Separation between church and state

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

It's like if you keep telling yourself something that is at best a shady truth, you begin to believe it.

Not surprising it came back, though.

[Fatstrat]

So anyone who disagrees w/you is an "it". You hypocrites cry about tolerance and then are the least tolerant people on the planet.
Hos, you are IMO a moron. You haven't contributed one thought to this discussion other than your toadie parroting of Cannon Fodders points. If brains were dynamite, I doubt if you could blow your F'ing nose. At least CF has the guts and brains to attempt an intelligent discussion.
You people can take this Liberal filled forum and shove it to some other corner of the internet because I really do not care for it.


[ You are free to discuss whatever viewpoint you like.  You are free to in fact mock this forum or assign it political ideology.  You are not free to do so in a vulgar manner.  

This thread is now on an amazingly short leash and will be locked if further insults or profanity ensue by any party.

- Moderator]

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

So anyone who disagrees w/you is an "it". You hypocrites cry about tolerance and then are the least tolerant people on the planet.
Hos, you are IMO a moron. You haven't contributed one thought to this discussion other than your toadie parroting of Cannon Fodders points. If brains were dynamite, I doubt if you could blow your F'ing nose. At least CF has the guts and brains to attempt an intelligent discussion.
You people can take this Liberal filled forum and shove it up your donkey.

Oh noes, we pushed the button!

Calling you an 'it' is more a by product of you not producing, at the very least, your real first name in your profile, unless PMand is your first name.

If you're a man, would you rather me call you 'her', or vice versa?

And when it comes to intelligent discussion, I don't think you'd be one to talk. You're quick to call me stupid, but who provided you with your '88 percent' statistic, which was as easy as using Google.

Go back to FreeRepublic or wherever it is you came from, since you obviously hold a contempt for anyone more liberal than your conservative talking points.

mild insult removed

[xx(]

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

You people can take this Liberal filled forum and shove it to some other corner of the internet...

Bye.

[Cats Cats Cats]

This gets kind of tiring hearing the same two arguments on the same thing.  You can just read a book to get the same point.

[cannon_fodder]

1) I thought you took your ball and went home?

2) We have gone over Washington ad naseum.  You are using 3 select sentences to show what the mans intention for religion in society was.  I've gone beyond those 3 lines and read other things.

For arguments sake, Washington was a pious man past all others.  So what?  One mans personal beliefs are not important, having a fervent religious beliefs says nothing of his stance of religion in government.  Washington was a Christian who thought religion was needed for morality, therefor he wanted a Christian Nation.

So was he too stupid to put that in writing or what?  (You'll no doubt ignore this 3rd incarnation of this question as you did the previous 2)

3) I am not primarily basing my notion on a single letter from Jefferson (as you base your argument on one paragraph from Washington). I listed a litany of founder quotes.  As well as the Constitution, treaties, and constitutional case law.

I cite a treaty, you call out Washington.  I talk about 10 other founders, you talk about 3 lines from Washington address.  I reference the ability to better articulate a Christian Nation in the Constitution, and you remind me that Washington once said...If you fail to grasp the work I have put in attempting to discuss this and the litany of sources I have referenced, then why should I bother continuing?

4) I am not pretending Jefferson's writings are constitutional law.  I am basing my constitutional law knowledge on 6 hours of constitutional law graduate credit, research in the area, and limited practice in the field of constitutional law.  If you want to stack resumes on ConLaw knowledge, lets get to it.  But don't pretend I'm extrapolating (read making up) my contentions.

5)

quote:I have [Washington's] words. You have theory that fits your position.

Horse being beaten.  It's dead.  Still being beaten.

6) So you are not OK with the status quo as you previously stated?  If we are a Christian Nation the things previously discussed should be banned and punishable by stoning.  If you are not satisfied with the status quo do you retract your previous statement, and in that instance, what would you like to see done?  (you'll ignore these questions again)




I really do enjoy discussing topics.  But I am frustrated by the fact that you refuse to acknowledge any of my arguments and repeat the same mantra over and over again (most people are Christians, Washington was a Christian).  PLEASE, for the love of your Christian God(s), what are you trying to say?  

