Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just who in the hell are you to come in here and tell me what I should or should not do. You've posted 10 times in this forum...and you are already tired of something.

Go read your comic books or watch television or whatever else someone of your obvious intellectual abilities does to pass the time.

If you don't like what is going on in this thread...get the hell out of it.

If you don't like my language...don't read my posts.

But don't give me any goddam lectures.

Frank, remember that New Year's pledge of yours! Laughing

You're good, man, you're good. I might start selling tickets.

And, oh yes, to round it off with "Oh, by the way...welcome to A2K" that was priceless. Laughing

0 Replies

The problem with this is that we cant just debate US separation of church and state we have to debate about wheather it is best serves for all democracy. A very poor idea I came up with ( not one I am even considering using) is it even possible for the to be strict separation of church and state. Strict is basically defined as not being flexible. Can't it be argued that a democricies leader makes decisions based on his morals, which are founded in his beliefs which ultimatly are found in his religion, no matter what it is. So therefore the church ultimatly becomes part of the state and you no longer have strict separation of church and state.

0 Replies

Jefferson's "wall" was purely his belief in the First Amendment that Congress should never be able to dictate to anyone what they must or must not believe respective to religion and that no one would ever be in a position of losing any of their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because of their particular religious faith or lack thereof.

It is crystal clear from Jefferson's other writings and those of virtually all of the other founding fathers that they never expected government or those providing government to be devoid of religion and, in fact, it would be a bad thing if it was. There was never any suggestion that the First Amendment provided a right to never have to be exposed to anything religious. Freedom of religion is the right to not have to be religious in any particular way or to not be religious at all if that is one's preference and the government shall have no say whatsoever in that.

0 Replies

It is obvious that Fox will continue to avoid answering my questions, because a truthful answer from her on those questions will put this entire issue into a perspective she doesn't want to deal with.

She'd rather bob and weave than acknowledge the obvious.

For the record, I would GUESS that Fox would consider the wording "In God We Don't Trust" to be an insult to a population segment of our nation. I think she would consider it an "insensitive" remark. I also think she would also consider it an unnecessary insult...a gratuitous insensitivity.

For the record, I would GUESS that Fox would consider the wording "In Jesus Christ We Trust" to be an insult to a population segment of our nation. I think she would consider it an "insensitive" remark. I also think she would consider it an unnecessary insult...a gratuitous insensitivity.

If either of those hypotheticals ever came to pass...I would HOPE that Fox would have the character and sense of decency to hold such unnecessary, gratuitous insults and insensitivities in contempt....and would argue to overturn such nonsense.

That is where she should be on the issue being discussed also. If, as I said, she has the character and sense of decency to deal with unnecessary, gratuitous baloney.

0 Replies

What question did I not answer Frank. I thought I had answered all your questions several times now. I have certainly answered the one regarding "In Jesus Christ we Trust". You may not have liked the answer, but I damn sure didn't duck the quesiton.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What question did I not answer Frank.

Not "question", Fox....questions!

All of 'em, Fox. That's which ones you missed. All of 'em.

You did not answer: Would you consider "In God we don't trust" to be an insult to any people?

You did not answer: Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

You did not answer: Would you consider "In Jesus Christ we trust" to be an insult to any people?

You did not answer: Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

Quote:

I thought I had answered all your questions several times now.

Well you haven't.

Quote:

I have certainly answered the one regarding "In Jesus Christ we Trust". You may not have liked the answer, but I damn sure didn't duck the quesiton.

As a matter of fact...you didn't answer the question. You pretended the question asked something else...and then answered that.

You have not answered any of these questions.

And now...since I have given a guess about what you would answer...if ever you stopped ducking them...all you have to do is to mention where you disagree with my guesses.

Why not give it a shot...rather than pretend you've already answered them?

0 Replies

Okay here are Frank's questions, all previously answered, but I will humor him and answer them again:

Quote:

Would you consider "In God we don't trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

Would you consider "In Jesus Christ we trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

1, No, I would not consider "In God we don't trust" to be an insult to anybody any more than I consider "In God we trust" to be an insult to anybody. At such time as the majority of people want "In God we don't trust" to be on their coinage, it will be there. I won't like it, but I am not obligated to agree with it, so it won't affect me one way or the other.

2. I do not consider the words on the coinage as necessary no matter what words on the coins you refer to. But neither do I think they're enough of a big deal to make an issue over. And I see no harm in them being there so long as nobody's rights are infringed, and I see that no rights are infringed, and a large majority of Americans like the words to be there. There is no constitutional right to sensitivity but no, I would not consider the words insensitive so long as everybody understands that in matters of preference, where no rights are involved, the majority decides.

3. I would not consider "In Jesus Chrsit we trust" to be an insult to anybody so long as nobody was required to agree to it; however, that one does cross the line into inappropriateness as it is specific to a specific religion. "In God we trust" is not. "God" can be anybody's God or a secular 'god' or metaphor or what we choose to make of it. Even though I am Christian and do trust in Jesus Christ, I will not consent for an appearance of the government favoring one religion over another because that is a potential slippery slope that, while harmless in this case, could set a precedent for future problems.

4. No words, other than the denomination and enough markings to identify it as U.S. currenty and prevent counterfeiting, are necessary on our money. But would "In Jesus Christ we trust" be insensitive? No, so long as the people agree that in matters of preference, where no rights are concerned, the majority prevails. But inappropriate? Yes, again I think it would be for reasons stated.

0 Replies

Fox...you are one sick pup.

But at least now...you have answered the questions.

I only hope there are not many like you in our country. It would be much the poorer for it if there were.

0 Replies

Well so much for being respectful. At least I'll know not to bite on that one again. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well so much for being respectful. At least I'll know not to bite on that one again.

You are pathetic, Foxfyre...and we ought all be thankful that our Republic has managed to survive the likes of you. Yeah...there have been others like you, but also thankfully, not many.

With a moral compass as screwed up as yours we'd still have blacks as slaves...and women probably would not have the vote. And you would be posting reasons why all this should be acceptable, because....

I repeat: You are pathetic!

0 Replies

Frank wrote

Quote:

Fox...

...I really want to know what answer I owe you.

And of course, I hope you give me some answers to the questions I asked.

As Rosborne just noted...I see some inconsistency in your position...and I'd like to discuss it.

We can do it reasonably...and respectfully.

So the reasonable and respectful part was only if I gave you answers that you wanted?

Hey I'm not the one demanding that 90% of Americans give up a 50+-year-old slogan on coinage because I've decided I'm offended.

And I'm not the one demanding that people who believe what I don't believe keep their sentiments re their beliefs out of my sight or away from me.

And I am the one who is fully consenting for the majority to have their way in matters that infringe on nobody's rights even if their preference is not mine.

And, according to Frank, I would keep blacks as slaves and whatever other straw man he built to accuse me. And all while he has spouted the same line while never yet answering my question.

But I'm pathetic. He's said so, and he's a very smart man, so it must be true.

0 Replies

Foul, Frank. Foxfyre answered your questions ... you said you would discuss things "reasonably...and respectfully," and when your questions are answered, you respond by calling Foxfyre "pathetic," and "one sick pup."

What gall. Particularly to claim your surprise that our Republic has survived with the likes of Foxfyre -- frankly, it's more surprising that the Republic would survive with the likes of you. The foundation of this country is firmly rooted in the Judeo/Christian faith, your disbelief notwithstanding.

I agree with Foxfyre's responses to your 4 questions, in that they are the way things ought to be. I'm a Christian, but would not be insulted by "In God We Don't Trust." I wouldn't agree with it, and I would not want it on the coinage, but I wouldn't be "offended." My skin is too thick for that. I would have responded differently, however ... simply because I'm aware that there are many hypersensitive people out there who can be offended at the least little thing.

I can't believe you are offended by the coins, are you Frank? Your skin looks like it's pretty tough.

0 Replies

"under God" was added as a weapon against atheists and atheism. Government policy has allowed itself to be used by christians as a weapon against atheists.

And btw, I apologize for calling you a he.

Foxfyre wrote:

And if the athiests want a Santa Claus or Frosty the Snowman as their symbol of Christmas, by all means put it there.

Atheist symbols for Christmas?

Foxfyre wrote:

Your opinion is the phrase doesn't belong there. The majority of Americans like it. So as long as nobody's rights are involved but only people's preferences/prejucices/sensibilities or whatever, who should have the final say? You who are in the minority? Or those....by some estimates 90% of Americans....who are in the majority?

Foxfyre wrote:

To Lola, I don't have a problem either with the phrases being removed from the Pledge and the coinage. I don't have a problem with them being there. I don't honestly care one way or the other.

So you are not part of this juggernaut 90% that wants the phrase there? And yet you are christian? So why do you so presumptuously lump other christians into this "90%" that wants the phrase in the pledge?

Foxfyre wrote:

It does not say or imply, nor was it the founders intent, that government be devoid of any references to religion or that those in government should be denied their constiutitonal right to the free exercise of religion. The only intention was that the government not require any person to believe or profess anything in matters of faith or suffer any consequences for not believing or professing anything in matters of faith.

Then atheist students must either
1) Profess a belief in a god
or
2) Expose the fact that they do not believe in a god.

