• 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!

There's no such thing as "Separation of Church and State"

American said:
Yes, and the question is what kind of separation. It's not the kind that some on the left want, where religion is virtually wiped from the face of the Earth. No 10 commandments, no prayer, no invocation, no nothing. And no one argued the separation until the 1950's.
Click to expand...

That's No 10 commandments, no prayer, no invocation, no nothing mandated by the government.
 
American said:
It's not the kind that some on the left want, where religion is virtually wiped from the face of the Earth.
Click to expand...

You know damn well that's hyperbole. No "Leftists" want religion wiped from the face of the Earth except the tiny minority radical fringe and the imaginary "Left" that makes up your deluded political fantasy world.

American said:
No 10 commandments, no prayer, no invocation, no nothing.
Click to expand...

No one really cares about brainless prayers before Congressional sessions or high school football games. These happen all day, every day and only once in a great while do one or two loudmouths complain out it. Not really a mass Leftist assault on every trace of religion in the public square, is it? 10 Commandments are explicitly Christian religious advertising and have no place in government buildings.

And no one argued the separation until the 1950's.
Click to expand...

Just like no one complained about Jim Crow laws until the 50's and 60's. Man, wasn't life better when the ones who got the short end of the stick just shut their mouth and dealt with it so the majority can not be bothered having to think about others for a split nanosecond?
 
Last edited:
VF500 said:
Anyone who says there is can shut me up by simply posting where it is in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Worst argument ever. Shows a profound lack of understanding of the judicial system and the spirit in which the constitution conceived and developed, that is, as a living document.

Show me in the Constitution where drunk driving is illegal.

Show me in the Constitution where child pornography is illegal.

Show me in the Constitution where yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal.

The rules are you cannot rely on liberal "interpretations" of the constitution, because the Constitution is meant to be read absolutely literally. Also, current and past judicial interpretations of the Constitution are not allowed either, as they are liberal 'relativists" who interpret the Constitution according to their Marxist ideals and therefore are inadmissible.

So go on, show me why the Constitution says I can't drive drunk across state lines with two underage children to molest in a crowded theater. I dare you.
 
American said:
And no one argued the separation until the 1950's.
Click to expand...

Nobody was really calling for their inclusion until then, either. :shrug: There was a big push for including god references in certain things in the 50's as part of the cold war anti-atheism propaganda.
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
Worst argument ever. Shows a profound lack of understanding of the judicial system and the spirit in which the constitution conceived and developed, that is, as a living document.

Show me in the Constitution where drunk driving is illegal.

Show me in the Constitution where child pornography is illegal.

Show me in the Constitution where yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal.

The rules are you cannot rely on liberal "interpretations" of the constitution, because the Constitution is meant to be read absolutely literally. Also, current and past judicial interpretations of the Constitution are not allowed either, as they are liberal 'relativists" who interpret the Constitution according to their Marxist ideals and therefore are inadmissible.

So go on, show me why the Constitution says I can't drive drunk across state lines with two underage children to molest in a crowded theater. I dare you.
Click to expand...

I present to you the Tenth Amendment which does allow the states to decide what is legal and illegal inside their borders.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I give you now Article I Section VIII Clauses XVI-XVII in regards to the federal government making things legal and illegal on federal property.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Finally here's Article IV Section II Clause II that states that the federal government has the authority to pursue criminals that cross state lines.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Oopps busted you on your strawman argument. Maybe you should actually read what the Constitution of the United States says instead of guessing at what it says.
 
Mach said:
How do you have time to post, I thought you were busy spam mailing the ACLU your message of hate?

Religion is excluded from law, for good reason. If you have to ask....
Click to expand...

No! Religion is NOT excluded from law. Religion is a set of values. There is nothing wrong with the idea that these values be reflected in laws. They should just be debated on their MERITS the same as the ideas presented by people who just think that something is a good idea on their own.
 
VF500 said:
Maybe there would be a lot less lying and under handed policy making.
Click to expand...

Right, because so-called religious people like Newt Gingrich, spouting off about family values, are free from any lies, dishonesty, or hypocrisy. Your assumption that religious people are good people is silly.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Nobody was really calling for their inclusion until then, either. :shrug: There was a big push for including god references in certain things in the 50's as part of the cold war anti-atheism propaganda.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like in one thing?
 
American said:
Yeah, like in one thing?
Click to expand...

The National moto was changed, the Pledge of Allegiance was altered, and paper currecny had to bear In God we trust.

All done out of an childish attempt to distance ourselves from the "Godless communist".
 
Well, I was going to read the parts of the thread I haven't kept up on, but after reading that the Ten Commandments somehow became part of the New Testament while I was sleeping last night, it's obvious there really is little point in arguing with idiots and ignorance.
 
Oopps busted you on your strawman argument. Maybe you should actually read what the Constitution of the United States says instead of guessing at what it says.
Click to expand...

Given how the Supreme Court has been stacked and re-stacked with partisan hacks by both Presidents and political parties numerous times over the last 200 years, this isn't a real point; interpreting the Constitution has become merely another parlor game in semantics, not a serious debate, so just wait a while and the interpretation will change yet again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom