O'Donnell Intends to Make You All Convert to her Religion

Originally posted by daddyroo45
However the constitution says nothing about religion establishing a new government.

OK, I'll bite...

If religion attempted to create a new government that operated outside the provisions of the constitution, then they become enemies of the state and, as such they would be dealt with just like any other enemy of the state. If the religious majority obtained power of the government via elections, they would still have to abide by the Constitution.

Where are you going with this? You really think that there is a religious faction out there that is powerful enough to take on the US government and win? I pray not.

reply to post by Curiousisall


Does it really matter what they call themselves?

I'm a Republican, but voted for Clinton the second time around. It doesn't make me any less of a Republican. It just means that I, like most tea partiers, vote for the person and not for the party.

I voted for McCain over Obama simply for the fact that I couldn't vote for Clinton.

Let people vote for who they want and don't use that as a judgement for the labels they use.

I am now part of the Wookie party. That means if you disagree with me I rip off both of your arms and beat you to death with them. Anyone up for a face to face debate?

Originally posted by Becoming
Let people vote for who they want and don't use that as a judgement for the labels they use.

That would be exactly my point. I am not the one searching a label to adhere to. I do not call myself Republican, Democrat, or Tea Party and I vote how I feel I should in order to better society in a manner befitting American ideals. No, it does not matter what people call themselves if they vote how they want. That is why I do not understand why they need to call themselves anything. Basically the message I am getting is "We are the real Tea Party because we support....(insert generic candidate with Republican ideals here)." Seems silly to me but if you all need a label, enjoy.

reply to post by WhatTheory


reply to post by daddyroo45


Just wondering if either of you read the article in the OP.

Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."

You all were saying?

It really sucks when you proudly stand behind someone and defend what they said just to have their handlers come out and tell you they never meant to say it.

Ok so she's a nutjob, but whether people think she is qualified or not doesn't really matter unless they happen to be a lucky/unlucky constituent.

Still, if people happen to have an unfavorable opinion of her it appears to be based out of hatred and fear.

Example: rather than saying "I can't vote for her because she is unqualified" they instead say "I don't like her because she is a witch".

I personally enjoy the entertainment factor when it comes to the way she is able to get under the skin of some people without even really trying.
It's almost as if we are watching another Palin being created right before our very eyes.

Surely the Left would not want to create another monster.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Ok so she's a nutjob, but whether people think she is qualified or not doesn't really matter unless they happen to be a lucky/unlucky constituent.

I thought she was running for Senate?

Still, if people happen to have an unfavorable opinion of her it appears to be based out of hatred and fear.

It does not at all appear to be out of acknowledging that she is either stupid, insane, or both? Anyone that talks about top secret information about the country being invaded the way she does kind of says it all right there and nothing about that scares me or makes me feel hatred. It does however make me sad.

Example: rather than saying "I can't vote for her because she is unqualified" they instead say "I don't like her because she is a witch".

No.

reply to post by whatukno


Yeah, and what I fail to figure out is this. If she was a Witch, then that means she knows a lot more than Christians do, then why convert to Christianity? I am a Wiccan, and would never do that, no way, no how. Once you know the truth of the church and the history of religion, you just cannot go back to being brainwashed again. So either she never was a "witch" and just said that to get publicity, or, she was and is just saying she is a Christian to get elected. I say don't let her near Capital Hill. Send he packing back to where she came from.

Edit to say this: I would like, just once, if a politician of either sex were to say, "I am a Wiccan, so deal with it." It seems like if you are anything but Christian, you don't get the job, and that, friends, is just wrong. Freedom of Religion means all religions, not just one.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by daddyroo45
However the constitution says nothing about religion establishing a new government.

OK, I'll bite...

If religion attempted to create a new government that operated outside the provisions of the constitution, then they become enemies of the state and, as such they would be dealt with just like any other enemy of the state. If the religious majority obtained power of the government via elections, they would still have to abide by the Constitution.

Where are you going with this? You really think that there is a religious faction out there that is powerful enough to take on the US government and win? I pray not. [/quote

That's a big IF you got there ! I doubt that there is a religious faction,(barring Islamic extremism) that would"operate" outside of the Constitution of these united states. On the contrary they would probably push for a more strict application of the Constitution. My point is that the first amendment restricts the government from interfering with religion. It does not however restrict religion from interfering with the Government.
Ain't it grand !!!!

reply to post by Curiousisall


Still stand behind what she said. Nowhere in the first amendment will you find the words "separation of church and state" .That was the issue.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
On the contrary they would probably push for a more strict application of the Constitution. My point is that the first amendment restricts the government from interfering with religion. It does not however restrict religion from interfering with the Government.

They can push all they want, but there is only one way to interpret the first amendment. It's not like there is some "gray" wording within it's text.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Still stand behind what she said. Nowhere in the first amendment will you find the words "separation of church and state" .That was the issue.

If that were the issue, this thread and her clarification would not exist. I never once argued that the phrase was in there so if that was actually the issue, why did you post anything to me at all?

And the goal posts shift.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Alxandro


If she really were a pagan, she'd be of higher moral character. But alas, she would burn people at the stake if given the opportunity. Therefor, vitriol is proper in this circumstance. She stands for everything that is wrong about government. She says she is for small government, while at the same time saying she would like to greatly increase the power of government by giving them authority over an individuals religious practices or lack thereof.

Liberals are all angry, hateful, bitter little people who do nothing but practice the politics of personal destruction with their low brow personal attacks, and another thing...

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

I do have a question,if you'd be kind enough to answer for me. How painful is a liberal lobotomy ?

Oh, wait.


I have a question. What makes me a liberal?

reply to post by pirhanna


Gee , I could of Swore I saw this Disinfomercial the other night on the Communist News Network (CNN) . LOL , If the Dems in Obama's Administration Ever Posted on ATS , I bet they would All probablly be Banned after their 1st Post For " Personal Attacks" .............Yawn , yeah , we get it , the Reps are Evil , Right Jesus ? ........

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by pirhanna

 

Gee , I could of Swore I saw this Disinfomercial the other night on the Communist News Network (CNN)

I am curious what service you use since this took place this morning?

LOL , If the Dems in Obama's Administration Ever Posted on ATS , I bet they would All probablly be Banned after their 1st Post For " Personal Attacks" .............

Keep reading and thank you for making the point I just addressed for me.

Criminalize sex and masturbation: Check

Allow nazis to murder jews: Check

Questioning first amendment: Check

Forced Theocracy: Check

Mice with fully functioning human brains: Check

Prior Witch Experience: Check

Lying about college education: Check

Spending campaign funds on rent, shopping, other personals: Check

Raising 4 million dollars in a month: Check


I wish she'd just star in a porn already and get it over with.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Still stand behind what she said. Nowhere in the first amendment will you find the words "separation of church and state" .That was the issue.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." can absolutely be paraphrased to "There is separation of church and state here." There is no way to get any religion in any government institution without the law establishing that institution also recognizing (respecting) the establishment (order, system, or institution, in this case) of the religion in question.


Of course, you can just play the semantic game that the dopey hot broad started. I'm sure it just makes you look like THE MAN down at the bar.

reply to post by pirhanna


I love how the article states that she challenged her rival to show where the Constitution requires separation of Church and State. Easiest challenge EVER I mean its right there in the first Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... the two are quite obviously meant to be separate.

Even if the Constitution DIDN'T have separation of Church and State that doesn't mean said separation isn't a good idea. I think many Christians also forget that combining the two would do untold damage to their religion. Can you imagine being force fed political opinions by the church? Imagine the same corruption that exists in government ruining your Church?