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

[Gunny]

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>

There is nothing wrong with the separation of church and state. There IS something wrong with wanting to erase all vestiges of Christianity from our history and culture.

Christians are as equally protected under the First Amendment as non-Christians. At least on paper, anyway.

 

[Bullypulpit]

There is nothing wrong with the separation of church and state. There IS something wrong with wanting to erase all vestiges of Christianity from our history and culture.

Christians are as equally protected under the First Amendment as non-Christians. At least on paper, anyway.

You've been listening to Bill O'Reilly's talking points again, haven't you.

As for the siege mentality of the Christian right, that's a common characteristic of religious fundamentalism in general. For a full discussion on the matter, I would suggest reading Karen Armstrong's "<i><a href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345391691/qid=1131030411/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5928223-8642524?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>The Battle for God</a></i>". Her discussion of the issue is both scholarly and impartial.

 

[5stringJeff]

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>

That has nothing to do with what we would call 'separation of church and state.' The context of the quote was a question as to whether we should pay taxes to an oppressive government. Jesus's instruction is that we are obligated to pay taxes (which is confirmed by Paul in Romans 11), just as we are to give God the praise and obedience that He is due.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

When religion takes it upon itself to "influence" government, it becomes the government..

BULLSHIT. Plenty of govt are influenced by the dominant religion of the culture, but the religions dont BECOME the govt.

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?.

Yes. Cast them aside, we are dominant Christian nation, culture, law, Constitutionally. Democracy, governed by the consent of the majority,,,the VAST majority of Americans are Christian. I know you dont like it, but coming from this Christian, TOUGH SHIT....thats the way it is, and will be for our lifetimes.

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

BULLSHIT again. You certainly, in your anti CHRISTIAN hatred, see everything as black and white. Funny, the darling nations of Europe to the American liberals, the scandanavian countries, good socialists they are, have state sponsored religions.

You're a liar, and you use propaganda. To claim a state sponsored religion equals a theocracy is BULLSHIT. About 8 or 9 of the colonies, AFTER the revolution had state sponsored religions. Were they theocracies?? Oh, let me answer it for you, I know thats a tough question, the answer is NO, they were Republics.

YOU want to live in an anti Christian country, move to Iran.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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

Certainly brighter, more brilliant minds than yours have also made that "absurd" statement. IN fact, men who have spent their lifes studying the Constitution. I suggest YOU do a little "homework" before making such absurd statements.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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 .

Yea, for those who wish to destroy it. Original intent is the only way to stop its destruction. If you want changes, they built in methods, those are called AMENDMENTS. Not judicial activism. Justices should only address situations NOT COVERED by the Constitution, or that have not been challenged by law before, and needs a reading of the Constitution. Enviormental laws is a good example, as cars, which pollute, were not invented at the time of the writing, hence, the writers could not have commmented on it. Womens, and black persons ability to vote, abortion, state sponsored religions were all COVERED already by the Constituion, some of those were changed by AMENDMENTS, the others were changed by out of control, liberal justices that are out to destroy the Constitution cuz it limits their powers. Funny how libs like to say absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they dont want the congress or presidency to have too much power, but they seem to think its ok for the courts to have unlimited power (ahhh, maybe because the courts is where they have been getting their agendas through, circumventing the people of the United States?) ya thinks? MAYBE?? hahahhah

and none of the forefathers could have anticipated that..

Thats true, they didnt forsee justices just changing the Constitution, otherwise Im sure they would have put in safeguards to stop it.

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. .

What an absurd comment. What rights are non Christians denied?

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.

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..

Gee, how utterly condescending of you. SHouldnt surprise me though, you being a liberal and all. Yea, you libs think you know so much better than the average American. Why do you presume that if someone thinks the Constitution should be followed in its original form, and if changed, should be changed legally through amendments, doesnt want to see people have equal rights? Why are you such an elitist asshole to believe that?

And besides, your statement just proves the fact that you guys want changes without changing the Constitution properly. But, my elitist, racist friend, its gonna come back to bite you in the ass. Im not even gonna bother reading the rest of your BULLSHIT, anyone who can make a comment like you can doesnt deserve the time taken to read their crap. Your papers should be used for toilet paper.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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>

Well, if you are gonna interpet the passage that way, no wonder why your other thinking is so whacked.

Jesus for seperation of Church and State??? Listen up and learn. Jesus made a statement about not one dot or tittle of the law having become invalid. And the law he refers to gives specific outlines for the govt to be run by the religous leaders. ,,,,hahahhahahhahahah, chew on that one for a while idiot.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You've been listening to Bill O'Reilly's talking points again, haven't you.

As for the siege mentality of the Christian right, that's a common characteristic of religious fundamentalism in general. For a full discussion on the matter, I would suggest reading Karen Armstrong's "<i><a href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345391691/qid=1131030411/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5928223-8642524?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>The Battle for God</a></i>". Her discussion of the issue is both scholarly and impartial.

