Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

Reason2012:
So notice now the ACLU is unwittingly admitting it's legal for the meetings to start with a prayer, after how many years of lying about it being a violation of the "separation / establishment" clause ("separation of church and state! It's a violation of the establishment clause in the Constitution!" they screamed time and again). Now that this lie didn't work, now they try another lie.

Ambulance Chaser:
1. Nobody ever cited a "separation" clause because none exists. Who are you quoting?

2. Legal arguments that you disagree with or don't like are not "lies."

Reason2012:
Thank you for admitting the separation of church and state clause does not exist in the Constitution.

Trying to make a lie your "legal argument" is still a lie.

Ambulance Chaser:
"Thank you for admitting the separation of church and state clause does not exist in the Constitution."

I never said it did. We do, however, have an Establishment Clause, which is applicable here.

Reason2012:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Please cite the law that was passed forcing them to open with a prayer.

There isn't one, so it wasn't violated by holding prayer.

Meanwhile please cite the law that says they do not have the freedom of religion to open with prayer.

There can't be one as that would be a violation of the Constitution.

But at least you admit there's no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. I'll save you claiming that and remind you when you bring it up again in the future.

Ambulance Chaser:
Are you unaware of case law or just unwilling to acknowledge it?

Reason2012:
Are you unaware of the Constitution or just unwilling to acknowledge it?

Ambulance Chaser:
I'm aware of the Constitution and aware that the cases that interpret it hold that any state action that takes even a single step toward establishing a religion is unconstitutional.

Reason2012:
I'm aware that there are activists judges that violate the Constitution and pretend laws can be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Just like the SC judge who lied with Obamacare when democrats sold it as a fine and not a tax, and the SC judge lied and called it a tax so he could "pass" it as Constitutional. You of course will have to deflect to ignore the fact the SC judge lied in order to dishonestly claim it was constitutional when it was not, proving that activists judges will lie and deceive to violate the Constitution, even SC judges.

Ambulance Chaser:
They "violate the Constitution?" Who says? You?

[No response.]

10 comments

Confused?

So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register. Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.