Seperation of Church and...on its last legs...

Hagbard Celine said:
No, our constitution respects the citizen's right to have freedom of religion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The government isn't allowed to show favoritism for any religion, it's just supposed to protect the people's right to freedom of religious expression.

Right--All religions should be free to express themselves--even Christianity!
 
dilloduck said:
Right--All religions should be free to express themselves--even Christianity!

And since when, in the history of this nation, has a white Christian male been denied the ability to practice or express his faith?
 
Bullypulpit said:
And since when, in the history of this nation, has a white Christian male been denied the ability to practice or express his faith?

Their right to express their faith wherever they want to has been limited. Name me another religion who has had their rights limited by law.
 
dilloduck said:
Their right to express their faith wherever they want to has been limited. Name me another religion who has had their rights limited by law.

It don't wash. Every president since Washington has been a white Christian male. Televangelists express themselves each and every day...repeatedly. I'm sorry if you suffer from a persecution complex. Have you sought counseling for this?
 
Bullypulpit said:
And since when, in the history of this nation, has a white Christian male been denied the ability to practice or express his faith?

Liberal interpretation of the Constitution couple with years of the same old "wear 'em down with lies" villifying Christianity has created a one-sided witch hunt to villify Christianity.

You get the double-whammy here because it is politically incorrect to be a white male unless one is apologetically grovelling at the feet of any and all minorities who feel they have at any point in history been slighted by white males. Any and all arguments to the contrary, regardless the common sense and/or logic and facts applied are dismissed out of hand as racist by you libs. Keeps you from having to see the truth or even think about the topic.

You libs ignore the fact that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion; however, it does NOT prohibit people within the government expressing/practicing their religion on state properties. it does not prohibit school prayer, nor religious emblems as historically significant decorations.

And ANY person claiming to be a Christian is automatically relegated to the "extremist trying to force their religion on you" heap by folks such as yourself who express nothing but biased elitism.
 
I agree with Gunny, displaying something like the ten commandments is a far cry from making a law respecting an establishment. Displaying anythign religious is not making a law out of it. However forcebly denying such displays of religion is what I would call prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
 
theHawk said:
I agree with Gunny, displaying something like the ten commandments is a far cry from making a law respecting an establishment. Displaying anythign religious is not making a law out of it. However forcebly denying such displays of religion is what I would call prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the displaying of the 10 Commandments in public buildings, so long as they display, with equal prominence, the equivalent statements of the world's other great religions. FOlks would get more of a sense of the deep common threads between these religions rather than the superficial differences.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Personally, I don't have a problem with the displaying of the 10 Commandments in public buildings, so long as they display, with equal prominence, the equivalent statements of the world's other great religions. FOlks would get more of a sense of the deep common threads between these religions rather than the superficial differences.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would like to pose a question ..... I have no problem with relgious emblems on state property that have historical signifigance. I do not believe it should be there simply to promote (a) religion.

That being said, where would you draw the line as far as "major religions" go when Christianity is by far and away the hisorically signifigant religion where the US/US law is concerned?
 
Hagbard Celine said:
The COTUS, amendment one states clearly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

This clearly means there cannot be any state-sponsored religions. Since Congress cannot respect any single religion, no state can either because it would violate the 14th amendment, which restricts states from passing any law that violates a citizen's US rights.


This reasoning is old, and invalid. You didnt even respond to what I said about it, instead you went into robot mode, DNC talking head points, and repeated the same ol, same ol without addressing the FACT that it only is meant to stop the FEDERAL govt from imposing a FEDERALLY sponsored DENOMINATION over another. We know that for a FACT because many of the states, (then called colonies, which four are still called commonwealths) had LEGAL, OFFICIAL, STATE SPONSORED RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.

To continue to repeat the same ol same ol without responding to the above, just is a continuation of the degragation of any credibility you may have.
 
Bullypulpit said:
You poor thing. Dropped on your head as a child and you still haven't recovered.

Gee, thats sooo funny, oh no, wait, my kids are past second grade, they dont laugh at that stuff anymore.

Oh, and talk about originality...now if I ever get around to reading anything else you wrote in that post, I'm confident I wont find any original thoughts in the rest of it either. :thewave:
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Funny, my interpretation of it is also the way it has been officially interpreted. Go figure! :duh:

A vast majority have interpeted it differently. The writers and signers obviously never had any such intentions.

