• 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!

"Separation of Church and State"

James972 said:
who cares? our issue is that believing in great Christian commandment" love thy neighbor" who prevent liberal school shooters.
Click to expand...

which school shooters weer into liberal policies?
 
James972 said:
who cares? our issue is that believing in great Christian commandment" love thy neighbor" who prevent liberal school shooters.
Click to expand...

yes getting people to belve its bad to shoot others will help with lowering the number of shootings


think using arguments based on reality instead of religion will be more convincing


right god?


god says yes
 
blarg said:
yes getting people to belve its bad to shoot others will help with lowering the number of shootings
Click to expand...

so then why are liberals encouraging these school shooting??
 
blarg said:
think using arguments based on reality instead of religion will be more convincing
Click to expand...

in 10,000 years it has not worked. Where is your common sense at all?
 
James972 said:
god promises eternal life in heaven with loved ones 1+1=2
Click to expand...

Provide evidence there's even one single person got what your god promised.
 
Mircea said:
Provide evidence there's even one single person got what your god promised.
Click to expand...

why would I care about that?? Our subject is whether believing it would have stopped the liberal school shooters. Do you understand?
 
blarg said:
their not only idiots would think so
Click to expand...

liberals killed god so school shooters felt free to shoot. 1+1=2 Why not make libearalism illegal? Ever see conservatives implicated in horror after horror?
 
Elvira said:
Common sense is not his strong suit...
Click to expand...

now blarg says he is
going to teach common sense to prevent school shootings, overdoses, murder, depression and you'll be more effective that Christianity? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
 
James972 said:
liberals killed god so school shooters felt free to shoot. 1+1=2 Why not make libearalism illegal? Ever see conservatives implicated in horror after horror?
Click to expand...

you cant kill a god you never actually had one


and you dont follow the commands you claim to have received form yours


and you have not shown any liberal school shooters exist

88 Precepts – RepublicOfFlorida.com
 
James972 said:
now blarg says he is
going to teach common sense to prevent school shootings, overdoses, murder, depression and you'll be more effective that Christianity? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...

just like your going to toss a bible at them?


you need to teach people yonge and people need to generally care about 1 another that will reduce violence not false gods
 
blarg said:
you need to teach people yonge and people need to generally care about 1 another that will reduce violence not false gods
Click to expand...

cool!! thats the liberals plan to stop school shootings???? CHurch obvious had a better plan, ... then liberals killed it and set all the school shooters free
 
James972 said:
cool!! thats the liberals plan to stop school shootings???? CHurch obvious had a better plan, ... then liberals killed it and set all the school shooters free
Click to expand...

no if your plan was better you would have an obvious god who was real and who could not be shaped to suit the whims of anyone who claims to speak for it
 
Last edited:
blarg said:
just like your going to toss a bible at them?


you need to teach people yonge and people need to generally care about 1 another that will reduce violence not false gods
Click to expand...


Maybe. That sounds like a more practical solution than the hope all members of the religion are not going to flip out and kill people.
 
Clapton is God said:
A common objection of neo-conservatives is that the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. Constitution. This is true also of "the trinity" in the Bible. The term is not found, but the principle is. Obviously, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" contains this principle, but that is not the whole picture. States like the Commonwealth of Virginia had official state religion of Baptist a long time ago. At the time, this was not a violation of the "establishment clause" as the 1st Amendment was not binding on the states, but it was most certainly a violation of religious freedom as it took Jefferson's "Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom" to abolish the state religion.

The term "separation of church and state" gained prominence in American politics after the Supreme Court decision in Everson v Board of Education. If you read this decision and many others, you will understand that the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was a protection that applied only to the Federal government. Many modern conservatives may find this hard to believe, but a state legislature could actually ban privately owned firearms and it would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment as it applied only to the Federal government. This is basic "federalism".

After the civil war the 14th Amendment was "ratified" and was the first amendment which stated "No state shall..." The war and specifically this amendment turned the Constitution on it's head and started not only the vast growth in corporate power and corporate personhood "rights", but made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states which the courts expanded more and more especially throughout the 20th Century. These many court decisions will state the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc...is applicable through the 14th Amendment.