"The book is also occasionally marred by a condescending tone; Armstrong attacks easy Protestant targets such as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart (whose name she misspells) and claims that fundamentalists of all stripes have "distorted" and "perverted" their faiths. "

Hardly sounds scholarly or impartial.

 

[Bullypulpit]

"The book is also occasionally marred by a condescending tone; Armstrong attacks easy Protestant targets such as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart (whose name she misspells) and claims that fundamentalists of all stripes have "distorted" and "perverted" their faiths. "

Hardly sounds scholarly or impartial.

The truth hurts, doesn't it, but she is correct in her assessment.

Fundamentalist religious movements are little more than cults of personality with charismatic charlatans at their head. The religious doctrine they disseminate is distorted through the filter of their own egos and have just enough to do with their core religious doctrine as to sound genuine. It's a pattern that has been repeated throughout history.

 

[Hobbit]

The truth hurts, doesn't it, but she is correct in her assessment.

Fundamentalist religious movements are little more than cults of personality with charismatic charlatans at their head. The religious doctrine they disseminate is distorted through the filter of their own egos and have just enough to do with their core religious doctrine as to sound genuine. It's a pattern that has been repeated throughout history.

Maybe so, but most of the time you seem to want to lump ALL religious groups into this catagory, at least if they actually want to practice what they believe outside the cloistered confines of their little church, out of sight and mind.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yea, for those who wish to destroy it. Original intent is the only way to stop its destruction. If you want changes, they built in methods, those are called AMENDMENTS. Not judicial activism. Justices should only address situations NOT COVERED by the Constitution, or that have not been challenged by law before, and needs a reading of the Constitution. Enviormental laws is a good example, as cars, which pollute, were not invented at the time of the writing, hence, the writers could not have commmented on it. Womens, and black persons ability to vote, abortion, state sponsored religions were all COVERED already by the Constituion, some of those were changed by AMENDMENTS, the others were changed by out of control, liberal justices that are out to destroy the Constitution cuz it limits their powers. Funny how libs like to say absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they dont want the congress or presidency to have too much power, but they seem to think its ok for the courts to have unlimited power (ahhh, maybe because the courts is where they have been getting their agendas through, circumventing the people of the United States?) ya thinks? MAYBE?? hahahhah




Thats true, they didnt forsee justices just changing the Constitution, otherwise Im sure they would have put in safeguards to stop it.



What an absurd comment. What rights are non Christians denied?



Gee, how utterly condescending of you. SHouldnt surprise me though, you being a liberal and all. Yea, you libs think you know so much better than the average American. Why do you presume that if someone thinks the Constitution should be followed in its original form, and if changed, should be changed legally through amendments, doesnt want to see people have equal rights? Why are you such an elitist asshole to believe that?

And besides, your statement just proves the fact that you guys want changes without changing the Constitution properly. But, my elitist, racist friend, its gonna come back to bite you in the ass. Im not even gonna bother reading the rest of your BULLSHIT, anyone who can make a comment like you can doesnt deserve the time taken to read their crap. Your papers should be used for toilet paper.

How obtuse (shrug).

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The truth hurts, doesn't it, but she is correct in her assessment.

Fundamentalist religious movements are little more than cults of personality with charismatic charlatans at their head. The religious doctrine they disseminate is distorted through the filter of their own egos and have just enough to do with their core religious doctrine as to sound genuine. It's a pattern that has been repeated throughout history.

The truth hurts?? I wouldnt know, the truth sets me free. How is your pain? Of course, you wouldnt know the truth if it flew up your nose.

I notice you completely ignored how I showed your comment of "impartial and scholarly" to be in error.

Ever notice (in my best andy rooney voice) how liberals hate being called liberals? And conservatives wear their moniker with pride? I often find liberals blasting others for calling them that, they always want to deny it, claiming they are "independent" or "moderates", while conservatives readily admit (that truth thingy that you are so foreign to) their posistion. Heck, even your flag ship station of liberal icons doesnt call itself liberal, but rather "progressive" hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhah

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Maybe so, but most of the time you seem to want to lump ALL religious groups into this catagory, at least if they actually want to practice what they believe outside the cloistered confines of their little church, out of sight and mind.

And then again, maybe not. He just wanted to spew out his opinion, thats all it is, he doesnt substantiate it with any historical data or facts.

Its his attempt to show he can string together a paragraph with a cohesive concept and use mulitsyllabic terms to impress himself. NOT IMPRESS US, but HIMSELF.

WELL DONE bp, ! BRAVO!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How obtuse (shrug).

Your superiority overwhelms me.

