The Real intention of Separation of Church and State

[JakeStarkey]

False propositions do not clever retorts make, rdean. It is a false proposition to state that you can prove God does not exist.

It is also a logical contradiction if you state you can prove that God cannot exist. You can't. You have faith that God does not exist, because that is what you wish to believe. Another attempt is to suggest that God's existence can be disproven by man's logical ability. This too is a contradiction. To suggest that man can prove or disprove the existence of God is based on hubris, not good philosophy.

Now, however, you can prove the humbugs exist. Dorothy did that with the wizard behind the curtain. And where you draw curtains aside to reveal the humbug, good for you, rdean. But the day will come when you will attempt to draw the curtain aside only to find that you have revealed God to you in His presence. That will be a day you will forever remember. And, on that day, you will remember this conversation.

 

[Father Time]

False propositions do not clever retorts make, rdean. It is a false proposition to state that you can prove God does not exist.

Yeah you can't prove a negative, quick prove Bigfoot doesn't exist.

It is also a logical contradiction if you state you can prove that God cannot exist.

I never did.

You can't. You have faith that God does not exist, because that is what you wish to believe.

Fuck you pal. I've given it thought and I'd put the odds of God existing at less than 1:8, that's just my opinion and if you can cough up evidence to prove otherwise I'll change it.

You see this is the difference between opinion and faith.

What do you put as the odds Bigfoot exists? I want to know what your faith is.

That will be a day you will forever remember. And, on that day, you will remember this conversation.

You flatter yourself. Yes I'll remember the warnings from some shmuck who doesn't know what the fuck faith means.

 

[FA_Q2]

To ALL the anti- abortionists who have decided to HIJACK this thread..

In fact- Just because something I never asked for is growing in my body, doesn't mean I am responsible for giving it food, shelter and clothing for 18 years.. And if I do not want that responsibility, and you don't want it- then I guess you need to just respect the choice I make to end the pregnancy.

Sorry, I know it is off topic but I had to respond to this drivel. FACT- you asked for it when you had sex. Don’t give me this bullshit that it is not your fault and you don’t want to deal with the consequences. On that same token, I had sex and she wants to keep it but I don’t. I guess by your logic I should not have to pay child support or be a father. After all, I just wanted some sex not a baby so I’m not responsible for the consequences. If you jump off a cliff because you like to fall then you have to pay the piper when you hit the ground. Just reading this crap made me so angry that I had to cuss out my computer… AND I AM PRO CHOICE!!!!!!!!!
At least accept the crap choice you are making when you abort and do so it because you can’t raise a child, NOT out of convenience.

And the other off topic half-Atheism is NOT a religion. It IS a lack of belief. The problem is in the way it is stated. I am an atheist, I do not believe there is no god!!! What is that I said! That’s right, I neither believe nor disbelieve in god. There is no evidence there is a god and therefore I have no belief in a god. If, however, you believe there is no god then it becomes a religion because there is a belief, something taken on faith. Just because you have to have a belief in a god does not mean I need a belief to not believe in your god. There may well be a god or gods. When there is sufficient evidence I will ascribe to a religion. I think that is what the atheists here are trying to point out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

flatter yourself. Yes I'll remember the warnings from some shmuck who doesn't know what the fuck faith means.

Like I said, you are not clever. And you are not tall. Atheism is a religion. Three words: get over yourself.

 

[mudwhistle]

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This section of the passage is intended to prohibit Atheists or religious leaders from preventing the free expression of religion in this country....which is exactly what they're doing today.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not law. It's is not in any legal document in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. It is contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. So in a legal sense the contention that it exists in the Constitution is an illusion. It's proponents repeat it over and over again hoping that it would soon become accepted practice.

We don't need to make laws to provide funding for the display of religious symbols. There are ways around that.

However, no bill can be signed into law that prohibits religious freedoms in this country. The costs of displaying a cross in a government building or on government property can be paid for by donations and this cannot be prevented from happening. Know one can say it cannot happen and have any legal standing in a court of law. The Constitution prevents this. Until it is amended that is the law.

Also diversity is not a right. Just because one religion is on display doesn't mean that every religion deserves equitable opportunity to display as well. It is not a guarantee of absolute equality. Too bad if that bothers some people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Get over yourself, mudwhistle. You are not mainstream, neither are your opinions, and your opinion (like Jefferson's) does not have force of law. Shoot, it does not make good sense historically or culturally in America. Move along.l

 

[frazzledgear]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

A Look Back in TIME: Interview with Timothy McVeigh - TIME Time Magazine interview with McVeigh where he was specifically asked about his religious beliefs -he was raised Catholic and was not a particularly devout one. What he DOES say in this interview, even without admitting his guilt - is exactly what motivated him to do what he did. And it was not his religious beliefs.

Personally the people I find MUCH scarier than those who think God made Hurricane Katrina because of gays or whatever - are those who think the 1st Amendment was intended to place restrictions on those with religious beliefs. The religious ranters are merely offensive and can be ignored, the other ones are SPECIFICALLY out to restrict MY rights though. The Bill of Rights spells out the restrictions placed on GOVERNMENT -and ONLY government -none placed on people. The Bill of Rights lists the specific rights WE THE PEOPLE have claimed for ourselves and SPECIFICALLY forbids government from interfering with those who choose to exercise or choose to NOT exercise those rights. Until the 1960s or so, the only exceptions to forbidding government overseeing or interfering with the exercise of any right has been if the specific practice or occasion poses a real public safety issue -and that risk must be a real one, not a theoretical one.

While people like you seem to clearly understand why it is a gross violation of rights for government to order people to pray, you have to deliberately ignore the FACT it is actually no less a gross violation when government FORBIDS people to pray. One is not a worse violation than the other, yet we allow one while pretending the Constitution only forbids the other when in fact it forbid BOTH. Government was restricted from INTERFERING at all -neither ordering people to pray nor ordering them to stop, neither forcing people to participate in religious practice nor ordering them to stop. And in the Bill of Rights, not only are there no restrictions placed on people with religious beliefs and all restrictions placed on government to leave them alone - there are NO restriction as to WHERE they may practice their religious beliefs including government property.

The notion that my freedom of religion means I must keep it behind closed church doors and that my freedom of speech only meant speech addressed to another person is protected speech while government could regulate or punish me for my speech addressed to God -is FALSE. There is NO "right" to not hear certain religious speech or prayers just like there is no "right" to not hear certain kinds of political speech -and saying there should be on the grounds it might OFFEND someone is bullshit. I find a whole of liberal political speech to be incredibly offensive -but just because I may choose to be offended by it still has no bearing on the rights of liberals to express those political opinions. Feeling offended is always an individual CHOICE and people choose to feel offended by all sorts of things real and imaginary. You have the right to feel offended by whatever you want -but your FEELINGS should not EVER dictate whether I get to retain my full rights.

Liberals like to pretend that FEELINGS have "rights" - even suggesting that FEELINGS have greater rights than people do. Feelings never have rights -only people do. This pretense that FEELINGS have rights is not only the foundation of "political correctness" but was an instrumental tool for the bastardization of our Constitution in general, and specifically for the bastardization of the 1st Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

frazzled, we are not living in 1785. More than 220 years have passed, with history and culture and war and constiutional law being developed. Study up on it. You are far, far behind the times.

 

[mudwhistle]

Get over yourself, mudwhistle. You are not mainstream, neither are your opinions, and your opinion (like Jefferson's) does not have force of law. Shoot, it does not make good sense historically or culturally in America. Move along.l

This is the second thread you've said that in.

The facts aren't in your favor so we must move along....

 

[mudwhistle]

frazzled, we are not living in 1785. More than 220 years have passed, with history and culture and war and constiutional law being developed. Study up on it. You are far, far behind the times.

The words and thus the meanings contained in a 200 year old document are not there just so some tussbucket like yourself can change them on a wim...

It matters a damn if you think the Constitution is outdated. I suggest you stop reading into it and start reading it and adhering to it.

If not your only hope is that you can get a majority in the Supreme Court so enough lying asshole Liberals can change the interpretation of that document.....in effect Legislating From The Bench. Something that is prohibited in the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mudwhistle, you are whistling past the graveyard. Your numbers grow ever smaller in an ever-increasing and diverse America. And the SC is conservative. You are not going to return to 1785. Tuff luck, pard.

 

[mudwhistle]

Mudwhistle, you are whistling past the graveyard. Your numbers grow ever smaller in an ever-increasing and diverse America. And the SC is conservative. You are not going to return to 1785. Tuff luck, pard.

So you think you can push the rest of us around.

Too bad you're parents didn't abort you. My guess is you support that activity.

I think that people that think like you usually were misled some time in their lives. In one of our Universities perhaps. A place where our kids minds are turned against this country.

Destroying the United States from within as it were.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poor Mudwhistle. No one is pushing you around. This country is a majoritarian republic, meaning that the reactionary minority, like you, have to go along with the constitutional process. I served for many years, bub, honorably and meritoriously, while folks like you merely try to return the country to the old days of segregation and wasp'ism and mccarthyism. Those days are over forever, Mudwhistle ~ forever.

 

[mudwhistle]

Poor Mudwhistle. No one is pushing you around. This country is a majoritarian republic, meaning that the reactionary minority, like you, have to go along with the constitutional process. I served for many years, bub, honorably and meritoriously, while folks like you merely try to return the country to the old days of segregation and wasp'ism and mccarthyism. Those days are over forever, Mudwhistle ~ forever.

Served where?

You're not about to start showing your medals now are you?

Hate to break it to you but following the Constitution as written does not make one a racist.

And anyone who has served knows that your duty is to defend that Constitution from all enemies foreign "And DOMESTIC"....enemies like yourself.

What is the reason folks like you want to change the Constitution? So you can eliminate Christianity? Because it teaches us morals....morals that are essential for a peaceful society. Once you start relaxing your morals then you begin relaxing your principles and then it's easier for people with fewer scruples to manipulate you.

 

[Father Time]

flatter yourself. Yes I'll remember the warnings from some shmuck who doesn't know what the fuck faith means.

Like I said, you are not clever. And you are not tall. Atheism is a religion. Three words: get over yourself.

Before you were claiming it was faith now it's religion. Are you using the words interchangeably or are you just trying to change your argument hoping no one would notice.

 

[Father Time]

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This section of the passage is intended to prohibit Atheists or religious leaders from preventing the free expression of religion in this country....which is exactly what they're doing today.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not law. It's is not in any legal document in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. It is contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. So in a legal sense the contention that it exists in the Constitution is an illusion. It's proponents repeat it over and over again hoping that it would soon become accepted practice.

We don't need to make laws to provide funding for the display of religious symbols. There are ways around that.

However, no bill can be signed into law that prohibits religious freedoms in this country. The costs of displaying a cross in a government building or on government property can be paid for by donations and this cannot be prevented from happening. Know one can say it cannot happen and have any legal standing in a court of law. The Constitution prevents this. Until it is amended that is the law.

Also diversity is not a right. Just because one religion is on display doesn't mean that every religion deserves equitable opportunity to display as well. It is not a guarantee of absolute equality. Too bad if that bothers some people.

Uh dude the relevant portion of the first amendment is 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

Also the 14th gives the equal protection clause so it really is an all or nothing ordeal when putting up religious icons on public land.

 

[Father Time]

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This section of the passage is intended to prohibit Atheists or religious leaders from preventing the free expression of religion in this country....which is exactly what they're doing today.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not law. It's is not in any legal document in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. It is contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. So in a legal sense the contention that it exists in the Constitution is an illusion. It's proponents repeat it over and over again hoping that it would soon become accepted practice.

We don't need to make laws to provide funding for the display of religious symbols. There are ways around that.

However, no bill can be signed into law that prohibits religious freedoms in this country. The costs of displaying a cross in a government building or on government property can be paid for by donations and this cannot be prevented from happening. Know one can say it cannot happen and have any legal standing in a court of law. The Constitution prevents this. Until it is amended that is the law.

Also diversity is not a right. Just because one religion is on display doesn't mean that every religion deserves equitable opportunity to display as well. It is not a guarantee of absolute equality. Too bad if that bothers some people.

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

A Look Back in TIME: Interview with Timothy McVeigh - TIME Time Magazine interview with McVeigh where he was specifically asked about his religious beliefs -he was raised Catholic and was not a particularly devout one. What he DOES say in this interview, even without admitting his guilt - is exactly what motivated him to do what he did. And it was not his religious beliefs.

Personally the people I find MUCH scarier than those who think God made Hurricane Katrina because of gays or whatever - are those who think the 1st Amendment was intended to place restrictions on those with religious beliefs. The religious ranters are merely offensive and can be ignored, the other ones are SPECIFICALLY out to restrict MY rights though. The Bill of Rights spells out the restrictions placed on GOVERNMENT -and ONLY government -none placed on people. The Bill of Rights lists the specific rights WE THE PEOPLE have claimed for ourselves and SPECIFICALLY forbids government from interfering with those who choose to exercise or choose to NOT exercise those rights. Until the 1960s or so, the only exceptions to forbidding government overseeing or interfering with the exercise of any right has been if the specific practice or occasion poses a real public safety issue -and that risk must be a real one, not a theoretical one.

