I thank God everyone is not like Cecil and crew

Submitted by JOhn C on 11/2/04 at 1:38 PM. ( Voted for BUSH )

If everyone had the attitude of Cecil and his cohorts. We would be speaking Victorian English have a house of Commons, be under British rule and drive on the wrong side of the road.

It could have been French we are speaking or even given our last names for those of French and Hispanich.

Where would we be if everyone had Cecils bunch of attitudes?

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu

Well John, If Sen. Kerry Wins The Election...

This response submitted by Li Li on 11/2/04 at 2:03 PM. ( )

...we'll all see Weasil & Co.'s attitude in motion! God help us all should that happen!

I thank God you're not my mother John! LOL

This response submitted by Cecil on 11/2/04 at 2:51 PM. ( )

Actually you may be suprised at my response. But it's fun to let you worry! :-)


This response submitted by Steve on 11/2/04 at 2:58 PM. ( )

Actually john, you have that backwards. If everyone was like you and your kind," We would be speaking Victorian English have a house of Commons, be under British rule and drive on the wrong side of the road.

It could have been French we are speaking or even given our last names for those of French and Hispanich."

You see, the Democrats and people more liberal than you understand that we need someone else in the white house. We see where this "leader" is taking us all , and we dont like it. You on the other hand keep saying how you have to stand behind the president,and follow him, no matter what. Its that kind of thought that would have kept the English here. The people who wanted them to leave, the people who wanted a change in our government, those people were patriots, not blind faith followers, who stood behind thier leaders no matter what. And today, the people who want our government to change for the better,and to represent us in a way that is admirable, intelligent and respected around the world as well as in this country, those people too are patriots. So, vote Kerry , and be a patriot, not a follower!

You need more than a leader, Steve. You need a chain

This response submitted by George on 11/2/04 at 3:10 PM. ( georoof@aol.com )

You don't have to worry about Parliament if George Bush is reelected. You should be concerned that the liberals in this country have turned into radical socialists. A Politburo is more to what you're wanting where the state becomes a welfare state and everything you own is controlled by the government. You aren't old enough to know what a metamorphesis the Democrats and Republicans have gone through. The common working man, wanting to enjoy the fruits of his labor have changed from the party founded for him to the Republican party. The Democrats have renegged on the working class (regardless what your union foreman tells you)and now cater to the ultra-wealthy (don't try it. George Soros and all those Hollywood moguls could buy up every oil entrepeneur in the US)who look down their noses at droids like you and the Weasel crew. WHO do you think the liberals intend to get the money from for these social programs you tout? Exactly what number is considered "wealthy"? The beauty of socialism is that it has a sliding scale. The more money they want, the lower that number falls to. I hope that one day you wake up, but I fear that drop on your head at childbirth took all those possibilities away.

George what a steaming pant load

This response submitted by Cecil on 11/2/04 at 3:31 PM. ( )

Don't you get tired of making things up!

Steve, read your history

This response submitted by Scott on 11/2/04 at 3:38 PM. ( )

Who would the founding fathers agree more with, the anti-God libs or the Christian right that the left hates so much?

Actually Scott maybe you better read it

This response submitted by Cecil on 11/2/04 at 3:44 PM. ( )

The founding fathers were very passionate about separation of church and state and the left does not hate christians. That's absoultely moronic.

Cecil, let them bask in the Sun today

This response submitted by Junipera on 11/2/04 at 5:49 PM. ( )

let them sweat.

Your're right

This response submitted by Cecil on 11/2/04 at 6:13 PM. ( )

I'll let them feel good for now.

Cecil, your interpretation of the Constitution

This response submitted by George on 11/3/04 at 12:18 AM. ( )

is about par to your mathematics skills on majority versus plurality. Be so kind as to give me an EXACT REFERENCE in the Constitution where the words "separation of church and state" can be found. And not your usual bullsh1t, just give me an exact, verbatim, paragraph or sentence where I might find those words.

And Mellonhead, shut the hell up.


This response submitted by Jim on 11/3/04 at 5:50 PM. ( )

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the interpretation "separation of church and state" of the 1st ammendment.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Ot do you also deny the existence of atoms?(LOL)

"It is true that the literal phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)

Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.

Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."

Libs got it ALL messed up

This response submitted by Hogger on 11/10/04 at 1:23 AM. ( )

Our founding fathers made numerous mention of God in much of their writings. They intended church and state to not be one and the same, not to totally eliminate any mention of the creator. One nation under GOD! We hold these truths to be self eviden that all men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalieable rights...They structured the judiciary that makes you swear to tell the truth, so help you GOD when you testify. There's sooooo much more, just read our historic documents. THEY DIDN'T WANT THE CHURCH TO DICTATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY. THEY DID WANT GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED. I can deal with liberals. but liberal idiots are another thing!

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu