Separation between church and state

[Fatstrat]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So what do you want?

It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.  

"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution.  There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States.  There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19...  There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies.  Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.

Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.  

We are a nation of mostly Christians?  Sure. Sounds great.  How does that change the status quo?  Do we need Roseries in schools?  Crosses in every courtroom?

I don't know how else to say it.  What's your point?  What about the status quo do you want changed?

Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So what do you want?

It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.  

"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution.  There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States.  There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19...  There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies.  Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.

Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.  

We are a nation of mostly Christians?  Sure. Sounds great.  How does that change the status quo?  Do we need Roseries in schools?  Crosses in every courtroom?

I don't know how else to say it.  What's your point?  What about the status quo do you want changed?

Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.

Wow, you are now sounding like a real kook.

Who said 88 percent of Americans think this is a Christian Nation?  I said 88 percent of Americans are Christian as done by a survey.

Once again, you're parsing terms and phrases to support your argument, and you're not winning.  I was born at night, but not last night.

[Fatstrat]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So what do you want?

It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.  

"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution.  There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States.  There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19...  There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies.  Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.

Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.  

We are a nation of mostly Christians?  Sure. Sounds great.  How does that change the status quo?  Do we need Roseries in schools?  Crosses in every courtroom?

I don't know how else to say it.  What's your point?  What about the status quo do you want changed?

Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.

Wow, you are now sounding like a real kook.

Who said 88 percent of Americans think this is a Christian Nation?  I said 88 percent of Americans are Christian as done by a survey.

Once again, you're parsing terms and phrases to support your argument, and you're not winning.  I was born at night, but not last night.

    Of course I'm winning. That's why you feel the need to resort to insults.
Both sides are straw manning here ( I doubt you know what that means so look it up). []

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So what do you want?

It is very hard to debate anything when you ignore major issues I raise and just reiterate your talking points.  

"Freedom of Speech" is nowhere in the Constitution.  There is no right to privacy. No where does it apply the Bill of Rights to States.  There is no authority for medicare, medicaid, section 8, title 19...  There is no clause of the majority of executive agencies.  Again, if you are gearing your argument to the fact that "those words don't appear" then we had better tear down the government we have and start over.

Please, just tell me what you are trying to say.  

We are a nation of mostly Christians?  Sure. Sounds great.  How does that change the status quo?  Do we need Roseries in schools?  Crosses in every courtroom?

I don't know how else to say it.  What's your point?  What about the status quo do you want changed?

Interesting that you say I want things changed. I thought it was the other way around. I'm one of the 88% of American's who believed the U.S. is a Christian nation and have absolutely no problem the religious values this nation has had for 200+ years.
Looks to me like you folks are the complainers.

Wow, you are now sounding like a real kook.

Who said 88 percent of Americans think this is a Christian Nation?  I said 88 percent of Americans are Christian as done by a survey.

Once again, you're parsing terms and phrases to support your argument, and you're not winning.  I was born at night, but not last night.

    Of course I'm winning. That's why you feel the need to resort to insults.
Both sides are straw manning here ( I doubt you know what that means so look it up). []

Don't need to; you've been fed talking points from Gweed, it sounds like.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

Of course I'm winning. That's why you feel the need to resort to insults.
Both sides are straw manning here ( I doubt you know what that means so look it up). []

The only thing you've won is an all expenses paid trip back to grade school English.

[Fatstrat]

Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!

Also known as "I've had my donkey whipped and I'm taking my ball with me".

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!

FWIW, I am anything BUT a liberal. You lost this one fair and square on your own merits.

[cannon_fodder]

Alright then.  So we are in agreement.  The current system of separation of church and state works just fine:

Abortion being legal because civil authorities determined it to be so is just fine. A ban on singular religious icons in public places. No prayer in schools. Equal access to all religions on public spaces.  A movement towards state recognized gay civil unions of some sort as well adoptions and status as a protected class as increased open homosexuality in general.  Loss of tax status for churches that "preach politics" as part of their services.  No litmus test for office (non-Christians can serve, be sworn in on the Koran, etc.).  The right for military men to be buried under the religious icon they see fitting (even if it is a Wikkan symbol). Basically, all the elements that enable a secular nation to thrive.

I thought you had a problem with those things and wanted to see them changed.  I mistook you for someone who wanted to see more church mingled with state.  Prayer in schools.  A ban on gay marriage because your God(s) tell you to (interestingly enough, Sodomy didn't refer to gay sex until about 1297).

This discussion has been totally worthless if you agree that a firm separation of church and state as we currently work to enforce is pivotal to a secular state.

quote:Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!

1. Non-religious does not equal liberal.  The religious right has attempted to hijack the entire conservative agenda.   And it has served us real well too (other than losing both House, the Senate, and the presidency as well as many state legislatures and governors and, of course, not getting anything done when they had power).  Actually, back in the day it was a mark of pride for conservatives to hold their civil and religious beliefs separate.

2. Intellectual discussion?  Your entire argument was based on repeating talking points, shifting away from previous points that had been destroyed, and ignoring items you didn't want to address.  You're grand thesis is that because most Americans self identify as Christian we are a Christian Nation.  Which is proofing your prime thesis by creating a definition for it.  And you based that declaration off of a satirical pie chart.  

High brow stuff there.  I repeatedly attempted to get you to identify what out wanted, what you were arguing for.  You finally declare that you are arguing in favor of the status quo, declare a victory, and leave.

3. and also... don't argue about who "won" a discussion on the internet.  It's kind of sad.    

