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

[Bullypulpit]

Religion is a personal choice, and while it serves to influence and guide one's actions in the world at large, it is inappropriate to expect others to make the same choice.

That so many schools of religious thought and practice peacefully coexist in America is a tribute to the Founding Fathers and the First Amendment of the Constitution. To expect the followers of these many and diverse views to adhere to one, and only one, doctrine is akin to claiming that a single suit of clothing is of a general cut to fit all people. Such a garment would be too small for some, too large for others, while other yet would find it a comfortable fit. So it is with religions. The personal choices one makes regarding religion reflect ones needs, and those needs will be different for each of us.

It is, then, an act of hubris to claim that only one school of religious thought is fit for all of humanity. Any attempt to force such a vision on those around one is doomed to failure, and will only lead to discord, conflict and death. The common threads that run throught all of the worlds great religions are far deeper and far more numerous than the superficial differences. Better then to celebrate and enjoy the diversity than stagnate in the cloistered, siege mentality that the forced acceptance of only one religious doctrine would lead to.

 

[Bullypulpit]

OK Bully, what odds are you giving for or against confirmation?

He will, tragically, be confirmed.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

That's impossible----holy images magically appear on toast and trees.
(ie. If I say that a public building looks Christian do we have to take it down?)

Are you being serious here? I can't tell to be honest.

 

[musicman]

What is becoming the "mainstream" was never the "far right". It was the lunatic fringe.

Blame the American electorate, Bully. Five of the last six election cycles offer a pretty clear indication of the path America wishes to take.

Perhaps you and others will have to begin rethinking your concepts of "mainstream" and "lunatic fringe".

 

[The ClayTaurus]

If you complain that it wasnt:

Female
black
other minority
non Christian

then you would be complaining about HIS non blackness, minority status or being a Christian

Hardly. You're being a little quick to jump on the racist bandwagon, friend.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Blame the American electorate, Bully. Five of the last six election cycles offer a pretty clear indication of the path America wishes to take.

Perhaps you and others will have to begin rethinking your concepts of "mainstream" and "lunatic fringe".

And judging from current polls, most of them are regretting their choice the last time around.

As for the changing of views on "mainstream" and "lunatic fringe", mine remain unmoved.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Are you being serious here? I can't tell to be honest.

My thoughts, exactly.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The men who wrote the first amendment also owned slaves and "All men are created equal" meant "all land-owning white men are created equal." Since the ratification of the constitution in 1789, a few things have changed if you haven't noticed. .

Thats FLAT OUT DISENGENUOUS and you should be shamed. The slavery debate was hotly contested, and almost didnt allow the COTUS to be ratified. NO SUCH ANIMAL with the first amendment. It was virtually unargued.

But even more, your arguement just simply states, "we can make the COTUS say whatever we want cuz they were wrong about slavery". FACT, they had to make amendments and laws to correct the slavery issue. Have they made an amendment to directly resolve the problem you see with the FIRST AMEND.? Dont you use the exact same language as when first applied and written to make your "CONCEPT" of seperation exist? Didnt the guys who wrote it EXACTLY as it stands today and as it is quoted over and over, allow for individual states to have state sponsored religions? I await your DIRECT answers to these questions.

And cut it out will you? There is no "federal ban on religion" and nobody who matters is advocating one despite what you may have convinced yourself of.

Not just liberals interpret it that way and not all libs do either. Please quit with the gross generalizations. You're just plain wrong about this issue. No free society where many different ethnicities and religions are thrown together into a melting pot can have religious symbols portrayed on publicly-owned property unless all parties agree on what can be displayed. As long as Jews, Muslims and others who are not Christian pay taxes, they have a say in how their public land is managed and they don't have to put up with their religions being trivialized by having Christian symbology enjoy preferential treatment on public property that their tax money pays for..

you are dodging. And when did you become god? to decide what our free society can do?

States cannot show preference to any one religion because it would violate the first amendment for people living in the state who are not of the state denomination. The 14th amendment protects those people from the state..

I have already proven how thats not true, simply repeating it wont change that. Come up with a fresh arguement please, that one is already tattered. You can use the 14th amendment to say equal protection for anything. It doesnt resolve the FIRST amend. problem with your interpetation (false one)

You're telling me your daughter was restricted from saying a prayer to herself at her graduation? How'd they restrict her, put a muzzle on her? I don't believe you.

You didnt say "to herself", are you kidding me? Christians have been prevented from expressing their faith tremendously lately.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You didnt say "to herself", are you kidding me? Christians have been prevented from expressing their faith tremendously lately.

