Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail

Robert Ariail

Comments (32) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 4 years ago

    To me, it isn’t separation of church and state. It’s the government forcing an organization to provide an elective service. At least the Catholic Church has a constitutional leg to stand on. It wouldn’t surprise me if the hundreds of labor unions and corporations that have been exempted from any participation in the health care act are major political contributors to the powers that be on either side.

  2. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, over 4 years ago

    Not really Obama that broke down that wall, and anyone with half a mind knows that. He didn´t go in and say they should keep paying it nomatter what, but that the costs would be moved from them since they were against it – however they keep whining that the costs will go back to them nomatter what instead of coming up with a proper alternative.

  3. MrSmee

    MrSmee GoComics PRO Member said, over 4 years ago

    Who is calling for no teaching of sex or homosexuality in the PUBLIC schools?
    Who is talking about changing curriculum to include CREATIONISM?
    Who is trying to get rid of the possibility of abortion – even for those who AREN’T Catholic?
    Who is fighting gay marriage even if it is a CIVIL ceremony,
    Anyone STILL want to pretend it’s Obama who is destroying the wall between Church and State?
    One more LIE by the Right Wing “Christians”.

  4. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 4 years ago

    the employees and participants of the church have constitutional rights. the church has none so long as it runs a business outside of the jesus store.

    many have the framing wrong here. we the people have the right to follow our beliefs. that means choice. choice of church, choice of medical procedures, choice of contraception.

    the church just wants government to give backing to their dogma.

    no go. see what happens when george bush breaks down some of the wall and gives ‘faith based initiatives’ money?

    should a church have to contribute to unemployment insurance? well that depends, does it have employees?

    should the church have to withold income taxes on its employees? well that depends, does it have employees?

    let the church get out of business. Let’s the churches parishioners decide which church dogma they CHOOSE to follow.

    the church heirarchy can start by following criminal law, and reporting their pedophiles to the authorities AND to the people who they have the ultimate responsibility for. the pope? NO THE PARISHIONERS.

  5. Travis

    Travis said, over 4 years ago

    Sad, so much anti-Christian hate here.

  6. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 4 years ago

    They say Hate the sin but love the sinner. I’m not a Christian, and though I find some Christian doctrine disturbing, I love many Christians.

  7. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 4 years ago

    Especially when trying to codify it into our laws, Federal, State and local.

  8. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 4 years ago

    And you were probably really happy when shrubster, cheney, wolfowitz, rummy etc were totally shredding the Constitution. Just because you continuously bleat that President Obama is doing that, HE ISN’T and you haven’t provided any proof of it.

  9. ADK_Jim

    ADK_Jim said, over 4 years ago

    I have the opposite take on this issue. If we are going to have health care for all it should be equal for all. Religions should not be able to say “No. We don’t want this group to have (Fill in the blank) because we don’t believe in it.” No one is saying that believers have to use contraception but it should not be unavailable to them because a religious leader doesn’t want it.

  10. agate1

    agate1 said, over 4 years ago

    So do the lions.

  11. agate1

    agate1 said, over 4 years ago


    You mistake distain for hate.

  12. agate1

    agate1 said, over 4 years ago In response to the irrational argument you support. The appointments have been made by many other presidents, by Bush far more frequently than President Obama!

  13. David Lagesse

    David Lagesse said, over 4 years ago

    The Mussies are ALREADY EXEMPT, Ol’ Balmy made shure of that!

    The First Amendment
    The wording in the Constitution appears to be simple and straightforward.
    The First Amendment contains two principles related to religion:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    It couldn’t be any more simple, the use of the word “respecting” is used the same as the word “CONCERNING” or “ABOUT”.
    Look up “respecting” in the dictionary! Remember you MUST use the words as generally used during the
    period when the Constitution was written. That is the ONLY way they would have used any word,
    it would be impossible for anyone to use a word definition that had not been invented yet.

    (I could find no Dictionary dated earlier than 1913, so it will have to suffice.)
    Dictionary definition “Respecting” as of 1913
    1. To take notice of; to regard with special attention; to regard as worthy of special consideration; hence,
    to care for; to heed.
    2. With regard or relation to; regarding; concerning; as, respecting his conduct there is but one opinion.
    [1913 Webster]

    “regard or relation to; regarding; concerning;” is the key definition here.

    Dictionary definition “Establishment” as of 1913
    1. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.
    2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.
    3. That which is established; as:
    (a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power;
    as, the Episcopal establishment of England.
    (b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.
    [1913 Webster]

    “a system of religion maintained by the civil power” is the key definition here.
    “Civil Power” refers to any kind of Law Enforcement agency.

    The Supreme Court can find new “interpretations” of the Constitution that no one else has ever seen,
    but they have blinders on when it comes to recognizing the meaning of just three little words:

    So now we can read it as:
    “Congress shall MAKE NO LAW maintained by the CIVIL POWER,

    That means one way or the other;
    “NO LAW will be made about religion, that is to be enforced by civil authorities.”

    That means: neither ‘for it’ or ‘against it’!

    That also includes the Supreme Court, who according Constitution,
    is not allowed to be “Legislating from the Bench”.

    The framers wrote the Constitution as a secular document not because they were hostile to Christianity
    but because they did not want to imply that the new federal government would have any authority to
    meddle in religion.

    Voluntary student-initiated Bible study and prayer clubs were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1990, when
    the justices upheld the Equal Access Act, a federal law that permits students to form religion clubs at public
    high schools.

    The ruling from the 1960 Abington decision, Justice Tom Clark wrote for the court majority, “It might well be
    said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and
    its relationship to the advancement of civilization.
    It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have
    said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular
    program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

    Now, about that, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
    What is so hard to understand about that?


  14. David Lagesse

    David Lagesse said, over 4 years ago

    The Supreme Court has used the term, “The legal separation of Church and State”.
    The only place you will find anything resembling that,
    in any LEGAL DOCUMENT was in Communist Russia.
    Article 124 of the Soviet Unions 1947 Constitution has been translated by most scholars to read,
    “In order to ensure to citizen’s freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state,
    and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is
    recognized for all citizens.”
    Now, If you believe that last sentence, you do not know your history.
    First the ‘Reds’ separated the Church from the State, then the People were forcefully separated from
    participation in the Church, then the remaining Religious were ‘separated’ from their LIFE, or sent to Siberia
    to be worked to death.

    The same position was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947 in their infamous
    ‘Separation of Church and State’ ruling.
    Why is the United States of America kowtowing to laws created by the CCCP?
    Soviet Russian Communism is now dead, but still alive and well in the USA.

    There is no United States Constitutional “separation” obligation to scour God from classrooms and civic life.

    Granted, no one in their right mind would want some “Church” running their Government.
    …Or the Government running their Church.
    However, there is a middle ground in which, we must have people of high moral character, like those obtained from traditional religious values running the Government.

    (But certainly NOT those “Religious Values by Popular Vote” as found in the current Episcopal Church,
    where practicing homosexuals are elected as Bishop)

    Where in the Bible does it say that GOD will allow YOU to decide, (or vote on) which of the Ten Commandments are currently relevant?

    They were not created to be a pick-and-choose salad-bar.
    Where does it say that GOD’s Commandments shall be periodically updated?


  15. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 4 years ago

    ^your bible has nothing to do with the us constitution.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (17).