OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]Semi on-topic. PBS has been airing a 3 part series called “God In America”. (Haven’t watched all of it yet – just the first 2 hours). A really good background on the role religion plays in our government.[/quote]

I watched the first part online (I finally hooked up a computer to my TV).

I do take exception to their saying that religion is part of our DNA. Religion is part of history, nothing to do with DNA. There is no historical and cultural DNA.

Some of us may think that we have a special relationship with God, but we don’t, because there’s no God.

[tc]

O’Donnell said, “But regardless of my personal faith, when I go down to Washington, D.C., it is the Constitution that I will defend and it is by the Constitution that I will make all of my decisions, and that will be the standard-bearer for every piece of legislation that I will vote on.”

So O’Donnell is going to DC to defend something she doesn’t know very well.

I can not imagine that Christine has ever come up with an idea of her own. She is simply a puppet head for the tea party. She will repeat what she is told to repeat.

She is an Idiot. And anyone who is defending her is an Idiot as well.

[tc]

O’Donnell said, “But regardless of my personal faith, when I go down to Washington, D.C., it is the Constitution that I will defend and it is by the Constitution that I will make all of my decisions, and that will be the standard-bearer for every piece of legislation that I will vote on.”

So O’Donnell is going to DC to defend something she doesn’t know very well.

I can not imagine that Christine has ever come up with an idea of her own. She is simply a puppet head for the tea party. She will repeat what she is told to repeat.

She is an Idiot. And anyone who is defending her is an Idiot as well.

[tc]

O’Donnell said, “But regardless of my personal faith, when I go down to Washington, D.C., it is the Constitution that I will defend and it is by the Constitution that I will make all of my decisions, and that will be the standard-bearer for every piece of legislation that I will vote on.”

So O’Donnell is going to DC to defend something she doesn’t know very well.

I can not imagine that Christine has ever come up with an idea of her own. She is simply a puppet head for the tea party. She will repeat what she is told to repeat.

She is an Idiot. And anyone who is defending her is an Idiot as well.

[tc]

O’Donnell said, “But regardless of my personal faith, when I go down to Washington, D.C., it is the Constitution that I will defend and it is by the Constitution that I will make all of my decisions, and that will be the standard-bearer for every piece of legislation that I will vote on.”

So O’Donnell is going to DC to defend something she doesn’t know very well.

I can not imagine that Christine has ever come up with an idea of her own. She is simply a puppet head for the tea party. She will repeat what she is told to repeat.

She is an Idiot. And anyone who is defending her is an Idiot as well.

[tc]

O’Donnell said, “But regardless of my personal faith, when I go down to Washington, D.C., it is the Constitution that I will defend and it is by the Constitution that I will make all of my decisions, and that will be the standard-bearer for every piece of legislation that I will vote on.”

So O’Donnell is going to DC to defend something she doesn’t know very well.

I can not imagine that Christine has ever come up with an idea of her own. She is simply a puppet head for the tea party. She will repeat what she is told to repeat.

She is an Idiot. And anyone who is defending her is an Idiot as well.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[afx114]

Can you explain which Judeo-Christian beliefs our laws are based on? I figured that would be the next logical argument. Many people (not you specifically aldante, but many people taking your position) often state that our laws our based on the 10 commandments. I call bullshit on that. Bad Astronomy has an amazing post obliterating that argument. I’ll summarize here, but please read the full article for your separation of church and state enjoyment.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The Constitution is clear that you can have as many gods as you want, or no gods at all.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
We have no laws against art. Good thing too, otherwise the South Park wouldn’t be able to make fun of Jesus.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution is explicitly against this commandment. If you can say God hates fags, I can say that God is a cock-guzzling cuntface. That’s how it works.

Remember the sabbath day
We do actually have laws on this commandment.. you can’t buy liquor on Sundays in some states. But in most states you can, and no one is given a ticket for working on the holy day.

Honour thy father and thy mother
Perhaps up until 18 a child should do this, but you can’t throw a child in jail for disobeying this commandment. Maybe timeout in the corner, but we have no state-sanctioned punishment for children disobeying their parents. And once they’re 18, fuggetaboutit.

Thou shalt not kill.
Well, I have to give them this one. But all civilized societies, Christian or not, have laws for this. It’s also perfectly legal to kill under some circumstances (defense, field of war, etc), but I don’t see those allowances in the commandment.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
There are a few laws with respect to this, but we all know that adultery and divorce are commonplace — and perfectly legal — in America.

Thou shalt not steal.
The commandments score another one here! No argument from me, stealing is clearly illegal. But again, stealing is also illegal in many non-Christian societies, so we can’t assume that our laws were derived directly from this commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
The law calls this perjury, and you can get in a lot of legal trouble for doing so. This commandment scores a point.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Wanting things is not against the law in America.

There you have it. Bad Astronomy gives the commandments a score of 3.5 out of 10 with respect to our legal system being based on them. It’s hilarious to me that the religious right fights all the time to have the 10 commandments placed at courthouse steps when not even 4 of the 10 commandments are used for our laws. So tell me again which of the Judeo-Christian values our nation was founded upon?

[afx114]

Can you explain which Judeo-Christian beliefs our laws are based on? I figured that would be the next logical argument. Many people (not you specifically aldante, but many people taking your position) often state that our laws our based on the 10 commandments. I call bullshit on that. Bad Astronomy has an amazing post obliterating that argument. I’ll summarize here, but please read the full article for your separation of church and state enjoyment.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The Constitution is clear that you can have as many gods as you want, or no gods at all.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
We have no laws against art. Good thing too, otherwise the South Park wouldn’t be able to make fun of Jesus.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution is explicitly against this commandment. If you can say God hates fags, I can say that God is a cock-guzzling cuntface. That’s how it works.