Only until recently, when the Supreme court decided it WAS the COTUS, it was never read that way. But times they are a changin my friend, your era is OVER !!!!! :))
 
Hagbard Celine said:
No, our constitution respects the citizen's right to have freedom of religion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The government isn't allowed to show favoritism for any religion, it's just supposed to protect the people's right to freedom of religious expression.

Showing favoritism doesnt not mean it is establishing a religion. That is the liberal interpetation they have managed to forment into law. It will be reversed. Its a ludicrous jump at best, the courts have made bad law before that got overturned, you know, blacks use to be only 3/5ths of a vote.
 
Bullypulpit said:
And since when, in the history of this nation, has a white Christian male been denied the ability to practice or express his faith?


HAHAHHAHAHHAHAH


HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH


BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH

Hey, could you give me the address of your cave? I would like to send you a letter telling you about cell phones, micro waves, CD's, and email,,,
 
Bullypulpit said:
It don't wash. Every president since Washington has been a white Christian male. Televangelists express themselves each and every day...repeatedly. I'm sorry if you suffer from a persecution complex. Have you sought counseling for this?

Ahh, so you can give examples of when it was expressed, hence that means it has never been denied expression, beautiful logic, I LOVE IT !

No wonder they call you BULLY....hahahahhahahhahahha
 
GunnyL said:
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution couple with years of the same old "wear 'em down with lies" villifying Christianity has created a one-sided witch hunt to villify Christianity.

You get the double-whammy here because it is politically incorrect to be a white male unless one is apologetically grovelling at the feet of any and all minorities who feel they have at any point in history been slighted by white males. Any and all arguments to the contrary, regardless the common sense and/or logic and facts applied are dismissed out of hand as racist by you libs. Keeps you from having to see the truth or even think about the topic.

You libs ignore the fact that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion; however, it does NOT prohibit people within the government expressing/practicing their religion on state properties. it does not prohibit school prayer, nor religious emblems as historically significant decorations.

And ANY person claiming to be a Christian is automatically relegated to the "extremist trying to force their religion on you" heap by folks such as yourself who express nothing but biased elitism.

ABsolutely correct. The libs claim they dont discriminate against white male Christians, but we will see how many complain about the latest nomination by PRESIDENT Bush

What used to be considered mainstream, is no called far right. In the days of Washington through Lincoln and till Roosevelt, what the Supreme court ruled on the first amendment would have been laughed off, they would have been, and will eventually, be looked upon as activists who didnt have a clue what the COTUS says, nor what the SUCOTUS is suppose to do. Blinded by power, yea, it happens to judges too, but the left doesnt want to admit it, cuz they have had control of that branch for some time,,,but its ALL ENDING SOON !!!!
 
theHawk said:
I agree with Gunny, displaying something like the ten commandments is a far cry from making a law respecting an establishment. Displaying anythign religious is not making a law out of it. However forcebly denying such displays of religion is what I would call prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Amen bro ! I nominate you for the SCOTUS !!!!!!!!! (you make more sense than some of them) :)
 
LuvRPgrl said:
ABsolutely correct. The libs claim they dont discriminate against white male Christians, but we will see how many complain about the latest nomination by PRESIDENT Bush

What used to be considered mainstream, is no called far right. In the days of Washington through Lincoln and till Roosevelt, what the Supreme court ruled on the first amendment would have been laughed off, they would have been, and will eventually, be looked upon as activists who didnt have a clue what the COTUS says, nor what the SUCOTUS is suppose to do. Blinded by power, yea, it happens to judges too, but the left doesnt want to admit it, cuz they have had control of that branch for some time,,,but its ALL ENDING SOON !!!!


Wait, I'm sorry, but how does complaining about a SCOTUS nomination make you discriminating against white male Christians?
 
The ClayTaurus said:
Wait, I'm sorry, but how does complaining about a SCOTUS nomination make you discriminating against white male Christians?

Why do the wrong percentages of blacks in a college make you a racist?
 
dilloduck said:
Why do the wrong percentages of blacks in a college make you a racist?
They don't. I'm wondering how white male christians are being discriminated against by complaining about a SCOTUS nominee... unless you're using that point to say that they're not...

I answered your question, do you have an answer for me now?
 

Forum List

Back
Top