They're prevented from expressing their faith in certain forums, mainly public ones. You're not banned from being a Christian in your own home and on private property. Talk about being disingenuous...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

.

It is, then, an act of hubris to claim that only one school of religious thought is fit for all of humanity. Any attempt to force such a vision on those around one is doomed to failure, and will only lead to discord, conflict and death. The common threads that run throught all of the worlds great religions are far deeper and far more numerous than the superficial differences. Better then to celebrate and enjoy the diversity than stagnate in the cloistered, siege mentality that the forced acceptance of only one religious doctrine would lead to.

What is hubris is your attempt to take our posistion, change it into something TRULY RADICAL , WHICH WE DONT SUPPORT, and then argue against it (straw man anyone??)

The posistion of the writers of the Cons. was that Christianity should influence govt, but NOT that everyone has to be a Christian. Simple.
Hubris indeed !!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

He will, tragically, be confirmed.

Tragedy for those who wish to continue to destroy the Constitution.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Are you being serious here? I can't tell to be honest.

What he is saying is that what one could "consider to be a religous symbol" could have very wide implications.

Take that tree out of your yard! It looks like a Christmas tree! and we all know CHRIST is in Christmas, and I have FREEDOM from you forcing your religion down my throat. My god man, I had to climb into the attic, open up the stuck, unused vent, stick my head out three feet and use a mirror to see that dastardly tree that represents "peace and goodwill towards men" (what a sexist comment !)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Hardly. You're being a little quick to jump on the racist bandwagon, friend.

Not at all. Its a very simple and common logical conclusion.

Hi,,,Im here to play basketball,,,Oh, you arent six feet tall, we dont need you

"he discriminated against me cuz Im short"

"No, I didnt, I simply didnt want you cuz you arent tall, it has nothing to do with your being short"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As for the changing of views on "mainstream" and "lunatic fringe", mine remain unmoved.

(Yet somehow I feel safe in thinking you have accused others at some time of being bigoted and bullheaded??)

By the way, the term bigot in its original use was directed at a group of people in France, from the regiion of "Bigot" and they were known for their unusual stubborness and refusal to change their minds. The current common usage is not how I am using it.

SHOCKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Thats FLAT OUT DISENGENUOUS and you should be shamed. The slavery debate was hotly contested, and almost didnt allow the COTUS to be ratified. NO SUCH ANIMAL with the first amendment. It was virtually unargued.

Yeah, the slavery debate was hotly contested...but it sure was great having slaves! Dude, it took a civil war and thousands of deaths and a constitutional amendment to end slavery. You don't even know what disingenuous means.

But even more, your arguement just simply states, "we can make the COTUS say whatever we want cuz they were wrong about slavery". FACT, they had to make amendments and laws to correct the slavery issue. Have they made an amendment to directly resolve the problem you see with the FIRST AMEND.? Dont you use the exact same language as when first applied and written to make your "CONCEPT" of seperation exist? Didnt the guys who wrote it EXACTLY as it stands today and as it is quoted over and over, allow for individual states to have state sponsored religions? I await your DIRECT answers to these questions.

No it doesn't. It illustrates the fact that the forefathers could not have foreseen the future and could not have written a constitution that would have covered every future problem. That's why we have the power to amend the COTUS. The first amendment has never been amended because nobody wants to put restrictions or limitations on free speech. Free speech is what makes America what it is.

Look, I'll post the Wikipedia version of it for you to spell it out even more simply than I have:
Disestablishment
See also secular state.

Disestablishment is the process of divesting a church of its status as an organ of the state. In Britain there was a campaign by Liberals, dissenters and nonconformists to disestablish the Church of England in the late 19th century; it failed in England, but demands for the measure persist to this day. The Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869 and the Church of England was disestablished in Wales in 1920, becoming the Church in Wales. Those who wish to continue with an established church take a position of antidisestablishmentarianism.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly bans the federal government from setting up a state church. This did not, when ratified, prevent state governments from establishing a church, and Connecticut continued to do so until she replaced her colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states to violate the rights of citizens of the United States, those rights defended by the Constitution against the Federal Government; and thus prohibits state establishments also. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed and are a frequent source of cases before the US Supreme Court, especially as the court must reconcile the establishment clause of the First Amendment with the clause that prohibits restraints on the free exercise of religion. All present State Constitutions also include a clause parallel to the First Amendment.Wikipedia - State Religion

you are dodging. And when did you become god? to decide what our free society can do?