Remember the sabbath day
We do actually have laws on this commandment.. you can’t buy liquor on Sundays in some states. But in most states you can, and no one is given a ticket for working on the holy day.

Honour thy father and thy mother
Perhaps up until 18 a child should do this, but you can’t throw a child in jail for disobeying this commandment. Maybe timeout in the corner, but we have no state-sanctioned punishment for children disobeying their parents. And once they’re 18, fuggetaboutit.

Thou shalt not kill.
Well, I have to give them this one. But all civilized societies, Christian or not, have laws for this. It’s also perfectly legal to kill under some circumstances (defense, field of war, etc), but I don’t see those allowances in the commandment.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
There are a few laws with respect to this, but we all know that adultery and divorce are commonplace — and perfectly legal — in America.

Thou shalt not steal.
The commandments score another one here! No argument from me, stealing is clearly illegal. But again, stealing is also illegal in many non-Christian societies, so we can’t assume that our laws were derived directly from this commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
The law calls this perjury, and you can get in a lot of legal trouble for doing so. This commandment scores a point.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Wanting things is not against the law in America.

There you have it. Bad Astronomy gives the commandments a score of 3.5 out of 10 with respect to our legal system being based on them. It’s hilarious to me that the religious right fights all the time to have the 10 commandments placed at courthouse steps when not even 4 of the 10 commandments are used for our laws. So tell me again which of the Judeo-Christian values our nation was founded upon?

[afx114]

Can you explain which Judeo-Christian beliefs our laws are based on? I figured that would be the next logical argument. Many people (not you specifically aldante, but many people taking your position) often state that our laws our based on the 10 commandments. I call bullshit on that. Bad Astronomy has an amazing post obliterating that argument. I’ll summarize here, but please read the full article for your separation of church and state enjoyment.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The Constitution is clear that you can have as many gods as you want, or no gods at all.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
We have no laws against art. Good thing too, otherwise the South Park wouldn’t be able to make fun of Jesus.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution is explicitly against this commandment. If you can say God hates fags, I can say that God is a cock-guzzling cuntface. That’s how it works.

Remember the sabbath day
We do actually have laws on this commandment.. you can’t buy liquor on Sundays in some states. But in most states you can, and no one is given a ticket for working on the holy day.

Honour thy father and thy mother
Perhaps up until 18 a child should do this, but you can’t throw a child in jail for disobeying this commandment. Maybe timeout in the corner, but we have no state-sanctioned punishment for children disobeying their parents. And once they’re 18, fuggetaboutit.

Thou shalt not kill.
Well, I have to give them this one. But all civilized societies, Christian or not, have laws for this. It’s also perfectly legal to kill under some circumstances (defense, field of war, etc), but I don’t see those allowances in the commandment.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
There are a few laws with respect to this, but we all know that adultery and divorce are commonplace — and perfectly legal — in America.

Thou shalt not steal.
The commandments score another one here! No argument from me, stealing is clearly illegal. But again, stealing is also illegal in many non-Christian societies, so we can’t assume that our laws were derived directly from this commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
The law calls this perjury, and you can get in a lot of legal trouble for doing so. This commandment scores a point.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Wanting things is not against the law in America.

There you have it. Bad Astronomy gives the commandments a score of 3.5 out of 10 with respect to our legal system being based on them. It’s hilarious to me that the religious right fights all the time to have the 10 commandments placed at courthouse steps when not even 4 of the 10 commandments are used for our laws. So tell me again which of the Judeo-Christian values our nation was founded upon?

[afx114]

Can you explain which Judeo-Christian beliefs our laws are based on? I figured that would be the next logical argument. Many people (not you specifically aldante, but many people taking your position) often state that our laws our based on the 10 commandments. I call bullshit on that. Bad Astronomy has an amazing post obliterating that argument. I’ll summarize here, but please read the full article for your separation of church and state enjoyment.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The Constitution is clear that you can have as many gods as you want, or no gods at all.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
We have no laws against art. Good thing too, otherwise the South Park wouldn’t be able to make fun of Jesus.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution is explicitly against this commandment. If you can say God hates fags, I can say that God is a cock-guzzling cuntface. That’s how it works.

Remember the sabbath day
We do actually have laws on this commandment.. you can’t buy liquor on Sundays in some states. But in most states you can, and no one is given a ticket for working on the holy day.

Honour thy father and thy mother
Perhaps up until 18 a child should do this, but you can’t throw a child in jail for disobeying this commandment. Maybe timeout in the corner, but we have no state-sanctioned punishment for children disobeying their parents. And once they’re 18, fuggetaboutit.

Thou shalt not kill.
Well, I have to give them this one. But all civilized societies, Christian or not, have laws for this. It’s also perfectly legal to kill under some circumstances (defense, field of war, etc), but I don’t see those allowances in the commandment.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
There are a few laws with respect to this, but we all know that adultery and divorce are commonplace — and perfectly legal — in America.

Thou shalt not steal.
The commandments score another one here! No argument from me, stealing is clearly illegal. But again, stealing is also illegal in many non-Christian societies, so we can’t assume that our laws were derived directly from this commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
The law calls this perjury, and you can get in a lot of legal trouble for doing so. This commandment scores a point.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Wanting things is not against the law in America.

There you have it. Bad Astronomy gives the commandments a score of 3.5 out of 10 with respect to our legal system being based on them. It’s hilarious to me that the religious right fights all the time to have the 10 commandments placed at courthouse steps when not even 4 of the 10 commandments are used for our laws. So tell me again which of the Judeo-Christian values our nation was founded upon?

[Author]

Posts