Why is that CUNT smiling? Hey, stupid bitch: They are laughing AT you! They are bowled over with your ignorance and stupidity not just of the constitution but of your ignorance at not knowing when the entire audience laughs at your brainless stupidity. Go home and use your vibrator on its highest setting, you stupid bitch!
>>If there is any amendment to the constitution you should have memorized it is the first<<
Coons is the one misquoting the amendment at 7:12 and his rich step-dad spent a fortune on his law school education. Christine never misquotes the amendment. She's probably smiling because it never occurs to her that she could be in a room full of law school students and faculty, and not a single one of them understands the meaning of "Congress shall make no law" She overestimated them.
The dumbest people in the audience are the loudest ones. Let's hope they're the journalists, not the law students and GOD HELP US NOT THE FACULTY! You're not free to discard the subject, verb and object of a law, append your own, more expansive subject, verb and object, and then hold us all legally bound to the new, unwritten law in your stupid head. Christine understands what "Congress shall make no law" means. Her critics obviously can't even read. LOL Liberals...
@happystance8able Reading does not equal comprehension, as you have so brilliantly illustrated. They read well enough to understand the opinions and resources from the authors of the document which provide ample evidence for a separation. She didn't say "where in the Constitution are the WORDS 'separation of church and state?'" she said "where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" Anyone who thinks the Constitution is just words on a page shouldn't be allowed to attain office.
@lovegun001 >>Reading does not equal comprehension<<
That's for damned sure. Anybody thinking the American People should be legally subjected to unwritten laws imagined by unelected tyrants--laws that, because they're not written, can't be known in advance and no elected officials ever voted into law--anybody who believes that shouldn't be allowed to attain office because they don't understand the very purpose of having a written Constitution. "Congress shall make no law" means something.
@happystance8able They ARE written in the form of court opinions penned by individuals appointed by elected officials. Checks and balances my friend, checks and balances.
@lovegun001 LOL "Checks and balances" are clearly defined between government's 3 branches; one of which is "Congress". The 1st Amendment's therefore nothing more than a check on Congress; limiting laws it can pass. "Congress shall make no law." The judiciary's not free to invent its own amendments limiting citizens' freedoms. The People's consent is never to be checked or balanced by unelected tyrants inventing their own laws for us all to live by. That's not a check; It's cause for revolution.
@happystance8able You're missing the forest for the trees my friend. The judiciary is confirmed by congress and as such congress has the ability to approve of who will make case law. Further, congress can always react to the judiciary through a change in the law. I say again: checks and balances my friend, checks and balances. It appears that you would, if given the power, eviscerate the judicial branch of our government. Surely you realize the uncertainty and chaos this would create.
@lovegun001 The uncertainty and chaos come from judicial tyrants discarding the subject, verb and object of the law and keeping only the adjectival clause, so as to limit citizens' freedom of religious expression wherever the tyrants don't want such expression to occur. A law, written to reassure citizens that Congress can't persecute them for religious expression, is twisted into being the very source of the persecution itself by ignoring "Congress shall make no law". It's the KKK's Amendment.
@happystance8able I've started a discussion with a paranoid psycho. You think by keeping a religion our of public schools we are somehow persecuting religion? That's the most backwards thought I have ever heard. You can write back, and I know you will, but you've lost all credibility with regard to logic reasoning now. And "KKK's Amendment?" Huh? It's now more clear than ever you have never read any case law which tends to be on a whole well reasoned and bound by stare decisis.
@lovegun001 >>case law which tends to be on a whole well reasoned and bound by stare decisis<<
Go conduct a seance and preach the virtues of stare decisis to those blacks who were forced to live their lives as if "Separate but Equal" existed in the Constitution. Your personal education policy preferences are not law of the land. Sorry, but you're not our King. Your guy on the court was just a sick lawyer for the KKK. The "Wall of separation" needs to go the way of "Separate but Equal".
@lovegun001 Congress passing laws that restrict a student's or teacher's free exercise of religion is persecuting religion. Just as congress deciding what religions the govt. recognizes is. Maybe they should recognize Atheism as a religion also. Then evangelical atheists could get the same treatment. Do Buddhists get persecuted for meditating in school? What about Muslims? Rastafaris? União do Vegetal? Religious persecution under color of law comes in many forms.
@lovegun001 Judges and Justices can only rule on LAWS enacted by CONGRESS. If congress passes any law regarding religion, it is unconstitutional, null, and void. Therefore any changes to the law based on court rulings are also null and void. The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, is quite clear in its language. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
@lovegun001 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Must be considered as binding. That is my point. You want to put words in my mouth. I have the right to be Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Rastafari, etc any place anytime and practice openly
The only inefficiency is for tyrants imposing their will on the People. Yes, it's terribly inefficient; not getting to just declare one's opinions to be Law of the Land. But a greater efficiency is gained for everyone else when laws mean what they say; when adjectival phrases are limited in scope by the subjects, verbs and objects of the sentences they appear in; when teachers know they can't break the 1st Amendment because they're not "Congress".
@happystance8able I wish I could be like you. I wish I could think in black and white. Unfortunately the world we live in is mostly gray, most people understand this, and that's why we have courts. I wonder, have you ever even read an appellate court opinion? One thing is clear, you have no respect for our Constitution and little to no understanding of how it operates. If you really think a particular religion should be taught in public schools, you have no idea what this country is about.
@lovegun001 >>the world we live in is mostly gray, most people understand this<<
It takes a royal degree of arrogance and presumptuousness about one's own knowledge, wisdom and virtue to point to the massive complexity of life as the reason why one's personal policy preferences are the tune everyone must dance to. You're trying to quietly repeal the American Revolution and set yourself up as a member of an oligarchy; some vanguard of superior wisdom and virtue. LOL
@lovegun001 >>If you really think a particular religion should be taught in public schools, you have no idea what this country is about.<<
If you really think public schools need your personal approval before they can legally teach a particular idea about the origin of the universe, life on Planet Earth, or human morality, you must think you're a king or something. You have no idea what the First Amendment is about.
@happystance8able Yes, I think I'm king because I don't want others' religions views imposed on my children. Because I think education should be based on science rather than fiction.....If I were king, I would have every freedom hatting ignorant fool like you shot!
@lovegun001 >>Yes, I think I'm king because I don't want others' religions views imposed on my children<<
No, you think you're king because you assume it's Law of the Land that people MUST act according to your wishes; written law be damned. You've declared "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't limit the scope of the establishment clause simply because you don't want it to. And your desires aren't up for a vote; They are just Law of the Land. That's EXACTLY how kings think.
@lovegun001 I agree that you are King. But you are your only subject. Our Constitution is supposed to guarantee the sovereignty of each and every person bound by the laws of the government it creates. The Constitution limits government, not citizens. It seems government wants to bypass those limitations by passing laws that unconstitutionally limit sovereign citizens.
@Noktirnal I really wish that Constitutional Law was taught in high school. So much ignorance prevails on the subject, it's troubling. Do you really not see the importance of keeping our government from deciding what religion we practice and from taking any role in the religions education of our children? Your way of thinking is so backwards and counter to the current state of the law that I won't even try to have a serious conversation with you on the matter. I suggest you do some reading.
@lovegun001 Yes, and that what I am saying. If government can tell us we can't be educated about a religion, then it might as well be telling you what religion you must belong to. Constitutional Law isn't the issue. The Constitution is so clear in its language in this matter that any person literate in the English language should be able to understand it. ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
@happystance8able I can tell you that the First Amendment is about protecting us from people like you that would force your religion on others. Why do you hate freedom so much?
forbidding Congress from making laws that forbid citizens from expressing their personal religious beliefs or laws that require people to express religious beliefs endorsed by the state. The amendment is NOT about imposing gag orders on citizens who wish to promote their personal religious beliefs. Because of the subject, verb and object of the amendment, citizens can NEVER violate the Amendment. Only laws made by Congress can violate it.
LOL You live in Opposite Land. If you want a gag order imposed on people who wish to FREELY promote their religious beliefs, it is YOU who hates their FREEDOM. You hate their freedom of religious expression and you want to control those people. You are a wannabe tyrant. The First Amendment was expressly written to prevent people like you from using Congress to make your tyrannical wishes Law of the Land. Suck it up, tyrant!
@happystance8able LOL you really don't get it do you? You think it's appropriate to push your religion on others through government action, sad. I'm just glad that your extreme backward position is not the current state of the law (lord help us all if it were) and more reasonable minds have prevailed.
@lovegun001 >>You think it's appropriate to push your religion on others through government action<<
Citizens have every right to express and promote their personal beliefs and values in schools--even when You disagree with them, Your Majesty. Your will is not Law for everyone to live by. I oppose subscribers to the Apocalyptic Global Warming Myth--The Church of Al Gore--promoting their nutty religion with impunity in our schools, but I'd never pretend my will was Law of the Land. I just fight.
"to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own"
--T.Jefferson; The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
"Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them"
@happystance8able LOL. Nice one. He's arguing against your position. You're forcing your particular religion on everyone is precisely what he feared. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - T. Jefferson.
@lovegun001 LOL You honestly have a reading comprehension disorder. You want the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion in the schools--to restrain the propagation of religious principles on supposition of their ill tendency. You'd destroy all religious liberty in schools by making your own atheistic opinions the rule of judgment, condemning the sentiments of religious people because they don't square with your own.
@lovegun001 >>You're forcing your particular religion on everyone is precisely what he feared<<
You couldn't be more wrong. He specifically says in the VA statute that "Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself. She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and HAS NOTHING TO FEAR from the conflict." Thus, nobody ever needs to be gagged. And, in the case of the Danbury Baptists, he said his administration would NEVER forbid people from propagating their religious beliefs.
Jefferson explicitly said nobody ever needs to be gagged when it comes to religion--so that would go for the schools as well--because Truth is great and has nothing to fear from conflict with error. You, on the other hand, are obviously not so secure in the ability of your ideas to hold up in the conflict. You think your ideas will not prevail if left to themselves, so you need government to gagged those who disagree with you.
@happystance8able Now whose spinning the text in his own direction...AGAIN...""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - T. Jefferson. Could he have been more clear? I think not. He was the FIRST person to use the term "separation of church and state."!!!