People can blame "secular liberals" or whoever all they want, but this goes back to the American civil war. My point is not to say which system was better or worse, but to give understanding to those who do not know this.
Click to expand...

Actually, most States already acknowledged the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms. Some even prior to the Second Amendment being ratified. The idea of "incorporating" the Bill of Rights to include the States began after the Supreme Court decision in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) that clearly drew the line between States and the federal government when it came to the application of the Bill of Rights. It would still be a long time coming, but incorporation would gain momentum during the 1850s and finally be ratified in 1866 under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even after ratification it would not be until Gitlow v. New York. 268 U.S. 652 (1925) before the Supreme Court finally selectively incorporated parts of the First Amendment and applied them to the States. Since 1925 the Supreme Court has slowly been selectively incorporating the Bill of Rights and applying them to the States. The most recent incorporation was made on February 20, 2019 when the Supreme Court incorporated the Eighth Amendment among the States in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019).

With regard to the selective incorporation of the First Amendment, this was a big departure from the original understanding. Most of the original 13 States and Commonwealths already had established State religions when the First Amendment was initially ratified in 1791. It was arguably the most difficult of all the Bill of Rights to incorporate.

It also needs to be pointed out that through selective incorporation not all the Bill of Rights, in their entirety, applies to the States - at least not yet. For example, the Supreme Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) that States must provide the defendant with "the assistance of counsel" under the Sixth Amendment through selective incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, States may still abolish juries altogether even though they are also guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment also is suppose to guarantee a Grand Jury indictment of "capital, or otherwise infamous crime," but only 23 States require Grand Juries for serious crimes. In 25 other States a Grand Jury is optional. Connecticut and Pennsylvania (and DC) have abolished the use of Grand Juries for criminal indictments.
 
Last edited:
blarg said:
no if your plan was better you would have an obvious god who was real and who could not be shaped to suit the whims of anyone who claims to speak for it
Click to expand...

Actually the christian religion is the most successful institution in human history organized mostly around the Great Commandment: Love thy neighbor as thyself. The liberal school shooters don't exactly follow the Great Commandment. They have your more real and obvious God.
 
James972 said:
Actually the christian religion is the most successful institution in human history organized mostly around the Great Commandment: Love thy neighbor as thyself. The liberal school shooters don't exactly follow the Great Commandment. They have your more real and obvious God.
Click to expand...

They have been very successful at killing people
 
Clapton is God said:
A common objection of neo-conservatives is that the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. Constitution. This is true also of "the trinity" in the Bible. The term is not found, but the principle is. Obviously, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" contains this principle, but that is not the whole picture. States like the Commonwealth of Virginia had official state religion of Baptist a long time ago. At the time, this was not a violation of the "establishment clause" as the 1st Amendment was not binding on the states, but it was most certainly a violation of religious freedom as it took Jefferson's "Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom" to abolish the state religion.

The term "separation of church and state" gained prominence in American politics after the Supreme Court decision in Everson v Board of Education. If you read this decision and many others, you will understand that the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was a protection that applied only to the Federal government. Many modern conservatives may find this hard to believe, but a state legislature could actually ban privately owned firearms and it would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment as it applied only to the Federal government. This is basic "federalism".

After the civil war the 14th Amendment was "ratified" and was the first amendment which stated "No state shall..." The war and specifically this amendment turned the Constitution on it's head and started not only the vast growth in corporate power and corporate personhood "rights", but made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states which the courts expanded more and more especially throughout the 20th Century. These many court decisions will state the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc...is applicable through the 14th Amendment.

People can blame "secular liberals" or whoever all they want, but this goes back to the American civil war. My point is not to say which system was better or worse, but to give understanding to those who do not know this.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a lecture that goes all over the place. The enlarged text is oftentimes forgotten by govt officials and atheists. BTW, the constitutions of most states confirm the right to keep and bear arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom