continue Religion debate to infinity here

[Cairo]

Hermit22 -
No, they don't say the same thing at all, Jaguar is under the impression that the whole world went on an "enviro-fasting" for only 1 year to reverse damage to justify NASA's proof of depletion.

Radar was quoting anti-christian thinkers specifically for un-christian reasons. And he is Tyrannical for his UNConstitutional prohibition of Religion stance.

I didn't call ~him~ a commie, per se...I said Communists are Godless(Hitler was Atheist), and Radar is touting for a Godless America. The conclusion you draw from this is up to you.

Saying 1 out of every 10 Americans are "non-religious" is a very generous percentage, in my opinion. Regardless, majority is majority.

[Radar]

Cairo: Once again, your circular logic gives away your total lack of intellectual ability and your claims that I’m “tyrannical” hold no water given the fact that by fighting the mixing of church and state I’m fighting tyranny itself.

You have no points for me to argue against. You make ludicrous claims that people’s right to exercise freedom of religion is infringed by not being allowed to post their religious doctrine in federally funded buildings. Posting the 10 commandments in a public place isn’t an exercise of religious freedom. It’s a violation of the 1st amendment because it amounts to respecting an establishment of religion (or even a few). Making laws that protect us from religious zealots violating the 1st amendment is not a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Praying is an exercise of religion, attempting to make a false connection of your religion to our government by posting your religious doctrine in publicly funded buildings is not an exercise of religious freedom.

1. No, the term separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, thus cannot be judged by our courts

Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. As noted earlier, separationists take this language from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But, as noted above, separationists have never taken the phrase as anything more than a handy (if historically significant) summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.

The phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles

Separation of church and state is an ideal that makes sure the Government can not overtake and control the church as our Founders saw Britain and other Monarchys do.

It’s a TOTAL AND COMPLETE separation of church and state. They wanted government out of religion and religion out of government.

The Constitution and Declaration are NOT Godless documents, they both acknowledge and recognize Religion/God.

That’s a complete and utter lie. Neither the constitution, nor the declaration of independence recognizes religion or the Judeo-Christian concept of god. The word “Creator” refers to a vague higher power such as nature. The founding fathers believed in NATURAL RIGHTS, not “god given” rights. I dare you to make a comparison between the declaration of independence and the Magna Carta or any other previous declaration of rights.

The Constitution not only grants citizens the Right to support the church of their choice, but also the Right to "free exercise thereof"...meaning not to prohibit an individuals actions, thoughts, and words concerning Religion.

Wrong again. The constitution doesn’t grant any rights. It protects the rights we’re born with. Preventing people from posting their religious doctrine in government places when that government is explicitly prohibited from putting any religion or religions above others isn’t infringing on the “free exercise” of any religions and it’s ridiculous to claim otherwise.

I am not Christian, and do not follow the teachings of Jesus...so I agree with Jefferson, somewhat. But who am I to unconstitutionally demand that those who do be prohibited?...The Taliban?!!!!

Again you make an outrageous and false comparison. It’s not unconstitutional, tyrannical, or oppressive to allow people to practice their religions freely but prevent them from using oppressive, unconstitutional, or tyrannical means to force their religion down the throats of others. And when your lame attempts to throw logic to the wind fail and people see through your transparent bullshit you resort to calling people names like “Mr. Taliban”.

You see, the difference between you and me is my America offers a choice.

No, the difference between us is that I present intelligent, thoughtful, cogent arguments that make perfect sense and you make ludicrous and false claims backed by circular logic and hypocritical accusations.

My America allows anyone to pray anywhere they want, but not to force other Americans to pay for instructor lead prayers, unconstitutional mixing of church and state through the posting of religious doctrine, naming deities in oaths, on currency, etc. My America doesn’t prohibit or restrict any beliefs. Your America is unconstitutional, tyrannical, oppressive, and wrong! My America is all about freedom for EVERYONE, personal responsibility, limited government, etc. while yours is about an unconstitutional, imperialistic, theocracy forcing one or several religions into the lives of other Americans (or foreigners) who don’t subscribe to those beliefs.