More clear than using a metaphor? LOL "a wall"? Metaphors lack clarity by definition. Only legal retards don't see a problem in that. He wasn't writing a rigorous legal treatise. It was a political letter to constituents intended to fix serious damage to his reputation among New Englanders from the 1800 election. The Danbury letter never even mentions any of the other freedoms explicitly protected by the Amendment. It's Jefferson-as-politician.
@lovegun001 >>He was the FIRST person to use the term<<
As good a reason as any why that term isn't law of the land any more than "Separate but Equal" is. You seem to think that Thomas Jefferson was involved in drafting the language of the First Amendment or in any way involved in pressing it through Congress. That is completely wrong. Jefferson wasn't even a legislator and he wasn't even living in America then! He is not an author of the Amendment. He was Ambassador to France; living in France.
@lovegun001 What'd Jefferson have put on his tombstone? Did he have his caretakers dig up any quotes from that piece of political shit to the Danburys you hold so high as to declare it Law of the Land? Answer: NO. It was political ephemera. However, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is on his tombstone. Read that statute and find me a single metaphor that needs to be interpreted by judges in order for Virginians to know what limits there are on their religious freedom. There are none.
@happystance8able Do try to remain on topic. I know it's difficult. We are not, nor have we ever been discussing limits on religious freedom. I guess you really can't fix stupid. We are talking about keeping the government from imposing religion on the people. Let the people be free to worship as they wish. Don't impose your religion on them! If you think you would enjoy living in a theocracy maybe you should move to the Middle East, they have plenty of them over there.
@lovegun001 >>We are not...discussing limits on religious freedom<<
Wrong. We are discussing limits on religious freedom in schools. If a law made by Congress forbids the propagation of religious ideas in schools, then it is that law made by Congress which violates the First Amendment because Congress shall make no law...abridging the free exercise [of the right to religious establishment]. Couldn't be simpler, but I know you believe in the KKK's fake amendment elected officials never voted for.
@lovegun001 If people are propagating fallacious myths in the schools and you don't like it, take it up with your local school board! That's fine. Get in line with those of us opposing the propagation of Al Gore's fallacious pseudo-religious AGW myth. Myths can be propagated in schools. It's not against the law to believe in wrong ideas and promote those beliefs thinking you're right. That's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech specifically means people are going to "impose" crappy ideas on you.
@happystance8able ??? So sad. You can't tell the difference between religion and science, personal beliefs and accepted theory, or freedom from oppression. Yikes!
@lovegun001 >>personal beliefs and accepted theory<<
31,000 U.S. scientists--9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties--signed a petition rejecting global warming. The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree...
You have your own fallacious myths which you believe and want propagated in the schools.
You have your own apocalyptic cult and your cult's leaders claim to know how to control the climate of Planet
Earth by passing laws restricting people's behavior and imposing punishments on those who don't follow the prescriptions of your cult's leaders. The only thing consistent between your AGW stance and 1st Amendment stance is that you like to use government force to crack down on your fellow man. You are a wannabe tyrant. The 1st Amendment was written specifically to limit your power.
You have your own apocalyptic cult and your cult's leaders claim to know how to control the climate of Planet Earth by passing laws restricting people's behavior and imposing punishments on those who don't follow the prescriptions of your cult's leaders. The only thing consistent between your AGW stance and 1st Amendment stance is that you like to use government force to crack down on your fellow man. You are a wannabe tyrant. The 1st Amendment was written specifically to limit your power.
@lovegun001 No, it was WRITTEN to limit LAWS CONGRESS CAN MAKE. If you don't get that... Our Founders knew Congress was only one branch of government. If they had wanted to gag citizens in schools, they would have used different language. The amendment is a unilateral restriction on Congress, not a bilateral restriction (i.e. a "wall"). You've just written your own Amendment. I'm not bound by that. You're not as smart as the Founders and no elected officials ever voted on your words.
@happystance8able There is nothing tyrannical about ensuring the religions freedom of the people. Why can't the people just be free? Why have the government teaching a specific religion? That sounds like tyranny to me. That's what I find so fascinating about this conversation. I am the one protecting our freedom, yet you think I'm oppressing it, so backwards. BTW, earlier I was talking about evolution v. creationism, you know, something a little more germane to the conversation.
Gagging citizens who work in schools is oppressive. Plain and simple. If Congress makes a law ordering schools to teach a specific religion, I'll join you in getting that law struck down. Then people will be free to promote whatever beliefs they have of their own free will. Truth has nothing to fear from conflict with error. Truth is Great and will prevail! That's freedom.
@happystance8able Now you're starting to get it. Glad something got through! To be clear though, a teacher in a public school is a government actor, so them teaching religion in their class IS government teaching a specific religion, and that should not be and thankfully IS NOT allowed.
@lovegun001 >>[teachers] teaching religion in their class<<
...is not Congress making a law, so it is absolutely allowed under the United States Constitution. In fact, it is explicitly protected from laws made by Congress. School administrators on the other hand are perfectly free to fire math teachers who teach religion all day instead of the math they're paid to teach. That's not violating the 1st Amendment either, because an administrator firing somebody is ALSO not Congress making a law.
@lovegun001 Teachers are not laws made by Congress, so they are unable to violate the 1st Amendment. Only laws made by Congress can violate it. If a law funding schools means that teachers are forbidden from teaching religious beliefs, then it is that school funding that violates the 1st Amendment; not the teachers. Teachers are explicitly protected by the Amendment to teach religious beliefs in schools. That bothered the KKK to no end, so their lawyer, Hugo Black, struck down the 1st Amendment.
@happystance8able You've fallen off the sanity wagon again. I thought you were moving past your delusions of the state of the law and that I had managed to educate and enlighten you. Your refusal to recognize well established legal precedent and the reality of the current state of the law makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. Further, your apparent lack of understanding our governmental structure and function makes it difficult to explain the law to you. I give up.
@lovegun001 LOL Well, I'll end by saying that you are a charming person and it amuses me that you can't comprehend why our Founders--the most brilliant philosophers who ever lived--would have chosen the words "Congress shall make no law" to serve as the subject, verb and object of the 1st Amendment. Why you think a KKK lawyer should rewrite the amendment is beyond me but I want you to know that I love you as a person and wish you a wonderful, fulfilling life and I mean that most sincerely.
@happystance8able I don't know if I've ever encountered anyone so obtuse. I don't think I could explain it in simpler terms but I'll give it one more shot: The DOE is an agency created by congress so any action(s) they take is like congress. If public schools were to allow religion to be taught they would be violating the 1st amendment ....get it now? Funny, you consider exclusion of religion in public (read government) forums to be tyrannical while you would have them force religion on others.
@lovegun001 >>If public schools were to allow religion to be taught they would be violating the 1st amendment<<
LOL You're like one of those idiots I remember from school who acts with such confidence, one assumes you're intelligent. Then the teacher passes back last Friday's quiz and there's red all over your page. You got ever damned question completely wrong, yet it doesn't affect your ego one bit. Congress forbidding people from teaching religion in public schools explicitly violates the 1st
@happystance8able Well, at least I got this question right.Try finding a source that supports your position, then get back to me..Until then, I'll stick with Supreme Court precedent , the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and of course, the 1st Amendment itself. You stick with your gut though, that will convince a lot of people. Just like your climate change denial means so much. After all, all those Ph. Ds. and overwhelming data are nothing compared to your gut instinct.
@lovegun001 I don't support or condemn any religion over any other. Any true education system should allow students to pursue learning. In public colleges and universities, one can enroll in classes that teach about Islam, Christianity, and any number of other religions. Educating oneself about a religion does not necessarily mean you subscribe to, believe in, or are converting to that religion. A religion CAN be taught about in such a way as not to proselytize students.
Every year, the automobile causes more death and destruction than just about any other cause, so do we outlaw the automobile? Why not? It is one of the biggest causes of death and destruction e.g. killing 40,000 Americans every freakin' year. Imagine a world without cars... and pass the bong, man!
Is is NOT the right of a school to teach things that aren't true... what if local school boards want to change history and teach the holocaust never happened?
@Bawbster1 >>Is is NOT the right of a school to teach things that aren't true<<
You mean like fiction? Literature? That stuff's not true. It is the right of people to teach their kids whatever they'd like to teach them--and to decide collectively through their local school boards what will be taught in schools--and it is decidedly NOT the right of presumptuous federal officials to pronounce what is "true" and what is not "true" from on high, as if officials like Senators were omiscient gods.
@happystance9able Gimme a break, you know what I mean. Evolution is the widely accepted scientific theory, as is gravity. To not teach this & teach "creationism" is just wrong. It's another example of the deliberate dumbing down of America. When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing, the whole family went through the roof, couldn't believe it - he was pulled from that idiot's class. Teaching fiction, like shakespeare, nothing wrong with that
@Bawbster1 >>When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing...he was pulled from that idiot's class<<
That's a perfectly legitimate way to handle such a situation, but Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, so it shall make no law cracking down on the teaching of religion in schools, regardless of what some insane, Catholic-hating KKK-lawyer idiot wanted to do in the 1940s. That KKK prick doesn't get to dictate law.
@Bawbster1 >>When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing...he was pulled from that idiot's class<<
That's a perfectly legitimate way to handle such a situation, but Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, so it shall make no law cracking down on the teaching of religion in schools, regardless of what some insane, Catholic-hating KKK-lawyer idiot wanted to do in the 1940s. That KKK prick doesn't get to dictate law.
@Bawbster1>>When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing...he was pulled from that idiot's class<<
That's a perfectly legit way to handle such a situation, but Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, so it shall make no law cracking down on the teaching of religion in schools, regardless of what some insane, Catholic-hating KKK-lawyer idiot wanted to do in the 1940s. That KKK prick doesn't get to dictate law.
@happystance9able Yeah - change is wonderful, and many more of us (and our numbers are growing buddy) are starting to feel that teaching myths like Jesus and God in school is not justified. You can fight the change all you want, soon people with beliefs like yours will be extinct just like the Neanderthal. You probably don't even acknowledge Neanderthals or dinosaurs existed eh?
Yeah. That's what makes dictatorships so great to live in. Change happens so quickly and easily there, with the changing of just a single mind; the dictator's. It's wonderful how the law changes from day to day according to the whims of the dictator. Anybody who is against dictatorships is against change. Pass the bong, man!
@happystance9able Teach Creationism where it belongs - in your cults Sunday School - then teach him every man woman and child came from two people, and a talking snake fucked it up for everyone. Teach him that moses talked to a burning bush (I'm guessing right after he found the magic mushrooms - or was it a marijuana bush?). THERE IS NO GOD - GET OVER IT - START TO LIVE YOUR LIFE.
