Right...

Wait... there was no "aha, brilliant argument coming up?"  Just informing?  Bah, that was boring! 

In God We Trust

All Others Pay Cash

The sentence or the UN?

Yup. I was originally referring to the one nation under god reference.

Wouldn't everyone say either is fine? Between the corruption, embezzlement, dictators (many of whom we fund!) patting their own backs and demanding payment of tribute from the USA (it's our fault that the ones we have nothing to do with reign over 3rd world hell holes!) of the UN, the illusion that ANY statesmanship goes on there is just another distraction for already-idiotic and ignorant people. Less attention to actual events, actions, oppression, and policies is not what we need. It's a disservice to the world and everyone in it that the UN takes up anyone's money or time.

You can't formalize treating people right. You can't formalize, in an international body, responsible leaders of nations. Have you seen your fellow man? A consensus of international "leaders," most of whom don't really have the consent of those they govern, means little or nothing. It's no substitute for principled people making good decisions; it often doesn't back good decisions, and it never comes up with them.

The statement that there should never be a BS authority over the USA is a good one. Again, the statement neither requires nor presumes any faith or religion to offer this wisdom. I'm not a man of faith, but I like it. Its message offends would-be slave owners and NWO supporters for political reasons. Nobody of faith is offended by its vague "god" reference. It says nothing of anyone's god or lack thereof, it says something of government and foreign relations.

"Speaking of The Constitution.....somewhere in there it mentions a seperation of church and state, does it not?"

NO.

That's nowhere in there.  It says

"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."

Separation of Church and State was added in there by wacko judges.

"So how can republicans justify banning gay marriage or abortion? Their stance on these subjects have nothing to do with logic or science. Its all based on The Bible."

That's wacko judge logic.

"    Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its holding into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

The establishment clause means separation of church and state. Why is that so hard to understand?

"Speaking of The Constitution.....somewhere in there it mentions a seperation of church and state, does it not?"

No, it does not. It says that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor interfering with anyone's practicing their own religions. It says nothing of "separation." We're free to make laws related to philosophy and concepts of morality all we wish, so long as they don't proclaim a state religion or stop anyone from practicing their own religion. Nothing in the Constitution outlaws making laws which may or may not coincide with religious values. It has nothing to say on that matter. It absolutely does not outlaw legislation which coincides with religious values.

If you believe you have a religious duty/right to kill children, I guess I'd have to at least consider your argument that your right to kill your kids is protected under the first amendment.

"So how can republicans justify banning gay marriage or abortion?"

They believe killing human beings is wrong, no matter how developed. I don't see any establishment of religion nor prohibiting the practice of any religion involved in banning what they consider to be murder. Are you going to offer any argument of how you think it violates the constitution at all?

"Their stance on these subjects have nothing to do with logic or science. Its all based on The Bible. A perfect example of violating our founding father's vision on church and state."

They believe it's bad for society to kill children. That some people who hold this position use the Bible as a basis is irrelevant. You obviously have no idea what the founders' views were regarding church and religion, so I'm confused as to why you're posting random inaccurate thoughts on the topic.

"If republicans would actually read the bible they would realize that Jesus preached tolerance, love and helping his fellow man whenever possible."

If that was their (people against abortion) only argument, I'd agree with you. But it's not, so you're just insulting everyone's intelligence who objects to abortion with more reason than "the Bible says it's bad." Jesus preached love and compassion, not using violence to avoid the consequences of one's actions when it's convenient. He was very clearly more concerned with compassion for human life than he was with helping people avoid responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

"There is nothing wrong with paying a little extra on your taxes to help out a fellow human being."

There are no limitations to your logic. Why not 100% taxes to maximize the help? Because at some point people stop producing, prices spike, things are scarce, people have less, and everyone is HURT by higher taxes. Without specifying any limits, it's just silly and absolutely false to claim that higher taxes are inherently good and help human beings.

"Freedom, libertys, the right to live your life as you see fit w/o some ahole trying to dictate to me how to live it."

When does this right kick in? Conception? 1 month? 5 months? 8 months? Birth, a point at which no particular development of the offspring takes place?

"Youre seriously gonna bring up the 44oz soda thing? LMAO!! You do realize that you can buy two 20oz bottles of soda, right? Or is that math too complicated for you? "

His point is it's pretty hypocritical to demand MASSIVE government regulation of how you live down to the beverage you drink but object to much less intrusive regulations as if it's on principle. If you want soda police, admit that it's not on principle of limited government and personal freedom that you want to legally kill your kids.

I can respect arguments for legal abortion, but don't pretend your objections are centered on personal freedoms and limited government when you don't think anyone has a right to whatever beverage they want. That's hypocritical and downright silly.

"Michelle Obama was getting ripped by the right for wanting to make our school lunches healthier."

No, she was mocked for being a big government communist trying to limit freedoms and force regulations on parents. It's not the government's job to be the food police for dumb, irresponsible parents. It's systematically inefficient and unjust for government to be involved.

"Or how about the right labeling anyone who wants to preserve our natural resources an 'enviromental wacko'? Havent they read a science book....oh wait, thats right....they dont believe in science. Oops my bad"

Could you be more specific of who was demagogued? If you want to tax me for breathing out carbon dioxide, you're a wacko.

Justinian I,

"The establishment clause means separation of church and state. Why is that so hard to understand?"

Not necessarily. That's an overgeneralization. Why is its language so hard to understand?

Zarf/Kemp,

Well, I think it's clear and obvious. But if you are skeptical, consider the comments of Thomas Jefferson. He commented that the establishment clause was a "wall of separation between church and state." Given that Jefferson was the principal author of the constitution, there is no better authority or test to resolve a dispute over what the establishment clause means.

Edit: For those who respectfully insist that James Madison was the principal author of the constitution, my point still stands. Madison's writings say the same thing about the establishment clause.

Hey Kemp, please stop assuming I am making an argument because you think I have implied it. Assume that unless I explicitly make an argument, I didn't make it. If you aren't sure, then ask. You'll save yourself time too.

Yes, there are valid secular arguments in favor of prohibiting abortion, that's obvious. I wasn't questioning that. I was correcting facts.

Except when Jefferson and Madison died there were 24 states, 9 more than when they wrote the Constitution

And all 24 somehow got confused about whether Congress should open with a prayer
or whether prayers should be heard in school
or whether Christmas should be celebrated in city hall

all those things squelched since 1962 in the name of the hallowed "separation of church and state" were somehow done, in Jefferson and Madison's lifetime
and they did not wander the 24 states slapping the Bible out of the hands of schoolmarms
or pitching red poinsettas out of the town clerk's office in December
or demanding people take the crosses down off public land

nor did their children's classmates
or their children
or their children
or their children
or their children
or their children
or their children

it's the same old crap, "O my look what was demanded of us all since 1867 only somehow the entire population of the United States was totally confused and did the opposite for 150 years"