abortion

Originally posted by frogstomp
no. Congress and the state governments are probitited by the Constitution. Nobody said you can't have a religious opinion, but you can't use government power to enforce it.
The only reason I post in this thread is to defend the US Constitution's Bill of rights (thats another term you won't find in the body of the Constitut ...[text shortened]... ntinue to hold back, it's up to you if you want a civilized debate or a gutter battle.

and Kelly, I've refrained from attacking you, but if you continue to misrepresent what my position is and use obnoxious terms like "thought police" I won't continue to hold back, it's up to you if you want a civilized debate or a gutter battle.

I would imagine that you would see that it was you misrepresenting
my views that caused me to say that! I told you that laws do not
change people's minds, they would not stop abortions, and you
accuse me of wanting to use the government to push my anti
abortion stance into law, after I told you that wasn't what I wanted
to do. The very thing you accuse me of is the very thing you were
doing to me that upset me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where in anything I have said at any time, in any conversation on
RHP, have you ever seen me say anything about using the
government to push for my views on abortion to be passed into law?
If you cannot show that than I submit to you that ...[text shortened]... he Constitution. You see
any flaws in your position yet?
Kelly
[/b]

I posted exact wording from the Contitution. Some of the definitions like "separation of church and state" while not being verbatim are indeed part of the reason the 1st amendment was passed. It's you that are misrepresenting what the Constitutional standard is.
" So I guess they are not there, what is here in this country is a term that has no context in the constitution yet is being used to remove all evidence of religion everywhere, it cannot be questioned when those words are used, because they are not in context anywhere. "

One more time:
Amendment I
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.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


And anybody that can't see that calls for separation of church and state ,simply can't read.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I posted exact wording from the Contitution. Some of the definitions like "separation of church and state" while not being verbatim are indeed part of the reason the 1st amendment was passed. It's you that are misrepresenting what the Constitutional standard is.
" So I guess they are not there, what is here in this country is ...[text shortened]... dy that can't see that calls for separation of church and state ,simply can't read.

I've read your quotes each time you posted them, and still the
words are not there. They must be between the lines I guess.
I do not see how I'm the one misreprenting the Constitution when
it is you putting in words that are not there, and calling the words
that are not there, part of the Constitution.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've read your quotes each time you posted them, and still the
words are not there. They must be between the lines I guess.
I do not see how I'm the one misreprenting the Constitution when
it is you putting in words that are not there, and calling the words
that are not there, part of the Constitution.
Kelly

You most certainly are misrepresenting it when YOU say the the government is using "separation of church and state" words not in the constitution to remove religion from "everywhere"'

I just posted the standard used ... once again,,, and besides that your use of the word "everywhere" misstates even what the government has done. Since it applies only to cases where governments(federal and state (including local) are violating the 1st amendment.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You most certainly are misrepresenting it when YOU say the the government is using "separation of church and state" words not in the constitution to remove religion from "everywhere"'

I just posted the standard ...[text shortened]... nd state (including local) are violating the 1st amendment.

I can point to examples where religious items are removed from the
public domain because a tax dollar touches it some how, or that
people's speech have been hindered by the government, because
instead of congress passing a law, some tax dollar was used in some
way to support something. The more the government touches us, the
less freedom we have if this continues.

You saying that using the verbiage "separation of church and state" is
some how in the constitution, because it is standard should scare you
in my opinion. Not that you don't agree with the what is going on,
because words that carrying meaning, can be inserted into anything
that are not there, but carry the wieght of law as if they were. If that is
now standard practice we are in a lot of trouble. You seem to be so
upset that I disagree with you about this, I'm close to offending you
over this issue, because I dislike the practice. The law should be
written by those we elect, not written on a bench by a judge who is
not a law maker by our constitution.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
You most certainly are misrepresenting it when YOU say the the government is using "separation of church and state" words not in the constitution to remove religion from "everywhere"'

I just posted the standard used ... once again,,, and besides that your use of the word "everywhere" misstates even what the government ...[text shortened]... where governments(federal and state (including local) are violating the 1st amendment.

Yes, of course 'everywhere' is too broad, I should have said in a lot
of places, but if that is all you have to complaint about, you should
see that it is occurring. How does a state or local government violate
the 1st amendment? Do we call a local township congress now, or a
class room, a state government? Isn’t Congress a specific body of
government, isn’t establishing a religion mean it is setting up a one
federal religion if we just let the word in the constitution simply
mean what they say without the make believe text being inserted
into the constitution?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, of course 'everywhere' is too broad, I should have said in a lot
of places, but if that is all you have to complaint about, you should
see that it is occurring. How does a state or local government violate
the 1st amendment? Do we call a local township congress now, or a
class room, a state government? Isn’t Congress a specific body of
governmen ...[text shortened]... mean what they say without the make believe text being inserted
into the constitution?
Kelly

Try reading the 14th amendment ,,jeez Kelly ,, I included that to show use precisely why the argument you make in that post is nonsense.
Just how much of the Constitution are you willing to ignore?

Both the 1st and thet 14th amendments are NOT make believe text.
You might be happy about it when the corporate christians gain control of the Court and totally trash the constitution to buy your vote, but if you had any sense you'd realize just how phoney they really are.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, of course 'everywhere' is too broad, I should have said in a lot
of places, but if that is all you have to complaint about, you should
see that it is occurring. How does a state or local government violate
the 1st amendment? Do w ...[text shortened]... make believe text being inserted
into the constitution?
Kelly

How much of the Constititution are you against?
now you're trashing the main body of it.

If you truely believed that laws should be passed by elected representatives of the people you, advocate a correcting the situation in the US Senate where Montana has the same number of senators as California.

This is from Art 3 Section 2 ...

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

is "as to law and fact" make believe text too?

Originally posted by frogstomp
How much of the Constititution are you against?
now you're trashing the main body of it.

If you truely believed that laws should be passed by elected representatives of the people you, advocate a correcting the situation in the US Senate where Montana has the same number of senators as California.

This is ...[text shortened]... ions as the Congress shall make.

is "as to law and fact" make believe text too?

I'm not trashing anything written in our Constitution, I am trashing
the parts (words that do not exist as it is written) that you and
others have added.

I would again like to return to the point I was making earlier, I do not
care if a law is written to forbid abortion, it wouldn't stop the practice.

The point is the hearts and minds of the people. That is where it
really matters. If you can stop saying I’m attempting to change the
laws while argue against abortion, we can return the subject.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not trashing anything written in our Constitution, I am trashing
the parts (words that do not exist as it is written) that you and
others have added.

I would again like to return to the point I was making earlier, I do not
care if a law is written to forbid abortion, it wouldn't stop the practice.

The point is the hearts and minds of the peop ...[text shortened]... m attempting to change the
laws while argue against abortion, we can return the subject.
Kelly

By "the parts that you and others have added" do you mean the Amendments?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not trashing anything written in our Constitution, I am trashing
the parts (words that do not exist as it is written) that you and
others have added.

I would again like to return to the point I was making earlier, I do not
care if a law is written to forbid abortion, it wouldn't stop the practice.

The point is the hearts and minds of the peop ...[text shortened]... m attempting to change the
laws while argue against abortion, we can return the subject.
Kelly

first you must recognize that other people have differing religious views than you hold.
As soon as you can do that you can readily see what the of the rationale of the 1st amandment.
Btw nobody is ordering anybody to have an abortion as that too, would be unconstutional.

Originally posted by frogstomp
first you must recognize that other people have differing religious views than you hold.
As soon as you can do that you can readily see what the of the rationale of the 1st amandment.
Btw nobody is ordering anybody to have an abortion as that too, would be unconstutional.

You have a point that goes against what I said?
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
By "the parts that you and others have added" do you mean the Amendments?

No, anything we can see in context we can debate it, look at the
meaning and so on. While words that are not there, we cannot
that with.
Kelly