We the People own those buildings, and I believe all Religions should donate to them. That encourages a multi-religion nation.

We’re not a multi-religion nation, or any religion. The United States government has no place in religion and NO RELIGIONS have any place in our government.

The Government has not interfered until it makes law...YOU, on the otherhand, are UNConstitutionally interfering by ramming a Godless Communist, no choice America down the throats of 90+% of American citizens who want to have a choice!

The government can do lots of interfering without making laws. There is no constitutional amendment giving the government the legal authority to prohibit drugs yet they do. YOU support UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ramming some religions down the throats of 100% of Americans while I want to give people choice. The choice to practice any religion they choose, or no religion at all without the government sanctioning or recognizing any particular religion(s) above any others by UNCONSTITUTIONALLY allowing any religious doctrine to be posted in the buildings owned by everyone including atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and hundreds of other Non-Christian and Non-Jewish religions and sects.

The “wall of separation of church and state” mentioned by Jefferson in the letter to the Danbury Baptists or in his other writings is not one-directional and nothing any of the founding fathers have ever written suggests otherwise.

And for the record the Supreme Court building was finished in 1935 and the 10 commandments were posted at THAT time. NOT by the founding fathers. The 10 commandments were added by ignorant religious zealots long after the founding fathers were dead and buried. The same is true of “God” on our currency, in our oaths, and in anywhere else in our government. They believed that the total and complete separation of all religions and government were good for government and good for religions.

I don't know wolf in tennis at least the players attempt to change strategies when there getting their asses kicked.

Very true. I’m an avid tennis fan. Hopefully you’ll be able to help Cairo since he’s been getting his ass kicked since before this thread even started.

Radar was quoting anti-christian thinkers specifically for un-christian reasons. And he is Tyrannical for his UNConstitutional prohibition of Religion stance.

I did no such thing. I was quoting non-Christian (not anti-Christian) creators of this nation for constitutionally accurate reasons. I’m not tyrannical but you are. You support using the force of government to push one set of religious doctrine down the throats of others despite this not being an exercise of religion but just an exercise of power over other citizens.

Radar is touting for a Godless America. The conclusion you draw from this is up to you.

I’m the least communist man on the face of the earth. Nice attempt at a red herring though. Way to try to draw attention from your complete lack of substance in this debate. The government of the united states ACTUALLY IS godless. It always has been and hopefully always will be. The people of America on the other hand worship as many deities as they choose. They may not choose, however, to make others view or recognize their religious doctrine or to add any credibility to that doctrine by UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND TYRANNICALLY posting it in federal buildings, courts, or other establishments of our godless government.

Saying 1 out of every 10 Americans are "non-religious" is a very generous percentage, in my opinion. Regardless, majority is majority.

Wow! Do you ever tire of being consistently wrong? You must not because you do it more consistently than anyone else I have seen.

First off if you add up all the atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, etc. you’d have much more than 15%. And if you add in all non-practicing religious people, you’d have even more non-religious people. Next if you add up all the religions that aren’t Christian or Jewish in America you would have less than 50% of the population. But even if each and every person except for one….me for instance wanted to post the 10 commandments in courthouses it still couldn’t be done because it goes directly against the constitution and making a law to post them goes against it too. Our INALIENABLE rights aren’t up for debate. They can’t be voted on, taken away, or even willingly given away. They aren’t given to us by government, the constitution, or even god unless you consider nature to be god. So a majority of religious people is irrelevant. Just like your entire argument.

You have been schooled. Class is dismissed, so run along child.

[God]

(God strokes his beard and thinks to himself)

Me-dammit, maybe it's time for another flood. Or perhaps I'll create some disease for the coffee bean and just let humanity collapse into chaos and destroy itself. Things just arent they way they were, thats for sure. No one believes in me any more, no one fears me or loves me. I just get half assed requests for bullshit nowadays. "I need money, I want power, make my penis larger"...christ, I get sick of it. Ahhwell, maybe the next time I'll get it right.

God's list of things to do differently next go-round:

<LI> Make regular dramatic personal appearances in a somewhat human form. It’s kinda tough to deny I exist if I throw some lightening around once in a while. </LI>
<LI> Fix the dogs’ lips. The Bulldog and the Boxer are living examples of my personal failure, and embarrass me. How is a God supposed to receive the respect he deserves with mistakes like this walking all over the earth</LI>
<LI> Discontinue the marijuana plant experiment. It creates too much trouble. </LI>
<LI> Make regular assassinations of “un godly” leaders. Humans aren’t equipped to deal with the responsibility of policing the world. At the same time, I like to watch TV just as much as any other god, and cant be bothered with the day to day details of running their government. I need to spank ass on occasion and delegate more. </LI>
<LI> I need to develop an effective strategy for preventing people from arguing and fighting over me, what I say, and what I have done. Maybe if I held a weekly press conference or a talk radio program I could eliminate some of this nonsense. I thought the bible was good enough. Back in the day it was cutting edge, text on paper pages bound to contain them. It seems to have lost it's appeal though.
<LI> Redesign the human body to be born with clothes that are are living, but machine washable. </LI>
<LI> Make all people the same color. I fucked that one up last time. </LI>
<LI> Build in a gene that grows into cancer when that person has thoughts of creating any form of tax system. </LI>
<LI> Create an appendage specifically for self defense. Maybe some type of horn or tusk that can extend into a defensive position on demand. </LI>


This would make these goof balls look much differently than I do and I would have to rewrite the “God made man in his own image” passage. It would be easier than leaving them the same though.

[Saddam Hussein]

Just for the record, I never asked that you make my penis larger.


I have other prayers that need to be answered right now.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
Jaguar -
Your delusions of grandeur have run amok... or is it run dumbf*k! Your flatulence keeps insisting that man has caused the damage, when even the "real" scientists say the evidence is inconclusive.

It's delusions of grandeur and stupidity that make people think they have no effect on the environment. It's rationale that makes people realize that humanity is part of a whole, not some clean room specimen.

The evidence NASA provided says, contrary to you, that for a full year there was repair to the ozone and NO DAMAGE, so if man causes the damage, I suppose the whole world decided to conserve energy, stop buying SUV's, stop our polluting factories, and the world is now buying enviro-safe products...
but just for one year, is THAT your logic??? What organizational skills President Bush has to pull this off!!! Man's usage of energy hasn't changed, the natural weather cycle has!

Again, we don't know enough. But we do know that clorine and hydrogen levels have gone down. We do know that people in most of the first world are making deliberate efforts to be more environmentally friendly, and have been for several years. The anti-environmental Bush had nothing to do with it, and, in fact, took negative steps (see Kyoto, business regulations, etc.)
Cairo, you earlier claimed that in the modern era, people can't take personal responsibility for their actions. This line of thought falls victim to the same mentality you deride so readily.

I'm Cairo's husband an HVAC tech that is universally certified by the EPA. 7 years experience.

I thought you were an Arab-hating reformed leftist with suicidal tendencies who taught history?

Sunlight creates O3 by photoreaction with UV and O2. While CFC does crack O3 into O2 with a free oxygen ion that will strip another O3 of it's extra oxygen atom, and so on and so on. But that chain does not go on ad finitum. Chlorine is broken down in a matter of hours(if you ever owned an inground pool the chlorine maintenance during the summer should tell you how fast the sun will destroy unprotected chlorine-yes pools can use cyanuric acid to sun shield the chlorine) in direct sunlight, flourine fares no better. The sunlight reassembles the scattered oxygen compounds back into O3 in a very short order.

