Texas Gov. Perry issues proclamation for Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas - Polidicks

My AP Gov teacher told me that this guy wouldn't pass his class.

It's them liberals! They've gone and liberated all the water out of Texas!

[QUOTE=Jenkem;29365666]And what do you propose? Draining the Gulf of Mexico, loading water onto planes, and using them to tug huge sprinklers over the state?[/QUOTE] That's still much more likely to work than praying.

I'm in Arkansas, and we've been getting plenty of rain. I guess we pray at every meal like we're [b]supposed to[/b].

[QUOTE=cjone2;29360505]Guess god is punishing them for being so dumb[/QUOTE] Hey now, no need to call every Texan stupid when it's a only a large majority, right? :smithicide:

[QUOTE=Mikaru-Yanagida;29366939]Hey now, no need to call every Texan stupid when it's a only a large majority, right? :smithicide:[/QUOTE] Will the three Texans with more than two functioning brain cells please move out of the State so it can be carpet-bombed without losing anything of value?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29360531]Hey, another conservative who hasn't read the constitution let me, a canadian, educate you on your own official documents. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli[/url][/QUOTE] The Treaty of Tripoli has nothing to do with the Constitution and is only of interest insofar as it illustrates the INTENT of the founders. It's not really a legally binding document, considering Tripoli is now part of a country we are bombing. [QUOTE=Sanius;29360746]51st state junk[/QUOTE] This is meaningless, all it says is that "51st state" is a figurative term used to describe potential additions to the states. It doesn't make that guy any more correct in saying there are 51 states, because there aren't. I'm all for separation of church and state but you guys are just tripping over yourselves to yell at conservatives without even bothering to parse their (substantive) arguments and it's really embarrassing.

[QUOTE=ken188;29361599]The Treaty of Tripoli was a peace treaty with a bunch of pirates so they stop kidnapping our sailors. The clause that you guys are speaking about simply says that US is not founded on Christianity so it won't fight with Tripoli over religion, but it does nothing to prohibit Texas from passing this law. [editline]22nd April 2011[/editline] No one has yet to show me where it says they cannot do this.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause[/url] read up, stop talking, etc etc

[QUOTE=amute;29374282][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause[/url] read up, stop talking, etc etc[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test[/url] read up, stop talking, etc etc You guys should take a college level government course before you start arguing about these things because ya'll have no idea how the government works.

[QUOTE=TH89;29368907] This is meaningless[/QUOTE] I know, I was just explaining what it was

so uh separation of church and state is good because it prevents religious bias, which could turn into restriction of freedom of religion though, this really isnt such a matter. you arent being forced to attend, theres no penalty for not attending. plus there really isnt a solution to the drought at the moment. what, you think the state legislature has control over the weather? no. all they can do now is take steps to conserve water- oh wait, giant fires, need water to put them out, nevermind

[QUOTE=ken188;29378572]You guys should take a college level government course before you start arguing about these things because ya'll have no idea how the government works.[/QUOTE] This is coming from the kid who led off his presence in this thread by making a blatantly false statement about a lack of separation of church and state in the constitution, justified with a semantic quibble that anyone with fifth grade reading comprehension would dismiss, followed by a "nah nah nah can't hear you" style rebuttal of accessory writings. Now you're on about a test easily dismissed in criticism by actual justices as providing "no more than helpful signposts" as some sort of catch-all argument. I'm not sure what type of class you took at Crazy Go Nuts University on the U.S. government, but you ought to look into remedial english and a critical thinking course at a technical school.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29381258]This is coming from the kid who led off his presence in this thread by making a blatantly false statement about a lack of separation of church and state in the constitution, justified with a semantic quibble that anyone with fifth grade reading comprehension would dismiss, followed by a "nah nah nah can't hear you" style rebuttal of accessory writings. Now you're on about a test easily dismissed in criticism by actual justices as providing "no more than helpful signposts" as some sort of catch-all argument. I'm not sure what type of class you took at Crazy Go Nuts University on the U.S. government, but you ought to look into remedial english and a critical thinking course at a technical school.[/QUOTE] Great argument bro. "I lost so I'll just insult him and go cry".

[QUOTE=ken188;29381495]Great argument bro. "I lost so I'll just insult him and go cry".[/QUOTE] He's completely right btw [editline]23rd April 2011[/editline] Also thread music. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvu2iQXJ30s[/media]

Ken188 is the Christine O'Donnell of Facepunch.

[QUOTE=ken188;29378572][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test[/URL] read up, stop talking, etc etc You guys should take a college level government course before you start arguing about these things because ya'll have no idea how the government works.[/QUOTE] Yes, this is for passing Legislation. What's your point?

You guys aren't praying hard enough!!! my grass is DEAD

[QUOTE=Craptasket;29392238]You guys aren't praying hard enough!!! my grass is DEAD[/QUOTE] your praying wrog

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29360877]While a government official proclaiming a "day of prayer" is overstepping his bounds I don't see why people are getting upset If he passed a law saying you [i]have[/i] to pray then by all means, but that isn't the case[/QUOTE] How is he overstepping his bounds? 1. It's Easter for fuck's sake; 2. It's a non-binding proclamation

The Lemon Test isn't the precedent established here. In the Supreme Court case Engale v Vitale, a school held a voluntary prayer, yet the Supreme Court ruled the voluntary prayer unconstitutional because it essentially established that the school system had selected a religion. So through calling for prayer the Government is officially sponsoring a religion. [editline]24th April 2011[/editline] But honestly it's silly to get your panties in a bunch over something so trivial. As Zeke said, unless it was something mandatory I see no real issue with it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29360877]While a government official proclaiming a "day of prayer" is overstepping his bounds I don't see why people are getting upset If he passed a law saying you [i]have[/i] to pray then by all means, but that isn't the case[/QUOTE] How is he overstepping his bounds, it's Easter, and proclamations have no legal standing

I blame Rick Perry for the drought and wildfires. Him and his good-looking hair which gets him elected started them. And because he's so busy starting fires visible from space, he can't solve the education budget crisis. And we're stuck with him for another four years. And after that he'll be the President. And after that I'll move out of this country (or better, off the planet) And I should stop typing like this.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29361717]Hey Texas! Rather than pray for some hocus pocus miracle why don't ya do something use full like attempt to seed clouds or channel water from the Mississippi elsewhere[/QUOTE] because the Mississippi doesn't flow through Texas you muppet [editline]24th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=huntskikbut;29363138]So because the Treaty of Tripoli says that the U.S. is not founded on the Christian religion, a governor cannot issue a proclamation on the basis of religion? Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is there to proclaim that the U.S. will not wage war on Tripoli on a basis of religious affiliation. I [i]really[/i] don't see how the Treaty of Tripoli has [i]any[/i] bearing on this proclamation from Governor Perry.[/QUOTE] Dude it's irrelevant since the Separation of Church and State only applied to the Federal Government until 1947 [editline]24th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;29366975]Will the three Texans with more than two functioning brain cells please move out of the State so it can be carpet-bombed without losing anything of value?[/QUOTE] No, because the religious ones are a loud minority and the Legislature likes to pander to them with symbolic bills to keep them happy [editline]24th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29381258]This is coming from the kid who led off his presence in this thread by making a blatantly false statement about a lack of separation of church and state in the constitution, justified with a semantic quibble that anyone with fifth grade reading comprehension would dismiss, followed by a "nah nah nah can't hear you" style rebuttal of accessory writings. Now you're on about a test easily dismissed in criticism by actual justices as providing "no more than helpful signposts" as some sort of catch-all argument. I'm not sure what type of class you took at Crazy Go Nuts University on the U.S. government, but you ought to look into remedial english and a critical thinking course at a technical school.[/QUOTE] Where is the statement that there is a lack of a [I]Separation of Church and State[/I] in the constitution false? The only cited proof of such a separation in the U.S. is the clause in the First Amendment which states the Congress (Legislative Branch), shall not make any laws which declares a official region or prohibits any Religion at the Federal, which in no way addresses the States or the other two Branches of Government which is why until 1947 states could have laws mandating the 10 commandments and bible study in Schools, and why the Executive can meddle with religion on a common basis with the National Day of Prayer and Executive Orders with impunity. I find this argument the same as the argument that Right to Bear Arms is solely a right of the Militia despite it clearly stating it's the [I]Right of the People to Bear Arms[/I] and not a right of the Militia, with the Militia's only mention in the amendment being a constitutional justification for the formation of State Militias and the conscription therefore into them, as Militias are needed for the security of a free state With it all coming down to this The Right to bear arms by the militia is [B][I]implicit[/I][/B] The Right to bear arms by the people is [B][I]explicit[/I][/B] The Separation of Church and State is [B][I]implicit[/I][/B] The Prohibition on the Congress to past laws on religion is [B][I]explicit[/I][/B] With the only difference is that the argument with the First Amendment is over the expansion of the prohibition on federal legislative to other branches of Government and the states, and the Second Amendment being a argument over rather the Militia overrides the People in the amendment [editline]24th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SNNS-SEAN;29393884]I blame Rick Perry for the drought and wildfires. Him and his good-looking hair which gets him elected started them. And because he's so busy starting fires visible from space, he can't solve the education budget crisis. And we're stuck with him for another four years. And after that he'll be the President. And after that I'll move out of this country (or better, off the planet) And I should stop typing like this.[/QUOTE] Why would Rick Perry become President? Is the Texas GOP going to put a gun to his head and force him to become a candidate? Or are you implying Texas will secede? Anyway, he's perfectly content on being Texas' Governor for Life