@Bawbster1 >>Teach Creationism where it belongs<<
That's perfectly reasonable to bring up at your local school board meeting, but your personal educational policy preference is not Law of the Land. Sorry, you're not a god. You don't dictate the law and impose it on the rest of us without us getting a vote on it. You're just an obnoxious, ignorant, presumptuous twit. You're a wannbe tyrant and the 1st Amendment was specifically written to keep creeps like you at bay when you stumble into power.
@happystance9able Well - if you read a little closer - I stated "THERE IS NO GOD" - see you religious nuts see only what you want to see. Science should be taught in Science class - Religion should be taught in Sunday School, or the "Cult" as I like to call it. Hey - just my opinion - I never stated my preference was the "Law of the Land" you fucking asshole - stop putting words in my mouth. BTW - Mary wasn't a virgin- she had a kid - she was probably a fucking WHORE!!!!!!!!
@happystance9able Well - if you read a little closer - I stated "THERE IS NO GOD" - see you religious nuts see only what you want to see. Science should be taught in Science class - Religion should be taught in Sunday School, or the "Cult" as I like to call it. Hey - just my opinion - I never stated my preference was the "Law of the Land" you fucking asshole - stop putting words in my mouth. BTW - Mary wasn't a virgin- she had a kid - she was probably a fucking WHORE!!!!!!!!
@happystance9able Well - if you read a little closer - I stated "THERE IS NO GOD" - see you religious nuts see only what you want to see. Science should be taught in Science class - Religion should be taught in Sunday School, or the "Cult" as I like to call it. Hey - just my opinion - I never stated my preference was the "Law of the Land" you fucking asshole - stop putting words in my mouth. BTW - Mary wasn't a virgin- she had a kid - she was probably a fucking WHORE!!!!!!!!
@happystance9able The movie "Star Wars" is a more believable story than the bible. BTW - The first historian to write about Jesus, lived over 400 years after Jesus died!!! - THAT IS A FACT. Religion is responsible for more death and destruction around the world, more than any other reason, especially Christianity.
@Bawbster1 >>Religion is responsible for more death and destruction around the world, more than any other reason<<
LOL You've got your own stupid myth, I see. Against the tens of millions slaughtered by the atheistic Maoists during the relatively few years of their Cultural Revolution in China--murders in the name of Communism, not religion--you'd be very hard-pressed to tally up a matching number of religious murders over the entire span of human history, even if just for technological limits.
Then, if you manage to come up with tens of millions murdered for religion--which I doubt you ever could--I'll up the ante with the tens of millions more murdered by the Soviet atheists; crimes also committed for the Leftist ideology of communism. Then you can get back to digging up more examples of people murdered for religion. You are propagating an idea here that you can't possibly know to be true, yet you pretend to be so committed to truth. You are a hypocrite.
@happystance9able Most wars in the past have been based on religion, like it or not. "Onward Christian Soldiers" - Go jerk off to cunts like Christine O'Donnell Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann.
@Bawbster1 >>Most wars in the past have been based on religion<<
Even if that were true, the killing didn't really ramp up until the aetheists started their own wars; from the French Revolutionaries to Mao's Cultural Rebels, the world had just never seen killing on that scale before. Hell, the French atheists had to commission the invention of the guillotine to satisfy their blood-lust. Earlier religious warriors were just totally outdone by the performance of later atheist warriors.
@Bawbster1>>more death and destruction around the world...especially Christianity<<
LOL You're ignorant as hell. It was precisely collusion between Christianity and the British government that got slavery abolished worldwide for the first time in human history. 17th century British Quakers, interpreting their Bibles in a new way, began the movement to get slavery banned and it was strictly a religious crusade for nearly 100 years before the movement expanded to the secular realm...
@Bawbster1>>more death and destruction around the world...especially Christianity<<
LOL You're ignorant as hell. It was precisely collusion between Christianity and the British government that got slavery abolished worldwide for the first time in human history. 17th century British Quakers, interpreting their Bibles in a new way, began the movement to get slavery banned and it was strictly a religious crusade for nearly 100 years before the movement expanded...
...The Quaker's religious crusade to abolish slavery grew steam when their religious ideology found its way into the Church of England via the Clapham Sect; a small group of very conservative, very influential (wealthy) Anglicans. As you know, a less-volatile slavery-condoning version of Christianity permeated British society. This functioned like a Trojan Horse for freedom as the Christian hearts of the British people were set ablaze in the world's Superpower and largest slave-trading nation...
...Once the Christian people of Britain decided that slavery should be abolished regardless of the secular cost in the loss of free labor--a relatively easy decision for them to make, given their relative prosperity--any nation that wanted to trade with the world's Superpower had to renounce slavery. Secular France was hesitant--their first constitution preserved slavery--until the Haitian Slave Revolt threatened to ally itself with the British and thus threaten French economic interests...
Some 1500 years earlier, Socrates had once questioned the morality of slavery. (We only know this because of the great service Christian monks did for us by preserving the works of Plato through the Dark Ages.) As you know, Socrates was squashed like a bug in the end by the secular powers of his day, so nothing came of it and nothing more would until the Quakers began their religious crusade. Thank God for there being no wall of separation between church and state or we'd still be owning slaves.
@happystance8able Have you never heard about the crusades? The spanish Inquisition? You are ignorant you fucking moron. When people are guilted into Tithing 10% of their earnings - that's a form of slavery as well. You religious idiots always want proof for things like evolution, but when it comes to the fairy tales in the bible, "you just have to have faith" right? Show me proof that even 1 story in the bible is true. Show me some scientific evidence. THERE IS NO GOD - GET OVER IT
@happystance8able Ever heard of the Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? You are the ignorant one. You religious nuts always want proof for evolution, yet to believe the fairy tales in the bible based on simple faith. Show me proof that even 1 story in the bible is true. I dare you to try - scientific evidence... You won't find it. THERE IS NO GOD - GET OVER IT - LIVE YOUR LIFE
Very wise and successful foreign policy for its day; a defensive response to the Islamic hordes eating away at the edges of Christendom. Remember: The word "slave" bears witness to the fact that the first slaves were Slavs--white Europeans--enslaved on a massive scale by muslim marauders. The Islamic world was the last to acknowledge the immorality of slavery; Christian Western Europe was the first. Take a glimpse of the alternative course we could have taken....
...had the movement reached them. Unfortunately for these Sudanese people, they never got Christianity and remain in Muslim-dominated territory today. Therefore, they are today's fodder for the continuing Islamic slave trade. Christianity is not something to dismiss lightly. No aetheistic movement has ever done good on anything close to the scale of what Christianity has done. Look at those people!
Over a period of about 150 years, a total of about 3,500 people were put to death by the Inquisition. Comparing that to the 20 million estimated to have been killed in a SINGLE DECADE by Maoist aethists alone, religion looks pretty damned good on all accounts. It is scientific materialism championed by atheists throughout the 20th century that has led to the vast majority of murders in world history.
From its manifestation in the forms of eugenics, communism, and this sick, new AGW Myth, it is obvious that scientific materialism is the scourge of Planet Earth we should be railing against; not the form of Christianity developed by Quakers which got slavery banned, or earlier forms that got infanticide banned by proselytizing pagans to the notion that individuals are created in the image of God. Nothing has done more good in the world than those forms of Christianity. You're crazy with hate.
@Bawbster1 >>95% of them had to do with religion<<
But 100% of them had to do with government. You need to join the TEA Party is you really want to rail against the single biggest cause of war. But if 95% of war-related deaths happened in the few wars that had to do with scientific materialism as advocated by atheists, not religion--especially Maoist-type communism and NAZI-type eugenics--that only speaks well of religion. e.g.One thinks of the Christmas Truce during WWI.
@happystance9able You religious nuts believe what you want to believe, and continue to fail to see your nose, despite your face. The Pope going to AIDS stricken Africa, and telling the population that it's not OK to wear a condom. Yeah - religion is just fucking dandy. If there is a God, Mankind has never met him and never spoken to him. We wouldn't be able to recognize him, nor would we be able to understand him.
@Bawbster1 You're a blithering idiot, full of irrational hate. Edward C. Green, senior research scientist at Harvard School of Public Health and a staunch liberal, agrees with the Pope on that point. Green's a pretty bright guy, for a liberal. Go check out his washpost opinion piece entitled "Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa - The Pope Was Right" dated 3/29/09. Then find out where he works and try to get him fired for heresy against your Stalinist orthodoxy. LOL
@happystance8able You are a racist - why else would you condone what the Pope said? The use of condoms to prevent the widespread growth of a pandemic of epic proportions is a good idea. I read the article - it's nonsense. So if they don't use condoms, I'm guessing you are promoting unprotected sex? Do you actually think that unprotected sex is a better option than using a condom? AND YOU CALL ME THE BLITHERING IDIOT?!? You're not worth my time any longer - this debate is over between you and I
@Bawbster1 You're truly an imbecile--a child! You demonstrate absolutely no understanding of the very intelligent explanation made by that extremely liberal, very pro-condom health professional. You've constructed a crass theory which accounts for none of the cultural details making AIDS transmission in Africa very different from that in e.g. Thailand or Cambodia. Because of idiots like you imposing your stupid theories on cultures you don't understand, more Africans die today of AIDS...
...yet your stupendous ego makes it impossible for you to ever even consider the possibility that your precious theory is wrong and you will hurl insults at and destroy anybody who would dare challenge your theory with empirical facts from the real fucking world. As far as you are concerned, if the world and your theory don't match, then it must be the world that is wrong; it could never be your stupid fucking theory because you are so fucking special. You are positively Hitlerian in this way.
@bobster451 >>If you...understand the Constitution then you understand how stupid you have made yourself look<<
Given that the subject, verb and object of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law" it's patently obvious that you and Coons are the idiots. Coons completely misses all three elements of the amendment when he pathetically tries to quote it at 7:12. Nothing Christine says indicates she's as ignorant of the law as you and Coons are. You idiots live in Opposite Land. LOL!
@happystance9able I could give a crap about Coons. I was talking about O'Donnel who shows her abject failure to understand The Constitution and she touts how she stand up for the law of the Constitution.
