0
   

... So help me, Allah.

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 12:07 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Another hit & run moonbat?


yeah, yeah, yeah... but enough about you. Laughing

One thing that I can't be accused of is hit & run. I stick around for the laughs.

Except that the laughs are on you.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 12:12 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Another hit & run moonbat?


yeah, yeah, yeah... but enough about you. Laughing

One thing that I can't be accused of is hit & run. I stick around for the laughs.

Except that the laughs are on you.

Do you even know the definition of ignore? Why do you find me so irreistable? I've already told you, you can't have me, I am married to a MAN & have no interest in a wanna-be man
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 12:30 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
& i do wish you'd quit misrepresenting Christianity, hit & run


Laughing Obviously you're an even higher expert than God's son Laughing
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 12:37 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
& i do wish you'd quit misrepresenting Christianity, hit & run


Laughing Obviously you're an even higher expert than God's son Laughing

Obviously you are mistaken.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:12 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
& i do wish you'd quit misrepresenting Christianity, hit & run


Laughing Obviously you're an even higher expert than God's son Laughing

Obviously you are mistaken.


At last we agree!

Yes, you ARE no expert on the religion you affect, yet the crucial tenets of which you break with almost every post.


(You know, the ones about compassion and throwing stones etc.)


This can be the beginning of true learning for you, madam. A great day indeed. Let your healing begin.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:40 am
dlowan wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
& i do wish you'd quit misrepresenting Christianity, hit & run


Laughing Obviously you're an even higher expert than God's son Laughing

Obviously you are mistaken.


At last we agree!

Yes, you ARE no expert on the religion you affect, yet the crucial tenets of which you break with almost every post.


(You know, the ones about compassion and throwing stones etc.)


This can be the beginning of true learning for you, madam. A great day indeed. Let your healing begin.


I think taking any kind of advice from you could be very detrimental....maybe even kuari
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:44 am
They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover ...
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:46 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover ...

Didn't help you? Sorry.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 07:45 am
Xingu now has started a thread on this topic, and i posted this in his thread:

There is a very good reason for the inclusion in the Constitution of a prohibition on religious tests for public office. In England in the 17th century, two acts were passed which required anyone holding public office in England to be a professing member of the Church of England. The specific intent was to exclude Catholics and Nonconformists (those who were Protestant, but not Church of England adherents) from holding public office in England. It was further alleged, after the passage of these acts, that Catholics and Nonconformists were taking communion at Anglican services with the sole purpose of qualifying for public office, while not actually adhering to the established church. Therefore, in 1711, in the reign of Queen Anne, the Occasional Conformity Act was passed, to disqualify those who were alleged to take Anglican communion only for the purpose of qualifying for public office. The men who wrote the Constitution were well aware of these acts and the purpose of their provisions, and intended that such religious tests would not be used in the United States.

You can read the Wikipedia article about the Corporation Act here.

You can read the Wikipedia article about The Test Act here.

You can read the Wikipedia article about The Occasional Conformity Act here.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 07:56 am
In the same way we have allowed ignorant blue leisure suit white patent leather shoe wearing red neck snake oil salesmen to hi jack Chritianity, we have allowed one of their apostles to hi jack Joe from Chicago's thread. That is unfair to Joe and I apologize. LSM should be ignored and we should try to steer the thread back out of respect to an actaully valuable poswter.

I personally like the idea of making them swear or affirm or whatever on the constitution, since that is supposedly the holy book of commandments on which this country was founded.

Failing that, I don't care what they swear or affirm on. They're all lying anyway. :wink: :wink:
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 08:55 am
http://c0venant.net/imagenes/troll-dontfeed.jpg

...."She's" had enough to eat.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 12:24 pm
candidone1 wrote:
http://c0venant.net/imagenes/troll-dontfeed.jpg

...."She's" had enough to eat.


hah ! the substance piled up in that bowl looks suspiciously like.. uh, well.. ya know ???

in which case i'd be happy to see the troll eat quite a lot more of it. it certainly has been begging for it hard enough...

but i suppose you're right. it only encourages it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:05 pm
Interestingly enough, it turns out that no religious book has ever been used in swearing in a House of Rep. member -

Quote:
Right-Wing Radio Host Fabricates Controversy To Attack First Muslim Congressman


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/koran-bible-prager-ellison/

Talk about much ado over nothing!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:08 pm
So, basically, this clown Prager is an out-and-out liar . . . hilarious . . . thanks, Cyclo . . . i'm gonna post that in the other thread on this topic.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:40 pm
Setanta wrote:
So, basically, this clown Prager is an out-and-out liar . . . hilarious . . . thanks, Cyclo . . . i'm gonna post that in the other thread on this topic.


