Orrin Hatch wants to tear down the wall of separation between church and state

originally posted by: seagull

Assuming it isn't all over CNN/FOX.

If they get close enough it will be all over them.

originally posted by: olaru12

You mean like in...".Look Homer, some sheep...and that one on the left is kinda cute."

That was baaaaaaaaaaaaa-d.

But, yes. Yes I did mean that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, that degenerated quickly....

...and we wonder why Orin Hatch is concerned??


Truthfully, Hatch should be grateful this nation does have the separation that it does. His constituency might be rather different today were it not so...and he might not be in a position to write such drivel.

a reply to: seagull

I agree with you. Both on the degeneration thing and about separation of church and state.

Orin Hatch is off his nut.

originally posted by: netbound
a reply to: olaru12
You've got some really good ideas, olaru. I think you should run for office.

Dressing up the cattle is a real winner as long as they can have Casual Fridays. Great idea!!

Thank you! If I can find some venture capital, perhaps I can open up a chain of rural boutiques with a nice line of animal clothes.
And nice designs too, none of those tacky batman Tshirts or stupid open toe sandals.

a reply to: olaru12

When politicians start practicing what they preach, I will start taking them seriously.

The last thing the US needs is to morph into a theocratic oligarchy (aka: Taliban 2.0, on steroids)

Until then, they remain societies bottom-feeders whose sole existence relies upon the relentless exploitation of citizens' minds and bank accounts and freedoms.

And when that happens one of the first things Christian religious fanatics might do is come after the Mormons

So he is fine with this as long as it's Christian. How would he react if his moronic idea was to get passed and a majority of Muslims were to get elected would he be fine with Sharia if they wanted to pass it? Halfwits like Hatch shouldn't try to second guess Jefferson.

a reply to: olaru12
"If can find some venture capital, perhaps I can open up a chain of rural boutiques with a nice line of animal clothes."

Wow!! Right on! You're an entrepreneur to boot!!! I love it!

You've got my vote. Count on it!!!

a reply to: buster2010

I had a two page diatribe but you are just so sadly out of touch that I'll just mark this thread for another time. I wouldn't want to hurt feelings.

a reply to: buster2010

I think we both know he is for a Christian Theocracy, which would exclude all other religions.

The 1st amendment has the establishment clause, which does prohibit congress from ratifying laws that would establish a national religion or laws that would restrict an individual's liberty of personal belief. Thus, it would require a new amendment to make the establishment clause nullified.

Hatch has every right to call for this change, and I fear Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, would agree. Hatch has the right to address the public and petition for a peaceful change to the government of this nation.

With that said, I would like to state I am 100% for religious liberty and would never want a guy like Hatch to be a leader of the U.S. government, but I will defend his personal liberty to hold any ideologies he sees fit. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I still felt I compelled to clarify the nature of dissent I had with your opinion.

The real issue here is that public decency issues are historically left to local ordinances on their regulations, guys like Curz and Hatch want to strengthen these laws in order to protect things like prayer in school. It would take a radically theocratical supreme court to overturn the current decisions on the constitutionality of such ordinances, that is the courts says that if its publicly funded by the federal government it must not show any special consideration to any religion. In a private setting, the rules of decency are established by the owners of the building. That's what strip clubs can have a no shirt no shoes, hell no clothing policy.

Not to go on a two-page diatribe here, but it seemed necessary to remove some 'fire-eater' rhetoric from your opinion in order to express my own and show how much I do agree with you and others hate for such silly speech. I just don't like to hate things myself, just have a great distaste for it but do agree with you.

Orrin Hatch's IQ wouldn't match Jefferson's shoe size, let alone his intelligence. I'm sure Orrin would love to subject all of us to his idea of religitopia. But you can bet he and his cronies will exempt themselves from the draconian laws they legislate. Then again, Orrin has always been reality challenged. Just like so many others in Washed up DC.

a reply to: olaru12

Well, after reading the Constitution 1000's of time I do believe it says Freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion.
It also says that NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In simple word they can't force you to follow a religion OR stop your from following it. Which means that if I want to pray at the begging of a meeting, I have a Constitutional right to do so. Do you have to pray with me? Nope, would be nice if you respected my right and let me have a moment tho.