But that is all academic. My posit to my EPA instructor was how CFC and to a lesser degree HCFC were able to get to the upper atmosphere when it is a known fact that those compounds are heavier than air, and considerably heavier than ground level ozone(which purportedly can't reach the upper atmosphere in any significant quantities-can you differentiate chemically between synthetically generated ozone and stratosphereic? No, O3 is O3.

I'm not an HVAC tech (which obviously gives great environmental credentials) - but at least I've heard of wind and don't think my pool mimics the upper atmosphere.
What I do know is that there are 2 areas of ozone - upper atmosphere and regular atmosphere ozone. The holes are in both. Upper atmosphere is hit hardest by CFCs, lower by radical hydrogen atoms.

As for Australians and South Africans being seemingly more affected by the sun; it's genetic.
Both bloodlines are derived from predominately nordic and celtic stock. Both tribes are known to be susceptable to strong sunlight because the celts and the nords adapted over thousands of years to a latitude with indirect sunlight for the most part.

And native Chileans? Are they from nordic/celtic stock? No, the ozone hole was very real when it extended into Southern Chile and started burning the residents of Punta Arenas.

As for the ozone hole itself; we had never had the type of equipment that detected it available before. It is very unscientific to assume just because we were finally able see it meant it had just appeared. This is akin to believing that whales didn't communicate with one another until we invented the hydrophone.

No it's not, because you didn't say that they were suddenly communicating about us, or because we were holding them captive for study.
It's a stupid argument. Come up with another one.
In addition, to assume that a decades-long trend of accelerated expansion in a hole in the atmosphere has nothing to do with humanity's increased industrialization is like claiming the skies over Los Angeles are smoggy because of the weather.

So try getting a plain old chemistry book from about 1965-1969, that should insulate you from the political propaganda that developed around the environment in the early 1970's.

Right, because the last 35 years of chemistry is all wrong. Someone abhors change.

Eh, I'm tired, this endless bickering is annoying. Both sides need to be willing to explore the claims of the other, but, unfortunately for you, the scientists that claim there is no man-made global warming have been proven wrong, their methods questioned, and the oversights in their analysis publicized. It doesn't help that the most prominent of these (I can't remember his name right now) is associated with the Heritage Foundation and not some non-partisan group.

Anyway, go back to teaching vermin-filled history to HVACs who carry around a bullet to take their own life if the need arose.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
Hermit22 -

I didn't call ~him~ a commie, per se...I said Communists are Godless(Hitler was Atheist), and Radar is touting for a Godless America. The conclusion you draw from this is up to you.

I didn't say you did. I said you labeled any dissent as Communist, which would refer to his comments, not him.

And Godlessness means Atheism. Just because Communists were Atheists doesn't mean all Atheists are Communists. And you're historically stupid if you think Hitler was Communist. He hated the Reds. Again, just because x and y are both in the set z, that doesn't mean x = y.

It might be a good idea to re-examine your ideas of right and wrong. This way of thinking indicates that you may have a problem seeing grays and not just black and white.

[jaguar]

*sighs*
I think hermit did a reasonably good job answering all of that crap. He also did a good job of pointing out some of your deeper flaws and endless hypocrisy. I'd like you to point out some solid scientific evidence that all the shit we've been pumping into the atmosphere has no effect, verses the mountains of detailed scientific analysis that tells quite a different story

As for you trash about races, tehehehe... You completely missed my point, the UV readings here sit almost steady in the 'extreme' to 'high extreme' range, know why? Because there a fucking great hole in the only thing that protects us from instant suntan over my head. Now while your highly stated oversized aircon installing credentials may have further clouded your already foggy vision of reality, hermit did a pretty solid job of pointing out the obvious weakness in your rather silly argument.