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
LOL Are you seriously unable to comprehend those words? They limit the scope of the 1st Amendment's establishment clause to laws passed by Congress. That Amendment imposes no restrictions whatsoever on school teachers. They are not Congress. Congress is the legislative branch of a 3-branch government. Teachers can't violate the 1st Amendment, no matter what they teach. Only laws made by Congress can violate that Amendment. Listen to Coons at 7:12
@bobster451 You blithering idiot. I don't exist to be subjected to whatever laws an unelected tyrant invents whenever imbeciles like you happen to agree with the tyrant's proclamation. You are supporting the very same lunacy that imposed Separate But Equal on blacks for generations. No elected officials ever voted the words "Separate But Equal" into law, but idiots like you saw to it that blacks were made to live by that personal policy preference without anybody getting to vote on it. Fuck you!
@bobster451 If we're going to stop teaching lies in the schools, we'll have to stop promoting the lunacy that the 1st Amendment begins with anything other than "Congress shall make no law". You people are utterly insane. A KKK lawyer on the SCOTUS discarded the subject, verb and object of the Amendment--without any elected officials voting to do so--and he invented his own, more-expansive subject, verb and object so as to create a KKK-type Amendment that cracks down on religious expression.
And you're still stupid and truly the insane one because it is clear that those laws cover all states and include state sponsored entities like schools.
The law has been interpreted to include the teaching that is included in science classes.
I care little if you know this or not, it is the law and it is Constitutional (no matter how you read it)
@bobster451 >>The law has been interpreted to include...teaching that is included in science classes<<
That's not interpretation. It's rewriting. The law begins "Congress shall make no law". Discarding the subject, verb and object isn't "interpretation". As the law's written, the establishment clause puts a check on the legislative branch--and on nobody else. If you want a different, more oppressive amendment, then you have to go through the amendment process. We don't live in a dictatorship.
@bobster451 >>judicial understanding of this First Amendment<<
An "understanding" of a law which requires one to disregard the subject, verb and object of the written law--"Congress shall make no law"--isn't an understanding at all. It's misunderstanding and utter fantasy. It's an utter lie. Any true understanding of a law won't ignore the law's subject, verb and object. That really isn't obvious to you? You're utterly insane if you think the subjects, verbs and objects of laws are negligible.
@bobster451 >>you may have a different opinion but that is not equal to fact and how things really are<<
How things really are is that the subject, verb and object of the First Amendment are: "Congress shall make no law". It is you and your KKK-lawyer hero who ignore this fact; who ignore how things really are. You are insane. That is how things really are; certifiably because the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law". You subscribe to an insane ideology that denies that fact.
@bobster451 >>We are not teaching lies in schools<<
Yes we are. We're teaching all kinds of lies about Global Warming and sex in schools but that's all completely irrelevant to this O'Donnell video. Teaching lies isn't unconstitutional; even teaching religious ideas you think are lies. These are matters to be taken up at local school board meetings, not by the US Senate. "Congress shall make no law..." Your opinion isn't Law of the Land. We're not your subjects.
@happystance9able I see you now show your ignorance about scientific facts.
Global warming caused by man's activities is fact. And you cannot produce a scientific journal article that is from a reputable source that refutes this fact. And if you do not like the truths that are being taught then go ahead and home school and spread your alternative reality that is a lie.
@bobster451 >>Global warming caused by man's activities is fact<<
No it's not; not at all and in so stating that it is, you show your ignorance of the scientific method. Global warming caused by man's activities is a hypothesis, not a fact. This particular hypothesis is based on fundamentally flawed computer models that don't even attempt to factor-in the single greatest greenhouse gas; greatest both in volume and in effect. What is that gas I'm referring to, if you're so bright about this?
@happystance9able Yes it is fact and your assertion of the contrary has no scientific basis While there is an abounding amount of proof and measurements that show proof. Your ignorance is driving your opinion rather than anything approaching proven science.
You fail.
Were done pal, I am no longer wanting to argue with a idiot that reject science and the way our laws are interpreted because you have proven you know squat about these topics.
@bobster451 >>there is an abounding amount of proof<<
...Yet you offer no evidence whatsoever. How interesting! I can only characterize your belief in this as pseudo-religious. You have your own religion and I am threatening it by questioning its foundation. You are responding just like somebody having their religious beliefs challenged. That's because the part of the brain where religious people put their religion still exists in atheists' brains. They put Government and their egos there.
@bobster451 Answer this: What is the single most voluminous and influential greenhouse gas? Do you even know the basics of this subject? Here's your reminder: It's the gas that the computer models on which Global Warming Theory is based don't even attempt to model. What is that gas? Prove your competence on this subject! The most powerful greenhouse gas is... Fill in the blank, you ignorant fool!
@bobster451 What is the single most powerful greenhouse gas on Planet Earth? It's not in the computer models. What is it? This isn't a fucking game. This is your credibility. You lose!
@bobster451 The extent to which published articles may not exist by critics of the corrupt work of Michael Mann and Phil Jones is only the extent that Mann and Jones were in cahoots with those serving on the editorial staffs of professional journals in preventing their critics from getting published. That is one of the many things revealed by the East Anglia Climategate emails, which thoroughly discredit Mann and Jones themselves as reputable sources. If you worked for them, you too are a fraud.
@bobster451 >>The consensus of climate scientists agree with my position. Science trumps your opinion<<
Even if that were true, consensus isn't science. If consensus were science, Galileo's vision never could have ousted geocentrism. Today's government-funded scientists are every bit as politically and economically motivated to defend the axioms cherished by their government patrons as were all the most established scientists of Galileo's day.
Spencer himself is a team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s own Aqua satellite and Spencer reports in that very article that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show.” Your view of AGW is a myth. You are religious about it.
You've constructed your own, stupid apocalyptic AGW religion and put it in the same part of the brain where others put the great, time-tested religions. You're like a stupid kid touting the "awesomeness" of his stupid little matchbox car, trying to impress adults who drive real cars every day; real cars that take them wherever they want to go. We're rolling our eyeballs at you. LOL
No, I'd like to modify that: It's not a matchbox car. It's a lego car you expect to impress us all with. It's lego because you've hacked the car together yourself.
@bobster451 >>Timothy Birdnow is no climate scientist<<
Irrelevant. That's an excellent article about the politics of the Global Warming Myth; exposing the Inquisition-type persecution of scientists who, Galileo-like, dare to challenge the orthodoxy of the government-funded Left. It also documents the Stalinist political pressure Leftists put on editors of journals who dare to publish papers exposing the fraud you've bought hook-line-and-sinker.
"Abstract:...sensitivity of the climate...to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change...[W]e present...evidence that...[observational] uncertainty...is...due to...masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing...[T]hese...forcings...corrupt feedback diagnosis...[A]tmospheric feedback diagnosis...remains an unsolved problem..."
That AGW is a fact is a political assertion, not scientific.
You assert that axiomatically like a religious person but it requires a rational argument and you present none at all. Yours is the mind of a Leftist political hack. You're not a truth-seeker.
I like how all the Bush economists told us that there would be endless surpluses in 2003 when also government was 97% pampered closet homo republican and the money that WAS left over was pissed away in mistakes and fraud. Derps love Enron/empires like them because they can be fooled to- it just has the name Republican. ANYTHING with the name republican is good right, even default? BTW I am not a liberal or demo. Post 2000 Republicans have NEVER been worse, I am voting for Obama.
@thework4444 >>I like how all the Bush economists told us that there would be endless surpluses in 2003<<
It's reallyReally hard to understand that if you make business decisions that enable you to double your income, but you also ramp up your spending on fun stuff like fancy cars to the point where you spent twice as much as your doubled income, you aren't gonna have a surplus. The funniest thing is watching an O-bot think that through and blaming it on what ya did to double yer income. Haha!
OMG. How did this Women even get to this point ? She is an Idiot !
robyz250 5 days ago
In fairness, the Constitution does not say separation of church and state... It just says you cannot make a LAW to support or forbid a religion.
Libertarian4Liberty 1 month ago
Why is that CUNT smiling? Hey, stupid bitch: They are laughing AT you! They are bowled over with your ignorance and stupidity not just of the constitution but of your ignorance at not knowing when the entire audience laughs at your brainless stupidity. Go home and use your vibrator on its highest setting, you stupid bitch!
jrwbtw 2 months ago 4
O'Donnell wants to make teaching creationism in schools a federal mandate so her argument is null and void.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 3 months ago
Huuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
redzionator 5 months ago
>>If there is any amendment to the constitution you should have memorized it is the first<<
Coons is the one misquoting the amendment at 7:12 and his rich step-dad spent a fortune on his law school education. Christine never misquotes the amendment. She's probably smiling because it never occurs to her that she could be in a room full of law school students and faculty, and not a single one of them understands the meaning of "Congress shall make no law" She overestimated them.
happystance8able 6 months ago
The dumbest people in the audience are the loudest ones. Let's hope they're the journalists, not the law students and GOD HELP US NOT THE FACULTY! You're not free to discard the subject, verb and object of a law, append your own, more expansive subject, verb and object, and then hold us all legally bound to the new, unwritten law in your stupid head. Christine understands what "Congress shall make no law" means. Her critics obviously can't even read. LOL Liberals...
happystance8able 6 months ago
@happystance8able Reading does not equal comprehension, as you have so brilliantly illustrated. They read well enough to understand the opinions and resources from the authors of the document which provide ample evidence for a separation. She didn't say "where in the Constitution are the WORDS 'separation of church and state?'" she said "where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" Anyone who thinks the Constitution is just words on a page shouldn't be allowed to attain office.