As for what the SC says, well they also said that slavery was legal and Constitutional for some time. (Remember Dedd Scott?) They are not infallible people, just people with their own minds and agendas. Even some of their latest ideas have had issues. The same sex marriage case and ACA case for points. In the former; 2 of the Justices should have recused themselves because of their pervious connections, but failed to do so because they knew they would lose the vote if they did. In both cases they twisted terminology to fit their personnel beliefs.

a reply to: olaru12
But but we should be fearing imminent Sharia law not Christian law right?

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine
a reply to: buster2010

I had a two page diatribe but you are just so sadly out of touch that I'll just mark this thread for another time. I wouldn't want to hurt feelings.

Go ahead and post it I'm in the mood for a good chuckle.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

The real issue here is that public decency issues are historically left to local ordinances on their regulations, guys like Curz and Hatch want to strengthen these laws in order to protect things like prayer in school.

Prayer in public schools is not legal and what does prayer have to do with public decency? I would find it offensive that children who don't follow religion to be forced to act like they are religious.

a reply to: dismanrc

In simple word they can't force you to follow a religion OR stop your from following it. Which means that if I want to pray at the begging of a meeting, I have a Constitutional right to do so. Do you have to pray with me? Nope, would be nice if you respected my right and let me have a moment tho.

Great, you can pray to your God at the begging [sic] of a meeting and I'll pray to mine. But let me warn you; our prayers are a bit esoteric, long and involves a little dancing. Respect my prayers and I'll Respect yours. Or do you just want us to wait around while you pray to your Christian God and throw our religion under the bus?

Your agenda is apparent....you only want a Christian observance to God, right?

a reply to: olaru12

Sen. Orin, there's a lot of people in the US that really don't want a theocracy. I know that sound odd but it true.

That is not true.

Everyone wants one.

This issue is the church or is it going to be the government.

Same animal.

Church=government.

We have government legislating 'holy' laws about 'morality'.

We have forced contributions called taxes.

We have wars out the wahzoo.

We have politicians proselytizing the masses trying to convert us to be 'better'.

There is no damn difference between the two.

Except people think government is 'better'.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Miracula2

And yet many homeless are there because they willfully refuse to follow simple Biblical law, rules that aren't that hard to follow and PROVIDE HAPPINESS and meaning.

Which 'Biblical laws' should we be following?

Uh, like this one. Someone asked me to speculate what the image of the beast was on this forum. And within a week or two a meteor hit Chelyabinsk, Russia. I speculated that someone who was downloading images of children being violated would essentially predict Jerry Sandusky's behavior (the coach who got nailed for child rape). The meteor brighter than the sun took out a bunch of WINDOWS and gave people 2nd degree burns on the ground. Microsoft's main OS is called WINDOWS.


Revelation 14:9-11
A third Angel followed, shouting, warning, “If anyone worships the Beast and its image and takes the mark on forehead or hand, that person will drink the wine of God’s wrath, prepared unmixed in his chalice of anger, and suffer torment from fire

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: dismanrc

In simple word they can't force you to follow a religion OR stop your from following it. Which means that if I want to pray at the begging of a meeting, I have a Constitutional right to do so. Do you have to pray with me? Nope, would be nice if you respected my right and let me have a moment tho.

Great, you can pray to your God at the begging [sic] of a meeting and I'll pray to mine. But let me warn you; our prayers are a bit esoteric, long and involves a little dancing. Respect my prayers and I'll Respect yours. Or do you just want us to wait around while you pray to your Christian God and throw our religion under the bus?

Your agenda is apparent....you only want a Christian observance to God, right?

Mine involves nudity so... RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS FTW!!!

Yeah, I doubt many conservatives would be defending my religious freedom.