Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
Not weird at all. There's this thing called comedic satire...
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
I haven't really watched it enough to understand the meaning behind it but any show like family guy is or will be blocked in my house. Not appropriate for the kids to accidentally watch. I will stick with The Big Bang Theory lol@pb
Good points but on family guy or Southpark - those shows make fun of everyone. Every race, every religion, everything and everyone. That's the difference. It's equal opportunity comedy. And, they are cartoon characters. Pretty sure the networks know exactly what they are getting in to with these controlled script shows. -
★Λddi★ 1 hour ago Quote
How about this. Everyone can stop having this conversation when people recognize separation of church and state in the constitution and stop meddling in these peoples lives. When they have the same rights as any other married couple then and only then will we be getting somewhere that doesn't look like lesser rights.The phrase "seperation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution.
As for my definition of "married couples", gays aren't married. They may have a civil union, but they don't have a relationship recognized by god.
Of course I'm probably a bigot and all that. That's fine with me. -
every side of this has rights.
the actor has rights to his beliefs and to voice them but be prepared to accept the consequences that his employer might not agree and if he brings that into the work enviroment he might get let go.
and the network has the rights to fire whoever they please to maintain whatever image they wish to have.
i don't see a problem with him voicing his beliefs and i don't see a problem with the network making their decisions either. i don't think anyone acted in an extreme manner and don't see what the fuss is about. i don't care about him or the show or the network for that matter. i had no interest in watching the show to begin with but it has nothing to do with their personal lives or views. and i'm not going to stop watching any other show because of the way this one has been treated. -
It's abundantly clear that the intent of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution is to separate church and state.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
-Thomas Jefferson 1780
This was said six years BEFORE the Constitutional Convention. James Madison used the same phrase in writings around the same time.
When the Constitution is at odds with your faith, which do you choose? Which would you expect others not of your particular faith to choose?
-
That was cool. Now where in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state...?
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Bbbehwhhehwheheheheheh....establishment clause.... Behwahhahahahahahhahahahahah. So yeah. I guess that means it is in the constitution..... Oh wait. It's not.It's abundantly clear that the intent of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution is to separate church and state.
-
First time I heard of Cracker Barrel, had to Google it 😂😂😂
And Dr. Phil said black ppl were happier when they sat in the back of the bus? Holy cow.Btw if gay marriage isn't recognized by God, then who the f### cares. Let them be "married", it'll all come out in the wash. If ppl are truly faithful, then they know it's not their job to judge anyone.
Guess I'll be bringing a lawyer to Judgment Day.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Like I said, it says it in the establishment clause of the first amendment of the Constitution, just as the founders intended. You see, words have meanings, some of which can only be completely understood by putting them in context and taking into account who wrote them. In this case James Madison. The constitution is vague about a lot of things but separation of church and state is not one of them. Courts have interpreted the Constitution this way consistently since the founding, aside from a handful of activist courts. Separation of church and state is a key founding principle of democracies the world over, modeled after ours. I can't believe I even have to explain it, it's such a common-sense concept.That was cool. Now where in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state...?
-
gunstreet grrl wrote:
The presumption that anyone knows what God recognizes is hilarious. Ego much Mack?First time I heard of Cracker Barrel, had to Google it 😂😂😂
And Dr. Phil said black ppl were happier when they sat in the back of the bus? Holy cow.Btw if gay marriage isn't recognized by God, then who the f### cares. Let them be "married", it'll all come out in the wash. If ppl are truly faithful, then they know it's not their job to judge anyone.
Guess I'll be bringing a lawyer to Judgment Day.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Your gleeful ignorance of basic American history is breathtaking. Please tell me you don't live here.★fnord★ wrote:
Bbbehwhhehwheheheheheh....establishment clause.... Behwahhahahahahahhahahahahah. So yeah. I guess that means it is in the constitution..... Oh wait. It's not.It's abundantly clear that the intent of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution is to separate church and state.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
The same place it says a person (rather than a militia) has a right to own a gun that's not regulated. ;)That was cool. Now where in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state...?
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Really you guys aren't that obtuse are you? Or are you really picking me apart for not quoting it directly? I'm not sure why I'm surprised. You guys never bring anything fact based to the table...more emotional arguments about your FEELINGS and nothing from our history and our founding fathers or even from Jesus for that matter.
And, btw, please catch up on current events. Gay marriage is spreading from state to state. Full blown marriage. Watch out, it's going to keep spreading. 🙊
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Gotta love when liberals twist historical events to suit their personal agendas. In this instance a letter from jefferson to madison before the Bill of Rights was drafted. Where Jefferson makes it clear that there should not be a national religion, like how Great Britian did - The C of E. so in laymans terms what is being discussed is the begining of the 1st ammendment which is a limitation on the federal government not the people. Note where it gets real vauge. "in writing around same time" Wont say bill of rights. Bwhahahha. Liberals love to recreate/ rewrite, twist history. They also love to take the 1% of everything that they think supports their backwards views and ignore everything else. How ironic.This was said six years BEFORE the Constitutional Convention. James Madison used the same phrase in writings around the same time.
-
You mean like how you do with the bible undertow? Glass houses.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Personal attacks won't help you site where in the constitution it says anything about a seperation of church and state. Site what article and what paragraph. You can't can you.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Your gleeful ignorance of basic American history is breathtaking. Please tell me you don't live here.★fnord★ wrote:
Bbbehwhhehwheheheheheh....establishment clause.... Behwahhahahahahahhahahahahah. So yeah. I guess that means it is in the constitution..... Oh wait. It's not.It's abundantly clear that the intent of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution is to separate church and state.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Jesus hates a hypocrite, undertow. You belted in this thread throwing stones.★fnord★ wrote:
Personal attacks won't help you site where in the constitution it says anything about a seperation of church and state. Site what article and what paragraph. You can't can you.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Your gleeful ignorance of basic American history is breathtaking. Please tell me you don't live here.★fnord★ wrote:
Bbbehwhhehwheheheheheh....establishment clause.... Behwahhahahahahahhahahahahah. So yeah. I guess that means it is in the constitution..... Oh wait. It's not.It's abundantly clear that the intent of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution is to separate church and state.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
You saw shawshank redemption too. Good movie.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
The same place it says a person (rather than a militia) has a right to own a gun that's not regulated. ;)That was cool. Now where in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state...?
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Really you guys aren't that obtuse are you? Or are you really picking me apart for not quoting it directly? I'm not sure why I'm surprised. You guys never bring anything fact based to the table...more emotional arguments about your FEELINGS and nothing from our history and our founding fathers or even from Jesus for that matter.
-
@Undertow:
I'm a little unclear exactly what you are disagreeing about other than pointless semantics. Do you really think I'm trying to obscure the fact that amendment #1 begins the Bill of Rights, lol? Or are you saying the Constitution established a federal religion, or that the founders were hunky dory with that happening at a future date? How did I 'twist history to suit a personal agenda'? Madison wrote the Constitution while consulting with Jefferson. Who better to look to than these two men in order to understand their intentions regarding our highest law? If you can't make a cogent argument it's impossible to take you seriously. -
Just a quick point Addi: any time it's been put to a ballot, it's been voted down. The people haven't asked, shown support, or voted for same sex marriage. Every time it's an activist panel or single judge.
-
(Side note*)
Except from a few kids making remarks in this, this has been healthy debate. Even though there is a clear divide, the ability to engage in debate over fundamental views is one of the greatest aspects of our country. Now, back to being a bigot 😊😊😊 -
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
You mean aside from Maine, Maryland and Washington during the nov 2012 elections?Just a quick point Addi: any time it's been put to a ballot, it's been voted down. The people haven't asked, shown support, or voted for same sex marriage. Every time it's an activist panel or single judge.
-
@Undertow:
You say the 1st amendment is a limit on the government, not the people. You are correct, but not in the way you believe. You, personally, are free to practice whatever faith you choose and also free to influence your government based on your faith. Your government however is strictly limited from adopting articles of your faith, regardless of your said influence. See the aforementioned 1st amendment. You, Phil and others have made the argument that god's definition of marriage excludes homosexuals. Do you really want your government making a law establishing this article of faith? (They already have in the DOMA) -
Was just doing a little reading on the historic 2012 elections and came across this in reference to Maines vote for marriage equality...sound familiar?
“It’s hard to overstate the national significance of this vote,” Solomon said. “For years, our opponents have argued that we could not win a majority vote at the ballot. Today, Maine voters proved them wrong, standing up for the Golden Rule and for freedom for all Mainers.”
Like I said. Current events.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
You mean aside from Maine, Maryland and Washington during the nov 2012 elections?Just a quick point Addi: any time it's been put to a ballot, it's been voted down. The people haven't asked, shown support, or voted for same sex marriage. Every time it's an activist panel or single judge.
Well, those don't count. What about the places where it was voted down? Should the overwhelming majority be silenced to appease a minority?
-
How many times has it gone to ballot and failed?
-
I wouldn't say they don't count. To Addi's point though, it's not going away. As for the ballots, keep in mind that >40% of US citizens don't vote. More than half of those lean Democrat. So it's really tough to say what constitutes an actual majority that's "being silenced."
Ok, off to covet my neighbor's wife. (That means your wife, CT 😉)
-
@ Fnod/Addi, What topic would you like to change the issue to now? You can't stay on topic and you have now resorted to personal attacks instead of facts. You still can't site where in the constitution there is a seperation of church and state. We have untwisted your historical event and have found that it was to establish a freedom OF religion not a freedom FROM religion. The fact that you can't back up your wild "facts" but only change topics or make personal attacks speaks volumes. I will appologize and recant all comments if you only tell me what paragraph and article in the US Constitution I can find this seperation defined.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
Is that another Shawshank Redemption reference?You mean like how you do with the bible undertow? Glass houses.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Since you can't back up or site your invented facts in the constitution, site where I've made any comment or argument in this post about marriage.@Undertow:
You, Phil and others have made the argument that god's definition of marriage excludes homosexuals. Do you really want your government making a law establishing this article of faith? (They already have in the DOMA)Another typical liberal tactic, make general assertions on your oppositions position. Define your opponents position for them in a manner that changes the topic.
Losing credibility in your position = make personal attacks and change topic.
-
@Undertow:
Seriously dude, what is your position other than that liberals do typical liberal twisting of logic and facts to support their warped views and typical liberal agenda? That's not an argument. And woe to you to suffer the dreaded personal attacks, as if pointing out to you the ignorance in rejecting anything other that a strict literal interpretation of the US Constitution is some sort of personal attack. Because all that, in and of itself is not an argument from you. You're upset about something, I'm just completely unclear what that something is. You don't like how Phil's words are being used to judge Phil, and you don't believe there exists a separation of chuch and state. Is it such a leap for me to assume you fear the gay agenda as much as you do the liberal one? Correct me if I'm wrong.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC