APP - “One Nation Under God”

And here I am thinking we are talking about the 14th.
No, I am thinking about the 1st which was incorporated to the states through the 14th. Keep up.

Again, every time any state has tried to go against the 1st (and any local government too) they have simply lost. Period. Ruling after ruling, dozens of times, consistently and without reservation the states and local governments lose when they try to restrict atheism or support any religion (even generically if it isn't neutral towards belief and non-belief).

Your interpretation is based in fantasy, not on the reality of what the constitution actually says. Your government cannot cross that line any more than the Feds can because we have Amendment 14.

No matter how much you dislike that restriction (probably as much as the left hates the restrictions on gun control), it is simply reality and it shouldn't be ignored.
 
No, I am thinking about the 1st which was incorporated to the states through the 14th. Keep up.

Again, every time any state has tried to go against the 1st (and any local government too) they have simply lost. Period. Ruling after ruling, dozens of times, consistently and without reservation the states and local governments lose when they try to restrict atheism or support any religion (even generically if it isn't neutral towards belief and non-belief).

Your interpretation is based in fantasy, not on the reality of what the constitution actually says. Your government cannot cross that line any more than the Feds can because we have Amendment 14.

No matter how much you dislike that restriction (probably as much as the left hates the restrictions on gun control), it is simply reality and it shouldn't be ignored.

Again, the 1st doesn't apply in this situation. First, because it restricts Congress, not States, therefore there is no "incorporation" as you assert. Second, because the Christianity requirement isn't "respecting an establishment".
 
Again, the 1st doesn't apply in this situation. First, because it restricts Congress, not States, therefore there is no "incorporation" as you assert. Second, because the Christianity requirement isn't "respecting an establishment".
You are simply and irrevocably incorrect, delusional, and lost in fantasy as shown by the actual case law, decisions, and understanding of incorporation through the 14th Amendment. You will do or say anything without regard to the evidence or reality in front of you to support your fantasy view.

You are again the same as Al Gore (and Watermark), insisting that although the data was unverifiable and falsified it must be true.

I am embarrassed for you.
 
It violates for federal office, not for a state office. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


*sigh*
 
that looks like a carpenter posing as Jesus not god
That's supposed to be Jesus? Good God. Jesus wasn't blonde or caucasion. The artist must be completely ignorant.

Last I heard this was the "United States of America" not "The United States of Jesusland".
 
You are simply and irrevocably incorrect, delusional, and lost in fantasy as shown by the actual case law, decisions, and understanding of incorporation through the 14th Amendment. You will do or say anything without regard to the evidence or reality in front of you to support your fantasy view.

This was not even incorporated by the 14th amendment. This is in the original constitution.

Any state that has vile provisions preventing good people from serving and only allowing trashy immoral vipers has had those provisions rendered impotent. They can put them in there, but they can't enforce them.

You are again the same as Al Gore (and Watermark), insisting that although the data was unverifiable and falsified it must be true.

I am embarrassed for you.

The data for global warming is both verified and unfalsified.
 
full-painting.jpg


http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353

:good4u:
After reading this I can only say that this artist is a mental midget. He's utterly clueless about our nations history and traditions. He's condescending and self righteous and hypocritical to an extreme and purposefully insulting to those who are more intelligent and able then him. If I were to meet Mr McIdiot I'd tell him to go fuck himself. This nation needs people like him like we need a hole in our head.

I wonder what dream cloud this clueless moron lives on? He sure as hell isn't an American.
 
You are simply and irrevocably incorrect, delusional, and lost in fantasy as shown by the actual case law, decisions, and understanding of incorporation through the 14th Amendment. You will do or say anything without regard to the evidence or reality in front of you to support your fantasy view.

You are again the same as Al Gore (and Watermark), insisting that although the data was unverifiable and falsified it must be true.

I am embarrassed for you.
Its the ACLU you should be embarrassed for. Why have they not come after the State of North Carolina. This law has been on the books for centuries, and has survived several re-writes of the State Constitution.

Instead they go after small local governments over Christmas tree displays.

The answer, of course, is that they know that they will lose, erasing the prior rulings. :)
 
After reading this I can only say that this artist is a mental midget. He's utterly clueless about our nations history and traditions. He's condescending and self righteous and hypocritical to an extreme and purposefully insulting to those who are more intelligent and able then him. If I were to meet Mr McIdiot I'd tell him to go fuck himself. This nation needs people like him like we need a hole in our head.

I wonder what dream cloud this clueless moron lives on? He sure as hell isn't an American.

My, so closed minded and intolerant. :)
 
True. Hover over the painting for an explanation of the significance of each figure in the painting...
Except for many of the character he fails to explain the correlation to his religeios point. Which is understandable as most of the founding fathers were secularist. This guy is just another hate monger who wants to marginalize those who don't walk in lock step with his beliefs. Well I have one thing to say to Mr. McIdiot. "E. Pluribus Unum".
 
This was not even incorporated by the 14th amendment. This is in the original constitution.

Any state that has vile provisions preventing good people from serving and only allowing trashy immoral vipers has had those provisions rendered impotent. They can put them in there, but they can't enforce them.



The data for global warming is both verified and unfalsified.
No it isn't. It was in the 14th this incorporated. Previous to that Amendment it was within a state's "rights" to establish a state religion, and some did.

And the data in "support" of global warming is unverifiable as it was purposefully destroyed. This is why the false "peer-reviewed" tag is so Faith-based on your side of the argument at this time.
 
My, so closed minded and intolerant. :)
LOL, No if any of you wish to see a text book example of projection, this would be one. Some moron paints a tabloid that's flat out offending to those who do not share his view and tacitly implies that his views are the only real American views and those of us with more than half a brain are closed minded and intolerant?" LOL

If this nation was as Mr. McIdiot projects it, we'd all still be living in caves and wearing animal skins for clothes. He's a simple minded moron thats just insecure and threatened by those whom are different then he is and who are capable of critical thought.
 
LOL, No if any of you wish to see a text book example of projection, this would be one. Some moron paints a tabloid that's flat out offending to those who do not share his view and tacitly implies that his views are the only real American views and those of us with more than half a brain are closed minded and intolerant?" LOL

If this nation was as Mr. McIdiot projects it, we'd all still be living in caves and wearing animal skins for clothes. He's a simple minded moron thats just insecure and threatened by those whom are different then he is and who are capable of critical thought.
In other words, free speech is only OK when its liberal free speech. :pke:
 
No. 916: Religion's Role in Nation's Founding Is Misunderstood

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3597

(This Article is from one of SM's own state citizens. One far more educated than he.)

By Dr. Troy Kickler

From biographies to sweeping narratives, from readable pop history to dry-as-dust academic publications, books exploring the lives of the Founding Fathers increasingly are being published.

One misunderstood aspect of the Founding Era is the role that religion played. Conversing recently with a rigid secularist who has utmost faith in human reason, (a throwback to the French Enlightenment), I heard that “Not one Founding Father was a Christian!” A few months earlier I talked with a churchgoing fundamentalist (a throwback outside of Middle America) who supposed the Founding Fathers believed similarly to his KJV-only pastor.

But the reality is more complicated. David L. Holmes, in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, argues that America’s first patriots were non-Christian deists, Christian deists, or orthodox Christians. Although many Deists considered essential tenets of Christianity, such as the trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection as myths, irreconcilable with human reason, most maintained denominational affiliations; and in spite of their anti-clericalism, some even regularly attended church services. As historian Mark Noll concludes, most were “Deist-like — but not exactly.”

At the Continental Congress were also many orthodox Christians such as John Jay, whom John Adams considered a “church-going animal” and believer in divine revelation and dispensation. What united the three groups, Holmes writes, was their belief in a guiding Providence and eternal life, the importance of virtue and Jesus’ ethical teachings, and love of religious freedom and hatred of tyranny.

Holmes provides a good start in understanding a complex history, but an in-depth discussion of how American thinkers differed from their Radical Enlightenment counterparts is needed.

Unlike Voltaire and Rousseau, the skeptical Enlightenment, including Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers, respected traditions and the religious core of Western Civilization. Without acknowledging how the Old West shaped American thought, writes Russell Kirk, one cannot understand the cardinal ideas of American civilization: justice, order, and freedom.

It is indeed impossible to understand them without knowing that American republicanism placed classical and Renaissance ideas within the context of Augustinian Christianity and wrapped Lockean ideas of liberty around the Christian idea of covenants. Does this mean the Founders were Christians? Not necessarily. It means that their times influenced them, that they respected Christianity, and that the language of Christendom gives meaning and understanding to American political and social values.

The debate usually omits two other essential aspects. One, the Founding Fathers comprised an intellectual elite who represented a religious and many times zealous majority that checked any notions to establish an entirely secular government. The traveling French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville noticed the importance of religion to average Americans and recorded that “on the seventh day of every week the trading and working life of the nation seems suspended.”

Two, modern Americans with statist assumptions forget that America was created as a federalism of states, united only for the purposes expressed in the Constitution. Most private matters remained to the states to decide, and within them, people controlled most of their private lives.

The Constitution does not mention God or religion and bans religious tests in Article VI because federalists considered religion a matter best decided by individuals and their states. Many state constitutions preceded the federal one, and those and new ones sometimes retained a mild form of religious establishment and many times explicit religious qualifications for public office.

When public opinion changed within a state, new state constitutions or amendments were drafted, as evidenced by the 1835 modification to the religious qualifications for office holders in North Carolina from “Protestant” to “Christian” and the exclusion of only “atheists” from public office in the 1868 constitution. Not until 1961 did the U.S. Supreme Court decide that such restrictions in the states were unconstitutional.

Long story short: Serious and in-depth inquiry concerning the extent of religious influence during the Founding Era is necessary to understand the times as they were.

Dr. Troy Kickler is director of the North Carolina History Project.
 
And here is where SM loses outright and the argument is over. This is from the Wikipedia site for the North Carolina Constitution:

At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced. This provision was explicitly challenged and overturned by Vosswinkel v. Hunt, 1979.

This provision, while is is still on the books was overturned by NORTH CAROLINA COURTS in 1979. The reason it is still on the books is that the language has never been amended because there has been no Constitutional Convention sense it was struck down in 1979.

Game, Set and Match Constitutitard! All hail SM King of the Constitutitards!
 
You would think that if you talked as much shit about this particular article in his constitution and speak on it with such authority he would at least know that his own courts had already ruled on this.
 
No it isn't. It was in the 14th this incorporated. Previous to that Amendment it was within a state's "rights" to establish a state religion, and some did.

And the data in "support" of global warming is unverifiable as it was purposefully destroyed. This is why the false "peer-reviewed" tag is so Faith-based on your side of the argument at this time.

No, it wasn't. CRU is one of several organizations COMPILING climate data, and they get THEIR information from OTHER SOURCES. When they talked about deleting data, they were talking about data that had been deleted in the 80's before they had ever arrived. If you want the data they have, go to the people THEY GOT IT FROM.
 
Back
Top