Poll: Judge Roy Moore leads competitors in runoff

[Anti Federalist]

And THIS is what Zippyjuan, HuffPo and the LA Times are using as basis for spreading innuendo that tries to make Moore out to be some kind of despicalbe racist?

Well, I guess one of my questions has been answered: now we know why they couldn't be bothered to tell us why we are supposed to be upset about this.

Jesus H. Christ on a hopped-up Harley with Santa in a sidecar ...

DISCLAIMER: I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about Roy Moore, one way or the other. But trying to smear someone as a racist for having made reference to the lyrics of a children's song as a metaphor for our common humanity is just low and contemptible. SMGDH. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, Zippy.

Sweet weeping Jesus, happens to be my particular choice swear, that fits here as well.

Thanks for tracking all that down, I figured all along that what he was quoting, an entirely innocent children's Sunday School song.

Only in the feverish swamps of Amerikan Bolshevism could that in any way be construed as "racist".

[Superfluous Man]

The Constitution calls for a separation between church and state.

How is it possible for you to believe this myth?

[Superfluous Man]

Which were later barred by the 14th Amendment.

Or rather, they were barred by judicial extrapolation from the 14th Amendment.

[Sonny Tufts]

Please post the wording you are referring to.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Amendment XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947)

See also Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), a unanimous decision holding unconstitutional a requirement in the Maryland Constitution that all state officials profess a belief in the existence of God:

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us -- it sets up a religious test which was designed to, and, if valid, does, bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers -- those who are willing to say they believe in "the existence of God." It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the New Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical "establishment" of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers...

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, [Footnote 10] and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

[Footnote 10]...In discussing Article VI [which prohibits religious tests for federal offices] in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of this Court, said:

". . . [i]t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?" (emphasis added)

Iredell had it right; Moore doesn't.

Although SCOUTS has based the applicability of the Establishment Clause to the States upon the 14th's Due Process Clause, the same result could be attained under an Equal Protection analysis. Take my previous example -- it's hard to imagine that a state or local government's granting tax exemption to, say, Catholic churches but denying them to all other churches would survive an equal protection challenge.

[William Tell]

Still ignoring.

Oh, he found a negative article now.

---

Election of Roy Moore could test boundaries of Senate ethics committee...

[johnwk]

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Amendment XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution calling for "a separation between church and state".


Why do so many misrepresent the wording, and legislative intent, of our federal Constitution?


JWK

[Influenza]

How is it possible for you to believe this myth?

It's not a myth. Only stupid Christians actually believe the USA was founded on Christian ideals, when it was actually a complete rejection of political Christianity, which plagued Europe for centuries and led to millions of deaths. Thomas Jefferson, the most influential founder, wasn't even a Christian, and interpreted the first amendment as " building a wall of separation between church and state."

[Swordsmyth]

It's not a myth. Only stupid Christians actually believe the USA was founded on Christian ideals, when it was actually a complete rejection of political Christianity, which plagued Europe for centuries and led to millions of deaths. Thomas Jefferson, the most influential founder, wasn't even a Christian, and interpreted the first amendment as " building a wall of separation between church and state."

Bunk.

[Influenza]

Bunk.

Thank you for the very insightful comment that I have grown accustomed to reading from you

[Swordsmyth]

Thank you for the very insightful comment that I have grown accustomed to reading from you

Your drivel doesn't deserve anything better.

[Danke]

Bunk.

Exactly. Some people need to study the Federalist papers.

[Influenza]

Exactly. Some people need to study the Federalist papers.

Are those the papers that coincide with your worldview, so you ignore everything else that says otherwise?

Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Thomas Jefferson:

"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."


The federalist papers do not even mention Christianity or the bible, they mention a god existing and that is it. The founders were mostly deistic, which acknowledges that some god exists, who created the universe (AND THATS IT,) but certainly not a personal heavenly mass-murderer father like yahweh.

James Madison:

“the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Government, and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.”


The federalist papers do nothing at all to help your case, in fact, some fundamentalist christians HATE the federalist papers and claim that they should not be used in interpreting the constitution. BECAUSE IT DOESNT MENTION CHRISTIANITY ENOUGH

https://americanvision.org/6155/the-truth-about-the-federalist-papers/

[Influenza]

Look at what some christian put together trying to prove how important the federalist papers for the USA and christianity

http://federaltheology.blogspot.com/...st-papers.html

oh look he couldn't quote mine a single thing about jesus, the bible, or christianity. Just "god" and "the creator," which were believed in by the religious and non religious alike. Guess what? almost all the founders fit in that "non-religious" category

[Swordsmyth]

Are those the papers that coincide with your worldview, so you ignore everything else that says otherwise?

Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Thomas Jefferson:

"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."


The federalist papers do not even mention Christianity or the bible, they mention a god existing and that is it. The founders were mostly deistic, which acknowledges that some god exists, who created the universe (AND THATS IT,) but certainly not a personal heavenly mass-murderer father like yahweh.

James Madison:

“the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Government, and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.”


The federalist papers do nothing at all to help your case, in fact, some fundamentalist christians HATE the federalist papers and claim that they should not be used in interpreting the constitution. BECAUSE IT DOESNT MENTION CHRISTIANITY ENOUGH

https://americanvision.org/6155/the-truth-about-the-federalist-papers/

None of that says that America and her laws were founded on anything but Christian culture, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't represent reality, it was a case of pandering to the muslims and even it only says that America wasn't founded on the Christian RELIGION which is an important distinction.

[Swordsmyth]

Look at what some christian put together trying to prove how important the federalist papers for the USA and christianity

http://federaltheology.blogspot.com/...st-papers.html

oh look he couldn't quote mine a single thing about jesus, the bible, or christianity. Just "god" and "the creator,"

Because Americans were Christians and they didn't need to specify.

which were believed in by the religious and non religious alike.

