1
   

Huckabee is a religious nutcase

 
 
briansol
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 05:17 pm
@briansol,
yup....

which is why the founding fathers added in the whole separation of church and state thinggee.. tough concept, i know.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:58 pm
@briansol,
We've never been a nation strictly separated in that sense. Our culture has always been strongly Christian. The atheism that's currently spreading like cancer is a relatively new development.
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:00 pm
@briansol,
briansol;51124 wrote:
yup....

which is why the founding fathers added in the whole separation of church and state thinggee.. tough concept, i know.


Not that I disagree on this particular issue, but isn't that a bit of a generalization?
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:09 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;51129 wrote:
We've never been a nation strictly separated in that sense. Our culture has always been strongly Christian. The atheism that's currently spreading like cancer is a relatively new development.


"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-The Treaty of Tripoli, Article XI (signed November 4, 1796)
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:21 pm
@briansol,
Quote:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


That document has no bearing on the domestic laws of the United States. It is obviously just to placate the Barbary Pirates and their benefactors.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:39 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;51141 wrote:
That document has no bearing on the domestic laws of the United States. It is obviously just to placate the Barbary Pirates and their benefactors.


Treaties are binding, so as far as the US government is concerned it's true.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 07:56 pm
@briansol,
Treaties are binding in international affairs and since they are created by diplomats they have no effect on internal law. They can't 'promise' that something happened twenty years ago, thats ridiculous. Washington would disagree.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 08:21 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;51162 wrote:
Treaties are binding in international affairs and since they are created by diplomats they have no effect on internal law. They can't 'promise' that something happened twenty years ago, thats ridiculous. Washington would disagree.


Treaties are binding to all law, internal laws cannot violate treaties.
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 08:32 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;51178 wrote:
Treaties are binding to all law, internal laws cannot violate treaties.


Who is the current other party involved in the treaty? The Barbary Pirates are no longer an entity. The treaty would have to be invalid if that is the case. It has no constitutional basis and it is absurd in that it tries to dictate what happened in the past. Even so, it may be true de jure but de facto Christianity has had a strong influence on the US.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 08:36 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;51180 wrote:
Who is the current other party involved in the treaty? The Barbary Pirates are no longer an entity. The treaty would have to be invalid if that is the case. It has no constitutional basis and it is absurd in that it tries to dictate what happened in the past. Even so, it may be true de jure but de facto Christianity has had a strong influence on the US.


"strong influence" is not the same as "founded on", if anything this nation was founded on religious neutrality (secularism).
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 08:46 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;51183 wrote:
"strong influence" is not the same as "founded on", if anything this nation was founded on religious neutrality (secularism).


By a majority of Christians, based on Christian philosophers (Locke, etc.) Look up the demographics of the Declaration of Independence signers.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 09:38 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;51186 wrote:
By a majority of Christians, based on Christian philosophers (Locke, etc.) Look up the demographics of the Declaration of Independence signers.


If indeed America was founded on christanity that would make it a theocracy, which it isn't. The framers feared what a theocracy could do, having escaped religious persecution themselves decided government and religion should not mix that is when Jefferson made the statement about seperating church and state. Such beliefs can be seen in the constitution by the absence of the word "god" in the entire document also by the inclusion of the Establishment clause of the US constitution. This is why today nativity scenes cannot be on government property, although we both know this happens anyways.
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 08:19 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;51190 wrote:
If indeed America was founded on christanity that would make it a theocracy, which it isn't. The framers feared what a theocracy could do, having escaped religious persecution themselves decided government and religion should not mix that is when Jefferson made the statement about seperating church and state. Such beliefs can be seen in the constitution by the absence of the word "god" in the entire document also by the inclusion of the Establishment clause of the US constitution. This is why today nativity scenes cannot be on government property, although we both know this happens anyways.


Christianity and religious freedom are not incompatible at all. Really, what most had in mind was different denominations of Christianity, though it still applies to everyone, of course.

This is why today nativity scenes cannot be on government property, although we both know this happens anyways.

Along with menorahs, etc, but guess which decoration they get sued for?

I would say that we can celebrate the birth of Jesus anyway. Christmas is a national holiday, and we measure our years by how far they are from Christ's birth, for His sake.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 08:54 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;51256 wrote:
Christianity and religious freedom are not incompatible at all. Really, what most had in mind was different denominations of Christianity, though it still applies to everyone, of course.

This is why today nativity scenes cannot be on government property, although we both know this happens anyways.

Along with menorahs, etc, but guess which decoration they get sued for?

I would say that we can celebrate the birth of Jesus anyway. Christmas is a national holiday, and we measure our years by how far they are from Christ's birth, for His sake.


The US is a secular nation, this nation is (or is supposed to) take a neutral stance on religion, meaning that the government cannot either endorse or denounce any religion or theistic ideology, the government cannot have any religious or anti-religious symbols or signs on government funded property.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 06:01 am
@briansol,
I like Huck, but he wouldn't make a good prez. He's a minister and local politician. He's not presidential material. Ministers and priests don't make good national leaders. Sorry, Huck. Stay in Arkansas. They need you there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 12:08:03