It cannot reasonably be denied that they must do one of these two. For the prior to be the case is by your above quote unconstitutional. Now let us consider the latter. Do you think it should be legal for teachers to take a student by student vocal poll of religion?
Teacher: "Bobby" Bobby: "Christian"
Teacher: "Kelly" Kelly: "Christian"
Teacher: "Robby" Robby: "Christian"
Teacher: "Sally" Sally: "Christian"
Teacher: "Jonny" Jonny: "Christian"
Teacher: "Bessy" Bessy: "Christian"
Teacher: "Donny" Donny: "Christian"
Teacher: "Binny" Binny: "Atheist"... or just as good: I'd rather not answer.

Students are forced to either expose their difference for all to see or they are forced to profess a religious preference they do not hold. This, by action of Ike, whom some like.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The foundation of this country is firmly rooted in the Judeo/Christian faith, your disbelief notwithstanding.

George Washington wrote:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion.

Treaty of Tripoli wrote:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...

William Edelen wrote:

The Treaty of Tripoli, signed when George Washington was President, begins article XI with these words: "The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." President Washington approved it, and this treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1797 without a single objection. By the time it reached the Senate for ratification John Adams was President, and it was he who presented it to the Senate. President Adams confirmed the Senate's ratification in June 1797. John Adams, in his proclamation of the Treaty, said that he had "seen and considered the said Treaty and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, had agreed to accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This has appeared in all treaty collections since SESSION LAWS of the Fifth Congress (1797) and IN THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, edited by Folwell (1799). Article VI of the United States Constitution made this treaty doubly binding by saying "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Frank's disbelief notwithstanding... and George's belief notwithstanding... and the belief of the authors of the Treaty of Tripoli notwithstanding... and Article Six of the United States Constitution notwithstanding.

0 Replies

Quote:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
--George Washington

0 Replies

hah, good quote, Fox, I'll save that one.

If you've done any reading on it, you'd know that a popular sentiment among the founding fathers was that the common man was pretty dumb and that he needs religion to provide an easy-to-understand presentation of morality.

Notice he used the words "national morality". Herd mentality.

And you address a comment toward me, but ignore the points I addressed toward you. If this is an attempt to give the impression that you have dealt with me and are awaiting other challenges, you should know that you are in the company of some pretty smart people that can recognize this at a glance.

0 Replies

I've said what I had to say.

No use getting thrown off A2K by putting into words how I really feel about the sentiments of people like Fox and Ti on this subject...except to note that I think I was showing retraint by phrasing it the way I did.

In any case, this country is resilient and will survive the unfeeling sludge polluting it from within at the moment. That slime is now at the peak of its ascendency and has nowhere to go but down.

0 Replies

Anybody who has thoughts which he himself deems unfit to be put into words on a philosophy forum is in a worse position than somebody who does put his thoughts into words.First off he is masquerading as cuter than he actually is.Second his command of language must be a touch wonky.Third he is patronising his forum colleagues.Fourth he is windy and last but by no means least he didn't ought to have thoughts which require such evasions.

spendius.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

...

If you've done any reading on it, you'd know that a popular sentiment among the founding fathers was that the common man was pretty dumb and that he needs religion to provide an easy-to-understand presentation of morality.

Notice he used the words "national morality". Herd mentality.

...

Do you think your slam against religion in anyway supports your thesis? If this was indeed a "popular sentiment among the founding fathers" (and I'm not agreeing that it was, just accepting it for the moment in order to make this point), then their desire to satisfy the herd would be to encourage religion. We know the early settlers in this country were very religious people. Religion was everywhere, and was involved in most areas of life. We can leave aside for the moment the motivations of the FF, and whether this was because the FF wanted to keep the sheep moral and that was the most effective way to get them to be moral. The point is religion was present, and shaped the lives of the people who founded this country (not referring specifically to the FF, but the sheep). It was this foundation upon which the country was built.

And it was Judeo/Christian, because that's what was here, and that's what was believed. How many Hindus or Muslims were here? The FF never selected it as an "official religion," and I'm not suggesting it was ever endorsed as such.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Anybody who has thoughts which he himself deems unfit to be put into words on a philosophy forum is in a worse position than somebody who does put his thoughts into words.First off he is masquerading as cuter than he actually is.Second his command of language must be a touch wonky.Third he is patronising his forum colleagues.Fourth he is windy and last but by no means least he didn't ought to have thoughts which require such evasions.

spendius.

Aha...the gnat has arrived buzzing one of his empty buzzes.

Hey, Gnat.

I see you still think your buzzing constitutes spoken thoughts.

Ahhh...if it gets ya through the day...no harm comes from it.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know