I don't proclaim to be God, I'm trying to give you a lesson in reality in the hopes that you will wake up! I didn't dodge either, what I wrote defines almost perfectly why state backing of religious institutions over others cannot happen. Here it is again:

Not just liberals interpret it that way and not all libs do either. Please quit with the gross generalizations. You're just plain wrong about this issue. No free society where many different ethnicities and religions are thrown together into a melting pot can have religious symbols portrayed on publicly-owned property unless all parties agree on what can be displayed. As long as Jews, Muslims and others who are not Christian pay taxes, they have a say in how their public land is managed and they don't have to put up with their religions being trivialized by having Christian symbology enjoy preferential treatment on public property that their tax money pays for.

I have already proven how thats not true, simply repeating it wont change that. Come up with a fresh arguement please, that one is already tattered. You can use the 14th amendment to say equal protection for anything. It doesnt resolve the FIRST amend. problem with your interpetation (false one)

You haven't proven anything. If you had, there would be no need for a supreme court to interpret the constitution. And if my argument isn't good enough for you then stop debating with me. I challenge you to come up with an actual retort to my arguments that doesn't involve calling me disingenuous or saying I'm "dodging." My arguments stand their own ground. I even got a positive rep for the post in question.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah, the slavery debate was hotly contested...but it sure was great having slaves! Dude, it took a civil war and thousands of deaths and a constitutional amendment to end slavery. You don't even know what disingenuous means..

Which just proves my point. You CANT COMPARE the two. Slavery was RIPE for changes, first amendment wasnt. You still havent addressed the FACT that they had state sponsored religions when they wrote the first amendment. The supreme court is there to interpet situations that arise that havent before, but the situation of "state" endorsed religion had already been visited. Which part of that dont you understand?

No it doesn't. It illustrates the fact that the forefathers could not have foreseen the future and could not have written a constitution that would have covered every future problem. That's why we have the power to amend the COTUS. The first amendment has never been amended because nobody wants to put restrictions or limitations on free speech. Free speech is what makes America what it is..

Again, seperation of church and state was not a FUTURE problem, it was a then "present" problem, and they addressed it. Tell me what changes have happened to allow the supreme court to interpet the first amendment differently than the writers did. And you state it correctly, if you dont want state sponsored religions, then amend it. It ONLY forbids a FEDERAL level state sponsored religion. How do we know? Cuz THE WRITERS instituted STATE level state religions. WHat has changed since then to make it different?

Look, I'll post the Wikipedia version of it for you to spell it out even more simply than I have:
Disestablishment
See also secular state..

Dont bother, wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia. For facts its fine, but for its opinion, well, its just an opinion.

I don't proclaim to be God, I'm trying to give you a lesson in reality in the hopes that you will wake up! I didn't dodge either, what I wrote defines almost perfectly why state backing of religious institutions over others cannot happen. ..

When you state "no free society can have religous symbols displayed on public property..." THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. ANd you did, are, and will continue to dodge.

You haven't proven anything. If you had, there would be no need for a supreme court to interpret the constitution. .

And there wasnt any such need, untill recently (funny how that amendment was read the same way for two hundred years when suddenly some activists judges "discovered" stuff written in the COTUS that no one else had ever seen, sharp bastards they are ! )when the liberals managed to get the supreme court packed with enough activist to put themselves above what the Constitution dictates for them to do. And just because the supreme court rules one way, doesnt make it right, they have gotten many things wrong, you hear of the "imminent domain" ruling recently?

And if my argument isn't good enough for you then stop debating with me..

Hmmm, there is that god thing again., funny how libs always want someone else to change, why dont YOU stop debating with me IF YOU DONT want to debate it.????

I challenge you to come up with an actual retort to my arguments that doesn't involve calling me disingenuous or saying I'm "dodging." My arguments stand their own ground. I even got a positive rep for the post in question.

ha, so now you are limiting the scope of what i can say???? Geeez, and werent you the one saying what makes America so great is the "free speech" clause????

Pssss, and I did retort your arguement, its mine you have provided no retort for......as for positive reps,,,well, lets just say you arent the only person to get one....

 

[Bullypulpit]

What is hubris is your attempt to take our posistion, change it into something TRULY RADICAL , WHICH WE DONT SUPPORT, and then argue against it (straw man anyone??)

The posistion of the writers of the Cons. was that Christianity should influence govt, but NOT that everyone has to be a Christian. Simple.
Hubris indeed !!!

When religion takes it upon itself to "influence" government, it becomes the government. And why should Chrisitanity be the only religious influence in government. Why not Islam or Judaism? What about Buddhism or Hinduism? And let's not forget Jainsim, Taoism, Sihkism, Shintoism and Zororastrianism. All are equally valid schools of religious philosophy, all have equally valid views. Are they to be marginalized and cast aside in favor of just a single religion?

