2009-12-17T09:21:28Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/56717 2009-12-17T09:21:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-12-17:/comment/178013 janeeny Oh so sorry. The establishment clause. Which, by Thomas Jefferson's own words, was meant to separate church and state, or in other words SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Is this separation of church and state not in the constitution B.S. a Beckism or something? 2009-10-07T04:08:20Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-07:/comment/136601 jaydubya The point was that the Canadian law limits or restricts "Hate Speech"; which you just confirmed. His point was that there is a limitation on forms of free speech in Canada that would not allow a pastor to preach the entire bible because of the perception of hate speech in the bible in regards to the immorality of homosexuality. Additionally, he/she was not saying that Canadian law that it applies to US Law. He/she was trying to draw parallels between this bill and existing Canadian law. 2009-05-03T15:58:36Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-05-03:/comment/105311 bbs Seperation of church and state can be found no where in the constitution. Look it up. 2009-05-23T21:41:37Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-05-23:/comment/107896 2100km Exactly! If someone kills my white heterosexual mother they should do just as much time as if they kill my gay cousin. 2009-04-22T10:36:37Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-04-22:/comment/103825 ftcopeland2002 YES I TOTALY AGREE WITH. BUT IF THIS PASSES THIS IS JUST THE BEGINING OF WHATS STILL YET TO COME. I'LL SAY THIS THE TIME IS AT HAND AND THE BELIEVERS WON'T BE HERE WHEN ALL THE REAL BAD STUFF STARTS HAPPENING. WEATHER YOU BELIEVE THAT OR YOU DON'T IT'S FACT. 2009-06-05T05:19:45Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-06-05:/comment/108967 jaysays The bill does not prohibit your pastor from preaching that "gays" are going to hell, it prevents your pastor from sending them there. 2009-04-13T12:23:48Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-04-13:/comment/102291 txlwyr You'd be right if practicing their calling includes acts of violence. Moreover, it gives justifications under the commerce clause and the spending clause. There is no explicit restriction on speech of any kind. Nor does it discriminate against any religious group nor codify any religious ideal. Read it first, dude. 2009-04-27T15:03:20Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-04-27:/comment/104502 Zee Oh good, that means they will finally go after all the muslims propagating hatred of infidels. 2009-10-07T03:54:11Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-07:/comment/136590 jaydubya The separation of religion and state (I say religion because it could just as easily apply to the numerous amounts of faiths that are in this country), while not directly mentioned, is essential. If you are to look over history, you will see that the greatest source of oppression has been that of the religious majority pushing their views on the religious minority. If the religious majority were allowed to take control of the governmental body (much like many Islamic states) through the establishment of a nationally sanctioned religion, we will end up in a system of government that oppresses those who believe something different than what the majority does. This very concept goes against the very foundations of freedom and liberty. 2009-06-05T05:24:53Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-06-05:/comment/108969 jaysays First Amendment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." While the words "separation of church and state" do not appear within the first amendment, it has been quoted by several opinions handed down by the Supreme Court. 2009-04-26T21:15:15Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-04-26:/comment/104420 prodriver8108 I tend to agree. Why are we wasting are tax dollars over another bill when there seems to be enough laws to handle those that actually commit a crime. I don't agree with what everyone else says and I'm sure they don't agree with what I say. Does that mean we should be allowed to say it at all. What are we? A bunch of pansies...mama he called be a bad word. LOL Its laughable that grown men and women are actually seriously considering this in Congress. 2010-01-19T07:34:39Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-19:/comment/181821 Anonymous http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-nLI5w4Pk......................YOU FKERS IN THE GOVERMENT BETER STOP PASSING CRIMINAL SHT............THE CONSTITION IS THE ONLY LAW WE THE PEOPLE WILL FOLLOW....YOU CAN PASS ALL THE CRIMINAL SHT YOU WANT ....WE THE PEOPLE WILL FIGHT YOU ALL THE WAY SUIT BOYS.....WE KNOW WHO THE REAL ENEMY IS THE FKIN CRIMINAL OFF SHORE BANKS......THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT NEEDS TO BE OBOLISHED NOW....PUT THE MONEY CONTROLL BANK IN THE PEOPLE HANDS....FK THESE CRIMINALS.....BUNCH OF CULT WORSHPING FKIN SCUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....WASHINGTON SAID ID RATHER SEE MY COUNTRY BETHED IN BLOOD THAN TO LIVE UNDER TRYANNY SUIT BOYS....U TAKE THE COUNTRY DOWN YOU WILL COME WITH US . 2010-01-19T07:36:52Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-19:/comment/181822 Anonymous GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID,,,,ID RATHER SEE MY COUNTRY BATHED IN BLOOD THAN TO LIVE UNDER TRYANNY......... 2009-04-28T15:10:44Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-04-28:/comment/104631 JWoodward So how would you define it? 2009-09-06T19:25:52Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-06:/comment/123423 dankennedy73 Gotta agree with alexgill4 on this one, while seperation between church and state are not specifically stated in our constitution, it does'nt take a rocket sceientist to open a history book, apply some deductive reasoning and come to the obvious conclusion that most of our founding forefathers did intend for there to be a very real and fundemental seperation of state and religion-hence the first ammendment. 2009-04-22T16:46:38Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-04-22:/comment/103870 Waytwofast I have always been against Hate Crimes Legislation, because of one thing. Justice is blind, someone who offends someone of a different race or culture or sex shouldn't be more harshly punished, or punished when no crime was committed. Hate Crimes Laws are being used against Christians, where a Christian can be arrested for reading the bible in public, because it may offend an atheist. It is happening at Anti-Gay Protests, when anti-gay supports shout Anti-Gay slogans, they are arrested, while the gays are not, this bill is one sided, and should be voted NAY. 2009-10-29T14:03:12Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-29:/comment/156524 sheba What about historical events like the French Revolution? The event was a bloody massacre all in the name of exalting humanism above religion. If you look over history, one will find just as much oppression at the hands of anti-religious governments and individuals who exalt humanity above the worship & respect of a higher power. The absence of religious ethics/morals/values will only lead to more events like the French Revolution. The purpose of the American republic was to allow people to worship in freedom, how they chose to worship as long as it does not infringe upon another persons basic rights, but at the same time NOT instituting a gov't-sanctioned religion. 2010-02-18T14:11:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-02-18:/comment/185575 hannahdabeast Found it. 2009-06-05T05:20:37Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-06-05:/comment/108968 jaysays The Canadian Law is a "Hate Speech" law, not a "Hate Crimes" law. The Law in Canada is very different in wording than the U.S. proposal. Please research Canadian law before assuming that it applies in the United States. 2010-02-18T14:11:16Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-02-18:/comment/185574 hannahdabeast The believers? Of what? What do you agree with, exactly? They can't even pass this, what makes you think they're going to pass anything else? And last time I checked, this is America, not Canada. We do not have 'hate speech' here. FAIRY.