Left loses it when presented with facts
The left has gone bonkers in their blind hatred of anything and everything that is Christian. And if they have to outright lie to make their case, that won't slow them down -- it never does.
It seems legislators in Missouri have decided they want to respect Christians. And that's enough to drive the left and Democrats absolutely bonkers. Heck, the reaction to this is so insane, I think that those who started this might have done it just to watch the left's reaction for entertainment value alone. The MO House wants to pass a resolution (not a law) that says, in part, thatwe stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.
That's all. There's no new laws being passed, there's no forcing anything on anyone -- a simple statement that is actually a statement of fact, no matter what those on the left want to admit. And the left has lost it. Check out Stop the ACLU for a list of the absolutely utterly insane reactions to this statement of fact. What's even funnier is that most of the left's utterly insane reaction claims that this RESOLUTION that is a statement of fact is going to make Christianity the state religion of MO. While completely and utterly untrue, if the legislature wanted to do that -- THEY COULD! That's right, states CAN have official state religions under the US Constitution (depending on their own state constitutions, of course). There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" -- that's a completely made-up phrase used by those who hate religion. The United States Congress is not allowed to pass a law that restricts freedom of religion -- and that's ALL the Constitution says on the matter. Have fun watching the left go insane reacting as idiots on this one -- it's sure to be entertaining.
Comments
1
This looks like an easy blog entry to write. Talk about the silly lefties saying something silly, don't bother actually providing any examples (just link to someone who actual did a little work), and sit back and enjoy.
Tell me, what good is accomplished by this resolution?
Also, you may want to take a peek at the first amendment again. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Sounds like they wanted to keep it separate to me.
Tell me, what good is accomplished by this resolution?
Also, you may want to take a peek at the first amendment again. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Sounds like they wanted to keep it separate to me.
Posted by: Slacker at March 05, 2006 09:16 PM (lWUwB)
2
I wasn't aware that blog entries were supposed to be difficult to write. Does it count for more if I said that I wrote it with one hand or just my toes -- because that's more difficult.
As for the first amendment, thanks for stopping by and NOT reading the post. Re-read the last three paragraphs again -- and thanks for the as-predicted entertainment!
As for the first amendment, thanks for stopping by and NOT reading the post. Re-read the last three paragraphs again -- and thanks for the as-predicted entertainment!
Posted by: Ogre at March 05, 2006 10:42 PM (CyQ4M)
3
I did read the post. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
If states are allowed to establish official religions, how come 0 out of 50 have gotten around to it so far? Surely it'd pass in a few of our more conservative states. Texas just voted to make gay marriage even more illegal by something like 92%. Seems like making Christianity the state religion would be a snap.
If states are allowed to establish official religions, how come 0 out of 50 have gotten around to it so far? Surely it'd pass in a few of our more conservative states. Texas just voted to make gay marriage even more illegal by something like 92%. Seems like making Christianity the state religion would be a snap.
Posted by: Slacker at March 05, 2006 11:58 PM (lWUwB)
4
Once again, I refer you to the original post -- "depending on their own state constitutions, of course."
The point is -- there is NO prohibition in the United States Constitution forbidding ANY state from having a state religion -- and that's what the left is complaining about in this case.
The point is -- there is NO prohibition in the United States Constitution forbidding ANY state from having a state religion -- and that's what the left is complaining about in this case.
Posted by: Ogre at March 06, 2006 12:01 AM (CyQ4M)
5
I kind of think there is a prohibition in the first amendment, but I'm no government expert, so I'm not going to try to prove it to you.
And can't "the left" still be upset about this even if it isn't illegal?
And can't "the left" still be upset about this even if it isn't illegal?
Posted by: Slacker at March 06, 2006 12:10 AM (lWUwB)
6
As I pointed out -- no, there is no prohibition in the first amendment, as it is written, from states passing any laws having anything to do with religion. I am aware that some judges have incorrectly interpreted the Constitution, but that doesn't change it's words.
The first amendment applies to the federal government only, as it's written.
And sure, the left can be upset, that's why I mentioned it would be fun to watch them! And they will use the first amendment for their anger, but completely incorrectly!
The first amendment applies to the federal government only, as it's written.
And sure, the left can be upset, that's why I mentioned it would be fun to watch them! And they will use the first amendment for their anger, but completely incorrectly!
Posted by: Ogre at March 06, 2006 12:15 AM (CyQ4M)
7
"The wall of separation between church and state" is not just a made up phrase. Jefferson used it in a private letter sometime about 1804 to a Baptist preacher in New England. See, the preacher was worried the Congregational Church was set to become the "official church" of the United States.
That minister probably remembered his history, when Episcopalianism was the "state religion" of Virginia and everyone there had to pay a 10% tax/tithe to support the church. They were also required to attend services every Sunday or be fined. Other denominations were either banned from settin' up shop, or had to pay large sums for a license to preach.
So the phrase has been around, but the First Amendment specifically states the government cannot establish a state religion and require people attend, OR forbid any expression of religious belief in any way, shape or form. The ACLU and their cronies/syncophants always seem to forget the second part of that.
I think those people who object to seein' or hearin' anything about Judeo/Christian beliefs don't like the idea there might be absolute rights and wrongs. For them, life is one vast expanse of gray relativism.
That minister probably remembered his history, when Episcopalianism was the "state religion" of Virginia and everyone there had to pay a 10% tax/tithe to support the church. They were also required to attend services every Sunday or be fined. Other denominations were either banned from settin' up shop, or had to pay large sums for a license to preach.
So the phrase has been around, but the First Amendment specifically states the government cannot establish a state religion and require people attend, OR forbid any expression of religious belief in any way, shape or form. The ACLU and their cronies/syncophants always seem to forget the second part of that.
I think those people who object to seein' or hearin' anything about Judeo/Christian beliefs don't like the idea there might be absolute rights and wrongs. For them, life is one vast expanse of gray relativism.
Posted by: Harrison at March 06, 2006 01:46 AM (qh6mz)
8
It is made up when people claim it is in the Constitution -- it is not. The first amendment applies to the federal government only -- NOT to the states -- at least that's how it was written.
Posted by: Ogre at March 06, 2006 03:02 AM (CyQ4M)
9
Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States were white and used the principles thought of by white people as the founding principles of our nation; and
Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the white majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our race and give thanks for the many gifts our race has provided; and
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their racist beliefs while showing respect for those of other races; and
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Master Race exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our white constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary white pride in schools and racist displays on public property are not a coalition of race and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that white people have played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.
Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the white majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our race and give thanks for the many gifts our race has provided; and
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their racist beliefs while showing respect for those of other races; and
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Master Race exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our white constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary white pride in schools and racist displays on public property are not a coalition of race and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that white people have played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.
Posted by: Todd Sayre at March 07, 2006 01:02 PM (SRIsy)
10
So you're saying that having a religious belief is the same as having pigment in skin coloring? You mean people are born as Christians and have no choice to NOT be Christians? Wow.
Posted by: Ogre at March 07, 2006 03:11 PM (/k+l4)
11
I did not choose to be born with a rational mind.
Posted by: Todd Sayre at March 21, 2006 03:38 PM (SRIsy)
12
So does that make you a racist?
Posted by: Ogre at March 21, 2006 03:40 PM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0085 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0063 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 12 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.