A different look at the First Amendment and Religion

[Merlin]

Separation was borne out of the correct belief that church and state could not function as a strong and happy couple, to that end their separation was meant to ensure the health of each.
Merry Christmas, and may the holiday season smile on all your family, friends, and lovers.
HUCK

I could probably agree with your whole post and be satisfied "IF" there was such a thing as separation of Church and State in the Constitution. But, there isn't, so If the States so desire, they can pray and/or teach religion if they want to.

 

[Huckleburry]

Merlin,
Seperation is indeed a part of the constitution. Publis argued pasionatly and eloqunetly for seperation in the papers. The court has found such a seperation consistently and without deviation (Roe v. Wade is not a speration case). Arguing that the constitution does not include seperation is not an argument against seperation but rather a misreading of old english. The church would be better off spending time strengthing its base, and fullfilling its role in the private sector rather than fruitlessly arguing against a speration of church and state.
Merry Chirstmass
HUCK

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Merlin,
Seperation is indeed a part of the constitution. Publis argued pasionatly and eloqunetly for seperation in the papers. The court has found such a seperation consistently and without deviation (Roe v. Wade is not a speration case). Arguing that the constitution does not include seperation is not an argument against seperation but rather a misreading of old english. The church would be better off spending time strengthing its base, and fullfilling its role in the private sector rather than fruitlessly arguing against a speration of church and state.
Merry Chirstmass
HUCK

It is in fact, NOT in the constituion. That's what matters here. Court decisions can be found lacking and reversed. Are you EVER right? I don't think so. Doesn't that suck? Why don't you pull yourself up from the cesspool of ignorance you float in and find snack at the bottom of?

 

[nakedemperor]

First the theory of intelligent design explains evolution, it does not replace it.

Huck--

In the context, was what was mentioned at the end of class "creationism" or "intelligent design"; while its true that evolution and intelligent design aren't necessarily incompatible, but creationism and evolution certainly are, and in the context of the anecdote it seems that the one side was arguing from a Christian standpoint, one which would argue for both intelligent design and creationism simultaneously.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Huck--

In the context, was what was mentioned at the end of class "creationism" or "intelligent design"; while its true that evolution and intelligent design aren't necessarily incompatible, but creationism and evolution certainly are, and in the context of the anecdote it seems that the one side was arguing from a Christian standpoint, one which would argue for both intelligent design and creationism simultaneously.

seems that? You're lame.

 

[nakedemperor]

seems that? You're lame.

You're a name-caller. Does it make you feel better about yourself to invectively belittle people constantly on this message board? Come on man, let's elevate the discourse.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're a name-caller. Does it make you feel better about yourself to invectively belittle people constantly on this message board? Come on man, let's elevate the discourse.

Don't label me.

Do you feel good spouting nonsensical rhetoric?

The discourse is sky high here, you just can't seem to get up to our level.

 

[Merlin]

Merlin,
Seperation is indeed a part of the constitution. Publis argued pasionatly and eloqunetly for seperation in the papers. The court has found such a seperation consistently and without deviation (Roe v. Wade is not a speration case). Arguing that the constitution does not include seperation is not an argument against seperation but rather a misreading of old english. The church would be better off spending time strengthing its base, and fullfilling its role in the private sector rather than fruitlessly arguing against a speration of church and state.
Merry Chirstmass
HUCK

Huck, another disagreement. I would be the first to argue for separation if it were truly in the Constitution. I probably won't live to see it, but it will eventually be successfully argued before the courts that there is no separation and there will have to be another amendment to put it in if the people want it.

Merry Christmas to you also !!

 

[nakedemperor]

Don't label me.

Do you feel good spouting nonsensical rhetoric?

The discourse is sky high here, you just can't seem to get up to our level.

Please tell me what nonsensical rhetoric I spouted in my first post in this thread. And is you call people names in half your post, you're labeling yourself a name-caller. If calling people a "moron" or "polesmoker" or telling someone to "blow you" is elevated discourse, you can keep it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Please tell me what nonsensical rhetoric I spouted in my first post in this thread. And is you call people names in half your post, you're labeling yourself a name-caller. If calling people a "moron" or "polesmoker" or telling someone to "blow you" is elevated discourse, you can keep it.

The world is less safe.

Middle class tax cuts are just as effective as high end ones. just to name a couple.

No. You labelled me a name caller. Check the post.

Of course, the bulk of all my posts is indusputably logical, the witticisms you refer to just add flavor.