it's really all the ultra right has ever had, set. create some "troubling" scenario and pound away on the Outrage Button. to a lesser extent the far left does the same thing, i think. the left tends more to at least have some kernel of actuality and may massage the hell out of it, whereas the prager/o'reilly/hannity/limberger crowd always get caught just making **** up.

boneheads, i tell ya... oh, well birds of a feather....

the worst part of this hoax is that we didn't know that no book is used in the swearing in of representatives.

i wonder if the same holds true for senators? i don't remember ahnoldt having one when he took office either. Confused
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:51 pm
The ultra right has also in the past emplyed this strategy.
Fear mongering headlines are always on page 1. The correction, and ultimate truth behind the original assertions are normally found in section F page 9.

Point being; kick up enough dust with a blatent falsehood, dress it up like it's the truth, ensure all the rightwing mouthpieces give it airplay, the righties slurp it up, then call it a liberal bias when the actual truth emerges.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 01:57 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Setanta wrote:
So, basically, this clown Prager is an out-and-out liar . . . hilarious . . . thanks, Cyclo . . . i'm gonna post that in the other thread on this topic.


it's really all the ultra right has ever had, set. create some "troubling" scenario and pound away on the Outrage Button. to a lesser extent the far left does the same thing, i think. the left tends more to at least have some kernel of actuality and may massage the hell out of it, whereas the prager/o'reilly/hannity/limberger crowd always get caught just making **** up.

boneheads, i tell ya... oh, well birds of a feather....

the worst part of this hoax is that we didn't know that no book is used in the swearing in of representatives.

i wonder if the same holds true for senators? i don't remember ahnoldt having one when he took office either. Confused


Yes, Boss, the leftwingnuts are just as bad. They seem to be very much into conspiracy theory, so i don't subscribe to your "kernel of truth" thesis.

I posted earlier in this thread the relevant portion of the Constitution--it does not mention god, and does not requiring swearing on any book, and it prohibits any religious test:

Article VI, third paragraph:

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.

Note also that they are not required to swear an oath, but may make an affirmation, instead. Many Christian sects refuse to swear oaths, and consider "so help me God" to be taking the Lord's name in vain.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:03 pm
Following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, Brigham Young introduced an oath in the endowment which required members to swear vengeance "upon this nation." It became the subject of a United States Senate Investigation.

Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this treasonous oath in the endowment ritual. The complete record of this episode was published in:

U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold his Seat. 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906)
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:17 pm
Setanta wrote:
Yes, Boss, the leftwingnuts are just as bad. They seem to be very much into conspiracy theory, so i don't subscribe to your "kernel of truth" thesis.

I posted earlier in this thread the relevant portion of the Constitution--it does not mention god, and does not requiring swearing on any book, and it prohibits any religious test:


yeah, the conspiricists (is that even a word Shocked )... " a missle hit the pentagon...", yeah ,right.. i don't take those guys seriously at all. they're right in there with the "bill murdered vince" bunch for me.

sorry, i spaced that you'd posted that piece before.

reading it again, i guess it could be argued that swearing/affirming on any religious book is not only unnecesary, but could actually be unconstitutional.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Dec, 2006 02:23 pm
Setanta wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Setanta wrote:
So, basically, this clown Prager is an out-and-out liar . . . hilarious . . . thanks, Cyclo . . . i'm gonna post that in the other thread on this topic.


it's really all the ultra right has ever had, set. create some "troubling" scenario and pound away on the Outrage Button. to a lesser extent the far left does the same thing, i think. the left tends more to at least have some kernel of actuality and may massage the hell out of it, whereas the prager/o'reilly/hannity/limberger crowd always get caught just making **** up.

boneheads, i tell ya... oh, well birds of a feather....

the worst part of this hoax is that we didn't know that no book is used in the swearing in of representatives.

i wonder if the same holds true for senators? i don't remember ahnoldt having one when he took office either. Confused


Yes, Boss, the leftwingnuts are just as bad. They seem to be very much into conspiracy theory, so i don't subscribe to your "kernel of truth" thesis.

I posted earlier in this thread the relevant portion of the Constitution--it does not mention god, and does not requiring swearing on any book, and it prohibits any religious test:

Article VI, third paragraph:

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.

Note also that they are not required to swear an oath, but may make an affirmation, instead. Many Christian sects refuse to swear oaths, and consider "so help me God" to be taking the Lord's name in vain.


It doesn't prohibit the use of a religious text, it just says no religious shall ever be required.

Now if the above is true, why did this new politican make a deal out of saying he wasn't going to swear in on a Bible but would use the Koran instead. It isn't required so it should have been no big deal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 05:44:40