• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural

TheNextEra said:
My post mean exactly as it is, in America the Constitution is the backbone, not God. We are secular as a government.
Click to expand...
But that has little relevance here to the constitutionally of the use of god.

If the Christian God were the backbone, we would have in our consitution to not allow any other worship of a God(s) other than the Christian God.

This is not the case. God does not rule America.
Click to expand...
Actually your point doesn't follow. England is a Christian nations with an established church but other gods may be worshipped. To be a Christian nation you don't have to ban other religions.
 
Wessexman said:
Ad hominem is not a logical fallacy unless one is using it in the place of arguments. If it is used alongside them it is just a colourful additions like icing or spices.
Click to expand...

To attack the person is NOT attacking their argument. And the LOGIC behind your argument was that my position was based on wining.

Personal attacks are not relevant and are rude in a debate, if you cannot debate someone who disagrees with you without vemon, it shows the weakness of your position.

Wessexman said:
Again we aren't discussing astronomy but politics and society, one can certainly attack the viewpoints of others as long as he has more to offer.
Click to expand...

Logic is the basis of all arguments, so the topic is irrelevant. Also you don't have more to offer but assertions.

Wessexman said:
What respect? You are trying to twist words.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its me who is trying to twist words :lol: And its you who didn't just claim that you justified your rude remarks by a post I made AFTER THEM.

You called my respect for the first amendment "whining" did you not?
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
But that has little relevance here to the constitutionally of the use of god.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, the consitution does not recognize the Christian God as the Authority.

Wessexman said:
Actually your point doesn't follow. England is a Christian nations with an established church but other gods may be worshipped. To be a Christian nation you don't have to ban other religions.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in our nation the Christian God does not rule. We allow Homosexuality to exist. That is against the Christian God. We allow Gay Marriage for states that choose it, that is against the Christian God. We allow adultry to exist, that is against the Christian God. We allow divorce for ANY REASON, that is against the Christian God.

The Christian God does not rule America, this fact cannot be disputed.
 
Lachean said:
No it says ESTABLISHMENT, please go read your constitution before you go around insulting people.

Ask yourself why the founders did not want congress to pass laws respecting any establishment of religion.
Click to expand...

Establish is the verb. A religious establishment is a state church like the church of England.

Hence antidisestablishmentarianism is about stopping the disestablishment of the Church of England.

The first amendment was added due to pressure from the anti-federalists like the whole bill of rights, they were actually worried about the lack of references to God in the constitution. They were more worried about the threat to influence of religion on the gov't that the constitution might bring about. The amendment is about limiting federal power that is all. Check out Storing's What the Anti-federalists were for.
 
Wessexman said:
Establish is the verb. A religious establishment is a state church like the church of England.

Hence antidisestablishmentarianism is about stopping the disestablishment of the Church of England.
Click to expand...

An establishment is a NOUN, and "congress shall make no law respecting" a SINGLE "establishment of religion", I don't understand how you could be confused by such simple language.

Wessexman said:
The first amendment was added due to pressure from the anti-federalists like the whole bill of rights, they were actually worried about the lack of references to God in the constitution. They were more worried about the threat to influence of religion on the gov't that the constitution might bring about. The amendment is about limiting federal power that is all. Check out Storing's What the Anti-federalists were for.
Click to expand...

You should really read the letters to the Danbury Baptists describing the intent of the first amendment, you might be shocked that you have been so gravely mislead.

Also I would like you to address how its possible that you justified your rude behavior because I said something AFTER THE FACT. Are you psychic? Did you know I was going to say "ad-hominem"?
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Sure it does, the consitution does not recognize the Christian God as the Authority.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the meaning of the term establish or establishment.


Yes, but in our nation the Christian God does not rule. We allow Homosexuality to exist. That is against the Christian God. We allow Gay Marriage for states that choose it, that is against the Christian God. We allow adultry to exist, that is against the Christian God. We allow divorce for ANY REASON, that is against the Christian God.

The Christian God does not rule America, this fact cannot be disputed.
Click to expand...
Your not addressing the actual point.
 
Lachean said:
An establishment is a NOUN, and "congress shall make no law respecting" a SINGLE ONE, I don't understand how you could be confused by such simple language.
Click to expand...
I'm not. Congress can't make a law setting up a state church or removing in the case of state level ones.


You should really read the letters to the Danbury Baptists describing the intent of the first amendment, you might be shocked that you have been so gravely mislead by whoever told you that heap of lies.
Click to expand...
Jefferson wasn't even in the country to my knowledge.
 
