There Is No Separation Of Church And State

[anynameyouwish]

Justice Black, appointed by FDR, wrote the majority decision that created the "separation church/state" in the late 40's. Black was also a KKK member who hated Papists among other ethnic groups. The intent was to stop the proliferation of religious based (mostly Catholic) schools. There is no mention of Church/State in the Constitution and democrats relied on an obscure letter by Jefferson. Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property while federal hypocrites make a point of placing the biggest tree they can find on federal property every year.

I'm curious.

Every conservative on this board
every conservative I read in the opinion pages
every conservative who writes a book

SPINS the truth...

misleads, deceives....

Generally by mis-representing the ACTUAL truth or refusing to include information/facts that are damaging to their intended biased perspective


So...

"Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school"

can you show any evidence of this?
or is it a lie?

isn't the real truth that NO RELIGION is allowed to be promoted on school property?


isn't the REAL TRUTH that conservative christians have TRIED to proselytize to everyone elses children? attempting to use OUR schools to brainwash OUR kids? so we stopped you and now you and mad and make up lies.....?




" and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property"

There could be exceptions that you can, no doubt, point me to, but isn't this mostly a "if you put up displays for ONE religion then you must allow ANY religion to put up displays" thing?

and speaking of christmas trees......


Christmas in Puritan New England - Wikipedia



"Christmas celebrations in New England were illegal during parts of the 17th century, and were culturally taboo or rare in former Puritan colonies from foundation until the mid-18th century. The Puritan community found no scriptural justification for celebrating Christmas, and associated such celebrations with paganism and idolatry. Indeed, Christmas celebrations in 17th-century England involved Carnival-like behavior including role inversion, heavy drinking, and sexual liberties.[1]

The earliest years of the Plymouth Colony were troubled with non-Puritans attempting to make merry, and Governor William Bradford was forced to reprimand offenders. English laws suppressing the holiday were enacted in the English Interregnum, but repealed late in the 17th century. However, the Puritan view of Christmas and its celebration had gained cultural ascendancy in New England, and Christmas celebrations continued to be discouraged despite being legal. "

so if you think we are "christian nation" because the puritans were christians then you HAVE TO OPPOSE the celebrating of christmas.

unless you don't mind CHANGING a TRADITION that you disagree with?

 

[Care4all]

…contrary to what you learned in government school, it is a fabrication designed to advance the Marxist view of religion. Such is what our schools have become.




1.Remember the aphorism “Fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice, shame on me.”
Clearly, an earlier generation knew not to trust liars after they are caught once. The huge number who still vote Democrat indicates that that understanding is no longer the case…..they keep playing Charlie Brown missing Lucy’s football.



2. The Democrats/Secularists behave as though America was founded on keeping religion out of government, out of the public arena and out of civil discourse.
The very opposite is true.
And, by ‘religion,’ I mean the guidance of the Judeo-Christian faith, that of our Founders.

If no errors can be found in this thread, then consider it proven that the Left/Democrats/Progressives have lied about said separation, and those who still vote for this iniquitous bunch simply what Aquinas called 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.




3. “The Department of Justice is “ready to fight for the most cherished of all our American liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.” - Attorney General William Barr
These words send the Left into a fit!
… one can only assume that if our founding fathers were here today, the mainstream media and far-left activists would strongly condemn their words as well, which raises the question: Do they rightly understand the First Amendment and the oft-cited “separation of church and state?” (Incidentally, these words appear nowhere in our constitution or founding documents.)




4. The First Amendment was never intended to stamp out religious expression…it was designed to protect it. Statements by political leaders that acknowledge God, or champion religious freedom, do not constitute an “establishment” of a national religion, nor did similar statements from our founding fathers. The ongoing attempt to distort the First Amendment and use it as a sword against people of faith is abhorrent and must be condemned.

5. …this campaign against Christianity that has been waged on our nation. The Ten Commandments once graced the halls of many public buildings; now they are targeted for removal. Public prayer was once expected and appreciated; now it is mocked and frequently banned from public events, with perhaps a few exceptions for hollow words offered up to a nameless “higher power” of our own creation. The Bible was once taught in public schools and esteemed in the public square; now our societal devotion to Scripture has been replaced by the gods of sexuality, self-fulfillment, and salvation through socialism.” Do Religion and Morality Still Belong in Our Society?



What is the basis of this sea change in America?

The explanation is the injection of neo-Marxism into the society by Joseph Stalin’s pal, our 32nd President.

MOST of the 10 commandments are UNconstitutional.

and we DO have separation of church and state.

our government is secular
our laws are MOSTLY based on logic and reason, NOT any church or religion.

non-religious people have the same rights and privileges as any religious person.

Now.....you say "no separation of church and state"

I notice you didn't tell the WHOLE truth...

you managed (you are good at misleading and deceiving) to say "no separation of church and state" when what you REALLY mean is "our country IS a CHRISTIAN NATION and ONLY CHRISTIANS have rights."

Because you certainly DO BELIEVE that the ISLAMIC church is "separate from the state". Just like you believe NO church has any part of our country or government other than YOUR church.

And of course, in tune with your desire to establish a christian theocracy here you will obviously implement laws against ......well.....everybody on your list of enemies!.

"we are a christian nation! only christians can run for public office!
only christians can teach in schools, only christians can serve in the military, only christians can vote"

gays will be outlawed
atheism will be banned
feminists, liberals, democrats will be given a short period to "convert" but after that will begin the systematic process of eliminating freedom, free speech and ultimately making the USA a carbon copy russia.

Every time you post "there is no separation of church and state" you are declaring;

"I MUST WIN and MY ENEMIES MUST LOSE! I can NOT live a country where we all have the same rights!"

Show me in the constitution or the bill of rights where it says ANYTHING about separation of church and state. Liar. The OP is not talking about the ten commandments troll.

First amendment

And under the Bible

Give unto God, what is God's

And give unto Caesar, what is his....

Is Christ saying there is a separation of church and State, no?

 

[alang1216]

Yea but it's like the right to a fair trial. The constitution doesnt actually say that, but it sets it up for the accused to have one.
The first amendment does this to the concept of "separation if church and state" as well.
What I mean by that is, the govt cannot mandate religious dogma or doctrine.

My understanding is that the government cannot have a government religion or tell us what religion to practice.

That is exactly what the first amendment states.

In no way does is deny the influence of religion as a guide, nor prevent any citizen from having a religion....any religion....or none at all.

In theory maybe, in practice, not so much. Many laws in this country, at the Federal, State, and local levels come from one religion (almost always Christianity) and are imposed on adherents of other religions. Should any other religion try to do the same, there is a massive outcry from those same Christians. A (soft) tyranny of the majority we non-Christians don't like but have learned to live with.

 

[my2¢]

The separation of church and state was an important element to our nation's founders. Much like political freedom in that era there was a struggle for religious freedom. It was a time when our founding fathers, in particular James Madison, fought against the requirement that office holders in Virginia be members of the Anglican church, legal restrictions placed on evangelicals, the jailing of Baptist ministers for preaching without a license, having the state legislator responsible for creating new parishes, etc.

"I flatter myself we have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind." James Madison in writing to Thomas Jefferson who authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Justice Black, appointed by FDR, wrote the majority decision that created the "separation church/state" in the late 40's. Black was also a KKK member who hated Papists among other ethnic groups. The intent was to stop the proliferation of religious based (mostly Catholic) schools. There is no mention of Church/State in the Constitution and democrats relied on an obscure letter by Jefferson. Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property while federal hypocrites make a point of placing the biggest tree they can find on federal property every year.

I'm curious.

Every conservative on this board
every conservative I read in the opinion pages
every conservative who writes a book

SPINS the truth...

misleads, deceives....

Generally by mis-representing the ACTUAL truth or refusing to include information/facts that are damaging to their intended biased perspective


So...

"Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school"

can you show any evidence of this?
or is it a lie?

isn't the real truth that NO RELIGION is allowed to be promoted on school property?


isn't the REAL TRUTH that conservative christians have TRIED to proselytize to everyone elses children? attempting to use OUR schools to brainwash OUR kids? so we stopped you and now you and mad and make up lies.....?




" and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property"

There could be exceptions that you can, no doubt, point me to, but isn't this mostly a "if you put up displays for ONE religion then you must allow ANY religion to put up displays" thing?

and speaking of christmas trees......


Christmas in Puritan New England - Wikipedia



"Christmas celebrations in New England were illegal during parts of the 17th century, and were culturally taboo or rare in former Puritan colonies from foundation until the mid-18th century. The Puritan community found no scriptural justification for celebrating Christmas, and associated such celebrations with paganism and idolatry. Indeed, Christmas celebrations in 17th-century England involved Carnival-like behavior including role inversion, heavy drinking, and sexual liberties.[1]

The earliest years of the Plymouth Colony were troubled with non-Puritans attempting to make merry, and Governor William Bradford was forced to reprimand offenders. English laws suppressing the holiday were enacted in the English Interregnum, but repealed late in the 17th century. However, the Puritan view of Christmas and its celebration had gained cultural ascendancy in New England, and Christmas celebrations continued to be discouraged despite being legal. "

so if you think we are "christian nation" because the puritans were christians then you HAVE TO OPPOSE the celebrating of christmas.

unless you don't mind CHANGING a TRADITION that you disagree with?

"every conservative who writes a book

SPINS the truth..."



Can you name several conservatives whose books you have read?

 

[PoliticalChic]

…contrary to what you learned in government school, it is a fabrication designed to advance the Marxist view of religion. Such is what our schools have become.




1.Remember the aphorism “Fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice, shame on me.”
Clearly, an earlier generation knew not to trust liars after they are caught once. The huge number who still vote Democrat indicates that that understanding is no longer the case…..they keep playing Charlie Brown missing Lucy’s football.



2. The Democrats/Secularists behave as though America was founded on keeping religion out of government, out of the public arena and out of civil discourse.
The very opposite is true.
And, by ‘religion,’ I mean the guidance of the Judeo-Christian faith, that of our Founders.

If no errors can be found in this thread, then consider it proven that the Left/Democrats/Progressives have lied about said separation, and those who still vote for this iniquitous bunch simply what Aquinas called 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.




3. “The Department of Justice is “ready to fight for the most cherished of all our American liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.” - Attorney General William Barr
These words send the Left into a fit!
… one can only assume that if our founding fathers were here today, the mainstream media and far-left activists would strongly condemn their words as well, which raises the question: Do they rightly understand the First Amendment and the oft-cited “separation of church and state?” (Incidentally, these words appear nowhere in our constitution or founding documents.)




4. The First Amendment was never intended to stamp out religious expression…it was designed to protect it. Statements by political leaders that acknowledge God, or champion religious freedom, do not constitute an “establishment” of a national religion, nor did similar statements from our founding fathers. The ongoing attempt to distort the First Amendment and use it as a sword against people of faith is abhorrent and must be condemned.

5. …this campaign against Christianity that has been waged on our nation. The Ten Commandments once graced the halls of many public buildings; now they are targeted for removal. Public prayer was once expected and appreciated; now it is mocked and frequently banned from public events, with perhaps a few exceptions for hollow words offered up to a nameless “higher power” of our own creation. The Bible was once taught in public schools and esteemed in the public square; now our societal devotion to Scripture has been replaced by the gods of sexuality, self-fulfillment, and salvation through socialism.” Do Religion and Morality Still Belong in Our Society?



What is the basis of this sea change in America?

The explanation is the injection of neo-Marxism into the society by Joseph Stalin’s pal, our 32nd President.

MOST of the 10 commandments are UNconstitutional.

and we DO have separation of church and state.

our government is secular
our laws are MOSTLY based on logic and reason, NOT any church or religion.

non-religious people have the same rights and privileges as any religious person.

Now.....you say "no separation of church and state"

I notice you didn't tell the WHOLE truth...

you managed (you are good at misleading and deceiving) to say "no separation of church and state" when what you REALLY mean is "our country IS a CHRISTIAN NATION and ONLY CHRISTIANS have rights."

Because you certainly DO BELIEVE that the ISLAMIC church is "separate from the state". Just like you believe NO church has any part of our country or government other than YOUR church.

And of course, in tune with your desire to establish a christian theocracy here you will obviously implement laws against ......well.....everybody on your list of enemies!.

"we are a christian nation! only christians can run for public office!
only christians can teach in schools, only christians can serve in the military, only christians can vote"

gays will be outlawed
atheism will be banned
feminists, liberals, democrats will be given a short period to "convert" but after that will begin the systematic process of eliminating freedom, free speech and ultimately making the USA a carbon copy russia.

Every time you post "there is no separation of church and state" you are declaring;

"I MUST WIN and MY ENEMIES MUST LOSE! I can NOT live a country where we all have the same rights!"

Show me in the constitution or the bill of rights where it says ANYTHING about separation of church and state. Liar. The OP is not talking about the ten commandments troll.

First amendment

And under the Bible

Give unto God, what is God's

And give unto Caesar, what is his....

Is Christ saying there is a separation of church and State, no?

"Is Christ saying there is a separation of church and State, no?"

Soooo.....your misapprehension is that this is a theocracy???

 

[anynameyouwish]

Yea but it's like the right to a fair trial. The constitution doesnt actually say that, but it sets it up for the accused to have one.
The first amendment does this to the concept of "separation if church and state" as well.
What I mean by that is, the govt cannot mandate religious dogma or doctrine.

My understanding is that the government cannot have a government religion or tell us what religion to practice.

That is exactly what the first amendment states.

In no way does is deny the influence of religion as a guide, nor prevent any citizen from having a religion....any religion....or none at all.

In theory maybe, in practice, not so much. Many laws in this country, at the Federal, State, and local levels come from one religion (almost always Christianity) and are imposed on adherents of other religions. Should any other religion try to do the same, there is a massive outcry from those same Christians. A (soft) tyranny of the majority we non-Christians don't like but have learned to live with.

"Many laws in this country, at the Federal, State, and local levels come from one religion (almost always Christianity) and are imposed on adherents of other religions."

I believe this USE TO BE true....(blue laws?)

but most of those laws were overturned (unconstitutional) and the ones remaining are mostly ignored.

I can't think of any actual laws that are religious based?

we can't exceed the speed limit
we must have a license to drive
we can't dump toxic waste in our rivers


?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yea but it's like the right to a fair trial. The constitution doesnt actually say that, but it sets it up for the accused to have one.
The first amendment does this to the concept of "separation if church and state" as well.
What I mean by that is, the govt cannot mandate religious dogma or doctrine.

My understanding is that the government cannot have a government religion or tell us what religion to practice.

That is exactly what the first amendment states.

In no way does is deny the influence of religion as a guide, nor prevent any citizen from having a religion....any religion....or none at all.

In theory maybe, in practice, not so much. Many laws in this country, at the Federal, State, and local levels come from one religion (almost always Christianity) and are imposed on adherents of other religions. Should any other religion try to do the same, there is a massive outcry from those same Christians. A (soft) tyranny of the majority we non-Christians don't like but have learned to live with.

Any such anti-religion laws can be traced to the 32nd President and his affection for Joseph Stalin, and his nomination of KKKer Hugo Black as his first Supreme Court pick.


. "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]




You didn't know that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The separation of church and state was an important element to our nation's founders. Much like political freedom in that era there was a struggle for religious freedom. It was a time when our founding fathers, in particular James Madison, fought against the requirement that office holders in Virginia be members of the Anglican church, legal restrictions placed on evangelicals, the jailing of Baptist ministers for preaching without a license, having the state legislator responsible for creating new parishes, etc.

"I flatter myself we have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind." James Madison in writing to Thomas Jefferson who authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786.​

You misunderstand.

The only belief as far as religion is concerned is not to remove it from the public arena, but simply to prevent any particular religion being imposed.

 

[TNHarley]

Yea but it's like the right to a fair trial. The constitution doesnt actually say that, but it sets it up for the accused to have one.
The first amendment does this to the concept of "separation if church and state" as well.
What I mean by that is, the govt cannot mandate religious dogma or doctrine.

My understanding is that the government cannot have a government religion or tell us what religion to practice.

That is exactly what the first amendment states.