Since, unlike you, I don't think my husbands glorified aircon installation credentials are the best authority on environmental science, I did a bit of poking round the web, and out came this:

In their 1974 research findings, chemists M. Molina and F.S. Rowland built upon the work of chemist P. Crutzen to show how human-produced chlorofluorocarbons CFCs could reduce total stratospheric ozone. In the troposphere, CFCs are stable and inert, but when they reach the stratosphere through convective air movements, the sun's ultraviolet rays cause them to decompose and release chlorine atoms. Through a series of catalytic reactions, the free chlorine atom is capable of destroying hundreds of thousands of ozone atoms. This theory was verified by the NASA Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite in 1987, when it detected high amounts CIO (a reactive chlorine species) along with decreasing ozone. In 1995, Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their pioneering work in the effects of man-made chemicals on the ozone layer.

Well, well. The research was done my NASA, the same people you've been trying to tell me, incorrectly, believe that the minor decrease in the size of the ozone hole was evidence that the last 25 years of science was rubbish. As I previously pointed out the shrink was due to changes in stratospheric wind patterns, which were extremely unusual and as stated above, it is indeed wind that moves these up, and to where the hole is.

Do us all a favour and go back to teaching your kids that being a liberal makes baby jesus cry or whatever you do for kicks.

[Cairo]

Radar -
Of course you don't want to address and answer my points...you have no answers and can't back up your fabricated puke!
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?
You say,"The Government can do lots of interfering without making laws."
This supposed "interfering" you refer to is called THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE or Democracy. Our currency,oaths, and anywhere else were voted on by We the People, it's not law, it's will!
As for drugs, well, we could take a vote on it, but drug use is not a constitutional right, so there are laws made against it. If a vote on religious historical donations to a public building were offered a 90+% Majority would allow it, but constitutioal rights need no vote to be allowed.
First you need to learn what Democracy and will of the people means, because America is for the people, by the people. Then you need to read the Federalist Papers.

Tyrannical refers to individuals who force a minority, unpopular, and oppressive ideal/act upon the majority against their will. On this issue I am part of the majority you wish to oppress with secular humanist religion! As in, I am with the masses, you are with the asses! Get it?!!!

You say,"They wanted Government out of Religion and Religion out of Government."
In so far as "make no law". The only laws that have been unconstitutionally made were from the bench by our courts! Decisions that legally prohibit the people, and establish the Religion of Secular Humanists into the Government...excluding all religions and allowing a single ruling religion is what the 1st Amendment was meant to prevent!

The Bill of Rights was amended and ratified into the Constitution, "separation of church and state" was in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists assuring them that Congregationalists would not become the national religion. Strictly a personal letter, not made in an official capacity as it is misinterpreted today.

http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html

The reality, as you admit, is that the term and interpretation of"separation of church and state" is NOT a Constitutionality issue for our courts to decide and make law on...to do so is interpreting the Constitution, not law.

Creator is ONE who creates. As in Being. Pay close attention to Thomas Jefferson's definition of Creator: 'Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His Wrath?...'
And more quotes from Founding Fathers and others that PROVE the historical God-fearing principles of America...whatever America has become today, she was born Judeo-Christian!

http://www.shalom.jerusalem.com/heri...eritage15.html

So in conclusion, your pathetic attempt to censor Religion is UNConstitutional and baseless, like the DemocRATS telling us they pledge to raise taxes to balance the budget and We the People will like it!... Uh, No we won't and you just lost the vote!
You said, the Constitution is not to be interpreted, and I agree. Therefore, if our Founding Fathers had meant "practice", they would have written "practice". If they had meant "praying privately" they would have written that. No, they wrote FREE EXERCISE, which means any form of action, no boundries.
When I said you were shoving a Godless America down the throats of 90+% of Americans...that was rational critical thinking because you and our courts have decided to make law prohibiting the free exercise of religions against the will of the people.
When YOU say I am shoving God down the throats of 100% of Americans...not only is that irrational and hysterical, it's a flat out LIE! Mostly because of MY 1st Amendment Right to free exercise thereof.
Pornography is shoved down the throats of others, taxes are forced down the thoats of others, hate-speech is forced down the throats of others, abortion is forced down the throats of others, some think guns are forced down their throats, and I feel mainstream liberal-puke media is forced down my throat!...yet they are protected, YOU probably protect and support these Rights.
See your hypocracy?!?!!

[Radar]

Of course you don't want to address and answer my points...you have no answers and can't back up your fabricated puke!

The only point you have is on the top of your head.

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?

I understand it fully. What part of “respecting an establishment of religion” do you not understand? I’m not asking the government to create laws preventing the free exercise of religion; not even close. I’m asking government to prevent others from violating the 1st amendment. Laws against the violation of the 1st amendment ARE NOT laws that prevent the free exercise of religion. <BZZZZZT> Try again.

This supposed "interfering" you refer to is called THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE or Democracy.

America isn’t a democracy Einstein. It’s a democratic republic and the “will of the people” doesn’t matter with regard to our INALIENABLE rights. They can NEVER be voted on by the people.

Our currency,oaths, and anywhere else were voted on by We the People, it's not law, it's will!

<BZZZZZZT> Wrong Again! Pull your head out of your ass and come up for air before you get even more brain damaged. The people didn’t vote to put the word “god” on these things and even if they wanted to it would be a violation of the 1st amendment so nothing less than a constitutional amendment would allow for such violations of the intentions of our founding fathers to keep all religion out of our government and all government out of religion.

As for drugs, well, we could take a vote on it, but drug use is not a constitutional right, so there are laws made against it.

<BZZZZZZT> Strike Three! You’re out! Drug use ACTUALLY IS a constitutional right. The 9th amendment is as follows:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which means the rights of the people are NOT limited to what is listed in the constitution.

The 10th amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This means anything NOT listed in the constitution is a right of the people and the federal government has no authority to make decisions regarding these things or to prohibit them. The federal government may ONLY do those things specifically listed in the constitution and NOTHING ELSE!!!

So since using drugs is NOT listed in the constitution it is a right of the people and can’t be governed by the fed. And since the 14th amendment says the states can’t do anything the fed isn’t allowed to do, the states can’t prohibit it either. And since I’ve PROVEN that using drugs is an inalienable right it can’t be voted on or given away.

The public can’t vote on anything they want because government isn’t all powerful. The rights of individuals supercedes the powers of government.

If a vote on religious historical donations to a public building were offered a 90+% Majority would allow it, but constitutioal rights need no vote to be allowed.

Once again you’re talking out of your ass. You have no way of knowing how people would vote. But they can’t vote for it because it’s unconstitutional to allow them to vote on it. Although most people including Christians would be against posting the 10 commandments in courthouses. Even Jesus of Nazareth himself taught that prayer shouldn’t be done in public and that church and state should remain separate. True Christians follow his teachings and wouldn’t allow the 10 commandments to be posted unconstitutionally as you would have them do.

First you need to learn what Democracy and will of the people means, because America is for the people, by the people. Then you need to read the Federalist Papers.

You need to step back and realize that America isn’t a democracy and never has been. We’re a democratic republic and the powers of government are very limited. And you need to realize that the government doesn’t represent the wishes of the American people. Government is not the people. If it were, when the Nazis killed the German Jews they would have been considered to have committed suicide since the government is the people and the people killed the people. I am more familiar with the Federalist papers, the constitution, the declaration of independence, American history, the writings of our founding fathers, the authors the founding fathers read, the powers of government, and constitutional law than you will ever be. You clearly know nothing what-so-ever about the U.S. Constitution, the type of government we have, the limits on our government’s authority, etc. I suggest you read a book for a change.

Tyrannical refers to individuals who force a minority, unpopular, and oppressive ideal/act upon the majority against their will.

Tyranny has nothing to do with majority or minority, but it does have to do with force. The majority of Germany was with the Nazi party. So by your logic the things they did to the Jewish people weren’t tyrannical. And if you want a perfect example of a tyrannical force pushing their oppressive ideals onto people just look at those who want to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY force their religious doctrine down the throats of their fellow citizens through posting 10 commandments, instructor lead prayers, god in oaths, on currency, etc. That’s as tyrannical as using government to tell people what religion they should or shouldn’t believe. In fact that’s exactly what it is.

