how the american left is incompatible with constitutional liberty

[Suomipoika]

Oh, this is my favorite. A christian worries about persecution in a country that's 80% christian. That's right, KarateCowboy, without the protection of the federal government, I'm sure christians wouldn't be allowed to own land, wouldn't be allowed to drink from the same water fountain, wouldn't be allowed to vote, and would regularly be tarred and feathered, raped, lynched, and dragged behind the pickup trucks of overeducated, hybrid driving homosexual liberals.

I don't think he was 'worrying about persecution' in the way that you seemed to read it. I think you misunderstood his post.




Me is off to the cross country skiing tracks!

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Save me federal government. Save me from the bondage of Democracy, Liberty and Self Rule. May I always rely on you for all things. Without you I am lost.

 

[Steezie]

Red blooded American patriots, please read the constitution. It's pretty clear on the enumerated powers given to the federal government and how the American left is pushing to take away the very freedoms this country was founded upon, turning American into a fascist socialist state.

A Fascist Socialist state is an oxymoron, the two are incompatible.

Human caused global warming is a hoax created by econuts and business men like Al Gore who saw climate change as an opportunity to profit. Kyoto treaties and carbon reduction legislation is a threat to democracy, liberty, and our national sovereignty.

So its a threat to liberty to want to have environmental regulations and a threat to sovereignty to work with other nations? That....makes no sense

Abortionists that support Roe V. Wade would be horrified if the matter was turned back into the states. They know without federal protection of a gross misinterpretation of the 4th amendment, some states would out right ban it and others would limit abortions to 12 weeks (like most civilized countries around the world). Planned parenthood death advocates in congress love to profit off of killing our babies in the womb. They'd lose money and Lord knows profits for baby killing is the only thing that matters.

Planned Parenthood makes very little actual profit and offers many of their services. The concern is the legislation of what can and cannot be done medically with a person's own body.

"Congress (the federal government) shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Sound familiar? It's our freedom of religion as stated in the Constitution. I don't see the "seperation of church and state" anywhere. It's a total non sense premise. When the federal government limits state and local governments free exercise of religion, it's a violation of our rights. Seperation of church and state a direct attack on federalism, religious freedom, and individual liberty.

Im against the fusion of church and state for practical reasons. Church and state have NEVER blended well, look at Saudi Arabia currently for a prime example or Medieval Europe, when church and state mix BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

And on a more legal note, the supreme court has found basis for the separation of church and state on numerous occasions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separa..._the_United_States#Interpretive_controversies

Anti war code pink lunatics should really go to Iraq to see just how much the soldiers fighting over there don't appreciate their efforts. They are traiter for attempting to undermine the morale of troops overseas and the war effort. You don't have to like the war, but as a citizen of the united states you should support our brave men and women fighting over seas for your liberty.

We do support them, thats why we dont want them to throw away their lives to accomplish nothing. Dying in battle is a good death, dying in battle for no reason is senseless

Anti death penalty lobbyists would like nothing more than to get the federal government involved with a matter that belongs to the states. Liberals are just anti federalism I guess, because they know that without the federal government getting involved, they'd never be able to do away with the death penalty.

Im actually for the death penalty and I think it should be extended to cases of provable rape.

Gay rights/marriage advocates would love to see the federal government get involved with this issue as well. Guess what though? It's a state matter. I have no problem with gays getting married in Mass and Cali. I encourage people who don't like it to move to more conservative states and let the liberals wallow in their own mudpits that leftism and unGodly practices naturally bring.

The issue is that states wont recognize marriages performed in other states. NY will not recognize two gay people as married, even if they are legally married in a certain state. If you want to have it decided by states, thats fine, but have the marriage itself recognized by ALL states.

Gun control leftists would like nothing better than to take away guns from the very citizens that would rebel against them when they pushed their agenda on us. The day they come after my guns is the day I will die in the name of my God given liberty.

Kinda emotive but I see the sentiment. Im also not in favor of strong gun control.

Contraceptives in school advocates would like nothing more than to profit on the sale of contraceptives to public schools. Not with my tax dollars though. It's a state's right issue. Get out of washington with your morally void causes leftists.

Whaa? Thats absolutely ridiculous. As someone who started having sex at 14 and had no protection avalible to me (condoms are expensive if you don't have the money for them). I want protection FREELY avalible to all people. This includes condoms and birth control pills

I'll be the first one to say that we can't run a government without taxes. That being said, social security, medicare/medicaid, and welfare are all threats to my liberty. I should be able to do as I please with the money I earn. Not the case however. The federal government mandates that I pay into a scheme I want no part of. I'd opt out in a heart beat, but they wont let me and it ticks me off. It ticks me off that my hard earned dollars are going to a crack addict mom that squirts out more babies so she can see more of my money. I am not your nanny and the government shouldn't use my tax dollars to promote a nanny state.

Ok, just remember that the insurance company can do what they please with their money when they deny your claim because you walked under a ladder when you were 13. You also dont appear to actually KNOW anything about the medical care system as it currently stands

Have you been to a college campus lately? Liberal control on academia and fascist tactics used by the leftists to silence Christian/conservative view points is astounding. Political correctness fluff is total crap. People have the right to be offended and I have the right to speak my mind about liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, baby killers, and other threats to my liberty. I'm outraged by this. I believe in freedom, liberty, the constitution, and God. Liberalism is a direct threat to everything I hold dear. Wake up America.

Yeah, actually I have. And the only thing I've seen is a strong opposition to the far-right conservatives.

I think that once you grow up a bit, you'll see that regurgitating the latest O'Reily schpeal you heard doesn't ACTUALLY do you much good

 

[Ringo84]

Well, the Constitution grants rights to the people, not the government. The government has no right to free exercise of religion, the people do. The first Amednement clearly stipulate the ggovenrment is supposed to be neutral in religious affairs. A judge putting the 10 Commandment in his courthouse and then deciding cases from a Biblical POV is an unConstitutional and unAmerican as it gets. Seperation of church and state protects us from religious whackjobs, like the ones who flew those planes into those building in New York that one time.A bit hypocritical, since the federal governement is using federal tax dollars as extortion to force the states to teach abstinence only education. A failed program that forces ignorance upon millions of kids by denying them any real sex education for real life. It's the big-government-facist-Jesus-freaks who need to get out of Washington, in this issue.

Well, the Constitution grants rights to the people, not the government. The government has no right to free exercise of religion, the people do. The first Amednement clearly stipulate the ggovenrment is supposed to be neutral in religious affairs. A judge putting the 10 Commandment in his courthouse and then deciding cases from a Biblical POV is an unConstitutional and unAmerican as it gets. Seperation of church and state protects us from religious whackjobs, like the ones who flew those planes into those building in New York that one time.

Exactly. Well-stated, Holland. Thank you.
Ringo

 

[Billnew]

Who was it that forced people to serve in the military again?

More importantly, Who was it that has tried to force people into the military since we got into the Afgan and Iraq war?(I believe its the opposite answer to the one your leading too.)

A bit hypocritical, since the federal governement is using federal tax dollars as extortion to force the states to teach abstinence only education. A failed program that forces ignorance upon millions of kids by denying them any real sex education for real life. It's the big-government-facist-Jesus-freaks who need to get out of Washington, in this issue.

I agree, block grants for education, get washington out of our schools.
As the OP states. Let States decide what our kids need to learn, not some bureaucrat in Washington, that won't satisfy the liberals in Cali, nor the Conservatives in BAckwoods Kansas.
The Federal goverment is far too controlling compared to what the original founders intended.

Federal recognition of marriage.
The ability to move where you want in the USA isn't a factor of does the state recognize your marriage. 2nd cousins can marry in some states, but some states don't recognize those marriages. You can move where ever you want, but to the state you move into might not recognize your marriage.

We need limited federal control as our founders set up.
But over time, politicians have(on the road of good intentions) infringed on the limited power they were given. Thus we are on the highway to hell.

2nd amendment:
goal-well regulated militia, persuant to the goal: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not....

You do not have to be in a militia, but be bale to be called up for a militia.

1st Amendment: Congress ashall make no laws,
If Militia is national guard, then Congress is the House of Reprersntatives and the Senate, not any other part of the goverment. So only those in that office can't pass laws affecting religion.
Dang, its hard to play with words isn't it.

 

[Corey]

Well, the Constitution grants rights to the people, not the government.

Actually...it's not that either. The authors were all products of the Enlightenment and as such believed that "men" were endowed with any number of inalienable rights. Obviously, "men" is in quotes because that's what they'd have said, but we'd include all humanity (and any sapient really...I guess ).

