would like to suggest that people who run for as important an office as Senator do a bit of homework to educate themselves about how our country works. A good step in that direction would be getting information from SCOTUS, not Glenn Beck.
The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over... another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947) (emphasis added).
Strike For The South
10-27-2010, 03:23
But that would mean the supreme courts job is to interpet the constitution and act as an unpolitized 3rd arm to protect minorities most basic freedoms
a completely inoffensive name
10-27-2010, 10:37
But that would mean the supreme courts job is to interpet the constitution and act as an unpolitized 3rd arm to protect minorities most basic freedoms
Fascist socialism is what it is. This is why the judiciary needs to be all thrown out and held accountable. There is a reason why Article III is so short. How do we know if the Founding Father's even wanted judges making decisions for real Americans?
Fascist socialism is what it is. This is why the judiciary needs to be all thrown out and held accountable. There is a reason why Article III is so short. How do we know if the Founding Father's even wanted judges making decisions for real Americans?
who cares what a bunch of dead guys wanted? Is it not more important what the current us population wants?
I have yet to understand why the US does not simply begins a constitutional update process like any other democracy and re-writes the document in clear and understandable modern language. you guys seem to spend half your time debating the whims, opinions and intentions of people that have been dead for 2 centuries, based on a document whose meaning you can´t come to a clear understanding of.
P.S. - and the expression "Fascist socialism" is an oxymoron.
Rhyfelwyr
10-27-2010, 14:07
....and here's another Senate candidate saying the same thing:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/10/ken-buck-said-he-opposes-separ.html
I would like to suggest that people who run for as important an office as Senator do a bit of homework to educate themselves about how our country works. A good step in that direction would be getting information from SCOTUS, not Glenn Beck.
While what the guy said clearly didn't make sense and he contradicted himself more than once, I think I know what he is getting at. He seems to be saying that the Constitution forbids the institutionalisation of any religion at the federal level, which only a lunatic fringe would contest. The Constitution on the other hand, does not forbid religion from having any role in the political sphere, whether it is religious values influencing voting choices, etc...
gaelic cowboy
10-27-2010, 15:08
The Constitution on the other hand, does not forbid religion from having any role in the political sphere, whether it is religious values influencing voting choices, etc...
How then would we tell the difference between value voting and activism on the part of religon better to keep the status quo.
The Constitution on the other hand, does not forbid religion from having any role in the political sphere, whether it is religious values influencing voting choices, etc...
Yes, that is what he is saying, and that is wrong. The Constitution does prohibit religion from having any role in government. Politicians can be religious in their private lives, but they are required by law to ignore all aspects of religion while they are at work. Obviously many do not do so, but the fact that they do not do so does not make it correct.
Rhyfelwyr
10-27-2010, 15:50
Yes, that is what he is saying, and that is wrong. The Constitution does prohibit religion from having any role in government. Politicians can be religious in their private lives, but they are required by law to ignore all aspects of religion while they are at work. Obviously many do not do so, but the fact that they do not do so does not make it correct.
Evidence?
That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Politicians are naturally going to be guided in their actions by their own morals/values. You would presumably take no issue with that if those morals were non-religious, why would you single out those beliefs related to their guy in the sky?
It seems to me to be an unecessary backlash due to the connotations that established churches have historically had in suppressing democratic movements etc.
Evidence?
I'd be happy to oblige, but what would you like evidence of?
That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Politicians are naturally going to be guided in their actions by their own morals/values. You would presumably take no issue with that if those morals were non-religious, why would you single out those beliefs related to their guy in the sky?
It seems to me to be an unecessary backlash due to the connotations that established churches have historically had in suppressing democratic movements etc.
Guided is fine, no one expects politicians to ignore the morality/values they were raised with. That would go against human nature and be extraordinarily difficult. However, those politicians must put aside their religious beliefs when dealing with the law, both in creating it and in enforcing it. Our politicians are supposed to be representatives of the entire population, including people who did not vote for them. This is a representative government, we elect individuals to represent the will of the people, not to simply do what they want once they get into office. If their religious beliefs conflict with what their constituents want, they are required to set aside those beliefs and obey the people.
Historically, there was a great deal of concern about John Kennedy, and later John Kerry, becoming president due to the fact that they were Catholics. That religious affiliation greatly concerned many people, because Catholics are required by their faith to obey the Pope. People worried that those politicians would thus impose Papal doctrine on the US simply because they were Catholic. In fact, both Kennedy and Kerry ended up having issues with the Catholic Church because they did indeed have to endorse laws which went against Catholic doctrine. Today this is a big issue because there is a strong Evangelical movement in the US, and that movement is a major force behind the Tea Party. This worries many non-Evangelical Americans for the same reason that Kennedy and Kerry's Catholicism worried those same Evangelicals. Some of these Evangelicals are now regularly expressing opinions that there needs to be greater 'Christian (read: Protestant) values' in the US government.
Strike For The South
10-27-2010, 16:20
Historically, there was a great deal of concern about John Kennedy, and later John Kerry, becoming president due to the fact that they were Catholics. That religious affiliation greatly concerned many people, because Catholics are required by their faith to obey the Pope. People worried that those politicians would thus impose Papal doctrine on the US simply because they were Catholic. In fact, both Kennedy and Kerry ended up having issues with the Catholic Church because they did indeed have to endorse laws which went against Catholic doctrine. Today this is a big issue because there is a strong Evangelical movement in the US, and that movement is a major force behind the Tea Party. This worries many non-Evangelical Americans for the same reason that Kennedy and Kerry's Catholicism worried those same Evangelicals. Some of these Evangelicals are now regularly expressing opinions that there needs to be greater 'Christian (read: Protestant) values' in the US government.
This is probably what worries me the most. Whenever someone says America needs more faith, they are not talking about anything but protestantism and maybe catholics if they aren't to big on the whole pope thing.
This is probably what worries me the most. Whenever someone says America needs more faith, they are not talking about anything but protestantism and maybe catholics if they aren't to big on the whole pope thing.
This is why Mitt Romney will never, ever be PotUS.
gaelic cowboy
10-27-2010, 17:39
This is why Mitt Romney will never, ever be PotUS.
He is the Mormon fella right there treated with near hostility in some evangelical sections yes/no
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.