lovegun001 5 months ago 10
@lovegun001 >>Reading does not equal comprehension<<
That's for damned sure. Anybody thinking the American People should be legally subjected to unwritten laws imagined by unelected tyrants--laws that, because they're not written, can't be known in advance and no elected officials ever voted into law--anybody who believes that shouldn't be allowed to attain office because they don't understand the very purpose of having a written Constitution. "Congress shall make no law" means something.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able They ARE written in the form of court opinions penned by individuals appointed by elected officials. Checks and balances my friend, checks and balances.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 LOL "Checks and balances" are clearly defined between government's 3 branches; one of which is "Congress". The 1st Amendment's therefore nothing more than a check on Congress; limiting laws it can pass. "Congress shall make no law." The judiciary's not free to invent its own amendments limiting citizens' freedoms. The People's consent is never to be checked or balanced by unelected tyrants inventing their own laws for us all to live by. That's not a check; It's cause for revolution.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able You're missing the forest for the trees my friend. The judiciary is confirmed by congress and as such congress has the ability to approve of who will make case law. Further, congress can always react to the judiciary through a change in the law. I say again: checks and balances my friend, checks and balances. It appears that you would, if given the power, eviscerate the judicial branch of our government. Surely you realize the uncertainty and chaos this would create.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 The uncertainty and chaos come from judicial tyrants discarding the subject, verb and object of the law and keeping only the adjectival clause, so as to limit citizens' freedom of religious expression wherever the tyrants don't want such expression to occur. A law, written to reassure citizens that Congress can't persecute them for religious expression, is twisted into being the very source of the persecution itself by ignoring "Congress shall make no law". It's the KKK's Amendment.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able I've started a discussion with a paranoid psycho. You think by keeping a religion our of public schools we are somehow persecuting religion? That's the most backwards thought I have ever heard. You can write back, and I know you will, but you've lost all credibility with regard to logic reasoning now. And "KKK's Amendment?" Huh? It's now more clear than ever you have never read any case law which tends to be on a whole well reasoned and bound by stare decisis.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>case law which tends to be on a whole well reasoned and bound by stare decisis<<
Go conduct a seance and preach the virtues of stare decisis to those blacks who were forced to live their lives as if "Separate but Equal" existed in the Constitution. Your personal education policy preferences are not law of the land. Sorry, but you're not our King. Your guy on the court was just a sick lawyer for the KKK. The "Wall of separation" needs to go the way of "Separate but Equal".
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 Congress passing laws that restrict a student's or teacher's free exercise of religion is persecuting religion. Just as congress deciding what religions the govt. recognizes is. Maybe they should recognize Atheism as a religion also. Then evangelical atheists could get the same treatment. Do Buddhists get persecuted for meditating in school? What about Muslims? Rastafaris? União do Vegetal? Religious persecution under color of law comes in many forms.
Noktirnal 2 months ago
Comment removed
lovegun001 5 months ago
Comment removed
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 Judges and Justices can only rule on LAWS enacted by CONGRESS. If congress passes any law regarding religion, it is unconstitutional, null, and void. Therefore any changes to the law based on court rulings are also null and void. The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, is quite clear in its language. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Noktirnal 2 months ago
@Noktirnal Your point? Are you really saying that case law is not binding? LOL!
lovegun001 2 months ago
@lovegun001 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Must be considered as binding. That is my point. You want to put words in my mouth. I have the right to be Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Rastafari, etc any place anytime and practice openly
Noktirnal 2 months ago
@happystance8able ...not to mention the inefficiency.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>not to mention the inefficiency<<
The only inefficiency is for tyrants imposing their will on the People. Yes, it's terribly inefficient; not getting to just declare one's opinions to be Law of the Land. But a greater efficiency is gained for everyone else when laws mean what they say; when adjectival phrases are limited in scope by the subjects, verbs and objects of the sentences they appear in; when teachers know they can't break the 1st Amendment because they're not "Congress".
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able I wish I could be like you. I wish I could think in black and white. Unfortunately the world we live in is mostly gray, most people understand this, and that's why we have courts. I wonder, have you ever even read an appellate court opinion? One thing is clear, you have no respect for our Constitution and little to no understanding of how it operates. If you really think a particular religion should be taught in public schools, you have no idea what this country is about.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>the world we live in is mostly gray, most people understand this<<
It takes a royal degree of arrogance and presumptuousness about one's own knowledge, wisdom and virtue to point to the massive complexity of life as the reason why one's personal policy preferences are the tune everyone must dance to. You're trying to quietly repeal the American Revolution and set yourself up as a member of an oligarchy; some vanguard of superior wisdom and virtue. LOL
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>If you really think a particular religion should be taught in public schools, you have no idea what this country is about.<<
If you really think public schools need your personal approval before they can legally teach a particular idea about the origin of the universe, life on Planet Earth, or human morality, you must think you're a king or something. You have no idea what the First Amendment is about.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able Yes, I think I'm king because I don't want others' religions views imposed on my children. Because I think education should be based on science rather than fiction.....If I were king, I would have every freedom hatting ignorant fool like you shot!
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>Yes, I think I'm king because I don't want others' religions views imposed on my children<<
No, you think you're king because you assume it's Law of the Land that people MUST act according to your wishes; written law be damned. You've declared "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't limit the scope of the establishment clause simply because you don't want it to. And your desires aren't up for a vote; They are just Law of the Land. That's EXACTLY how kings think.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 then why not remove fiction from literature classes as well?
Noktirnal 2 months ago
@lovegun001 I agree that you are King. But you are your only subject. Our Constitution is supposed to guarantee the sovereignty of each and every person bound by the laws of the government it creates. The Constitution limits government, not citizens. It seems government wants to bypass those limitations by passing laws that unconstitutionally limit sovereign citizens.
Noktirnal 2 months ago
@Noktirnal I really wish that Constitutional Law was taught in high school. So much ignorance prevails on the subject, it's troubling. Do you really not see the importance of keeping our government from deciding what religion we practice and from taking any role in the religions education of our children? Your way of thinking is so backwards and counter to the current state of the law that I won't even try to have a serious conversation with you on the matter. I suggest you do some reading.
lovegun001 2 months ago
@lovegun001 Yes, and that what I am saying. If government can tell us we can't be educated about a religion, then it might as well be telling you what religion you must belong to. Constitutional Law isn't the issue. The Constitution is so clear in its language in this matter that any person literate in the English language should be able to understand it. ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Noktirnal 2 months ago
@happystance8able I can tell you that the First Amendment is about protecting us from people like you that would force your religion on others. Why do you hate freedom so much?
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>the First Amendment is about<<
forbidding Congress from making laws that forbid citizens from expressing their personal religious beliefs or laws that require people to express religious beliefs endorsed by the state. The amendment is NOT about imposing gag orders on citizens who wish to promote their personal religious beliefs. Because of the subject, verb and object of the amendment, citizens can NEVER violate the Amendment. Only laws made by Congress can violate it.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>Why do you hate freedom so much?<<
LOL You live in Opposite Land. If you want a gag order imposed on people who wish to FREELY promote their religious beliefs, it is YOU who hates their FREEDOM. You hate their freedom of religious expression and you want to control those people. You are a wannabe tyrant. The First Amendment was expressly written to prevent people like you from using Congress to make your tyrannical wishes Law of the Land. Suck it up, tyrant!
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able LOL you really don't get it do you? You think it's appropriate to push your religion on others through government action, sad. I'm just glad that your extreme backward position is not the current state of the law (lord help us all if it were) and more reasonable minds have prevailed.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>You think it's appropriate to push your religion on others through government action<<
Citizens have every right to express and promote their personal beliefs and values in schools--even when You disagree with them, Your Majesty. Your will is not Law for everyone to live by. I oppose subscribers to the Apocalyptic Global Warming Myth--The Church of Al Gore--promoting their nutty religion with impunity in our schools, but I'd never pretend my will was Law of the Land. I just fight.
happystance8able 5 months ago
"to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own"
--T.Jefferson; The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
happystance8able 5 months ago
"Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them"
--The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able LOL. Nice one. He's arguing against your position. You're forcing your particular religion on everyone is precisely what he feared. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - T. Jefferson.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 LOL You honestly have a reading comprehension disorder. You want the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion in the schools--to restrain the propagation of religious principles on supposition of their ill tendency. You'd destroy all religious liberty in schools by making your own atheistic opinions the rule of judgment, condemning the sentiments of religious people because they don't square with your own.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>You're forcing your particular religion on everyone is precisely what he feared<<
You couldn't be more wrong. He specifically says in the VA statute that "Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself. She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and HAS NOTHING TO FEAR from the conflict." Thus, nobody ever needs to be gagged. And, in the case of the Danbury Baptists, he said his administration would NEVER forbid people from propagating their religious beliefs.
happystance8able 5 months ago
Jefferson explicitly said nobody ever needs to be gagged when it comes to religion--so that would go for the schools as well--because Truth is great and has nothing to fear from conflict with error. You, on the other hand, are obviously not so secure in the ability of your ideas to hold up in the conflict. You think your ideas will not prevail if left to themselves, so you need government to gagged those who disagree with you.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able Now whose spinning the text in his own direction...AGAIN...""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - T. Jefferson. Could he have been more clear? I think not. He was the FIRST person to use the term "separation of church and state."!!!
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>Could he have been more clear?<<
More clear than using a metaphor? LOL "a wall"? Metaphors lack clarity by definition. Only legal retards don't see a problem in that. He wasn't writing a rigorous legal treatise. It was a political letter to constituents intended to fix serious damage to his reputation among New Englanders from the 1800 election. The Danbury letter never even mentions any of the other freedoms explicitly protected by the Amendment. It's Jefferson-as-politician.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>He was the FIRST person to use the term<<
As good a reason as any why that term isn't law of the land any more than "Separate but Equal" is. You seem to think that Thomas Jefferson was involved in drafting the language of the First Amendment or in any way involved in pressing it through Congress. That is completely wrong. Jefferson wasn't even a legislator and he wasn't even living in America then! He is not an author of the Amendment. He was Ambassador to France; living in France.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 What'd Jefferson have put on his tombstone? Did he have his caretakers dig up any quotes from that piece of political shit to the Danburys you hold so high as to declare it Law of the Land? Answer: NO. It was political ephemera. However, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is on his tombstone. Read that statute and find me a single metaphor that needs to be interpreted by judges in order for Virginians to know what limits there are on their religious freedom. There are none.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able Do try to remain on topic. I know it's difficult. We are not, nor have we ever been discussing limits on religious freedom. I guess you really can't fix stupid. We are talking about keeping the government from imposing religion on the people. Let the people be free to worship as they wish. Don't impose your religion on them! If you think you would enjoy living in a theocracy maybe you should move to the Middle East, they have plenty of them over there.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>We are not...discussing limits on religious freedom<<
Wrong. We are discussing limits on religious freedom in schools. If a law made by Congress forbids the propagation of religious ideas in schools, then it is that law made by Congress which violates the First Amendment because Congress shall make no law...abridging the free exercise [of the right to religious establishment]. Couldn't be simpler, but I know you believe in the KKK's fake amendment elected officials never voted for.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 If people are propagating fallacious myths in the schools and you don't like it, take it up with your local school board! That's fine. Get in line with those of us opposing the propagation of Al Gore's fallacious pseudo-religious AGW myth. Myths can be propagated in schools. It's not against the law to believe in wrong ideas and promote those beliefs thinking you're right. That's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech specifically means people are going to "impose" crappy ideas on you.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able ??? So sad. You can't tell the difference between religion and science, personal beliefs and accepted theory, or freedom from oppression. Yikes!