Do you like the current separation of Church and State system or not?  Either way, why/how would you change it?

If you don't really understand how things work at the moment, let me know and I will hotlink the most relevant case law on monuments, prayer in schools, etc.    I'm not trying to talk over you or show that my side is right because of education, I just don't know how else to make this discussion worthwhile any longer.  A discussion that is just a repetition of ideology is of no use.

Sorry if I sounded harsh, you seem intelligent but just aren't discussing this very well.

[RecycleMichael]

Thank you madam (or mister) moderator.

[Moderator]

I do not enjoy shutting down discussions.  I understand any discussion on religion can be heated and am happy that it is contained in this thread as such things can spread to unassociated threads.  I am reluctant to shut it down as it would likely reemerge in a new form.

However, further insults or profanity will see it locked in short order.

- Moderator

[guido911]

I read that the Ten Commentments Monument passed a Oklahoma house panel. While I support the concept, I think our tax dollars would be better spent on much needed std treatment programs, family planning programs, and maybe re-sodding the national mall. Seriously, we cannot afford this now.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

I read that the Ten Commentments Monument passed a Oklahoma house panel. While I support the concept, I think our tax dollars would be better spent on much needed std treatment programs, family planning programs, and maybe re-sodding the national mall. Seriously, we cannot afford this now.

I agree wholeheartedly. Educating people about STDs and family planning reduces health care costs and reduces the number of unwanted children.

And nobody wants a mosh pit on the mall.

[Townsend]

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A House panel on Tuesday passed a measure to place a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090210_12_0_OKLAHO293349

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A House panel on Tuesday passed a measure to place a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090210_12_0_OKLAHO293349

Maybe the lawmakers that enter won't break them now. (((sarcasm)))

[cannon_fodder]

quote:BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1.     NEW LAW     A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:
The Legislature finds:
1.  That the Ten Commandments found in the Bible, Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, are an important component of the moral foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and of the State of Oklahoma;
2.  That the courts of the United States of America and of various states frequently cite the Ten Commandments in published decisions;
3.  That the Ten Commandments represent a philosophy of government held by many of the founders of this nation and by many Oklahomans and other Americans today, that God has ordained civil government and has delegated limited authority to civil government, that God has limited the authority of civil government, and that God has endowed people with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
4.  That in order that they may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government, the people of the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law; and
5.  That the placing of a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol would help the people of the United States and of Oklahoma to know the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of law.
SECTION 2.     NEW LAW     A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 10.1 of Title 73, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A.  This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Ten Commandments Monument Display Act".
B.  The Oklahoma Secretary of State or designee is hereby authorized to permit and arrange for the placement on the State Capitol grounds of a suitable monument displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments.  The Ten Commandments monument shall use the same words used on the monument at issue in Von Orden v. Perry, that the United States Supreme Court ruled constitutional.  This monument shall be designed, constructed, and placed on the Capitol grounds by private entities at no expense to the State of Oklahoma.  The Secretary of State or designee is authorized to assist private entities in selecting a location for the monument and arranging a suitable time for its placement.
C.  In the event that the legality or constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument is challenged in a court of law, the Oklahoma Attorney General or designee is hereby authorized to prepare and present a legal defense of the monument and shall work with any legal services provider, if any designated by the Legislature.
D.  The placement of this monument shall not be construed to mean that the State of Oklahoma favors any particular religion or denomination thereof over others, but rather will be placed on the Capitol grounds where there are numerous other monuments.
SECTION 3.  This act shall become effective November 1, 2009.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10HB/HB1330_int.rtf

The law maker is certainly something other than up front.  One pet peave of mine is legislators that refuse to just be up front about it.  Anyone actually think the purpose of this is to teach people about history?  Just come out and say it.

quote:Ritze said the monument he is proposing is the same as a monument in Texas. The Texas monument was challenged and withstood that legal challenge, Ritze said.

The monument in Texas was donated in 1961 and is part of a 22 acre site devoted to sources of inspiration for our nation's laws (it was a Fraternal Order of Eagles monument).  The display in its entirety has a purpose other than an expression of religion and does not favor one religion over another.  It was not paid for by the state and any group that meets a set of criteria can donate a monument.

This is a monument to the Protestant Christian religion (different version of the 10 Commandments for Protestant, Christian, Jew and Muslim) displayed by itself by the State on public ground (saying it will be placed with other monuments doesn't cut it) with funding solicited by the State (it should be noted that the bill explicitly requires the State to defend the constitutionality of the measure).    

quote: The 22 acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol contain 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the "people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity." Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001).1 The monolith challenged here stands 6-feet high and 3-feet wide. It is located to the north of the Capitol building, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. Its primary content is the text of the Ten Commandments. An eagle grasping the American flag, an eye inside of a pyramid, and two small tablets with what appears to be an ancient script are carved above the text of the Ten Commandments. Below the text are two Stars of David and the superimposed Greek letters Chi and Rho, which represent Christ. The bottom of the monument bears the inscription "PRESENTED TO THE PEOPLE AND YOUTH OF TEXAS BY THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES OF TEXAS 1961."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500

See the differences?  It is more similar to the 2 that were heard along with the Texas case - where the Ten Commandments were displayed with no context and paid for by the State.  They were forced to take them down.

He just tried to copy everything the Texas case had.  However, he can not change the fact that the Texas monument was donated in 1961 unsolicited by a non-religious organization and placed in a greater context.  Attempting to copy the "text that was on the monument in the Texas case" that was legal simply won't work (it says "presented to the People and Youth of Texas by... 1961"  

CNN article from the time the Texas and Kyntucky cases came down:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.ten.commandments/

Also worth noting that it has passed out of committee, it has not passed out of the House or become law.

But lets take a step back for a second and examine the text as a basis for laws:

#1) The Bible God is the only and correct God.

Blatantly against the Separation of Church and state.  Not a law.

#2) No Graven Images

No value to the secular State and many Christians disagree about what it might mean. Not a law.  Conflicts with 1st Amendment free speech rights.


#3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

No value to a secular State.Not a law.  Conflicts with 1st Amendment free speech rights.

#4) You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

No value to a secular state.

#5) Honor your mother and father.

Good advice, but certainly not a basis for our laws.

#6) You shall not murder (killing of non-Hebrews is fine).

Great advice.  It was law before the bible and is a law in every ancient culture, in fact the oldest dated law against Murder is credited to the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu from more than a thousand year before the Hebrews existed as a culture.  Why cite a newer edition?

#7) You shall not commit adultery

Almost laughable in today's world.  We could talk about the Founders (Franklin or Jefferson to name a couple infamous and well known pair) or Bill Clinton.  Or just look at our Divorce rate, watch TV... well, you get the idea.  Also, not really a law (some have it on the books, but spitting in public is also illegal).

#8) You shall not steal

One that is a law.  One that has always been a law.  Like Murder, there are older examples and it is doubtful any legal code would neglect it with or without religion.

#9) You shall not bear false witness

Lying is bad.  Though lying to State officials is the only thing that is illegal.  Which is more a matter of governmental power and efficiency that virtue.  I doubt the 9th commandment is the driving motivation for perjury or obstruction laws.

#10) You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Now the bible is trying to destroy the basis for our entire economy.  Arguing that is is relevant to our laws is simply a joke.



Pardon me if it doesn't appear those 10 Rules are a guideline for the laws of the United States.  Of the Ten you could argue that 3 have a law that reflects them, but a stronger argument can be made that without said Bible the laws would exist just the same (see, e.g., every culture in the world).  The other 7 have no bearing on secular laws and in most instances are overtly contrary to a secular government.

Do religious people not actually read the entire list or what?

[edit]spelling[/edit]

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Do religious people not actually read the entire list or what?

Sure they do, they're just too pious to believe they will have to answer for breaking them.

So sayeth the prophesies.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A House panel on Tuesday passed a measure to place a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090210_12_0_OKLAHO293349

That guy is kinda creepy looking.