JUst a Question, for the left...

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    Hyperbole aside, who said it was "just F'ing fine"?    Not me. 


    Then again, bible humper St. Santorum is heretofore exclaiming an alternate "theology" and "war on religion".

    So, which one is it?  Either he's expanding faith or destroying it.  Make up your minds already...
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    It seems a bit hypocritical of the same religious organizations who decried the 'overreach of gov't' on the contraception issue, have no problem waddling up to the trough of gov't largesse when it comes to public funds. Apparently money, even with the requisite secular strings attached, is a temptation that these professed pious leaders cannot refuse. How many pieces of silver would it take for them to accept women's rights?
    Posted by airborne-rgr


    That's referred to as plausible deniability...one of religion's specialties...

    ...hence why some of them can argue all day that physical and sexual abuse of children or rape of women or blowing up buildings are examples of "god's will".
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    I think his point was that Obama revised the program to be more secular in it's approach -------------------- REALLY???  Upi wat a list of the 25 board members and tell me its, non-sucular?  REALLY???  Are ya F'ing KIDDING???
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Spare us the the profanity and the lack of spelling and grammar.  You are so caught up in labeling people hypocrites you can't even carry on a rational discussion.  Defensive much?

    Obama's record is better than Bush's on this matter.  There were multiple complaints, lawsuits and a highly publicized resignation under Bush.  Not so much under Obama. Think about it. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left... : I don't even know w-t-f you are even asking.  Your original post seems like the ramblings of a drunk.  Is there anyone sober in your house that can type for you?
    Posted by UserName99


    Hahaha....another beautiful dodge. When you don't like the question you act like you didn't understand it....f'in beautiful...I bet you even said this with a straight face. That takes some balls
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left... : Hey numbnuts, it's not my job to defend what other peiople say. If you want to pick a fight with them, then go ahead and find them. I posted my opinion...or are you invoking some kind of Fairness Doctrine'?
    Posted by airborne-rgr


    "Hey numbnuts, it's not my job to defend what other peiople say. If you want to pick a fight with them, then go ahead and find them."


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....if this isn't the most ironic post in the history of BDC then I don't know what is. 
    Funny how every one of airborne's posts is about picking fights with the conservatives on BDC based on what some conservative politician or conservative news outlet does or says. 
    Well gee airborne....if you want to pick a fight with them, then go ahead and find them!!!!!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    In Response to JUst a Question, for the left... : So....let me get this strait. Faith based initiatives were ok under Bush. A "500%" increase under Obama is bad? Either you think Bush was wrong...or....
    Posted by jedwardnicky


    OMFG...you can't be this fri99in dumb...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from altonjones. Show altonjones's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    Churches and religions have been subsidized for a long time through their tax exempt and tax deductible status. 
    Posted by airborne-rgr


    Captain Obvious strikes again, why don't you just shut up!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...


      I THOUGHT THAT THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WAS SOLEMNLY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

         WINGNUTS FIERCELY ENDORSE A  "PLIABLE CONSTITUTION"
    WHEN IT HELPS TO SUPPORT THEIR INSANE INTERPRETATION OF REALITY!
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
      I THOUGHT THAT THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WAS SOLEMNLY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.      WINGNUTS FIERCELY ENDORSE A  "PLIABLE CONSTITUTION " WHEN IT HELPS TO SUPPORT THEIR INSANE INTERPRETATION OF REALITY!
    Posted by kelldog1

    Nope. Not even in the Constitution.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left... : Nope. Not even in the Constitution.
    Posted by brat13


    Do you honestly think your personal opinion on separation of church and state is better than the Thomas Jefferson (who coined it) amd the Supreme Court which has used it as a legal doctrine for well over 100 years.  Seriously?  Your opinion or that of one of the Founding Fathers and any number of Supreme Court Justices...  Or is your argument just about semantics?  True the actual words are not there... just their legal meaning.  I think you are out of your league on this issue.  A lot of conservatives are.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left... : Nope. Not even in the Constitution.
    Posted by brat13


    What is in the constitution regarding religion is a bit more daunting to the progressives:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I would say forcing religious people to participate in the distribution of contraception goes against the " free exercise thereof" part
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: JUst a Question, for the left...

    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left...:
    In Response to Re: JUst a Question, for the left... : Do you honestly think your personal opinion on separation of church and state is better than the Thomas Jefferson (who coined it) amd the Supreme Court which has used it as a legal doctrine for well over 100 years.  Seriously?  Your opinion or that of one of the Founding Fathers and any number of Supreme Court Justices...  Or is your argument just about semantics?  True the actual words are not there... just their legal meaning.  I think you are out of your league on this issue.  A lot of conservatives are.
    Posted by Reubenhop


    If it is so important that all interaction between the state and religion be based on this principle, then why was it not included?

    Madison, for example, was very worried about the encroachment of religion onto government, but he was more concerned about the encroachment of government into the ability for people to freely exercise their religion.

    Madison has made the point over and over again that the actions government can take are specifically identified in the constitution, and at the end of that list, government action stops. 

    So,  separation of church and state, might be a good idea, it was thought about and discussed by the likes of Madison and Jefferson, but at the end of the day, it was government, not religion, that was restrained in the Constitution.

    Why?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share