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>personal beliefs and accepted theory<<
31,000 U.S. scientists--9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties--signed a petition rejecting global warming. The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree...
You have your own fallacious myths which you believe and want propagated in the schools.
happystance8able 5 months ago
You have your own apocalyptic cult and your cult's leaders claim to know how to control the climate of Planet
Earth by passing laws restricting people's behavior and imposing punishments on those who don't follow the prescriptions of your cult's leaders. The only thing consistent between your AGW stance and 1st Amendment stance is that you like to use government force to crack down on your fellow man. You are a wannabe tyrant. The 1st Amendment was written specifically to limit your power.
happystance8able 5 months ago
You have your own apocalyptic cult and your cult's leaders claim to know how to control the climate of Planet Earth by passing laws restricting people's behavior and imposing punishments on those who don't follow the prescriptions of your cult's leaders. The only thing consistent between your AGW stance and 1st Amendment stance is that you like to use government force to crack down on your fellow man. You are a wannabe tyrant. The 1st Amendment was written specifically to limit your power.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able It was written to limit GOVERNMENT POWER! If you don't get that, you're a moron.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 No, it was WRITTEN to limit LAWS CONGRESS CAN MAKE. If you don't get that... Our Founders knew Congress was only one branch of government. If they had wanted to gag citizens in schools, they would have used different language. The amendment is a unilateral restriction on Congress, not a bilateral restriction (i.e. a "wall"). You've just written your own Amendment. I'm not bound by that. You're not as smart as the Founders and no elected officials ever voted on your words.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able There is nothing tyrannical about ensuring the religions freedom of the people. Why can't the people just be free? Why have the government teaching a specific religion? That sounds like tyranny to me. That's what I find so fascinating about this conversation. I am the one protecting our freedom, yet you think I'm oppressing it, so backwards. BTW, earlier I was talking about evolution v. creationism, you know, something a little more germane to the conversation.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>you think I'm oppressing<<
Gagging citizens who work in schools is oppressive. Plain and simple. If Congress makes a law ordering schools to teach a specific religion, I'll join you in getting that law struck down. Then people will be free to promote whatever beliefs they have of their own free will. Truth has nothing to fear from conflict with error. Truth is Great and will prevail! That's freedom.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able Now you're starting to get it. Glad something got through! To be clear though, a teacher in a public school is a government actor, so them teaching religion in their class IS government teaching a specific religion, and that should not be and thankfully IS NOT allowed.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>[teachers] teaching religion in their class<<
...is not Congress making a law, so it is absolutely allowed under the United States Constitution. In fact, it is explicitly protected from laws made by Congress. School administrators on the other hand are perfectly free to fire math teachers who teach religion all day instead of the math they're paid to teach. That's not violating the 1st Amendment either, because an administrator firing somebody is ALSO not Congress making a law.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@lovegun001 Teachers are not laws made by Congress, so they are unable to violate the 1st Amendment. Only laws made by Congress can violate it. If a law funding schools means that teachers are forbidden from teaching religious beliefs, then it is that school funding that violates the 1st Amendment; not the teachers. Teachers are explicitly protected by the Amendment to teach religious beliefs in schools. That bothered the KKK to no end, so their lawyer, Hugo Black, struck down the 1st Amendment.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able You've fallen off the sanity wagon again. I thought you were moving past your delusions of the state of the law and that I had managed to educate and enlighten you. Your refusal to recognize well established legal precedent and the reality of the current state of the law makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. Further, your apparent lack of understanding our governmental structure and function makes it difficult to explain the law to you. I give up.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 LOL Well, I'll end by saying that you are a charming person and it amuses me that you can't comprehend why our Founders--the most brilliant philosophers who ever lived--would have chosen the words "Congress shall make no law" to serve as the subject, verb and object of the 1st Amendment. Why you think a KKK lawyer should rewrite the amendment is beyond me but I want you to know that I love you as a person and wish you a wonderful, fulfilling life and I mean that most sincerely.
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able ???? What and/or why are you talking about this?...This is going no where. You can't maintain a train of thought. Get help man!
lovegun001 5 months ago
@happystance8able I don't know if I've ever encountered anyone so obtuse. I don't think I could explain it in simpler terms but I'll give it one more shot: The DOE is an agency created by congress so any action(s) they take is like congress. If public schools were to allow religion to be taught they would be violating the 1st amendment ....get it now? Funny, you consider exclusion of religion in public (read government) forums to be tyrannical while you would have them force religion on others.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 >>If public schools were to allow religion to be taught they would be violating the 1st amendment<<
LOL You're like one of those idiots I remember from school who acts with such confidence, one assumes you're intelligent. Then the teacher passes back last Friday's quiz and there's red all over your page. You got ever damned question completely wrong, yet it doesn't affect your ego one bit. Congress forbidding people from teaching religion in public schools explicitly violates the 1st
happystance8able 5 months ago
@happystance8able Well, at least I got this question right.Try finding a source that supports your position, then get back to me..Until then, I'll stick with Supreme Court precedent , the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and of course, the 1st Amendment itself. You stick with your gut though, that will convince a lot of people. Just like your climate change denial means so much. After all, all those Ph. Ds. and overwhelming data are nothing compared to your gut instinct.
lovegun001 5 months ago
@lovegun001 I don't support or condemn any religion over any other. Any true education system should allow students to pursue learning. In public colleges and universities, one can enroll in classes that teach about Islam, Christianity, and any number of other religions. Educating oneself about a religion does not necessarily mean you subscribe to, believe in, or are converting to that religion. A religion CAN be taught about in such a way as not to proselytize students.
Noktirnal 2 months ago
Every year, the automobile causes more death and destruction than just about any other cause, so do we outlaw the automobile? Why not? It is one of the biggest causes of death and destruction e.g. killing 40,000 Americans every freakin' year. Imagine a world without cars... and pass the bong, man!
happystance9able 6 months ago
Is is NOT the right of a school to teach things that aren't true... what if local school boards want to change history and teach the holocaust never happened?
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>Is is NOT the right of a school to teach things that aren't true<<
You mean like fiction? Literature? That stuff's not true. It is the right of people to teach their kids whatever they'd like to teach them--and to decide collectively through their local school boards what will be taught in schools--and it is decidedly NOT the right of presumptuous federal officials to pronounce what is "true" and what is not "true" from on high, as if officials like Senators were omiscient gods.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Gimme a break, you know what I mean. Evolution is the widely accepted scientific theory, as is gravity. To not teach this & teach "creationism" is just wrong. It's another example of the deliberate dumbing down of America. When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing, the whole family went through the roof, couldn't believe it - he was pulled from that idiot's class. Teaching fiction, like shakespeare, nothing wrong with that
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing...he was pulled from that idiot's class<<
That's a perfectly legitimate way to handle such a situation, but Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, so it shall make no law cracking down on the teaching of religion in schools, regardless of what some insane, Catholic-hating KKK-lawyer idiot wanted to do in the 1940s. That KKK prick doesn't get to dictate law.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able THat would not be something to be taught in a science class, cause, it ain't science.
bobster451 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bawbster1 >>When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing...he was pulled from that idiot's class<<
That's a perfectly legitimate way to handle such a situation, but Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, so it shall make no law cracking down on the teaching of religion in schools, regardless of what some insane, Catholic-hating KKK-lawyer idiot wanted to do in the 1940s. That KKK prick doesn't get to dictate law.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@Bawbster1>>When my nephew was taught in high school by one of his teachers that nasa faked the moon landing...he was pulled from that idiot's class<<
That's a perfectly legit way to handle such a situation, but Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, so it shall make no law cracking down on the teaching of religion in schools, regardless of what some insane, Catholic-hating KKK-lawyer idiot wanted to do in the 1940s. That KKK prick doesn't get to dictate law.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Yeah - change is wonderful, and many more of us (and our numbers are growing buddy) are starting to feel that teaching myths like Jesus and God in school is not justified. You can fight the change all you want, soon people with beliefs like yours will be extinct just like the Neanderthal. You probably don't even acknowledge Neanderthals or dinosaurs existed eh?
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>Yeah - change is wonderful<<
Yeah. That's what makes dictatorships so great to live in. Change happens so quickly and easily there, with the changing of just a single mind; the dictator's. It's wonderful how the law changes from day to day according to the whims of the dictator. Anybody who is against dictatorships is against change. Pass the bong, man!
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able You live in a dictatorship if you believe in the bible
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@happystance9able Teach Creationism where it belongs - in your cults Sunday School - then teach him every man woman and child came from two people, and a talking snake fucked it up for everyone. Teach him that moses talked to a burning bush (I'm guessing right after he found the magic mushrooms - or was it a marijuana bush?). THERE IS NO GOD - GET OVER IT - START TO LIVE YOUR LIFE.
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>Teach Creationism where it belongs<<
That's perfectly reasonable to bring up at your local school board meeting, but your personal educational policy preference is not Law of the Land. Sorry, you're not a god. You don't dictate the law and impose it on the rest of us without us getting a vote on it. You're just an obnoxious, ignorant, presumptuous twit. You're a wannbe tyrant and the 1st Amendment was specifically written to keep creeps like you at bay when you stumble into power.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Well - if you read a little closer - I stated "THERE IS NO GOD" - see you religious nuts see only what you want to see. Science should be taught in Science class - Religion should be taught in Sunday School, or the "Cult" as I like to call it. Hey - just my opinion - I never stated my preference was the "Law of the Land" you fucking asshole - stop putting words in my mouth. BTW - Mary wasn't a virgin- she had a kid - she was probably a fucking WHORE!!!!!!!!
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@happystance9able Well - if you read a little closer - I stated "THERE IS NO GOD" - see you religious nuts see only what you want to see. Science should be taught in Science class - Religion should be taught in Sunday School, or the "Cult" as I like to call it. Hey - just my opinion - I never stated my preference was the "Law of the Land" you fucking asshole - stop putting words in my mouth. BTW - Mary wasn't a virgin- she had a kid - she was probably a fucking WHORE!!!!!!!!
Bawbster1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@happystance9able Well - if you read a little closer - I stated "THERE IS NO GOD" - see you religious nuts see only what you want to see. Science should be taught in Science class - Religion should be taught in Sunday School, or the "Cult" as I like to call it. Hey - just my opinion - I never stated my preference was the "Law of the Land" you fucking asshole - stop putting words in my mouth. BTW - Mary wasn't a virgin- she had a kid - she was probably a fucking WHORE!!!!!!!!
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@happystance9able The movie "Star Wars" is a more believable story than the bible. BTW - The first historian to write about Jesus, lived over 400 years after Jesus died!!! - THAT IS A FACT. Religion is responsible for more death and destruction around the world, more than any other reason, especially Christianity.
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>Religion is responsible for more death and destruction around the world, more than any other reason<<
LOL You've got your own stupid myth, I see. Against the tens of millions slaughtered by the atheistic Maoists during the relatively few years of their Cultural Revolution in China--murders in the name of Communism, not religion--you'd be very hard-pressed to tally up a matching number of religious murders over the entire span of human history, even if just for technological limits.
happystance9able 6 months ago
Then, if you manage to come up with tens of millions murdered for religion--which I doubt you ever could--I'll up the ante with the tens of millions more murdered by the Soviet atheists; crimes also committed for the Leftist ideology of communism. Then you can get back to digging up more examples of people murdered for religion. You are propagating an idea here that you can't possibly know to be true, yet you pretend to be so committed to truth. You are a hypocrite.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Most wars in the past have been based on religion, like it or not. "Onward Christian Soldiers" - Go jerk off to cunts like Christine O'Donnell Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann.
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>Most wars in the past have been based on religion<<
Even if that were true, the killing didn't really ramp up until the aetheists started their own wars; from the French Revolutionaries to Mao's Cultural Rebels, the world had just never seen killing on that scale before. Hell, the French atheists had to commission the invention of the guillotine to satisfy their blood-lust. Earlier religious warriors were just totally outdone by the performance of later atheist warriors.
happystance8able 6 months ago
@Bawbster1>>more death and destruction around the world...especially Christianity<<
LOL You're ignorant as hell. It was precisely collusion between Christianity and the British government that got slavery abolished worldwide for the first time in human history. 17th century British Quakers, interpreting their Bibles in a new way, began the movement to get slavery banned and it was strictly a religious crusade for nearly 100 years before the movement expanded to the secular realm...
happystance9able 6 months ago
@Bawbster1>>more death and destruction around the world...especially Christianity<<
LOL You're ignorant as hell. It was precisely collusion between Christianity and the British government that got slavery abolished worldwide for the first time in human history. 17th century British Quakers, interpreting their Bibles in a new way, began the movement to get slavery banned and it was strictly a religious crusade for nearly 100 years before the movement expanded...
happystance8able 6 months ago
...The Quaker's religious crusade to abolish slavery grew steam when their religious ideology found its way into the Church of England via the Clapham Sect; a small group of very conservative, very influential (wealthy) Anglicans. As you know, a less-volatile slavery-condoning version of Christianity permeated British society. This functioned like a Trojan Horse for freedom as the Christian hearts of the British people were set ablaze in the world's Superpower and largest slave-trading nation...
happystance8able 6 months ago
...Once the Christian people of Britain decided that slavery should be abolished regardless of the secular cost in the loss of free labor--a relatively easy decision for them to make, given their relative prosperity--any nation that wanted to trade with the world's Superpower had to renounce slavery. Secular France was hesitant--their first constitution preserved slavery--until the Haitian Slave Revolt threatened to ally itself with the British and thus threaten French economic interests...
happystance8able 6 months ago
Some 1500 years earlier, Socrates had once questioned the morality of slavery. (We only know this because of the great service Christian monks did for us by preserving the works of Plato through the Dark Ages.) As you know, Socrates was squashed like a bug in the end by the secular powers of his day, so nothing came of it and nothing more would until the Quakers began their religious crusade. Thank God for there being no wall of separation between church and state or we'd still be owning slaves.
happystance8able 6 months ago
@happystance8able Have you never heard about the crusades? The spanish Inquisition? You are ignorant you fucking moron. When people are guilted into Tithing 10% of their earnings - that's a form of slavery as well. You religious idiots always want proof for things like evolution, but when it comes to the fairy tales in the bible, "you just have to have faith" right? Show me proof that even 1 story in the bible is true. Show me some scientific evidence. THERE IS NO GOD - GET OVER IT
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@happystance8able Ever heard of the Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? You are the ignorant one. You religious nuts always want proof for evolution, yet to believe the fairy tales in the bible based on simple faith. Show me proof that even 1 story in the bible is true. I dare you to try - scientific evidence... You won't find it. THERE IS NO GOD - GET OVER IT - LIVE YOUR LIFE
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1>>the Crusades?<<
Very wise and successful foreign policy for its day; a defensive response to the Islamic hordes eating away at the edges of Christendom. Remember: The word "slave" bears witness to the fact that the first slaves were Slavs--white Europeans--enslaved on a massive scale by muslim marauders. The Islamic world was the last to acknowledge the immorality of slavery; Christian Western Europe was the first. Take a glimpse of the alternative course we could have taken....
happystance8able 6 months ago
>>the Crusades?<<
...would have been a big help to these people...
watch?v=L8Il633PIa4
...had the movement reached them. Unfortunately for these Sudanese people, they never got Christianity and remain in Muslim-dominated territory today. Therefore, they are today's fodder for the continuing Islamic slave trade. Christianity is not something to dismiss lightly. No aetheistic movement has ever done good on anything close to the scale of what Christianity has done. Look at those people!
happystance8able 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>Spanish Inquisition?<<
Over a period of about 150 years, a total of about 3,500 people were put to death by the Inquisition. Comparing that to the 20 million estimated to have been killed in a SINGLE DECADE by Maoist aethists alone, religion looks pretty damned good on all accounts. It is scientific materialism championed by atheists throughout the 20th century that has led to the vast majority of murders in world history.
happystance9able 6 months ago
From its manifestation in the forms of eugenics, communism, and this sick, new AGW Myth, it is obvious that scientific materialism is the scourge of Planet Earth we should be railing against; not the form of Christianity developed by Quakers which got slavery banned, or earlier forms that got infanticide banned by proselytizing pagans to the notion that individuals are created in the image of God. Nothing has done more good in the world than those forms of Christianity. You're crazy with hate.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Are you forgetting about, well just about every war ever fought in Earth's history? 95% of them had to do with religion.
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 >>95% of them had to do with religion<<
But 100% of them had to do with government. You need to join the TEA Party is you really want to rail against the single biggest cause of war. But if 95% of war-related deaths happened in the few wars that had to do with scientific materialism as advocated by atheists, not religion--especially Maoist-type communism and NAZI-type eugenics--that only speaks well of religion. e.g.One thinks of the Christmas Truce during WWI.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able You religious nuts believe what you want to believe, and continue to fail to see your nose, despite your face. The Pope going to AIDS stricken Africa, and telling the population that it's not OK to wear a condom. Yeah - religion is just fucking dandy. If there is a God, Mankind has never met him and never spoken to him. We wouldn't be able to recognize him, nor would we be able to understand him.
Bawbster1 6 months ago
Comment removed
happystance9able 6 months ago
Comment removed
happystance9able 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 You're a blithering idiot, full of irrational hate. Edward C. Green, senior research scientist at Harvard School of Public Health and a staunch liberal, agrees with the Pope on that point. Green's a pretty bright guy, for a liberal. Go check out his washpost opinion piece entitled "Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa - The Pope Was Right" dated 3/29/09. Then find out where he works and try to get him fired for heresy against your Stalinist orthodoxy. LOL
happystance8able 6 months ago
@happystance8able You are a racist - why else would you condone what the Pope said? The use of condoms to prevent the widespread growth of a pandemic of epic proportions is a good idea. I read the article - it's nonsense. So if they don't use condoms, I'm guessing you are promoting unprotected sex? Do you actually think that unprotected sex is a better option than using a condom? AND YOU CALL ME THE BLITHERING IDIOT?!? You're not worth my time any longer - this debate is over between you and I
Bawbster1 6 months ago
@Bawbster1 You're truly an imbecile--a child! You demonstrate absolutely no understanding of the very intelligent explanation made by that extremely liberal, very pro-condom health professional. You've constructed a crass theory which accounts for none of the cultural details making AIDS transmission in Africa very different from that in e.g. Thailand or Cambodia. Because of idiots like you imposing your stupid theories on cultures you don't understand, more Africans die today of AIDS...
happystance8able 6 months ago
...yet your stupendous ego makes it impossible for you to ever even consider the possibility that your precious theory is wrong and you will hurl insults at and destroy anybody who would dare challenge your theory with empirical facts from the real fucking world. As far as you are concerned, if the world and your theory don't match, then it must be the world that is wrong; it could never be your stupid fucking theory because you are so fucking special. You are positively Hitlerian in this way.
happystance8able 6 months ago
@happystance8able Get a life.
teufelkim 5 months ago
@teufelkim >>Get a life.<<
Construct a rational argument.
happystance8able 5 months ago
Incredible how stupid this chick is.
This shows the level of smarts the GOP represents.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 Incredible how stupid you are. Your comment shows the level of smarts Leftists represent.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able LOL!
My comment did not pander to stupid like O'Donnell's did.
If you think she is smart then I better understand why you made this statement.
If you have studied history and understand the Constitution then you understand how stupid you have made yourself look to others that read your post.
LOL!
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>If you...understand the Constitution then you understand how stupid you have made yourself look<<
Given that the subject, verb and object of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law" it's patently obvious that you and Coons are the idiots. Coons completely misses all three elements of the amendment when he pathetically tries to quote it at 7:12. Nothing Christine says indicates she's as ignorant of the law as you and Coons are. You idiots live in Opposite Land. LOL!
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able I could give a crap about Coons. I was talking about O'Donnel who shows her abject failure to understand The Constitution and she touts how she stand up for the law of the Constitution.
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>Congress shall make no law<<
LOL Are you seriously unable to comprehend those words? They limit the scope of the 1st Amendment's establishment clause to laws passed by Congress. That Amendment imposes no restrictions whatsoever on school teachers. They are not Congress. Congress is the legislative branch of a 3-branch government. Teachers can't violate the 1st Amendment, no matter what they teach. Only laws made by Congress can violate that Amendment. Listen to Coons at 7:12
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Yes they do! And you being unaware of that fact shows you to be the idiot here.
Your courts have already intrepreted this amendment to include public schools and what is taught.
You reasoning forgets how the judicial branch interprets law, it's certainly not what your little mind has concluded.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 You blithering idiot. I don't exist to be subjected to whatever laws an unelected tyrant invents whenever imbeciles like you happen to agree with the tyrant's proclamation. You are supporting the very same lunacy that imposed Separate But Equal on blacks for generations. No elected officials ever voted the words "Separate But Equal" into law, but idiots like you saw to it that blacks were made to live by that personal policy preference without anybody getting to vote on it. Fuck you!
happystance9able 6 months ago
@bobster451 If we're going to stop teaching lies in the schools, we'll have to stop promoting the lunacy that the 1st Amendment begins with anything other than "Congress shall make no law". You people are utterly insane. A KKK lawyer on the SCOTUS discarded the subject, verb and object of the Amendment--without any elected officials voting to do so--and he invented his own, more-expansive subject, verb and object so as to create a KKK-type Amendment that cracks down on religious expression.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able We are not teaching lies in schools.
And you're still stupid and truly the insane one because it is clear that those laws cover all states and include state sponsored entities like schools.
The law has been interpreted to include the teaching that is included in science classes.
I care little if you know this or not, it is the law and it is Constitutional (no matter how you read it)
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>The law has been interpreted to include...teaching that is included in science classes<<
That's not interpretation. It's rewriting. The law begins "Congress shall make no law". Discarding the subject, verb and object isn't "interpretation". As the law's written, the establishment clause puts a check on the legislative branch--and on nobody else. If you want a different, more oppressive amendment, then you have to go through the amendment process. We don't live in a dictatorship.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able And the judicial understanding of this First Amendment is different than your interpretation.
You do lose in this case.
Please don't think you can school me about the Constitution and how laws are made.
Yes, you may have a different opinion but that is not equal to fact and how things really are.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>judicial understanding of this First Amendment<<
An "understanding" of a law which requires one to disregard the subject, verb and object of the written law--"Congress shall make no law"--isn't an understanding at all. It's misunderstanding and utter fantasy. It's an utter lie. Any true understanding of a law won't ignore the law's subject, verb and object. That really isn't obvious to you? You're utterly insane if you think the subjects, verbs and objects of laws are negligible.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>you may have a different opinion but that is not equal to fact and how things really are<<
How things really are is that the subject, verb and object of the First Amendment are: "Congress shall make no law". It is you and your KKK-lawyer hero who ignore this fact; who ignore how things really are. You are insane. That is how things really are; certifiably because the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law". You subscribe to an insane ideology that denies that fact.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>We are not teaching lies in schools<<
Yes we are. We're teaching all kinds of lies about Global Warming and sex in schools but that's all completely irrelevant to this O'Donnell video. Teaching lies isn't unconstitutional; even teaching religious ideas you think are lies. These are matters to be taken up at local school board meetings, not by the US Senate. "Congress shall make no law..." Your opinion isn't Law of the Land. We're not your subjects.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able I see you now show your ignorance about scientific facts.
Global warming caused by man's activities is fact. And you cannot produce a scientific journal article that is from a reputable source that refutes this fact. And if you do not like the truths that are being taught then go ahead and home school and spread your alternative reality that is a lie.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>Global warming caused by man's activities is fact<<
No it's not; not at all and in so stating that it is, you show your ignorance of the scientific method. Global warming caused by man's activities is a hypothesis, not a fact. This particular hypothesis is based on fundamentally flawed computer models that don't even attempt to factor-in the single greatest greenhouse gas; greatest both in volume and in effect. What is that gas I'm referring to, if you're so bright about this?
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Yes it is fact and your assertion of the contrary has no scientific basis While there is an abounding amount of proof and measurements that show proof. Your ignorance is driving your opinion rather than anything approaching proven science.
You fail.
Were done pal, I am no longer wanting to argue with a idiot that reject science and the way our laws are interpreted because you have proven you know squat about these topics.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>there is an abounding amount of proof<<
...Yet you offer no evidence whatsoever. How interesting! I can only characterize your belief in this as pseudo-religious. You have your own religion and I am threatening it by questioning its foundation. You are responding just like somebody having their religious beliefs challenged. That's because the part of the brain where religious people put their religion still exists in atheists' brains. They put Government and their egos there.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>Yes it is fact<<
You state this like an article of faith.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@bobster451 Answer this: What is the single most voluminous and influential greenhouse gas? Do you even know the basics of this subject? Here's your reminder: It's the gas that the computer models on which Global Warming Theory is based don't even attempt to model. What is that gas? Prove your competence on this subject! The most powerful greenhouse gas is... Fill in the blank, you ignorant fool!
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able No, I know the answers more than you but I am not playing your game.
Your ignorance is to profound to waste any more of my time.
We're done!
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 What is the single most powerful greenhouse gas on Planet Earth? It's not in the computer models. What is it? This isn't a fucking game. This is your credibility. You lose!
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Look, we're done.
You have not produced a single example of a scientific journal entry from a reputable source.
When you back up your stance with science we can chat, until then I will be free of discussing this topic with you.
I supported climate scientists at a national laboratory and know science.
You plainly have bought into the political BS.
We're done and my credibility is fine.
Anyone reading this thread can see who has no facts.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 The extent to which published articles may not exist by critics of the corrupt work of Michael Mann and Phil Jones is only the extent that Mann and Jones were in cahoots with those serving on the editorial staffs of professional journals in preventing their critics from getting published. That is one of the many things revealed by the East Anglia Climategate emails, which thoroughly discredit Mann and Jones themselves as reputable sources. If you worked for them, you too are a fraud.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able I am not the one rolling out the red herrings.
I know science and it is obvious you do not.
Your conspiracy theory fails as well.
Let me save you some time.
You will not find a reputable science journal that has a published article that will refute the fact of man caused global warming.
This has wandered way off topic and has nothing to do with the fact that O'Donnell is an idiot which was my original statement.
Enjoy your red herrings with so,done else.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>a single example of a scientific journal entry from a reputable source<<
"On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance"
Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell
Remote Sensing 2011, 3, 1603-1613; doi:10.3390/rs3081603
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able So you chose to believe Spencer and Braswell over the others, fair enough.
The article was NOT published in a reputable journal and the reviews contest the peers chosen.
Please do some more research from NASA, NOAA, NCAR, and IPCC.
The consensus of climate scientists agree with my position. Science trumps your opinion.
And really I am finished with your bullshit. This is not even close to the topic I was commenting about.
I'm done.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>The consensus of climate scientists agree with my position. Science trumps your opinion<<
Even if that were true, consensus isn't science. If consensus were science, Galileo's vision never could have ousted geocentrism. Today's government-funded scientists are every bit as politically and economically motivated to defend the axioms cherished by their government patrons as were all the most established scientists of Galileo's day.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@bobster451>>research from NASA<<
Spencer himself is a team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s own Aqua satellite and Spencer reports in that very article that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show.” Your view of AGW is a myth. You are religious about it.
happystance9able 6 months ago
You've constructed your own, stupid apocalyptic AGW religion and put it in the same part of the brain where others put the great, time-tested religions. You're like a stupid kid touting the "awesomeness" of his stupid little matchbox car, trying to impress adults who drive real cars every day; real cars that take them wherever they want to go. We're rolling our eyeballs at you. LOL
happystance9able 6 months ago
No, I'd like to modify that: It's not a matchbox car. It's a lego car you expect to impress us all with. It's lego because you've hacked the car together yourself.
happystance9able 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@happystance9able I have no religion.
bobster451 6 months ago
@happystance9able Timothy Birdnow is not a climate scientist.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>NOT published in a reputable journal and the reviews contest the peers chosen. Please do some more research<<
September 6, 2011
The Warmists Strike Back
By Timothy Birdnow
The American Thinker
Your guys are totally corrupt. They're not scientists. They're corrupt political hacks.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Timothy Birdnow is no climate scientist.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>Timothy Birdnow is no climate scientist<<
Irrelevant. That's an excellent article about the politics of the Global Warming Myth; exposing the Inquisition-type persecution of scientists who, Galileo-like, dare to challenge the orthodoxy of the government-funded Left. It also documents the Stalinist political pressure Leftists put on editors of journals who dare to publish papers exposing the fraud you've bought hook-line-and-sinker.
happystance9able 6 months ago
"Abstract:...sensitivity of the climate...to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change...[W]e present...evidence that...[observational] uncertainty...is...due to...masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing...[T]hese...forcings...corrupt feedback diagnosis...[A]tmospheric feedback diagnosis...remains an unsolved problem..."
That AGW is a fact is a political assertion, not scientific.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able AGW is proven science, you're a denialist.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 >>AGW is proven science<<
You assert that axiomatically like a religious person but it requires a rational argument and you present none at all. Yours is the mind of a Leftist political hack. You're not a truth-seeker.
happystance9able 6 months ago
@happystance9able Your straw man is abject failure.
We're done.
bobster451 6 months ago
@bobster451 You stupid idiots can't even read. LOL
happystance9able 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobster451 But I'll give you one thing: Your stupid egos are fucking huge!
happystance9able 6 months ago
I like how all the Bush economists told us that there would be endless surpluses in 2003 when also government was 97% pampered closet homo republican and the money that WAS left over was pissed away in mistakes and fraud. Derps love Enron/empires like them because they can be fooled to- it just has the name Republican. ANYTHING with the name republican is good right, even default? BTW I am not a liberal or demo. Post 2000 Republicans have NEVER been worse, I am voting for Obama.
thework4444 6 months ago
@thework4444 >>I like how all the Bush economists told us that there would be endless surpluses in 2003<<
It's reallyReally hard to understand that if you make business decisions that enable you to double your income, but you also ramp up your spending on fun stuff like fancy cars to the point where you spent twice as much as your doubled income, you aren't gonna have a surplus. The funniest thing is watching an O-bot think that through and blaming it on what ya did to double yer income. Haha!
fiveinslide6 6 months ago
@thework4444 Federal tax revenue increased $785 billion dollars from 2004 to 2007 in response to the 2003 tax cuts. It was the largest increase in Am