Separation of Church and State

@The Last Cathedral,

The Last Cathedral;24317 wrote:

Legislating from the bench aka Judicial Tyranny, please look up the meaning of "synonym". I don't appreciate someone addressing vocabulary or terminology but ignoring the foundations of the argument meaning the fact that:

You argued that Slavery ended.

I argued it ended because of amendment to the constitution.

um no I didn't I stated that Slavery was ended by an amendment (before you did)

Silverchild79;24312 wrote:

by that measure should we re legalize slavery? The courts in 1776 said slavery was legal, so did the courts in the 1800's pre civil war. It changed after Congress amended the US Constitution. That makes the US Constitution different then it was in 1776, should we do away with that too?

If you follow you're logic path you'll see it makes no sense whatsoever.

reading (and reality)>You

Technically an Executive Order of the President ended slavery

Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but it was unenforceable as we were still at war with the south, functionally it was a moral booster and more gusto then anything else. It basically gave Union commanders the legal right to free slaves when they came across them

But the 14th amendment is what cemented slavery as a civil right violation

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

Yes Silverchild so what don't you get about what I stated? Do you not see the lack of relevancy that your POINT has? It is irrelevant "your claims" of "should we do away with that too"?

Because, as I pointed out, the US Constitution was amended.

The US Constitution has never been amended regarding the Church.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

you said that the courts opinion had changed from 1776 to 1930

The Last Cathedral;24310 wrote:

Also notice none of those rulings by the Supreme Court occurred before the 1930s. That's a big gap between 1776.

I stated you were right but sometimes (as in church and state), that's a good thing

but you won't find and legal precedence siding with you in the 1700's either, the government as launched by our forfathers didn't even have income tax

the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court has ruled what the US Consitution says and Seperation of Church and State is law.

Like I say to others

Love it or Leave it

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

Silverchild that is TWO examples where the courts are not responsible for change. And that is my point. From 1776 to 1930s the courts did not change the opinions of the Church and State. There has never been an amendment authorizing such a change BUT since the 1930s but mostly since the hippy driven psychotic and retarded 1960s, the activist judges have destroyed the Church and State harmony which existed before then.

Meanwhile, other things that have changed (slavery and income tax) were changed directly by amendments.

Not by "legislation from the bench".

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

it didn't become a problem before then because our Federal Government was much smaller then.

It is the Expansion of the Federal Government which drives this very issue, the founding fathers were against the government funding anything, to include churches. We slide further into Socialism every year and as we do more and more people become part of the problem by saying "well if you're giving out money we want some too"

have a bake sale

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

It was never because the Federal Government was small. Before then the schools required prayer, before then the population was more religious, etc. The issue is progressivism not expanding government (which is only natural with foreign involvements). Progressive thinking (responsible for the French Revolution and Hitler as well as Woman sufferage) is a dispicable as well as necessary evil but now is the time to cast off its shackels and all the lies it has spread (such as Separation of Church and State).

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

The Last Cathedral;24310 wrote:

Also notice none of those rulings by the Supreme Court occurred before the 1930s. That's a big gap between 1776.

First ruling was in 1878. WIkipedia FTW, before that no one questioned that seperation of church and stae was the meaning behind the first amendment.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

Wow rugonnacry are you a bit slow? Do you speak english? Do you understand what I'm writing right now? Let me ask you one more question....

WHAT is the purpose of the word "those" in the sentence quoted above? Also I shouldn't have to point out that 1878 is during the full swing of the progressive movement in the United States.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

I added one. If that baffles you then please follow these instructions, they will help.

1 locate head
2 remove from ass
3 if cannot find head, ask for help.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

You're a fool. The 1878 case is simply a ruling on marriage. It uses the phrase "Separation of Church and State" but in no way does it dictate that the Church and State are separate. I cannot find the complete ruling in the archives at findlaw so I cannot find the exact wording, and I don't take Wikipedia's word for anything ever since that hoax that I caused where Graboids from the Movie Tremors were real and the movie was based on real events that took place outside Beatty Nevada.

That was pretty funny...but proved the idiocy of Wikipedia.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

You have already lost my friend. When your first response to me was an insult you lost all credibility to your argument.

I forsee you lasting long in this forumn.

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

OK I found in entirety the SCOTUS determination in 1878 and the great irony is in my favor.

The argument in context is that the US has no ability to legislate what a man may or may not do by religious intent (so the US cannot legislate that polygamy is wrong based on religious beliefs) but that the US can legislate that polygamy is immoral based on commonlaw and traditions carried over from the western world of Europe.

It hardly makes a case for the removal of religion from government (which is stuff such as the Chaplain or from recognizing there is a God etc).

0 Replies

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;24353 wrote:

You have already lost my friend. When your first response to me was an insult you lost all credibility to your argument.

I forsee you lasting long in this forumn.

Rediculous, someone so callous, abrassive, and ignorant as yourself deserves no civilized conduct short of a good beating. You are the ignorant "know-it-all" the "school marm" should have rapped her ruler mightly across your knuckles to remind you your place. Don't come in here again expecting to insult me with "facts" that you know nothing about causing me to have to expend energy upon refuting your ignorant comments and opinions.

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

I'm beginning to like you TLC, LOL.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

Yes, we actually need a new conservative, religious voice here. Never thought I'd say that. CV's changed so much lately in terms of membership.

1 Reply

@The Last Cathedral,

Big time, it's all good. Times and people change. So will the site.

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

The Last Cathedral;24355 wrote:

Rediculous, someone so callous, abrassive, and ignorant as yourself deserves no civilized conduct short of a good beating. You are the ignorant "know-it-all" the "school marm" should have rapped her ruler mightly across your knuckles to remind you your place. Don't come in here again expecting to insult me with "facts" that you know nothing about causing me to have to expend energy upon refuting your ignorant comments and opinions.

Are you done showing your ass? Simple question.

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;24362 wrote:

Yes, we actually need a new conservative, religious voice here. Never thought I'd say that. CV's changed so much lately in terms of membership.

I hate to criticize GW, but I do believe he's helped wreck the GOP. :no:

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

this is where I say something about personal attacks

and TLC, you did start it

either way knock it the **** off

I really don't understand why we're still debating it, the Supreme Court has defined the law, your opinion of their judgment doesn't change the fact that sep of church and state is law

0 Replies

@The Last Cathedral,

It's not even up for debate Silverchild I do believe that to everyone it is quite obvious I'm right. The Supreme Court "invented" laws that never existed. Historically the government behaved a certain way with respect to religion. Then one fine day in the late 1940s the courts decided to change all that.

The amazing thing?

Unlike before, where there were amendments to the Constitution which the courts had to now interpret everything taking those into account, there was NEVER any amendments to the constitution changing the nature of religion within the United States.

It is a perfect, classic, and EVIL, example of legislation from the bench as you put it. I prefer to continue to call it judicial tyranny.

1 Reply

Separation of Church and State

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know