Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[whutTHEYsay]

ding said: Militant atheists are the greatest threat to liberty and freedom. Militant atheists believe in abolishing all religion.

NotfooledbyW said: 78% of Democrat members of Congress are Christians. What is it? You are in fear of.

 

[ding]

ding said: Militant atheists are the greatest threat to liberty and freedom. Militant atheists believe in abolishing all religion.

78% of Democrat members of Congress are Christians. What is it? You are in fear of.

Do you know the difference between a militant atheist and a Christian who is registered to vote as a Democrat?

I do.

 

[ding]

opinions vary,, and yours lacks reality,,

That the Bill of Rights - as originally written - only applied to the federal government is not an opinion. It is an established fact that you can easily check for yourself. You don't need for me to convince you of it, you don't need to argue with me about it. You only need to check this for yourself. What part of this don't you understand?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Jefferson believed that natural rights are granted because we have a duty to the creator.

Yes, we have a duty to use reasoning, if that means questioning the very existence of God, when we do so that is homage to our creator.. If human reason produces the idea that God does not exist it remains “homage” to God.

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.


Jefferson is saying “If there be a God, God most more approve the homage of reason than that of the blindfolded fear of burning in hell for not believing in the state’s version.

my Argument is based on Jefferson’s actual words in writing preserved at Montecello.

Your words Saint ding must be pulled out of your Holy Ghost’s divine ass or something not on record.

 

[progressive hunter]

That the Bill of Rights - as originally written - only applied to the federal government is not an opinion. It is an established fact that you can easily check for yourself. You don't need for me to convince you of it, you don't need to argue with me about it. You only need to check this for yourself. What part of this don't you understand?

my question is about today not history,,

 

[Picaro]

my question is about today not history,,

Then start a thread on it. Fill it up with all kinds of strawmen. see who plays.

 

[ding]

my question is about today not history,,

Great. That's not how this started.

 

[progressive hunter]

Great. That's not how this started.

its exactly how I started,,

 

[Ace Nova]

The Constitution prohibits the hierarchy of Churches/Religions from being involved in State/Federal government. Popes, bishops, priests, ministers are set apart from government. However, this separation does not apply to the laity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the vocation of the laity:

898 "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will....

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church….

People/citizens of faith are not only citizens of a nation, but are also citizens of the Kingdom of God. It is not only our right, but our duty to permeate the social, political, and economic realities within our governments.

Yes - people of all faiths can and should use their values when determining who or what to vote for. They can also create or join groups that can influence policies/laws, etc - the same way oil companies, health organizations, technology companies, pharmaceutical companies and so forth do - etc. Stay within the system - follow the rules of the established Representative Republic - and Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus when he said, "Give onto Caesar what is Caesar's and Unto God what is God's".

Although this is "The Kingdom of God" for some - it maybe not be the "Kingdom of God" for others. Forcing any religion on others and telling them it's because "This is the Kingdom of God" is the complete opposite of what it means to live in the Kingdom of God. All it does is create further discord and will only weaken the nation by dividing it (Why would you want to weaken and divide what you believe to be "The Kingdom of God"?)

 

[whutTHEYsay]

78% of Democrat in Congress are Christians

Do you know the difference between a militant atheist and a Christian who is registered to vote as a Democrat?

Jenna Ellis believes all who vote Democrat are Luciferian Communists dedicated to destroying her Biblical Worldview that her America was founded as a Christian Nation.

There are millions of rightwing Christians who like her who fear Democrats are militant atheists who are trying to destroy the ONLY TRUE interpretation of Christianity. Hers.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That the Bill of Rights - as originally written - only applied to the federal government is not an opinion.

It reads “to the states or to the people” and is in the spirit of that,

States cannot deprive “the people” of a natural right and successively be deprived of any liberty unless that liberty causes harm to other’s life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Quit the lies You have been steered wrong by Shitty Americans.

 

[ding]

Jenna Ellis believes all who vote Democrat are Luciferian Communists dedicated to destroying her Biblical Worldview that her America was founded as a Christian Nation.

There are millions of rightwing Christians who like her who fear Democrats are militant atheists who are trying to destroy the ONLY TRUE interpretation of Christianity. Hers.

I couldn't care less what she or others believe.

 

[ding]

It reads “to the states or to the people” and is in the spirit of that,

States cannot deprive “the people” of a natural right and successively be deprived of any liberty unless that liberty causes harm to other’s life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Quit the lies You have been steered wrong by Shitty Americans.

That's an idiotic way of looking at it.

The Bill of Rights - as originally written and ratified - applied to the Federal government. That's it. It makes no mention of what states could or would do. It left state matters up to the states. That's how the founding fathers intended for it to be.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I couldn't care less what she or others believe.

When your argument wanders off into bullshit territory you need to care because
you asked me this question.

Do you know the difference between a militant atheist and a Christian who is registered to vote as a Democrat?

You see I do you know the difference between a militant atheist and a Christian who is registered to vote as a Democrat?

It’s your Kingdom of God coalition that is the base of the Republican Party still voting for Trump and keeping the Pussy Grabber afloat who collectively make zero distinction between militant atheist and a Christian who is registered to vote as a Democrat?

 

[ding]

When your argument wanders off into bullshit territory you need to care because
you asked me this question.



You see I do you know the difference between a militant atheist and a Christian who is registered to vote as a Democrat?

It’s your Kingdom of God coalition that is the base of the Republican Party still voting for Trump and keeping the Pussy Grabber afloat who collectively make zero distinction between militant atheist and a Christian who is registered to vote as a Democrat?

Just because what other people believe upsets you doesn't mean I have to let what other people believe upset me.

 

[BreezeWood]

the truth is ...

no matter how much picaro, the desert worshipers pray differently, the present election will not change the 1st amendment separation of religion and state and without another amendment never will.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That's an idiotic way of looking at it.

The Bill of Rights - as originally written and ratified - applied to the Federal government. That's it. It makes no mention of what states could or would do. It left state matters up to the states. That's how the founding fathers intended for it to be.

It mentions powers and limits both to the states and to the people.

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[ding]

It mentions powers and limits both to the states and to the people.

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What is your point? Because if you are arguing the Bill of Rights always applied to the states, then why did SCOTUS need "incorporation?"

And lastly, if you are arguing the Bill of Rights always applied to the states, why are there no links to reputable sources that state that?

Why does EVERY SINGLE reputable source state that the Bill of Rights - as originally written and ratified - apply only to the federal government?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The Bill of Rights - as originally written and ratified - applied to the Federal governmen

Are you saying it was the founder’s intent to protect citizens from Federal Police busting into people’s homes without a warrant, but state police could do it with impunity:

 

[ding]

Are you saying it was the founde’s intent to protect citizens from Federal Police busting into people’s homes without a warrent, but state police could do it with impunity:

I'm saying the founders intended for the bill of rights to apply only to the federal government.

Read the history.