You are advocating nothing more than the establishmnet of a state religion. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Tragedy for those who wish to continue to destroy the Constitution.

You should probably spend some time reading the Constitution before making such absurd statements.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Which just proves my point. You CANT COMPARE the two. Slavery was RIPE for changes, first amendment wasnt. You still havent addressed the FACT that they had state sponsored religions when they wrote the first amendment. The supreme court is there to interpet situations that arise that havent before, but the situation of "state" endorsed religion had already been visited. Which part of that dont you understand?

You didn't even read what I wrote. When the Constitution was written, you didn't have any rights unless you were a white, male land owner. The point I made is that the way the COTUS is interpreted changes and none of the forefathers could have anticipated that. Until the mid to late 20th Century, non-Christians were barely acknowledged in American society. Now they are becoming larger in number and are demanding to have the rights they are promised in the COTUS. Things change my friend. Being white and owning land isn't a get out of jail free card anymore. Now "all men are created equal" is starting to be taken literally.

Again, seperation of church and state was not a FUTURE problem, it was a then "present" problem, and they addressed it. Tell me what changes have happened to allow the supreme court to interpet the first amendment differently than the writers did. And you state it correctly, if you dont want state sponsored religions, then amend it. It ONLY forbids a FEDERAL level state sponsored religion. How do we know? Cuz THE WRITERS instituted STATE level state religions. WHat has changed since then to make it different?

A rise in the number of ethnicities demanding equal rights. The culture has changed. That's what happens over time. American society doesn't sit in a homeostatic glass case. We gave brown people rights my friend! Welcome to the human race.

Dont bother, wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia. For facts its fine, but for its opinion, well, its just an opinion.

Oh, sorry about providing facts from an encyclopedia. I guess it's a Liberal, college-elite thing. I guess "facts" are only "facts" when they agree with your opinion right?

When you state "no free society can have religous symbols displayed on public property..." THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. ANd you did, are, and will continue to dodge.

I've addressed all your "arguments." You'd do well to do the same to mine instead of just giving up and accusing me of dodging. State-sponsored religions, a.k.a. Theocracies, are not allowed according to the 14th amendment, which protects citizens' US first amendment rights to freedom of religion. States cannot impose restrictions on US citizens' US Constitutional rights. That's the third time I've addressed the issue you have accused me of "dodging." I tried, I even posted the Wikipedia's encyclopedic version of this concept. I'll continue to address it in this manner for as long as it takes, but I want to warn you that I'm going to just start cutting and pasting this paragraph from now on.

And there wasnt any such need, untill recently (funny how that amendment was read the same way for two hundred years when suddenly some activists judges "discovered" stuff written in the COTUS that no one else had ever seen, sharp bastards they are ! )when the liberals managed to get the supreme court packed with enough activist to put themselves above what the Constitution dictates for them to do. And just because the supreme court rules one way, doesnt make it right, they have gotten many things wrong, you hear of the "imminent domain" ruling recently?

Right, "the evil liberals" are behind every bad thing in the world. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Are you saying there hasn't always been a need for a Supreme Court to interpret the COTUS? I guess libs "discovered" that third branch of government too. If you don't understand why the way the COTUS is interpreted changes over time based on the values of American culture (i.e. religious freedom for everyone, not just Christians) then I can't help you.

Hmmm, there is that god thing again., funny how libs always want someone else to change, why dont YOU stop debating with me IF YOU DONT want to debate it.????

Dude, you're the one calling me names and accusing me of dodging when I've answered your arguments with full force three times in a row now. Do you want to get down to the nitty gritty of this debate or do you want to namecall? Your choice.

ha, so now you are limiting the scope of what i can say???? Geeez, and werent you the one saying what makes America so great is the "free speech" clause????

No, I didn't limit anything. I asked you politely to debate instead of calling me names and making accusations. You can still be an ass if you want. "Ignore" is just a click away.

Pssss, and I did retort your arguement, its mine you have provided no retort for......as for positive reps,,,well, lets just say you arent the only person to get one....

Positive reps don't mean anything on your side. You get a positive rep when you call a lib a communist. I've seen piles of garbage that are more deserving of positive reps than some of the things that get repped by the "conservatives" on this forum. Like I said before, I've addressed your "state-sponsored religion" argument three times now. I can't make you read it.

Keep on keepin' on.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Was it not Jesus who was the original advocate for the separation of church and state?

<blockquote>Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. - <a href=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:21&version=9><i>Matthew 22:21</i></a></blockquote>