Let's answer a few just for fun.
During the 1990s, liberals stated that legislation designed to cut food stamps was "immoral." But most liberals also adhere to the belief that you "can't legislate morality." How can a bill be "immoral" if it can't be "moral"?Well a law can be moral. You can legislate in moral manner, and cutting off support to those who need the most might well be seen as an immoral decision. Legislating morally has nothing to do with legislating morality.
The First Amendment clearly prevents the federal government from establishing a national religion. Does it also forbid the federal government from establishing a national morality?Yes and no. If such morality were based on a set of religious prohibitions, then of course it is establishing a religion by default. Most religions believe it immoral to skip church, for example, but a law mandating church attendance would naturally violate the 1st amendment. On the other hand, a sense of national justice which might be called a national morality is already promoted, by the simple fact that we do not allow theft or murder or rape. In these crimes there is clearly a victim, and so our national sense of justice mandates punishment.
Was the 13th Amendment ban of slavery an example of Congress trying to 'legislate morality"? If your answer is "yes," is that sufficient grounds to reinstate slavery?No. The 13th Amendment was an attempt to legislate justice, not morality. Sometimes Justice and Mortality overlap, as they do in this case. It is both unjust and immoral to own slaves. At other times the convergence is less clear. Many Americans consider having consensual sex out side of marriage immoral, but our system of justice is based on showing harm. If two people agree to have sex outside of marriage, it is hard to show harm.
Can you name the 1981 Arkansas case in which the ACLU (the ones who brought us the Scopes case) argued that teaching both evolution and creation is actually in violation of the First Amendment?No, I can't. I guess that proves that liberalism is a complete farce.
How many of our Founding Fathers attended seminary? (Hint: It is more than 26 and less than 28).27. The Founding Fathers personal practice of their religion is not an issue in whether or not the inability to legislate morality is a myth or not.
Given that Thomas Jefferson did not attend the constitutional convention, why is it that people often quote him when insisting that the "separation of church and state" is a "constitutional requirement"? Is it possible that many of these self-described liberals are unable to differentiate between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?/blockquote>Because he was our third president, and he failed to attend the Constitutional Convention because he was ambassador to France at the time. He is seen rightly so as one of our founding fathers, and his opinions on this issue are relevant. And yes, liberals can tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Let's note that for 200 years people have been interpreting the constitution, and few of them actually attended the Constitutional Convention. While you might not like Jefferson's conclusions, he's not on any shakier ground than, say, Thomas Sowell.Is there any relationship between the ACLU's love of communism and its hatred of religion?Slander is generally considered both immoral and unjust, Dr. Adams.
It's interesting to compare and contrast this article to Marvin Olasky's latest, "Were Nazis Christians? Are Christians fascists?" Olasky's point is that it's silly and bigoted to be worried about Conservative Christians desire to run everything, while Mike S. Adams questions pretty explicitly argue that Conservative Christians should be allowed to run everything. I doubt there is any collusion, of course, just interesting.