In no way does is deny the influence of religion as a guide, nor prevent any citizen from having a religion....any religion....or none at all.

You cant establish laws based on doctrine.

 

[alang1216]

The explanation is the injection of neo-Marxism into the society by Joseph Stalin’s pal, our 32nd President.

FDR the globalist and his commie lesbo wife were enamored with Uncle Joe and the emerging Soviet Union. ...

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.

Nope, and a very clumsy rewrite of history. The Empire the Japanese built was very vulnerable and impossible to defend. The bigger it got the worse it would have been for them. Hitler on the other hand had a powerful army and air force and fighting a land war not nearly as vulnerable. If he defeated his only real enemy early in the war, the USSR, what army would be left to fight him? It was clearly in our interest to keep the Russians fighting OUR enemy for us.

 

[miketx]

The separation of church and state was an important element to our nation's founders. Much like political freedom in that era there was a struggle for religious freedom. It was a time when our founding fathers, in particular James Madison, fought against the requirement that office holders in Virginia be members of the Anglican church, legal restrictions placed on evangelicals, the jailing of Baptist ministers for preaching without a license, having the state legislator responsible for creating new parishes, etc.

"I flatter myself we have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind." James Madison in writing to Thomas Jefferson who authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786.​

Still can't show where it says anything about in the BoR or constitution.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Yea but it's like the right to a fair trial. The constitution doesnt actually say that, but it sets it up for the accused to have one.
The first amendment does this to the concept of "separation if church and state" as well.
What I mean by that is, the govt cannot mandate religious dogma or doctrine.

My understanding is that the government cannot have a government religion or tell us what religion to practice.

That is exactly what the first amendment states.

In no way does is deny the influence of religion as a guide, nor prevent any citizen from having a religion....any religion....or none at all.

You cant establish laws based on doctrine.

oh yes she can....

she wants to.....by "ant means necessary"...

she dreams of teh day w

The explanation is the injection of neo-Marxism into the society by Joseph Stalin’s pal, our 32nd President.

FDR the globalist and his commie lesbo wife were enamored with Uncle Joe and the emerging Soviet Union. ...

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.

Nope, and a very clumsy rewrite of history. The Empire the Japanese built was very vulnerable and impossible to defend. The bigger it got the worse it would have been for them. Hitler on the other hand had a powerful army and air force and fighting a land war not nearly as vulnerable. If he defeated his only real enemy early in the war, the USSR, what army would be left to fight him? It was clearly in our interest to keep the Russians fighting OUR enemy for us.

20 years ago I was watching a docu on POSTERS (from the early 1900's to that present day)

including political/military posters...

they showed US ANTI-RUSSIAN propaganda posters from the 1930s

"the russians are our enemies! we must be wary of them!"


Then they showed some PRO-RUSSIAN propaganda posters DURING the war (WWII, of course) at a point in which Russia and the US had become "allies"

"the russians are our FRIENDS! help the russians!"


They they showed some from AFTER the war and the russians had become our enemies again......

"the russians are our enemies! we must be wary of them!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

The explanation is the injection of neo-Marxism into the society by Joseph Stalin’s pal, our 32nd President.

FDR the globalist and his commie lesbo wife were enamored with Uncle Joe and the emerging Soviet Union. ...

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.

Nope, and a very clumsy rewrite of history. The Empire the Japanese built was very vulnerable and impossible to defend. The bigger it got the worse it would have been for them. Hitler on the other hand had a powerful army and air force and fighting a land war not nearly as vulnerable. If he defeated his only real enemy early in the war, the USSR, what army would be left to fight him? It was clearly in our interest to keep the Russians fighting OUR enemy for us.

'A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crime' is the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert of the time said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR."The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137




Roosevelt was a liar in support of his pal, Joseph Stalin.

You, on the other hand, are simply a fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yea but it's like the right to a fair trial. The constitution doesnt actually say that, but it sets it up for the accused to have one.
The first amendment does this to the concept of "separation if church and state" as well.
What I mean by that is, the govt cannot mandate religious dogma or doctrine.

My understanding is that the government cannot have a government religion or tell us what religion to practice.

That is exactly what the first amendment states.