Lachean said:
To attack the person is NOT attacking their argument.
Click to expand...
So? When I made my lunch today I was not attacking your argument, not everything is. As long as it is not all I have got then it is fine.

And the LOGIC behind your argument was that my position was based on wining.
Click to expand...
No, that is was a part a of whining.

Personal attacks are not relevant and are rude in a debate, if you cannot debate someone who disagrees with you without vemon, it shows the weakness of your position.
Click to expand...
You haven't read much Burke or Swift have you.



Logic is the basis of all arguments, so the topic is irrelevant. Also you don't have more to offer but assertions.
Click to expand...
At least I understand the English language.
 
Wessexman said:
I'm not. Congress can't make a law setting up a state church or removing in the case of state level ones.
Click to expand...

If that were true then the 1st amendment would read "congress shall make no laws creating a religious establishment."

But it doesn't, it says "respecting an establishment of Religion."

Wessexman said:
Jefferson wasn't even in the country to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Relevance?
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
So? When I made my lunch today I was not attacking your argument, not everything is. As long as it is not all I have got then it is fine.

No, that is was a part a of whining.

You haven't read much Burke or Swift have you.

At least I understand the English language.
Click to expand...

More insults and less reason, you truly are revealing the weakness of your position. And now appeals to authority? You're just covered in logical fallacies. And I have nothing to gain from listening to you it seems :2wave:

If you did understand English properly, you would know what it means to not be able to "respect an establishment of religion" with any law.

This whole tangent is irrelevant and a waste of time, I already said I don't think an oath constitutes a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

You want to argue that there is no separation, which totally misses the point of the topic.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
If that were true then the 1st amendment would read "congress shall make no laws creating a religious establishment."
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't because the states could have religious establisments. It says establishments, the terms has a clear English meaning and one which was even clearer at the time.

For instance from Burke's Reflections only a couple of years later.

we are resolved to keep an established church, an established monarchy, an established aristocracy, and an established democracy, each in the degree it exists, and in no greater. I shall show you presently how much of each of these we possess.


Relevance?
Click to expand...
Your arguments rests on a letter from Jefferson.
 
Lachean said:
More insults and less reason, you truly are revealing the weakness of your position. And now appeals to authority? You're just covered in logical fallacies. And I have nothing to gain from listening to you it seems :2wave:
Click to expand...
Ah running away. I really have you rattled. :lol:

Athiests are always quick to run.

If you did understand English properly, you would know what it means to not be able to "respect an establishment of religion" with any law.
Click to expand...
Indeed it means setting up a state church, that is what the term establishment means. The last time I looked what you think is a dubious word order is not enough to change the very meaning of English words.
 
Wessexman said:
No it wouldn't because the states could have religious establisments. It says establishments, the terms has a clear English meaning and one which was even clearer at the time.

For instance from Burke's Reflections only a couple of years later.

we are resolved to keep an established church, an established monarchy, an established aristocracy, and an established democracy, each in the degree it exists, and in no greater. I shall show you presently how much of each of these we possess.

Your arguments rests on a letter from Jefferson.
Click to expand...

Wrong, they rest on plain language. I don't know why the term "respecting an establishment of religion" is so difficult for you, but I no longer care either.

Why should I waste time spoon feeding you information when you're going to be so nasty, go take a constitutional law class.
 
Lachean said:
Wrong, they rest on plain language. I don't know why the term "respecting an establishment of religion" is so difficult for you, but I no longer care either.

Why should I waste time spoon feeding you information when you're going to be so nasty, go take a constitutional law class.
Click to expand...

But in plain English religious establishment means a state church, particularly in the 18th century. What don't you understand about this?

Established church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country, e.g. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in the United Kingdom. Such a sanction is discouraged in some countries, such as the United States, where this is covered by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Ah running away. I really have you rattled. :lol:

Athiests are always quick to run.
Click to expand...

Rattled? Don't flatter yourself, its called BOREDOM. But if telling yourself that I ran away from your arguments rather than your disgusting character makes you feel better, don't let me stop you. Nor can I stop you from pretending that rudeness is justifiable.

Yeah, you totally stumped me logically! And your logic behind "I insulted you because of what you haven't even said yet" is... to put it bluntly... unbelievable.

Wessexman said:
Indeed it means setting up a state church, that is what the term establishment means. The last time I looked what you think is a dubious word order is not enough to change the very meaning of English words.
Click to expand...

I don't regard the very clear language of the 1st amendment as dubious.
 
Wessexman said:
But in plain English religious establishment means a state church, particularly in the 18th century. What don't you understand about this?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think the only establishments of religion are the ones established by the state.

