@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
The difference is obvious. There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the US Constitution.
A few things.
1) This doesn't answer my question. I asked for examples of what a separation of church and state would be versus what it means to not be able to establish a state church. I'm glad you're warming up to answering the question.
2) You are correct that it is not in the constitution. Are we going to have a conversation on what words are
not in the constitution? That's a very long conversation that in the end won't include words that include religion in the government. I'm more than willing and eager to have the conversation.
3) The separation of church and state has been defended numerous times. If you wish to deny the outcome of these battles, you're free to irrelevantly lie perpendicular to history. It makes no difference to me. The phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson's sentiments on the crafting of the bill of rights and was built on the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams's words in the face of being banished from Massachusetts colony by orthodox Christians. Williams, a devout Christian himself understood the danger of what orthodox Christians would do if allowed to institute religion into law.
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
The phrase does appear in the Communist Manifesto of the Soviet Union. Perhaps you're confused.
Although I'm not familiar with said document, I decided to check to see if you were correct or if you were just talking out of your ass. Turns out it was (no surprise) the later. The document refers to "religion [as] separating the ruling class from the working class." I guess that phrase uses the two operative terms, but it doesn't say what you said it does. Marx says to get rid of religion, but that too is far different than providing a separation of church and state as institutions. Forbidding religion is not in the constitution either, but nobody is saying it is.
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
Do you really believe Christians are envious of muslims who have muslim states? Is that what you think of Christians?
The battle with the Christians that did want a religious state was initially fought in the USA at our founding. Lesser so, we still see radical religious elements in the USA trying to institute religious morals into law here. That Muslims have states that they control with religious law probably is an issue of envy to those elements in our society who want the USA to be a Christian nation.
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
Sharia Law calls for the exectution of homosexuals. Show me the "Christian" law that is equal to that in the USA.
Fortunately we do not have laws that use captial punishment for homosexuality. We do however criminalize homosexuality. Ever heard of sodomy laws? We also deny homosexuals equal protection of the law due to religious tampering. I don't see your argument advancing the idea that Christians are so different than Muslims. If Christians could successfully establish a religious state here in the USA, we'd have all the same atrocities.
That's certainly been the tradition. Compare Christian religious states history to that of mullah rule. They aren't so different. In terms of sectarian violence, the Muslims have a lot of catching up to do in terms of numbers.
A
R
T