The point isn't to win against an anonymous user ID on the internet, it is merely to engage in a discussion to attempt to broaden perspectives.  I don't think I will ever change peoples minds about religion, but maybe I can make them look at things from other perspectives.  Or at least understand that there are other perspectives.


Anyway, sorry you took your ball and went home.  Which means you won't read this anyway...

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I don't think I will ever change peoples minds about religion, but maybe I can make them look at things from other perspectives.  Or at least understand that there are other perspectives.

People's minds can be changed about religion, but only through humor.

People laugh and come clean about the foibles of their particular brand of spirituality. Not that I'm one to try to change a religious person's mind, unless their mind is set on foisting their religion upon me. There are enough problems in the world for me to worry about to waste my time being concerned with some people who worship an invisible bearded guy in the sky, again, so long as they leave me out of their collective hallucination.

I say that entirely without judgement, by the way. There's nothing wrong with hallucinating behind closed doors.

[RecycleMichael]

"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."

Richard Jeni (On going to war over religion)

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

Yet another off topic personal insult. Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!

I would advise that you read cannonfodder's response. And I have this to add ...

Part of the purpose of this forum (and America in general) is the free flow of ideas -- a most nonpartisan concept, I might add.

If you take a stance, you are expected to defend it with facts or well-reasoned opinions. Some of the retorts might be painful. You might still get some disagreement afterward. But at at least you'll gain some measure of respect.

But if you continually duck the issues that are brought up, then both liberals and conservatives, as they already have, will conclude that you either cannot or will not defend your ideas. They will conclude that your convictions are as thin as weathered tissue paper. Thus, your credibility will be damaged.

Conclusion: If you're going to come to this forum, you'd better be on your toes and use your brain to defend yourself, instead of repeating simplistic mantras.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I heard Marshall Brewing Co. in bottles is available!

[Fatstrat]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Alright then.  So we are in agreement.  The current system of separation of church and state works just fine:

Abortion being legal because civil authorities determined it to be so is just fine. A ban on singular religious icons in public places. No prayer in schools. Equal access to all religions on public spaces.  A movement towards state recognized gay civil unions of some sort as well adoptions and status as a protected class as increased open homosexuality in general.  Loss of tax status for churches that "preach politics" as part of their services.  No litmus test for office (non-Christians can serve, be sworn in on the Koran, etc.).  The right for military men to be buried under the religious icon they see fitting (even if it is a Wikkan symbol). Basically, all the elements that enable a secular nation to thrive.

I thought you had a problem with those things and wanted to see them changed.  I mistook you for someone who wanted to see more church mingled with state.  Prayer in schools.  A ban on gay marriage because your God(s) tell you to (interestingly enough, Sodomy didn't refer to gay sex until about 1297).

This discussion has been totally worthless if you agree that a firm separation of church and state as we currently work to enforce is pivotal to a secular state.

quote:Typical liberal reaction to a lost argument.
Well so much for friendly intelligent discussion on this forum. So long, it's been FUN!

1. Non-religious does not equal liberal.  The religious right has attempted to hijack the entire conservative agenda.   And it has served us real well too (other than losing both House, the Senate, and the presidency as well as many state legislatures and governors and, of course, not getting anything done when they had power).  Actually, back in the day it was a mark of pride for conservatives to hold their civil and religious beliefs separate.

2. Intellectual discussion?  Your entire argument was based on repeating talking points, shifting away from previous points that had been destroyed, and ignoring items you didn't want to address.  You're grand thesis is that because most Americans self identify as Christian we are a Christian Nation.  Which is proofing your prime thesis by creating a definition for it.  And you based that declaration off of a satirical pie chart.  

High brow stuff there.  I repeatedly attempted to get you to identify what out wanted, what you were arguing for.  You finally declare that you are arguing in favor of the status quo, declare a victory, and leave.

3. and also... don't argue about who "won" a discussion on the internet.  It's kind of sad.    

The point isn't to win against an anonymous user ID on the internet, it is merely to engage in a discussion to attempt to broaden perspectives.  I don't think I will ever change peoples minds about religion, but maybe I can make them look at things from other perspectives.  Or at least understand that there are other perspectives.


Anyway, sorry you took your ball and went home.  Which means you won't read this anyway...

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle Black. You principly base your position on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists and somehow equate that to Constitutional law.
I base mine on Washington's Farewell Address to the nation.  
I will concede that as with any group of people, the founders were a mixed lot of both hot and cold towards religion. And that they all agreed that the U.S. should have no mandated state religion. And there has been NONE.
You accuse me of straw manning my points, all while you have done nothing less yourself.
I have based my entire argument on 1 speech by the "father of our nation"
And you have absolutely rejected and refused to consider them at face value. Instead attempting to redirect focus on minor theoretical arguments that Washington wasn't a Christian because he didn't take communion or mention Jesus by name in any known document.
I have his words. You have theory that fits your position.
Washington said that religion was an "indispensable support" of the new nation AND it's government, that "both the pious man AND politician" should recognize. And it is quite clear that he meant that the Government should NOT be free from religious influence.
And by your own graph, we see that the U.S., after 230+ years of immigration, is STILL 88% Christian.And I think any reasonable person could therefore strongly suspect, that at the time of it's founding, the vast majority of U.S. citizens were Christians. And that it was the Christian religion Washington was referring to. And while this should not be taken as being of pro govt. mandated religion. It certainly proves that Washington believed that in govt of the people, that religion, which in this case is certainly Christianity, should be an important part.
And therefore, the absolute separation of church and state position just doesn't fly.

[Townsend]

AWWW, it missed us