[QUOTE=Broseph_;29393893]Where is the statement that there is a lack of a [I]Separation of Church and State[/I] in the constitution false? The only cited proof of such a separation in the U.S. is the clause in the First Amendment which states the Congress (Legislative Branch), shall not make any laws which declares a official region or prohibits any Religion at the Federal, which in no way addresses the States or the other two Branches of Government which is why until 1947 states could have laws mandating the 10 commandments and bible study in Schools, and why the Executive can meddle with religion on a common basis with the National Day of Prayer and Executive Orders with impunity.[/QUOTE] The fact that it took until incorporation for the states to lose the ability to shit on human rights or actually have to face their being bound by the constitution on this sort of thing doesn't really mean much. They are now. Woohoo. Back in the day there was nothing explicitly prohibiting slavery either, now there is. Sometimes things have to be made more clear for the retarded crowd. Also why you'd cite something being challenged as unconstitutional and only holding up because of political bullshit (I mean hot christ next you'll tell me the ACLJ legitimately worries about the law first and not roundabout evangelism) is beyond me. Hell the national day of prayer isn't even an executive thing, that's on congress and will be nixed in our lifetime because it is unconstitutional. [QUOTE=Broseph_;29393893]The Separation of Church and State is [B][I]implicit[/I][/B] The Prohibition on the Congress to past laws on religion is [B][I]explicit[/I][/B][/QUOTE] The language used by Jefferson et al making it more clear what the intent of the establishment clause was, which has been oft cited by the supreme court, as well as made more explicit via analysis and explanation by the supreme court, pretty much negates any argument a person can have that it's not clearly laid out enough. I get that it's fun to play with semantics but you're arguing over fucking nothing.

[QUOTE=ken188;29360410]No such thing is mentioned in the US Constitution. Also to all you religion hating 13 year olds, look it up before rating me box.[/QUOTE] I'm rather later to replying but if no such thing is mentioned in the Constitution then how did you know I was referring to it?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;29393871]How is he overstepping his bounds, it's Easter, and proclamations have no legal standing[/QUOTE] It's still unbecoming of a politician in what should be a secular government

I think the issue here isn't the constitutional legality of this action, it's the more pressing question, Who the hell prays for rain? Is it 150,000 B.C.? Are we really that archaic or is it just Texas?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29360531]You're one of the 51 states. All states go by federal rule especially on the constitution. You're trolling right[/QUOTE] There's only 50.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29432127]It's still unbecoming of a politician in what should be a secular government[/QUOTE] Politicians have to deny religion?