No, it is not. Try actually studying the Constitution before barfing up something you read in an editorial.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_smiles
Printable View
No, it is not. Try actually studying the Constitution before barfing up something you read in an editorial.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_smiles
The SUPREME COURT is nothing but the opinion of whatever cronies the POTUS happens to want in those positions during a time of vacancy. This same court allowed the banning of rifles based on cosmetic features alone, allowed the restriction of rifles under 16" barrel length and allowed full autos to be banned in light of an Constitutional amendment that says "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Must be Constitutional since they said it, huh? What about the ability for the government to restrict your ability to grow food on your land because it affects "interstate commerce"? Constitutional, huh? Quoting their statement of a separation of church and state does not mean in ANY way that it's Constitutional and it paints you as unintelligent and disingenuous doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_smiles
Quote where it was written in our founding documents - you WON'T find it anywhere.
Actually it's discussed in our founding papers (depending I guess on how you define founding papers) the separation of church and state, these are people who had just got freed from church of England and wanted the freedom to pursue their own beliefs with out prosecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyyr
And since we have written records of letters exchanged between founding fathers we can pretty much get a good idea what they had intended with the free exercise clause. The government wasn't intended to sponsor any religion. Something you're doing by building mosques.
And it's not just an "opinion" as you so put it, the SCOTUS can either make or break a law created by congress by deciding if it's constitutional or not. Little more complicated when you get to state levels. But as far as federal goes the SCOTUS is there to ideally keep congress from running amok. Is it perfect, no. But it's what we have. And surely you agree with the SCOTUS when they rule on the side you agree, yet when they rule for an opposing view you find their decisions non constitutional.
So it's not clearly written in early American documents? Such as the Virginia act for establishing religious freedom, and a number of others... OKQuote:
Originally Posted by Skyyr
By the way, this is my last response on this thread since it's pointless for me to defend my interpretation against that of some one else. But the courts, the guys who matter (like it or not) have drawn the same conclusion as I have.
If it's been discussed and written about, then quote it. You won't find it, just like you won't find a mention of "democracy" in our founding documents either.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_smiles
First you state "It's clearly written," then you follow it up with a dictated excerpt (which hardly qualifies as clearly written) from a Supreme Court decision, which is in no way, shape or form tied to our country's foundation on the issue. On the contrary, the very fact that the Supreme Court made a ruling on it only underscores that it was not "clearly written."Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_smiles
You then cite a single state's constitution and claim that it's proof of our country being founded on the same. Since when does a line from a Constitution of a SINGLE STATE qualify as being "clearly written" as it pertains to an ENTIRE COUNTRY? If it was so important that it was supposed to be the same, then the framers of the Constitution would have included it. The specifically chose not to.
And further, any mention of separation of state and religion in their correspondence with each other only further proves that they specifically left it out for a reason. It's so ironic that people claim all day long "Oh George Washington said this" and "John Adams said that," yet they disregard that these brilliant men, the men that founded our country, also found it unfit to mention a separation of state and religion in the Constitution. Funny, because firearms and free speech made it in the Constitution, yet they talked more about religion than they did about the previous two.
Further, what was written for Virginia is for VIRGINIA ONLY. Argue semantics all you want, the very fact that NY state has an AWB and the US as a whole does not is enough proof that the laws of a State have no power or influence over the government of which it belongs to.
You said you had proof in our FOUNDING documents - that's the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (and its amendments). Quote it.
Israel needs to get off first like 67 if Egypt cancels the treaties that came out of Camp David. If they let the Arabs pick the time and place like 73 while they rub hands it could spell trouble with this administration as allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cagemonkey
This is a thread after my own heart. :p
There are so many line items of horribly wasted money that I am not going to get my blood pressure up about this one, although I object to it much more strongly than I object to section 8 housing, grants to ACORN, etc. Of course about half of the money will be embezzled by the IMAM's for their 'charitable works' (suicide bombings), meanwhile they just laugh at us.
The enemy is inside the gates.
The irony here is that it is the Liberals who profess to so believe in Sep of Church and State, and Skyyr, I agree with you on this, and it is they who are for the Federal funding of Mosques. Why the incongruity? Because it is Christianity and Chrisitanity only that they oppose and for any other religion they have a complete double standard. Why? Because in their perverted minds, it is Christianity that is the religion of the imperialists despite the fact that the Crusades were motivated as much by secular politics as by religion, that the Muslims actually attacked the West first during the reign of Charles the Hammer in France, and that Islam is far more intolerant, imperialistic, and bent on subjecting others to its strictures against their will than Christianity ever was. Last time I checked, it was not Christians who go around blowing themselves and women and children up. Last time I checked, it was not Christians who grab little kids and hold them in front of them as human-shields as do Palestinian troops (and they are trained to do that). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_46cGArhEk
Obama and the Left's strategy in the War on Terror is to please and appease the enemy, not defeat the enemy.