PDA

View Full Version : CalPeggy starts fight, needs DU to finish it for her



djones520
11-28-2010, 12:05 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9640804


CaliforniaPeggy (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-27-10 08:41 PM
Original message
HELP! I'm arguing with a right-winger on facebook...
Advertisements [?]I'm not knowledgeable enough to fight back. I'd given the link to Wikipedia about the topic of the separation of church and state. I cannot answer him...

Has Congress ever made a law establishing a state religion? NO. Does the Constitution have the phrase "separation of church and state" in it? NO. This part of the Constitution (not Wikipedia) was meant to prevent Congress from creating a national religion (like the Church of England). I suggest you study the original document and not just rely on things you've heard from people who have no clue what they're talking about. Including a past, activist Supreme Court.



This should be good.


Xipe Totec (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-27-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Try this:
Stop.



ROFL


The Velveteen Ocelot (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-27-10 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. You could start with the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams in 1797.
Edited on Sat Nov-27-10 08:51 PM by The Velveteen Ocelot
"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 tranquility, 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."

And then there's the Supreme Court's holding in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947):

"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 form 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.""

This should help. You might remind them that it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution -- and it's not up to them (your right-wing correspondents) to blow off the Court's interpretations because they don't like "liberal" judges. Under our system of government, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, whether they (or we) like it or not.


That is exactly what that Freeper said idiot. :rolleyes:


CaliforniaPeggy (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-27-10 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. Wow, thanks everybody!
I'm overwhelmed at your knowledge, and embarrassed at my lack.

Thank you so much...




Peggy... that statement is so sad. Just so sad, to be in awe of the "knowledge" of DU because of your lack of it. :(

Maybe I should buy you a star to make you feel better.

Dan D. Doty
11-28-2010, 12:35 AM
This is what happens when you believe the tenth rate proganda your forum generates daily ( Bouncy Tales).

In real life people do not run away crying, become tongue-tied , or converted into becoming a Moonbat.
A life time of debating empty chairs does not prep you a real debate; people are using not the lame answers your mentally ill friends came up with between bong hits.

NJCardFan
11-28-2010, 11:25 AM
Under our system of government, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, whether they (or we) like it or not.

Not it doesn't. The SC does not, I repeat, does not have the supreme power to decide what the Constitution means. It's job is to make sure it is upheld. There is no "establishment" clause whether these idiots want to believe there is or not. There is no state religion. This much is true. However, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. A simple scan of this document (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/) confirms that.

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 11:31 AM
Not it doesn't. The SC does not, I repeat, does not have the supreme power to decide what the Constitution means. It's job is to make sure it is upheld. There is no "establishment" clause whether these idiots want to believe there is or not. There is no state religion. This much is true. However, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. A simple scan of this document (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/) confirms that.

It's funny how the left is so willing to surrender their liberty to an oligarchy. :rolleyes:

Apache
11-28-2010, 03:01 PM
It's funny how the left is so willing to surrender their liberty to an oligarchy. :rolleyes:

The Left is willing to surrender a lot of things.

Jumpy
11-28-2010, 04:15 PM
Shouldn't she be worrying more about the latest DU pic thread? Has she missed even one of them???:eek:

Facebook political arguments. No thank you.

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 08:11 PM
The Left is willing to surrender a lot of things.

yea - mostly that which is yours or mine . . .

Adam Wood
11-28-2010, 10:06 PM
UTUSN (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-27-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. Bwah-ha-HAH, I can't help appreciating the humor of the thread title

on multiple levels: 1) The wingnut fool doesn't know he's messing with CA-P for starters, besides that he's messing with a DUer. 2) The piquancy of the Emergency of a dispute with a wingnut is sweetly hilarious!1


Let him HAVE it, CA-P!1


CaliforniaPeggy (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-27-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. He seems pretty sharp to me, alas...

He is wrong, but he's done some thinking about this. Of course, he doesn't know I have all these very intelligent friends...

Thanks!Good Lord, the delusions of grandeur that these people hold are just astounding.