In no way does is deny the influence of religion as a guide, nor prevent any citizen from having a religion....any religion....or none at all.

You cant establish laws based on doctrine.

oh yes she can....

she wants to.....by "ant means necessary"...

she dreams of teh day w

The explanation is the injection of neo-Marxism into the society by Joseph Stalin’s pal, our 32nd President.

FDR the globalist and his commie lesbo wife were enamored with Uncle Joe and the emerging Soviet Union. ...

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.

Nope, and a very clumsy rewrite of history. The Empire the Japanese built was very vulnerable and impossible to defend. The bigger it got the worse it would have been for them. Hitler on the other hand had a powerful army and air force and fighting a land war not nearly as vulnerable. If he defeated his only real enemy early in the war, the USSR, what army would be left to fight him? It was clearly in our interest to keep the Russians fighting OUR enemy for us.

20 years ago I was watching a docu on POSTERS (from the early 1900's to that present day)

including political/military posters...

they showed US ANTI-RUSSIAN propaganda posters from the 1930s

"the russians are our enemies! we must be wary of them!"


Then they showed some PRO-RUSSIAN propaganda posters DURING the war (WWII, of course) at a point in which Russia and the US had become "allies"

"the russians are our FRIENDS! help the russians!"


They they showed some from AFTER the war and the russians had become our enemies again......

"the russians are our enemies! we must be wary of them!"

Sooo....you're admitting that you were lying about reading conservative authors....


Have you ever read any book???


Which ones influenced your geopolitical outlook?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Earlier, we were fortunate enough to have an indoctrinated Liberal provide the secularist view:

“MOST of the 10 commandments are UNconstitutional.

and we DO have separation of church and state.

our government is secular
our laws are MOSTLY based on logic and reason, NOT any church or religion.”
There Is No Separation Of Church And State




Of course, it is false, no matter how strongly simpletons come out of government school believing same.




"Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter.

But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue."
Melanie Phillips


" When morality became privatized, the questions “what is right” became “what is right for me.” Feelings... became the arbiters of behavior. Rather than traditional taboos, only religiously based moral judgment was deemed taboo. The harm caused to abandoned spouses or children by adultery or desertion- harm that can be objectively documented in rates of ill health, depression, educational underachievement, criminal behavior- was all but ignored, while damage done to people’s feelings by condemnation of their adultery or desertion was considered unforgiveable."
"The World Turned Upside Down," Melanie Phillips, chapter 14

 

[BrokeLoser]

Justice Black, appointed by FDR, wrote the majority decision that created the "separation church/state" in the late 40's. Black was also a KKK member who hated Papists among other ethnic groups. The intent was to stop the proliferation of religious based (mostly Catholic) schools. There is no mention of Church/State in the Constitution and democrats relied on an obscure letter by Jefferson. Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property while federal hypocrites make a point of placing the biggest tree they can find on federal property every year.

I'm curious.

Every conservative on this board
every conservative I read in the opinion pages
every conservative who writes a book

SPINS the truth...

misleads, deceives....

Generally by mis-representing the ACTUAL truth or refusing to include information/facts that are damaging to their intended biased perspective


So...

"Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school"

can you show any evidence of this?
or is it a lie?

isn't the real truth that NO RELIGION is allowed to be promoted on school property?


isn't the REAL TRUTH that conservative christians have TRIED to proselytize to everyone elses children? attempting to use OUR schools to brainwash OUR kids? so we stopped you and now you and mad and make up lies.....?




" and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property"

There could be exceptions that you can, no doubt, point me to, but isn't this mostly a "if you put up displays for ONE religion then you must allow ANY religion to put up displays" thing?

and speaking of christmas trees......


Christmas in Puritan New England - Wikipedia



"Christmas celebrations in New England were illegal during parts of the 17th century, and were culturally taboo or rare in former Puritan colonies from foundation until the mid-18th century. The Puritan community found no scriptural justification for celebrating Christmas, and associated such celebrations with paganism and idolatry. Indeed, Christmas celebrations in 17th-century England involved Carnival-like behavior including role inversion, heavy drinking, and sexual liberties.[1]

The earliest years of the Plymouth Colony were troubled with non-Puritans attempting to make merry, and Governor William Bradford was forced to reprimand offenders. English laws suppressing the holiday were enacted in the English Interregnum, but repealed late in the 17th century. However, the Puritan view of Christmas and its celebration had gained cultural ascendancy in New England, and Christmas celebrations continued to be discouraged despite being legal. "

so if you think we are "christian nation" because the puritans were christians then you HAVE TO OPPOSE the celebrating of christmas.

unless you don't mind CHANGING a TRADITION that you disagree with?

“isn't the REAL TRUTH that conservative christians have TRIED to proselytize to everyone elses children? attempting to use OUR schools to brainwash OUR kids? so we stopped you and now you and mad and make up lies.....?”

Yep, conservatives used to “brainwash” your kids to the point they became decent, moral, respectful, accountable, productive, loyal, law abiding, patriotic...etc etc. That sounds terrible doesn’t it...it makes much better sense to use our schools to indoctrinate future Leftists....coax them into becoming indecent, immoral, unaccountable, gender confused, promiscuous, homosexual, atheist, ...etc etc.
I’m certain you’ve complained of this indoctrination...link?
Answer me this; how many school shootings have taken place at a private Christian school?

 

[alang1216]

Yea but it's like the right to a fair trial. The constitution doesnt actually say that, but it sets it up for the accused to have one.
The first amendment does this to the concept of "separation if church and state" as well.
What I mean by that is, the govt cannot mandate religious dogma or doctrine.

My understanding is that the government cannot have a government religion or tell us what religion to practice.

That is exactly what the first amendment states.

In no way does is deny the influence of religion as a guide, nor prevent any citizen from having a religion....any religion....or none at all.

In theory maybe, in practice, not so much. Many laws in this country, at the Federal, State, and local levels come from one religion (almost always Christianity) and are imposed on adherents of other religions. Should any other religion try to do the same, there is a massive outcry from those same Christians. A (soft) tyranny of the majority we non-Christians don't like but have learned to live with.

"Many laws in this country, at the Federal, State, and local levels come from one religion (almost always Christianity) and are imposed on adherents of other religions."

I believe this USE TO BE true....(blue laws?)

but most of those laws were overturned (unconstitutional) and the ones remaining are mostly ignored.

I can't think of any actual laws that are religious based?

we can't exceed the speed limit
we must have a license to drive
we can't dump toxic waste in our rivers


?

I think a lot of our morality laws are rooted in Christian morality: anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion comes to mind. There was a time when ID/creationism was required to be taught in schools (since repealed I think).

 

[rightwinger]

…contrary to what you learned in government school, it is a fabrication designed to advance the Marxist view of religion. Such is what our schools have become.




1.Remember the aphorism “Fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice, shame on me.”
Clearly, an earlier generation knew not to trust liars after they are caught once. The huge number who still vote Democrat indicates that that understanding is no longer the case…..they keep playing Charlie Brown missing Lucy’s football.



2. The Democrats/Secularists behave as though America was founded on keeping religion out of government, out of the public arena and out of civil discourse.
The very opposite is true.
And, by ‘religion,’ I mean the guidance of the Judeo-Christian faith, that of our Founders.

If no errors can be found in this thread, then consider it proven that the Left/Democrats/Progressives have lied about said separation, and those who still vote for this iniquitous bunch simply what Aquinas called 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.




3. “The Department of Justice is “ready to fight for the most cherished of all our American liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.” - Attorney General William Barr
These words send the Left into a fit!
"… one can only assume that if our founding fathers were here today, the mainstream media and far-left activists would strongly condemn their words as well, which raises the question: Do they rightly understand the First Amendment and the oft-cited “separation of church and state?” (Incidentally, these words appear nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents.)




4. The First Amendment was never intended to stamp out religious expression…it was designed to protect it. Statements by political leaders that acknowledge God, or champion religious freedom, do not constitute an “establishment” of a national religion, nor did similar statements from our founding fathers. The ongoing attempt to distort the First Amendment and use it as a sword against people of faith is abhorrent and must be condemned.

5. …this campaign against Christianity that has been waged on our nation. The Ten Commandments once graced the halls of many public buildings; now they are targeted for removal. Public prayer was once expected and appreciated; now it is mocked and frequently banned from public events, with perhaps a few exceptions for hollow words offered up to a nameless “higher power” of our own creation. The Bible was once taught in public schools and esteemed in the public square; now our societal devotion to Scripture has been replaced by the gods of sexuality, self-fulfillment, and salvation through socialism.” Do Religion and Morality Still Belong in Our Society?



What is the basis of this sea change in America?

The explanation is the injection of neo-Marxism into the society by Joseph Stalin’s pal, our 32nd President.

Of course there is

Our founders wanted it that way and the courts have affirmed it

Only conservative nut jobs feel differently

Again liar, show me where it says it.

First Amendment and subsequent court decisions affirming it

You lose

 

[PoliticalChic]

Justice Black, appointed by FDR, wrote the majority decision that created the "separation church/state" in the late 40's. Black was also a KKK member who hated Papists among other ethnic groups. The intent was to stop the proliferation of religious based (mostly Catholic) schools. There is no mention of Church/State in the Constitution and democrats relied on an obscure letter by Jefferson. Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property while federal hypocrites make a point of placing the biggest tree they can find on federal property every year.

I'm curious.

Every conservative on this board
every conservative I read in the opinion pages
every conservative who writes a book

SPINS the truth...

misleads, deceives....

Generally by mis-representing the ACTUAL truth or refusing to include information/facts that are damaging to their intended biased perspective


So...

"Through the years mostly democrats expanded the concept to the point that a kid can get arrested for carrying a Bible to school"

can you show any evidence of this?
or is it a lie?

isn't the real truth that NO RELIGION is allowed to be promoted on school property?


isn't the REAL TRUTH that conservative christians have TRIED to proselytize to everyone elses children? attempting to use OUR schools to brainwash OUR kids? so we stopped you and now you and mad and make up lies.....?




" and small municipalities would be threatened with law suits that would bankrupt them if they dared put a Christmas tree on public property"

There could be exceptions that you can, no doubt, point me to, but isn't this mostly a "if you put up displays for ONE religion then you must allow ANY religion to put up displays" thing?

and speaking of christmas trees......


Christmas in Puritan New England - Wikipedia



"Christmas celebrations in New England were illegal during parts of the 17th century, and were culturally taboo or rare in former Puritan colonies from foundation until the mid-18th century. The Puritan community found no scriptural justification for celebrating Christmas, and associated such celebrations with paganism and idolatry. Indeed, Christmas celebrations in 17th-century England involved Carnival-like behavior including role inversion, heavy drinking, and sexual liberties.[1]

The earliest years of the Plymouth Colony were troubled with non-Puritans attempting to make merry, and Governor William Bradford was forced to reprimand offenders. English laws suppressing the holiday were enacted in the English Interregnum, but repealed late in the 17th century. However, the Puritan view of Christmas and its celebration had gained cultural ascendancy in New England, and Christmas celebrations continued to be discouraged despite being legal. "

so if you think we are "christian nation" because the puritans were christians then you HAVE TO OPPOSE the celebrating of christmas.

unless you don't mind CHANGING a TRADITION that you disagree with?

“isn't the REAL TRUTH that conservative christians have TRIED to proselytize to everyone elses children? attempting to use OUR schools to brainwash OUR kids? so we stopped you and now you and mad and make up lies.....?”

Yep, conservatives used to “brainwash” your kids to the point they became decent, moral, respectful, accountable, productive, loyal, law abiding, patriotic...etc etc. That sounds terrible doesn’t it...it makes much better sense to use our schools to indoctrinate future Leftists....coax them into becoming indecent, immoral, unaccountable, gender confused, promiscuous, homosexual, atheist, ...etc etc.
I’m certain you’ve complained of this indoctrination...link?
Answer me this; how many school shootings have taken place at a private Christian school?

Any brainwashing is by government schooling, and in the very opposite direction.


Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing! Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books. Most would say that they had been ‘brainwashed.” Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas. Brainwashed?
Of course not! Liberals are open-minded!!! The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.
Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.
Dennis Prager


Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.
a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.

b.