In fact, there was a massive argument over a Bill of Rights because there was a segment of the authors that felt that future generations would believe that no other rights existed, when in fact the authors believed that all rights were inherent. It came down to the fact the founders believed the rights described in the first 10 amendments were among the most vital to secure against violation by the government so they created specific enjoinders (and they wanted the Constitution approved and the promise of those amendments put it over the top).

 

[Corey]

1st Amendment: Congress ashall make no laws,
If Militia is national guard, then Congress is the House of Reprersntatives and the Senate, not any other part of the goverment. So only those in that office can't pass laws affecting religion.

Read the 14th amendment...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;[emphasis added] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Moicca moicca!

That was simply an observation. But to be honest, you can find no way around the fact that the early Christians and the martyrs had pretty much no intention to die for any other 'personal liberty' than the liberty to worship Christ the risen Lord and spread the message of Him. I'm not trying to be 'anti-liberty' here, just trying to point out that because of their hierarchy of priorities, the early Christians would have probably considered it counter-productive to their primary goals to raise an aggressive protest against the currents of the society in which they lived. I can't help but be reminded of these attitudes whenever I see militant aggressive protesting for "conservative socio-political goals" by Christians anywhere. Surely, times have changed since the waiting of the immanent return of Christ by the Apostles and since the nearly absolute anti-patriotism by the early church fathers, but I wonder if there are still at least some lessons that today's Christians could learn from those spiritually fruitful times and inculcate deep in the attitude centers of their brain.

I think you have very little to worry about. In the US, at least, organized protesting is atypical of conservatives. However philanthropy philanthropy is not.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Read the 14th amendment...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;[emphasis added] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

<<Staff Edit>> states have to remain completely neutral in regards to religion just as the federal government does. that means they can't punish a teacher for expressing Christian beliefs anymore than they can punish a muslim for expressing muslim beliefs.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or limiting the free excercise thereof. That means the government at all levels cannot even touch the matter of religion or regulate the religious convictions of the people elected into office.

the seperation of church in state is merely used to drown out conservative/christian principles in the classroom. but somehow it's okay that an atheist can promote his/her beliefs about how christians are responsible for all of the world's attrocities. the double standard is wrong. and if a true seperation existed, why does the federal government recognize Christmas as a paid holiday? isn't that a violation of this nonsensical premise?

 

[tulc]

Save me federal government. Save me from the bondage of Democracy, Liberty and Self Rule. May I always rely on you for all things. Without you I am lost.

Wow, how did you get a copy of the Liberal pledge we pray with our children as we tuck them into bed at night?
tulc(someone get the NYT on the phone! tell them there's a leak somewhere!)

 

[tulc]

you just made my point commie.

That's MR. commie to you!
tulc(just a suggestion)

 

[Ringo84]

you just made my point commie. states have to remain completely neutral in regards to religion just as the federal government does. that means they can't punish a teacher for expressing Christian beliefs anymore than they can punish a muslim for expressing muslim beliefs.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or limiting the free excercise thereof. That means the government at all levels cannot even touch the matter of religion or regulate the religious convictions of the people elected into office.

the seperation of church in state is merely used to drown out conservative/christian principles in the classroom. but somehow it's okay that an atheist can promote his/her beliefs about how christians are responsible for all of the world's attrocities. the double standard is wrong. and if a true seperation existed, why does the federal government recognize Christmas as a paid holiday? isn't that a violation of this nonsensical premise?

you just made my point commie.

Now you're reduced to name-calling, I see.

states have to remain completely neutral in regards to religion just as the federal government does.

Exactly. And that is what the Separation of Church and State does. So what's the problem?

that means they can't punish a teacher for expressing Christian beliefs anymore than they can punish a muslim for expressing muslim beliefs.

Who said anything about punishing people for expressing Christian beliefs?

That means the government at all levels cannot even touch the matter of religion or regulate the religious convictions of the people elected into office.

Which is the Separation of Church and State. So again: what's the problem?

the seperation of church in state is merely used to drown out conservative/christian principles in the classroom.

No it isn't. You just stated the purpose of church/state separation: religious neutrality in government to protect religious freedom. You are only showing that your bias against church/state separation is based on your own assumptions - not reality.

but somehow it's okay that an atheist can promote his/her beliefs about how christians are responsible for all of the world's attrocities.

Freedom means standing up for viewpoints with which you may not agree.

and if a true seperation existed, why does the federal government recognize Christmas as a paid holiday? isn't that a violation of this nonsensical premise?

Now hold on a minute, Lonesome. You're contradicting yourself.

