1
   

Separation of Church and State

 
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2007 12:53 pm
@The Last Cathedral,
In a country where one particular religion overwhelmingly dominates culture, separation of church and state is an almost academic issue only. That's America. Now, the key to remaining the kind of country we were at the time of our founding is to keep our culture Judeo-Christian.
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2007 12:58 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;25258 wrote:
I don't disagree with a lot of that, but no, sorry, there is no separation of church and state.


Ref: Napster defense

just because you don't want the law to be that way it is doesn't mean it isn't real

the supreme court has spoken

Santa isn't real either
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2007 02:12 pm
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;25267 wrote:
Ref: Napster defense

just because you don't want the law to be that way it is doesn't mean it isn't real

the supreme court has spoken

Santa isn't real either


God is real and He's spoken. Hear Him.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2007 03:15 pm
@The Last Cathedral,
Keep America Christian!
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2007 07:08 pm
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;25267 wrote:
Ref: Napster defense

just because you don't want the law to be that way it is doesn't mean it isn't real

the supreme court has spoken

Santa isn't real either


Ohay, just because all those damned civil rights activists thought that there was some Constitutional support for blacks being citizens didn't mean that they could be. After all, there is no way the Supreme Court could be biased in their interpretation of the Constitution. And of course, the Founding Fathers' intent didn't set any sort of precedent at all! And in Everson vs. Board of Education, Justice Black didn't waste any time looking at that Constitution (incidentally, the Bible could be called the primary source behind its writing), he cited the private letter of a man who had very little to do with anything related to the writing of the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 08:29 am
@The Last Cathedral,
Reag... Now you are just argueing for the sake of argueing.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:12 am
@The Last Cathedral,
I think that the arguing is clear enough for you to make a counterargument, or concede.
0 Replies
 
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 03:18 pm
@The Last Cathedral,
Concede? To you not agreeing with laws? Yes I concede that you do not LIKE that the Supreme Court HAS infact interpreted the first amendment to mean Seperation Of Church And State, thus making Seperation Of Church And State LAW.

I do concede to that.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 06:08 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;25357 wrote:
Concede? To you not agreeing with laws? Yes I concede that you do not LIKE that the Supreme Court HAS infact interpreted the first amendment to mean Seperation Of Church And State, thus making Seperation Of Church And State LAW.

I do concede to that.


How, pray tell, does the US Supreme Court obtain powers to "make law" concerning religion when the Congress is prohibited from doing so??
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 07:00 pm
@The Last Cathedral,
I guess he can't back out of that one huh, LOL? SCOTUS does not make law.
0 Replies
 
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 06:18 am
@The Last Cathedral,
Laws are based off the interpretations of S.C.O.T.U.S. and guess what SCOTUS has indeed interpreted The existence of Separation of Church And State. CREATING LAW they do not , INterpreting what they believe is already law, is what they do. ARTICLE III of the constitution is what gives them that power.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 07:41 am
@The Last Cathedral,
Interpretations are subject to change. With Roberts and Alito in there i hope they revisit it in my lifetime.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 08:05 am
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;25431 wrote:
Laws are based off the interpretations of S.C.O.T.U.S. and guess what SCOTUS has indeed interpreted The existence of Separation of Church And State. CREATING LAW they do not , INterpreting what they believe is already law, is what they do. ARTICLE III of the constitution is what gives them that power.


Actually, they do create law. That is the issue that should be addressed. The Supreme Court should not have the power to do more than the Legislative or Executive Branches. The framers of the Constitution were clear that the Supreme Court was to be the weakest branch. Any Supreme Court decision concerning religion or religious rights should be overturned by legislative action to restict the scope of supreme court authority and exclude those issues as they, themselves are restricted by the Constitution. If this means ammending the Constitution, then so be it. The Supreme Court should not have more power then the other branches when it comes to religion, period.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 08:59 am
@The Last Cathedral,
Congress is the only body that can ammend. Even to include reeling in SCOTUS. How come Congress is restricted from doing so but SCOTUS can interpret something as is, even though there is no wording in the Constitution. They referenced a private letter as proof and the letter said nothing of SOCAS. It said wall of separation. IMO they are taking liberty's that are not there.
0 Replies
 
Dmizer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 09:43 am
@The Last Cathedral,
The United States, in order for it to remain a bastion of religious freedom, must remain secular in it's nature. There is not a single argument that anyone can make to prove otherwise. The only way for religious freedom to flourish is to have no one religion in control or making the laws. I will argue that that many of the values that many of you claim to be Christian values are indeed human decency that cannot be monopolized by one religion as their own. If a Jewish man performs an act of kindness for a stranger, he is not exhibiting christian values, he is exhibiting human decency and compassion.
Many of the founding fathers were indeed christian, and their values influenced the constitution, but there were many founding fathers who were not christians who's values influenced the constitution. Values that may be attributes of Christianity are also attributes of many other religions that come together to make up the fabric of this society.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 10:26 am
@The Last Cathedral,
He is excercising his opinion, regardless of how he arrived there.
This country has always been predominately Christian to include our forfathers. It worked fine for them, i will for us. Wanting the government to be secular is one thing, getting it is another. Regardless of how we arrived with our morals they are a god given right as stated in our Constitution, we are allowed to practice as we please. This includes how we apply it twards government. Congress shall make no law restricting religion.
That's what it would take but as per Constitution they are not allowed. Smart guys they were.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 02:00 pm
@Dmizer,
Dmizer;25466 wrote:
The United States, in order for it to remain a bastion of religious freedom, must remain secular in it's nature. There is not a single argument that anyone can make to prove otherwise. The only way for religious freedom to flourish is to have no one religion in control or making the laws. I will argue that that many of the values that many of you claim to be Christian values are indeed human decency that cannot be monopolized by one religion as their own. If a Jewish man performs an act of kindness for a stranger, he is not exhibiting christian values, he is exhibiting human decency and compassion.
Many of the founding fathers were indeed christian, and their values influenced the constitution, but there were many founding fathers who were not christians who's values influenced the constitution. Values that may be attributes of Christianity are also attributes of many other religions that come together to make up the fabric of this society.


Our country is steeped in Christianity, whether you like it or not. 52 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians.The Bible was the primary source behind the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Dmizer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 02:52 pm
@The Last Cathedral,
"The Bible was the primary source behind the Constitution."

Where did you learn this? Are you educated in History of the Constitution?
Please show me how the Bible is the primary source for the Constitution. I would like to know.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 03:03 pm
@The Last Cathedral,
Spray And Pray, Gentlemen. Spray And Pray!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2007 03:03 pm
@Dmizer,
Dmizer;25466 wrote:
The United States, in order for it to remain a bastion of religious freedom, must remain secular in it's nature. There is not a single argument that anyone can make to prove otherwise. The only way for religious freedom to flourish is to have no one religion in control or making the laws. I will argue that that many of the values that many of you claim to be Christian values are indeed human decency that cannot be monopolized by one religion as their own. If a Jewish man performs an act of kindness for a stranger, he is not exhibiting christian values, he is exhibiting human decency and compassion. Many of the founding fathers were indeed christian, and their values influenced the constitution, but there were many founding fathers who were not christians who's values influenced the constitution. Values that may be attributes of Christianity are also attributes of many other religions that come together to make up the fabric of this society.


The bolded text is your statement. It is a statement that proves you are ignorant of the nature of Christianity and the basis for Christianity, Yahweh and His Son's sacrifice to redeme us all, Gentile and Jew.

Stating otherweise is an assertion, not based on fact.

The initial government of the US was not composed solely of ministers or Priests. However, many members of congress were ministers. Stating otherweise is also an assertion, not based on fact.

There is no need to argue that a fact is a fact.
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 04:47:09