Your comment:

"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."

is so off the mark and so ASSUMPTIVE, that its apparent you are in that elitist class that needs to put themselves ABOVE others, so you assume people who are for a strick interpetation or original interpetation of the document, are racists. That makes you an elitist pig. I just gave a quote and "REASON" for calling you such, you gave NO EVIDENCE to support your attempt to paint me as a racist.

People like you are a waste of time. An apology is in order, but you wont give one. And it doesnt really bother me, its only showing your true color, yellow, as in cowardly yellow.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How obtuse (shrug).

Or as you idiotic twin Bully P would say, "the truth hurts, dont it"

Ya know, maybe, just maybe some day you will understand that you, Carter and those ilk dont need to prove you are superior to be liked. Or to like yourself.

 

[Bullypulpit]

That has nothing to do with what we would call 'separation of church and state.' The context of the quote was a question as to whether we should pay taxes to an oppressive government. Jesus's instruction is that we are obligated to pay taxes (which is confirmed by Paul in Romans 11), just as we are to give God the praise and obedience that He is due.

Two separate entities, the state and the church.

<blockquote>My kingdom is not of this world... - John 18:36</blockquote>

 

[Bullypulpit]

The truth hurts?? I wouldnt know, the truth sets me free. How is your pain? Of course, you wouldnt know the truth if it flew up your nose.

I notice you completely ignored how I showed your comment of "impartial and scholarly" to be in error.

Ever notice (in my best andy rooney voice) how liberals hate being called liberals? And conservatives wear their moniker with pride? I often find liberals blasting others for calling them that, they always want to deny it, claiming they are "independent" or "moderates", while conservatives readily admit (that truth thingy that you are so foreign to) their posistion. Heck, even your flag ship station of liberal icons doesnt call itself liberal, but rather "progressive" hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhah

Your tone suggests otherwise. When the truth contradicts your carefully constructed, fragile world view, you respond with puerile name-calling. The truth hurts you, not me.

<blockquote>Fundamentalist religious movements are little more than cults of personality with charismatic charlatans at their head. The religious doctrine they disseminate is distorted through the filter of their own egos and have just enough to do with their core religious doctrine as to sound genuine. It's a pattern that has been repeated throughout history.</blockquote>

That you completely failled to address the issues raised above prove my point.

As for your laughter, it seems a bit forced, and more than a little hysterical.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Maybe so, but most of the time you seem to want to lump ALL religious groups into this catagory, at least if they actually want to practice what they believe outside the cloistered confines of their little church, out of sight and mind.

Oh come now...Surely you can do better than that. Religion is personal, but it is never private. The influences of your religious or philosophical beliefs are visible in everything you do, and the open practice of one's religion is nothing to fear for anyone.

Problems arise when demagogic leaders of one religion or another insist that their religious doctrine be given the force of civil law. Then you wind up with oppressive religious police states such as existed in Taliban controlled Afghanistan or do exist in Wahhabi controlled Saudi Arabia. ON our own soil, we need look no further than the Massachusetts Bay colony under the control of the Puritans. The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the horrors that arose there, thus their inclusion of the establishment clause in the Constitution.

 

[Hobbit]

Oh come now...Surely you can do better than that. Religion is personal, but it is never private. The influences of your religious or philosophical beliefs are visible in everything you do, and the open practice of one's religion is nothing to fear for anyone.

Problems arise when demagogic leaders of one religion or another insist that their religious doctrine be given the force of civil law. Then you wind up with oppressive religious police states such as existed in Taliban controlled Afghanistan or do exist in Wahhabi controlled Saudi Arabia. ON our own soil, we need look no further than the Massachusetts Bay colony under the control of the Puritans. The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the horrors that arose there, thus their inclusion of the establishment clause in the Constitution.

What am I supposed to think. Every time somebody talks bad about how a Christmas tree was removed from city hall, you start crying 'theocracy.' Well, we survived for over 2 centuries with Christmas trees and nativity scenes on public land, didn't we?

 

[MissileMan]

What am I supposed to think. Every time somebody talks bad about how a Christmas tree was removed from city hall, you start crying 'theocracy.' Well, we survived for over 2 centuries with Christmas trees and nativity scenes on public land, didn't we?

I personally have no problem with religious symbols in public places, except for 10 commandment statues at courthouses. I've explained why in other threads, so I won't go into it here.

The presence of those religious symbols IMO isn't the problem. The problem is what the extreme religious right believes those symbols mean. They believe they are signs allowing them to force everyone to think and act as they (the extremists) do. They believe they are signs making it perfectly acceptable to lash out verbally and physically against any who don't act or think in exactly the same way they (the extremists) do. They believe a cross on a state seal is a "green light" to add the Christian bible as a text book to science classes in public schools. The founding fathers built a country based on law, not religion. The extremists believe that religious symbols in public places are license to strive to make it the other way around.