First, you state that the government - on both the state and federal level - should be religiously neutral, which is what the Separation of Church and State is all about. Then you return to your previous assertion about church/state separation is a "non-sensical premise".

One can't be both against and for an idea at the same time. Which is it, Lonesome? Are you willing to admit that real Separation of Church and State is a good idea?
Ringo

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Now you're reduced to name-calling, I see.



Exactly. And that is what the Separation of Church and State does. So what's the problem?



Who said anything about punishing people for expressing Christian beliefs?



Which is the Separation of Church and State. So again: what's the problem?



No it isn't. You just stated the purpose of church/state separation: religious neutrality in government to protect religious freedom. You are only showing that your bias against church/state separation is based on your own assumptions - not reality.



Freedom means standing up for viewpoints with which you may not agree.



Now hold on a minute, Lonesome. You're contradicting yourself.

First, you state that the government - on both the state and federal level - should be religiously neutral, which is what the Separation of Church and State is all about. Then you return to your previous assertion about church/state separation is a "non-sensical premise".

One can't be both against and for an idea at the same time. Which is it, Lonesome? Are you willing to admit that real Separation of Church and State is a good idea?
Ringo

liberals use the seperation of church and state to drown out conservative/christian curriculum in the class room, yet <staff edit> they don't like saying God in the pledge of Allegiance. It's a bunch of crap. Guess what? the seperation only exists with Christian viewpoints in the class room, while atheists teachers/professors go on unchecked rants about how evil christianity is. Screw that. This is America. The government cannot dicatate what qualifies as violation of the so called "seperation of church and state" without violating the second clause of the first amendment (limiting the free excercise thereof).

 

[Ringo84]

liberals use the seperation of church and state to drown out conservative/christian curriculum in the class room, yet <staff edit> they don't like saying God in the pledge of Allegiance.

Prove it.

Guess what? the seperation only exists with Christian viewpoints in the class room, while atheists teachers/professors go on unchecked rants about how evil christianity is. Screw that. This is America. The government cannot dicatate what qualifies as violation of the so called "seperation of church and state" without violating the second clause of the first amendment (limiting the free excercise thereof).

I've already told you what the Separation of Church and State is about. You seem more content to rant about your assumption about what church/state separation is about than think rationally about the issue.
Ringo

 

[praying]

why does the federal government recognize Christmas as a paid holiday? isn't that a violation of this nonsensical premise?

No because christmas is no longer a religious holiday.

 

[Steezie]

you just made my point commie. states have to remain completely neutral in regards to religion just as the federal government does. that means they can't punish a teacher for expressing Christian beliefs anymore than they can punish a muslim for expressing muslim beliefs.

Because its the Christian teachers who seem to be the most driven in terms of pushing thier beliefs in the classroom

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or limiting the free excercise thereof. That means the government at all levels cannot even touch the matter of religion or regulate the religious convictions of the people elected into office.

In the US, you have the right to believe whatever you want. You may not PRACTICE whatever you want. You can practice as long as it does not infringe uppon the rights of others. Your rights stop at my nose.

the seperation of church in state is merely used to drown out conservative/christian principles in the classroom. but somehow it's okay that an atheist can promote his/her beliefs about how christians are responsible for all of the world's attrocities. the double standard is wrong. and if a true seperation existed, why does the federal government recognize Christmas as a paid holiday? isn't that a violation of this nonsensical premise?

Your paranoid ranting is unfounded. Material presented in the classroom is required to be impartial and since Christians are not responsible for all the world's atrocities, that cant be presented. But things like The Crusades and Medieval Europe HAVE to be covered as part of a comprehensive curriculum.

Christmas is not a paid holiday specifically nor is it a national holiday. Many places of business give time off around Christmas time for employees to spend time with thier families but Christmas is not a national holiday.

 

[tulc]

or they don't like saying God in the pledge of Allegiance.

...uhm you do know when it was originally written the "...under God" wasn't in it, right? That was added years later.
tulc(just a fact the should be pointed out for truths sake)

 

[praying]

Remember kIds no name calling and no ad hom attacks.

Thanks1

 

[praying]

Christmas is not a national holiday

Yes it is the gvoernment is closed, that makes it a national holiday.

 

[tulc]

MOD HAT ON

Quote:
Christmas is not a national holiday
Yes it is the gvoernment is closed, that makes it a national holiday.

MOD HAT OFF

Wow. Way to make sure people read your post sis!
tulc(should find a mod hat and use it to make a point!)