While people like you seem to clearly understand why it is a gross violation of rights for government to order people to pray, you have to deliberately ignore the FACT it is actually no less a gross violation when government FORBIDS people to pray. One is not a worse violation than the other, yet we allow one while pretending the Constitution only forbids the other when in fact it forbid BOTH. Government was restricted from INTERFERING at all -neither ordering people to pray nor ordering them to stop, neither forcing people to participate in religious practice nor ordering them to stop. And in the Bill of Rights, not only are there no restrictions placed on people with religious beliefs and all restrictions placed on government to leave them alone - there are NO restriction as to WHERE they may practice their religious beliefs including government property.

The notion that my freedom of religion means I must keep it behind closed church doors and that my freedom of speech only meant speech addressed to another person is protected speech while government could regulate or punish me for my speech addressed to God -is FALSE. There is NO "right" to not hear certain religious speech or prayers just like there is no "right" to not hear certain kinds of political speech -and saying there should be on the grounds it might OFFEND someone is bullshit. I find a whole of liberal political speech to be incredibly offensive -but just because I may choose to be offended by it still has no bearing on the rights of liberals to express those political opinions. Feeling offended is always an individual CHOICE and people choose to feel offended by all sorts of things real and imaginary. You have the right to feel offended by whatever you want -but your FEELINGS should not EVER dictate whether I get to retain my full rights.

Liberals like to pretend that FEELINGS have "rights" - even suggesting that FEELINGS have greater rights than people do. Feelings never have rights -only people do. This pretense that FEELINGS have rights is not only the foundation of "political correctness" but was an instrumental tool for the bastardization of our Constitution in general, and specifically for the bastardization of the 1st Amendment.

Give us an example of people trying to do such things because your whole rant sounds like one massive straw man (at least to me).

 

[JW Frogen]

Our friend Mudwhistle makes a serious point here, no matter what your political ideology is allowing judges to treat the constitution like their own personal therapy session is dangerous, from any ideological political point of view it can backfire.

Constitutions exist to prevent the whims of a few men or women turning their own personal soap operas into a national ethos.

If you think the Constitution is outdated, amend it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Father Time, thank you for demonstrating my observation that you are not clever. But you can easily handle the Mudwhistles of the universe. Shoot, my cat could handle the Mudwhistles of the universe. Carry on.

 

[mudwhistle]

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This section of the passage is intended to prohibit Atheists or religious leaders from preventing the free expression of religion in this country....which is exactly what they're doing today.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not law. It's is not in any legal document in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. It is contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. So in a legal sense the contention that it exists in the Constitution is an illusion. It's proponents repeat it over and over again hoping that it would soon become accepted practice.

We don't need to make laws to provide funding for the display of religious symbols. There are ways around that.

However, no bill can be signed into law that prohibits religious freedoms in this country. The costs of displaying a cross in a government building or on government property can be paid for by donations and this cannot be prevented from happening. Know one can say it cannot happen and have any legal standing in a court of law. The Constitution prevents this. Until it is amended that is the law.

Also diversity is not a right. Just because one religion is on display doesn't mean that every religion deserves equitable opportunity to display as well. It is not a guarantee of absolute equality. Too bad if that bothers some people.

Uh dude the relevant portion of the first amendment is 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

Also the 14th gives the equal protection clause so it really is an all or nothing ordeal when putting up religious icons on public land.

Uhhh *Dude*...the sentence is to be taken not in pieces..one section adhered to and the other ignored like you want...but taken as a whole. What that passage means is there must be controls placed on the government to keep Theocracies from taking over and controlling our lives. It does not mean you have the right to remove religion from our lives any time you choose. Basically you're breaking the law in your attempt to enforce a portion of the law.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion does not mean you can prohibit it from our lives just because it's on government property. If the sentence were to be taken literally then nobody could display a religious symbol anywhere if somebody objects to it....even in our own home. If my pay as an employee of the Department of Defense paid for my home that would mean you could say I have no right to display a cross or the 10 Commandments there...eventually because the government paid for it indirectly.

If took no law to place a cross in a government building then what right do you think you have to remove it?. It was placed there at the behest of the people of the day. Now you little shits want to come along and prohibit it....which is strictly forbidden. You can't ignore the laws that you want in order to enforce your warped version of what you think it should be.