OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[jstoesz]

[quote]Actually Joe, you are confused.

The context here is tea party christian facist Christine O’Donnell insisting on the teaching of Creationism in public school science class…

That’s NOT liberals telling people what to think.

That’s right-wing conservatives telling people what to think.[/quote]

joe…not quite…

My comment was an aside. I do not give a damn about O’donnell, and I have no desire to defend her. I do not think the government should have any say about what is taught in schools…back to that pesky liberty thing again.

But I agree with your feeling about some of the conservatives when it comes to some pretty limited issues. Some of those right wing conservatives are just as fascist as left wing “liberals” or is it progressives, I forget.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell][quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.[/quote]

afx114 in absolutely correct.

All the fluff about liberty is just obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell][quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.[/quote]

afx114 in absolutely correct.

All the fluff about liberty is just obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell][quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.[/quote]

afx114 in absolutely correct.

All the fluff about liberty is just obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell][quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.[/quote]

afx114 in absolutely correct.

All the fluff about liberty is just obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell][quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.[/quote]

afx114 in absolutely correct.

All the fluff about liberty is just obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, the Tea Party wants Christianity taught in schools. That’s what they are after.

[gandalf]

Sorry about the name, jstoesz.

Pretty amazing times. Big challenges.

Electing idiots isn’t the answer.

[gandalf]

Sorry about the name, jstoesz.

Pretty amazing times. Big challenges.

Electing idiots isn’t the answer.

[gandalf]

Sorry about the name, jstoesz.

Pretty amazing times. Big challenges.

Electing idiots isn’t the answer.

[gandalf]

Sorry about the name, jstoesz.

Pretty amazing times. Big challenges.

Electing idiots isn’t the answer.

[gandalf]

Sorry about the name, jstoesz.

Pretty amazing times. Big challenges.

Electing idiots isn’t the answer.

[jstoesz]

Haha

All this talk of science is just un obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, “liberals” just like to murder babies as a recreational activity…

Put some thought into your generalizations!

[jstoesz]

Haha

All this talk of science is just un obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, “liberals” just like to murder babies as a recreational activity…

Put some thought into your generalizations!

[jstoesz]

Haha

All this talk of science is just un obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, “liberals” just like to murder babies as a recreational activity…

Put some thought into your generalizations!

[jstoesz]

Haha

All this talk of science is just un obfuscation of the real issue.

Bottom line, “liberals” just like to murder babies as a recreational activity…

Put some thought into your generalizations!

[Author]

Posts