Faith vs Science

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the constitution does not define religion

Originally Posted by ExNYer

More like a document limiting governmental power.

stated more accurately. The Constitution doesn't define religion. but it does limit the Government's influence over it.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Actually it only prohibits Congress from passing any law establishing a religion. As a result the individual states by virtue of the 10th Amendment are left with that ability.

What?

Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights

The states can't do it either. The 14th Amendment protects the rights of US citizens from infringement by state laws.

The 14th Amendment protects substantive due process, which is the guarantee that the fundamental rights of citizens will not be encroached on by government - ANY government, including state government. The "fundamental rights of US citizens" include most of the the Bill of Rights amendments, including ALL of the 1st Amendment protections.

So, no, states cannot establish religions in violation of the first Amendment either.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just because your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister has a clit more sizable than your dick, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, gives you no excuse to call your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister a "tranny".

Ooooh, a "your sister" joke. Even lamer than a "your mama" joke.

Useless tranny fuckee. Watch out for that butt poison, homo.

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That is about as stupid a comment as I've seen here. The Constitution is not a religious document. Strict adherence to the Constitution results in individual freedom and personal responsibility. Exactly the opposite of most religions.

I don't really pay much attention to who's who on here, blah blah republican blah blah democrat. I'm sure away from the keyboard and face to face most everybody here is okay. But I've learned to take great pride in COG calling one of my posts stupid, so at this time I'm beaming.

Blind fundamental faith in anything is restrictive of thought and reason and is at best dangerous.

[JohnnyCap]

A definition:

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

A preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I wasn't originally suggesting the constitution was a religious document, though I can see an argument for it.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

A definition:

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

A preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I wasn't originally suggesting the constitution was a religious document, though I can see an argument for it.

Exactly, when a book/document is considered "sacred" and one interpretation such as "originalism" is adopted with no dissent allowed and a self appointed group of folks only to promote and explain that interpretation, even the Constitution begins to look very much like a religion. Originalism is the Constution's fundamentalism. Anybody that says they know what the founders intended (collectively or individually and if individually who gets to pick the Founder whose view prevails on each issue?) and that changing conditions in the world should have no impact is a complete dunce or is hiding an agenda (and we know Scalia isn't a dunce).

Seems I've seen posts from a few "Fundamentalist Constitutionalists" on here.

[CuteOldGuy]

Glad I could make you smile, JohnnyCrap. Now you've doubled down on stupid, so I'm sure you'll be even prouder.

However, while religious dogma does not allow for change, the Constitution does. The Framers simply wanted to make sure there was a supermajority of sentiment before implementing a change. They wanted to avoid simple majority rule democracy, which leads only to tyranny. They tried, and wrote a damn good document. Too bad it didn't work. I would have liked my grandchildren to grow up in a free country. Thanks to you, and others, that won't happen.

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Glad I could make you smile, JohnnyCrap. Now you've doubled down on stupid, so I'm sure you'll be even prouder.

first we have mere sarcasm and insults

However, while religious dogma does not allow for change, the Constitution does.
The Framers simply wanted to make sure there was a supermajority of sentiment before implementing a change.

Ok, no problems here, nor relevance.

They wanted to avoid simple majority rule democracy, which leads only to tyranny.

Major leap. That's all they wanted to avoid? Only tyranny? Not mob rule, or anarchy? Still not relevant to the original concept.

They tried, and wrote a damn good document.

No issues, no relevance.

Too bad it didn't work. I would have liked my grandchildren to grow up in a free country.

Abundant sarcasm, to the tune of a weak-minded, defeatist quitter.

Thanks to you, and others, that won't happen.

Yikes, what have I done? Suggest a concept? By suggesting a thought, I have brought down the constitution. Maybe it wasn't such a damn good document.

Anything, not just the Fair Tax, can be discussed with reason and civility.

[CuteOldGuy]

Seriously? That's your response? Oh, well. And I don't think you have a clue how utterly ignorant your response is. That is sad.

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Seriously? That's your response? Oh, well. And I don't think you have a clue how utterly ignorant your response is. That is sad.

I'm well aware of my ignorance. That alone puts me miles ahead of you. In a sprint.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I would rather be at the alter of the pussy than the alter of the dick that you worship at. Thanks for coming out IB gay Hankering.

But you've already posted and made it quite clear that you have personal issues with Homo sapiens pussy, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; so, what kind of pussy do you fuck, Ekim the Inbred Chimp?

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Ooooh, a "your sister" joke. Even lamer than a "your mama" joke.

Useless tranny fuckee. Watch out for that butt poison, homo.

You're the "joke", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, because your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister has always made you feel sexually inadequate, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, but that is still no reason to call your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister a "tranny".

Originally Posted by JCM800

I already said that they were careless ....reread that part.

where is the link that ties religion to their deaths?

Coots was just a nut.

So,1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout, somebody that purposefully -- with 100% certainty -- injects poison into their system is merely "careless" in your book? Coots took an unreasonable risk, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout, but quite unlike those other two scenarios, there was no absolute certainty that the snake was going to successfully bite him and inject poison into his system: there was a high risk, but there was no certainty.

You are a true Little Johnny lib-retard, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout: "... up is down ... white is black ... wrong is right, etc., etc., etc."

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There's a scene in "Tombstone" portraying Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) lying in a bed in Glenwood Springs, Colorado staring at his bare feet. An amused Holiday is purported to have remarked, "Damn, this is funny," and then he died. IMO, that's an apt ending for a full life.

Yea but Doc Holiday didn't shoot himself in the head playing with his gun!

You know there is a state law in Ky. against snake handling in this type of setting.

I can just envision the preacher in his best Charlton Heston voice, " They'll have to pry the Rattlesnake from my cold dead hand..."





At least he had the courage of his conviction. Not many folks do now days.

[bojulay]

What about attention whore thrill seekers.

Like base jumpers, and idiot sport bike riders who ride on the highway
like it is a racetrack.

They don't believe in anything miraculous, just that the laws of physics
somehow don't really apply to them.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bojulay

What about attention whore thrill seekers.

Like base jumpers, and idiot sport bike riders who ride on the highway
like it is a racetrack.

They don't believe in anything miraculous, just that the laws of physics
somehow don't really apply to them.

Look, if you die doing what ya love, there is something to be said for that. No matter what it is.

[i'va biggen]

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1054997054]But you've already posted and made it quite clear that you have personal issues with Homo sapiens pussy, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; so, what kind of pussy do you fuck, Ekim the Inbred Chimp?



[COLOR="Red"]I have never made that statement liar. only you with your simian obsession keeps bringing up apes. Thanks again for verifying you suck dick. /COLOR]