On this issue I am part of the majority you wish to oppress with secular humanist religion! As in, I am with the masses, you are with the asses! Get it?!!!

Once again, you are with the masses of asses who want to mix church and state despite it being unconstitutional.

The Bill of Rights was amended and ratified into the Constitution, "separation of church and state" was in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists

Show me the phrase “bill of rights” in the constitution. It’s not there. Neither are the phrases “fair trial”, “religious liberty”, or “separation of church and state” but they’re all equally associated with the constitution and all principles upon which it was made.

The “creator” of America was a group of NON-Christian/Non-Jewish men. So America is most definitely NOT Judeo-Christian.
In conclusion, you have added nothing since my last post where I schooled you and proved everything I said. You have nothing of value to add to this conversation but your baseless claims, circular logic, and lame insults. Your entire argument consists of putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la, I can’t hear you!!” Your failed attempts to provide even one thing to support your claims has only made you look more stupid, which is a pretty difficult task.

No, they wrote FREE EXERCISE, which means any form of action, no boundries.

My religion requires me to make human sacrifices of idiots who want to violate my constitutional amendments. Since no law can be made to prevent this I guess you’re dead meat.

Free exercise = freedom to worship. NOT freedom to violate the constitution, freedom to do anything in the name of religion, or freedom to unconstitutionally post your particular religious doctrine in government buildings as a violation of the 1st amendment.

You are a pathetic loser and a pathological liar. You lack the intellectual ability to carry on a logical debate. You’re a worthless, ignorant, loudmouthed, idiot without a single thing to support your unconstitutional, draconian, and tyrannical wishes to mix church and state. Even the Christian belief system itself is against mixing the two, or praying in public.

You so-called ideas about the constitution are laughable and so are you. I don’t know whether to laugh at you for being such a clown or to weep for you because you’re so pathetic and sad. In either case I hope that you’ll grow up and get educated.

Your not worthy of further responses from me. I will reserve my effort for those intelligent enough to comprehend facts, those that don't constantly lie, and those who know when they've been beaten. You lose on all counts.

[Hubris Boy]

originally posted by Assclown
Your [sic] not worthy of further responses from me. I will reserve my effort for those intelligent enough to comprehend facts, those that don't constantly lie, and those who know when they've been beaten. You lose on all counts.

Oh, please don't stop. Not yet. Watching you two retards hurl bullshit at each other has been tremendously amusing for the rest of us.

No. Really. You can't buy this kind of entertainment. Watching you and Cairo arguing about religion and government has been like watching an autistic child trying to explain quantum physics to a goat.

Oh. And remember the part in your last post- where you called Cairo a "a worthless, ignorant, loudmouthed, idiot"? That was beautiful, man. That brought a tear to my eye, it was so funny. Thank you.

[elSicomoro]

File this latest HB gem here.

[slang]

(slang opens his back window, takes a deep breath and yells at his capacity)

<H3>This debate is driving me crazy(er) and I can't take it any more!!</H3>

(birds fly quickly out of trees, cats and dogs run in fear and a hibernating bear rolls over in discomfort)

[jaguar]

No. Really. You can't buy this kind of entertainment. Watching you and Cairo arguing about religion and government has been like watching an autistic child trying to explain quantum physics to a goat.

props again to HB for my morning chuckle.

[Radar]

Originally posted by a cock smoker


Watching you and Cairo arguing about religion and government has been like watching an autistic child trying to explain quantum physics to a goat.

Even autisic children are brighter than you. I don't expect Cairo to comprehend quantum physics, but even a goat can learn something as simple as knowing it's time to eat when they hear a bell.

[hermit22]

Cairo and Radar should take this act on the road.

I just cleaned up an assload of ants that had invaded my kitchen, and I sat down at my computer to work in a really bad mood. This thread totally changed that. I'm still laughing.