| Quote:
Originally Posted by alias  I am not insulting the arguments made. | That is precisely what you did with the phrase: "convuluted educated dummy's rhetoric".
That's all it is. An insult to the argument, calling it names, without actually ADDRESSING the argument. Quote: |
Originally Posted by alias Your argument is "read between the lines". That is a pathetic argument. | No. It's a very real argument, based on the very real way that the world works and how the courts interpret the constitution.
Demanding that the EXACT phrase "separation of church and state" be found verbatim in the constitution is a pathetic argument. The idea exists as part of the ESTABLISHMENT clause, which you so blindly keep trying to portray as "no state religion".
Learn to read. Quote: |
Originally Posted by alias I can find some Joe Blow to read between the lines and he could say the constitution forbids picking your nose in church. | And again, you don't debate what was ACTUALLY said, instead you attempt to ridicule it.
Saying "the constitution forbids picking your nose in church" would be a LOOONNNNGGGG stretch.
Acknowledging what the establishment clause means is not.
The current legal analysis acknowledges the existence and meaning of the establishment clause.
You pointing to some random person who has a nose picking issue doesn't mean squat compared to that. "(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher  |