Christian culture, just like I said.

Guess what? almost all the founders fit in that "non-religious" category

Bunk.

[Influenza]

None of that says that America and her laws were founded on anything but Christian culture, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't represent reality, it was a case of pandering to the muslims and even it only says that America wasn't founded on the Christian RELIGION which is an important distinction.

Treaty of tripoli doesn't represent reality because you don't like what it says. If it said the opposite you would love it. The culture developed in western countries has little to do with the ideals of christianity, and were developed during the enlightenment, which completely rejected christianity. "Christian culture" has little in common with western culture. You wanna see what real christianity is? Look at that christian liberty and hells unicorn, who are horrible people and would probably start another holy war if they had their way

[Swordsmyth]

Treaty of tripoli doesn't represent reality because you don't like what it says. If it said the opposite you would love it.

When people pander to an enemy they often lie, if it had said the opposite it would have been a case of spitting in the enemies face and therefore more reliable.

The culture developed in western countries has little to do with the ideals of christianity, and were developed during the enlightenment, which completely rejected christianity.

No, that is wrong, the enlightenment only modified western Christian culture and the enlightenment did not completely reject Christianity.

"Christian culture" has little in common with western culture. You wanna see what real christianity is? Look at that christian liberty and hells unicorn, who are horrible people and would probably start another holy war if they had their way

I don't know those posters well but assuming that they are the worst kind of "Christian" then all I have to say is that you can't tar Christian culture in it's entirety with them anymore than it would be fair for me to claim that all atheists or agnostics are evil murderers like Stalin and Mao, or that all muslims are like OBL or all hindus are like thuggees etc.

[Influenza]

When people pander to an enemy they often lie, if it had said the opposite it would have been a case of spitting in the enemies face and therefore more reliable.



No, that is wrong, the enlightenment only modified western Christian culture and the enlightenment did not completely reject Christianity.




I don't know those posters well but assuming that they are the worst kind of "Christian" then all I have to say is that you can't tar Christian culture in it's entirety with them anymore than it would be fair for me to claim that all atheists or agnostics are evil murderers like Stalin and Mao, or that all muslims are like OBL or all hindus are like thugees etc.

How would you describe christian culture? Would it be not washing ur hands like jesus advised? if thats what u mean I think america is definitely a christian nation

[Swordsmyth]

How would you describe christian culture? Would it be not washing ur hands like jesus advised? if thats what u mean I think america is definitely a christian nation

Now you are just pathetic.

As I said above your drivel is not worthy of an extended response.

[Influenza]

Now you are just pathetic.

As I said above your drivel is not worthy of an extended response.

Luke 11:38-40
But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

God made everything, harmful bacteria doesn't exist, washing your hands isn't important. That's why there are so many retarded christians who refuse medical treatment for their sick kids and instead want to pray the sickness away. Many people actually think diseases are caused by sin

[RJB]

You have made some really idiotic points. If you are trolling, congratulations. That's some grade A material. I hope you are getting a good laugh. If you are serious, you should reevaluate your sense of reality. You are a bit off kilter to put it mildly.

Luke 11:38-40
But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

God made everything, harmful bacteria doesn't exist, washing your hands isn't important. That's why there are so many retarded christians who refuse medical treatment for their sick kids and instead want to pray the sickness away. Many people actually think diseases are caused by sin

[Swordsmyth]

You have made some really idiotic points. If you are trolling, congratulations. That's some grade A material. I hope you are getting a good laugh. If you are serious, you should reevaluate your sense of reality. You are a bit off kilter to put it mildly.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to RJB again.

[The Rebel Poet]

Luke 11:38-40
But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

God made everything, harmful bacteria doesn't exist, washing your hands isn't important. That's why there are so many retarded christians who refuse medical treatment for their sick kids and instead want to pray the sickness away. Many people actually think diseases are caused by sin

The Bible was lightyears ahead of other religions, the church, and the secular world in terms of sanitation and health. The Bible actually commands bathing and washing, among other sanitation laws, while the Jews had/have other extra washing rituals. In that context, Jesus' statement means something different from how you took it; He is just saying that rituals and excessive washing are unnecessary. But at any rate, what does this have to do with Roy Moore?

[Anti Federalist]

Show up to protest (actually to vote, but since that's all kinds of illegal, the flyer doesn't put it quite that way) and get $50





http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...participation/

[Anti Federalist]

dupe

[samforpaul]

But Drudge does pack fudge.

He must fear some fudge-block if someone like Moore gets in.

Please clarify. I don't get what you're saying.

[Suzanimal]

Show up to protest (actually to vote, but since that's all kinds of illegal, the flyer doesn't put it quite that way) and get $50





http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...participation/

[Anti Federalist]

Please clarify. I don't get what you're saying.

Matt Drudge is a homersexual.

Roy Moore is not a supporter of homersexualism.

[Sonny Tufts]

So, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution calling for "a separation between church and state".

It's a handy encapsulation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses -- the government isn't to interfere with the church, and the church isn't to use the government to proselytize or to favor its particular belief.

Unfortunately, too many believe that their free exercise right includes having the government use its powers to help them spread their message or otherwise suggest that their belief is the correct one. Such a view is an implicit admission that their belief isn't persuasive enough by itself, but rather needs governmental force to back it up.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many believers who otherwise want the government out of their lives see no problem with the government's promoting religious beliefs (as long as it's theirs, of course).

[Swordsmyth]

Show up to protest (actually to vote, but since that's all kinds of illegal, the flyer doesn't put it quite that way) and get $50





http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...participation/

They botched it, the whole thing talks about voting and how they want you to vote, they only mention a rally in the line offering money and then they immediately link it to your vote in the next line.

They can be prosecuted for buying votes over this.