"we should make laws based on the god of the bible" to think that this moron could have been our president. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/bill_oreilly_is_a_big_fat_idio_1.php
Sarah Palin is the Milli Vanilli of politics. She should stick to lip-syncing while avoiding ad-libbing at all costs. Nah, that won't save her either.
Here's a few reasons why you are far stupider than Palin. 1. You can't even spell her name. 2. You link to a website that's inane. To wit: They say the Constitution is "thoroughly god-free document"-but then they quote the preamble, which clearly states, "the Blessings of Liberty. 3. Most any legal scholar-who isn't a dickwad-agrees that the intent of the 1st amendment is nothing more than what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." i.e. no Church of England, feel free to worship who you want. Take note of the word "Congress." Nothing there that says a municipality cannot put up a Christmas tree. If anything, I'd argue that a Court ruling against an expression of religion is an affront to the 1st amendment. The litmus test? Why isn't recognition of Christmas unconstitutional? Because recognition is in no way tantamount to establishment. And since I'm agnostic, any attempts to call me a religious zealot of some sort, will fall on deaf ears.
It is my guess that Palin has been working on the Sabbath, selling her book, Fox News, etc. So how is she going to push that our law should be based on the Ten Commandments if she herself does not follow them?
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/05/palin_base_laws_on_the_bible.php Palin: Base Laws on the Bible Posted on: May 10, 2010 12:02 PM, by Ed Brayton This will come as a shock to no one: Sarah Palin thinks we should make laws based on the Bible -- and that the founding fathers would have wanted that. In an interview on Bill O'Reilly last night about the National Day of Prayer, she peddled all kinds of dangerous nonsense. Like this: I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers' early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives. And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don't come from man; they come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely. As religious right ignorami often do, she conflates the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence -- but it's so much funnier when she says "of course" it says that. Of course, the notion that the few spare references in the Declaration of Independence to a vague deity means that those who wrote it wanted "Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives" is utter nonsense. The principal author of that document was Thomas Jefferson. What did he think of the Jewish god of the Old Testament? He called him "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust." He also rejected the notion that Jesus was the son of God, which pretty much negates the Christian part. The other two men who helped write the DoI, John Adams and Ben Franklin, largely agreed with Jefferson. The nonsense continues: I think we should kind of keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 Commandments. Really? They are? As I documented many years ago, not only should we not base our laws on the Ten Commandments, 8 of the 10 are indisputably unconstitutional. Also bear in mind that Jefferson argued for a total separation of church and state and hated the idea that law should be based on religious beliefs. The notion that the government should use coercive laws to enforce religious dictates was anathema to him: "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." All of this Palin argues while accusing other people of being revisionist. As usual, she is engaging in ignorance-fueled projection.
OK, I'll just call you an idiot for thinking ""the Blessings of Liberty" has anything to do with god. bless·ing    /ˈblɛsɪŋ/ Show Spelled[bles-ing] ânoun 1. the act or words of a person who blesses. 2. a special favor, mercy, or benefit: the blessings of liberty. 3. a favor or gift bestowed by god, thereby bringing happiness. God comes in third in the definition of blessing.