Look up the definition of an establishment, you're hooked on the verb and do not understand the noun.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Yeah, you totally stumped me logically!
Click to expand...
At least you're grown up enough to admit that.

I don't regard the very clear language of the 1st amendment as dubious.
Click to expand...
Except you won't make a proper argument. You just claim it means what you say it means without even explaining how the term establishment now means something else.
 
Lachean said:
I don't understand why you think the only establishments of religion are the ones established by the state.
Click to expand...

Because that is what the term religious establishment means, particularly in the 18th century. A religious establishment does not mean just any church let alone any religion it means a state church, this is its meaning, particularly in the 18th century.

Established church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country, e.g. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in the United Kingdom. Such a sanction is discouraged in some countries, such as the United States, where this is covered by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
 
Wessexman said:
Except you won't make a proper argument. You just claim it means what you say it means without even explaining how the term establishment now means something else.
Click to expand...

Webster said:
Main Entry:
es·tab·lish·ment Listen to the pronunciation of establishment
Pronunciation:
\i-ˈsta-blish-mənt\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1: something established: as a: a settled arrangement ; especially : a code of laws b: established church c: a permanent civil or military organization d: a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e: a public or private institution 2: an established order of society: as aoften capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) boften capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment> 3 a: the act of establishing b: the state of being established
Click to expand...

A single church can be an establishment of religion. You DO NOT understand plain english, if you want to debate this further; Debate the dictionary companies.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
According to WEBSTER:

Main Entry:
es·tab·lish·ment Listen to the pronunciation of establishment
Pronunciation:
\i-ˈsta-blish-mənt\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1: something established: as a: a settled arrangement ; especially : a code of laws b: established church c: a permanent civil or military organization d: a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e: a public or private institution 2: an established order of society: as aoften capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) boften capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment> 3 a: the act of establishing b: the state of being established
Click to expand...

Exactly.

An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country, e.g. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in the United Kingdom. Such a sanction is discouraged in some countries, such as the United States, where this is covered by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

We are talking about religious establishments in 18th century language.

This does not mean just mentioning God in the inauguration.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
:roll: The definition proved that you don't understand what constitutes an establishment, it does not ONLY mean state establishments. Good night :2wave:
Click to expand...

Actually it stated that religious establishment means a state church. It says establishment means state church. This was particularly true in the 18th century, see my Burke quote. Why else would it list the religious establisment part seperate. A religious establishment means a state church.

Anyway even if your dubious twisting were correct it wouldn't help you much as Christianity broadly speaking is not an institution in that sense.

Man I love showing up Athiests. See ya.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Actually it stated that religious establishment means a state church. It says establishment means state church. This was particularly true in the 18th century, see my Burke quote. Why else would it list the religious establisment part seperate. A religious establishment means a state church.
Click to expand...

So no non-state church has ever been established? :lol:

Wessexman said:
Anyway even if your dubious twisting were correct it wouldn't help you much as Christianity broadly speaking is no an institution.
Click to expand...

So? The constitution doesn't say "an establishment of Christianity." Christianity is a religion, and a Christian church for example is an establishment of religion, even if it is not established BY THE STATE.

Wessexman said:
Man I love showing up Athiests. See ya.:2wave:
Click to expand...

EDIT: :lol: Yeah you really showed me up, especially when you keep avoiding the fact that you claimed that a post that hadn't been made yet justified a rude post of yours.

Psychic abilities totally trump my logic, and the meanings of words. :doh

---------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the topic, this oath doesn't bother me, nor should it bother any "secularist."

If when the Justice prompting the oath says "repeat after me..." and speaks the lines for the president elect to repeat, and the *Justice* says "So help me god" at the end, as if it was part of the oath that was mandated, then THAT would be a problem. But historically the presidents have just added that part on their own without prompting.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
So no non-state church has ever been established? :lol:
Click to expand...
Nope. Not in that sense.

What then is antidisestablishmentarianism about?



So? The constitution doesn't say "an establishment of Christianity." Christianity is a religion, and a Christian church for example is an establishment that is religious.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. The Church of England is an established church, the Anglican church in Australia is not an established religion. Religion establishment means a state church, we have been through this, your definition proved me right. Hence religion had its own category otherwise it would have been lumped with the other and let's not forget my definitions.

Established church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country, e.g. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in the United Kingdom. Such a sanction is discouraged in some countries, such as the United States, where this is covered by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


Back to the topic, this oath doesn't bother me, nor should it bother any "secularist."
Click to expand...
Good for them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom