• 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"

Bezukhov said:
Time (Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, to the future. Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience. Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions.)

started (cause (an event or process) to happen)

with (used as a function word to indicate the means, cause, agent, or instrumentality)

Jesus (Jesus (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ, was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader. He is the central figure of Christianity.)
Click to expand...

if you have any idea what your point is why not tell us??
 
Last edited:
Bezukhov said:
We would never raise a club over someone's head to either:
1) take something from them that they are not willing to volunteer,
2) make them do something they don't want to do,
3) stop them from doing something that isn't hurting anyone else
Click to expand...

and capitalists do those things??? When??how???
 
Somerville said:
You, jimmy, you show us with every post that you prefer fantasies to the real world, whether present-day or in the past.
Click to expand...

Why not present your best example, for the record, so the world can be sure of your judgement? Afraid to try???
 
James972 said:
Why not present your best example, for the record, so the world can be sure of your judgement? Afraid to try???
Click to expand...

I've tried too many times, jimmy. Every time, you either ignore or deny the validity of the statement. Your snide little comments really don't need a rejoinder of any nature. You simply say the same thing over and over and over.

Enough time wasting -- once again you have won jimmy, simply because an adult is tired of playing with a 5 year old brat.
 
James972 said:
if you have any idea what your point is why not tell us??
Click to expand...

Did you, or did you not say:

Time started with Jesus!!

James972 said:
yes dear a tradition and language that came from history, Greco Roman Judeo Christian. Time started with Jesus!!
Click to expand...

Did I, or did I not just provide the definitions to the four words in your inane comment? Now if you fail to comprehend my point there is something seriously wrong with you.

ETA: Why not tell us your point in stating "Time started with Jesus!!"
 
Somerville said:
I've tried too many times, jimmy. Every time, you either ignore or deny the validity of the statement..
Click to expand...

why not give us your best example so the whole world can verify your liberal judgement?? Afraid to try?? Ever see a conservative or libertarian afraid to try? What does that teach you?
 
Bezukhov said:
[F]Did you, or did you not say:Time started with Jesus!![/E][/FONT]
Click to expand...

obviously, but obviously was not speaking literally, since the big bang was billions of years before Christ. 1+1=2
 
Bezukhov said:
[FONT=Arial Blac


]Did I, or did I not just provide the definitions to the four words in your inane comment?
Click to expand...

sure but definitions were not in question. 1+1=2
 
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...
Why is this even a question , it was answered completely by the writers and signers of the Declaration of independents and writers and signers of the constitution. Couldn't be made more clear, Simply look at the 11 amendment of this countries first treaty , The treaty of Tripoly. I believe in 1779. Supported and signed by 100% of the congress and made into law with writers and signers of both the Declaration of independents and constitution.
Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
 
jbander said:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
Click to expand...

Dear, that was merely pandering to the Muslims. Of course America was founded on Christianity. It was the source of all Western values. Before we were Christians we were Romans with quite different values. NOw do you understand?



America regularly attempted to assure the Muslims that as Christians, we had no religious hatred of them – that we had “no enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility” of the Muslims, and that our substantial differences of “religious opinions shall [n]ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations.” Furthermore, we inserted specific clauses into the treaties to ensure that our Christian diplomats in their Muslim nations could practice their Christian faith, just as their Muslim diplomats in America could practice their Muslim faith. 15 Very simply, using multiple clauses, we attempted to reassure them that we were not like the Period II Christian nations that had attacked them simply because they were Muslims; America was not – and never had been – a party to any such religious war.

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was just one of the many treaties in which each country recognized the religion of the other, and in which America invoked rhetoric designed to prevent a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims. 16 Article XI of that treaty therefore stated:
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
Dear, that was merely pandering to the Muslims. Of course America was founded on Christianity. It was the source of all Western values. Before we were Christians we were Romans with quite different values. NOw do you understand?



America regularly attempted to assure the Muslims that as Christians, we had no religious hatred of them – that we had “no enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility” of the Muslims, and that our substantial differences of “religious opinions shall [n]ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations.” Furthermore, we inserted specific clauses into the treaties to ensure that our Christian diplomats in their Muslim nations could practice their Christian faith, just as their Muslim diplomats in America could practice their Muslim faith. 15 Very simply, using multiple clauses, we attempted to reassure them that we were not like the Period II Christian nations that had attacked them simply because they were Muslims; America was not – and never had been – a party to any such religious war.

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was just one of the many treaties in which each country recognized the religion of the other, and in which America invoked rhetoric designed to prevent a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims. 16 Article XI of that treaty therefore stated:
Click to expand...

When you use another person's words, you are supposed to give them credit for those words. From "America regularly . . . to . . . treaty therefore stated:", jimmy has copied and pasted from an anti-Muslim website -- Islam Will lose, The West Already Lost – Faithfreedom.org or maybe he copied the words from Wallbuilders, which didn't give credit to the author either.
 
Somerville said:
When you use another person's words, you are supposed to give them credit for those words. From "America regularly . . . to . . . treaty therefore stated:", jimmy has copied and pasted from an anti-Muslim website -- Islam Will lose, The West Already Lost – Faithfreedom.org or maybe he copied the words from Wallbuilders, which didn't give credit to the author either.
Click to expand...

Dear, that was merely pandering to the Muslims. Of course America was founded on Christianity. It was the source of all Western values. Before we were Christians we were Romans with quite different values. Now do you understand?
 
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...


The constitution is set of rules - the purpose of which is to limit the power of Gov't - not every rule is in the constitution -as that would be absurd and near impossible.

The principles on which the Constitution was based are found in the Declaration of Independence. This documents sets out guidelines 1) to assert what is not the legitimate authority of Gov't 2) dictate where that authority comes from.

1) essential liberty is put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't - This is also what defines a constitutional republic. Gov't is then to make no law - of its own volition - that messes with essential liberty .. never mind law made on the basis of religious belief. If Gov't wants to make such law - it is supposed to appeal to "we the people" for a change to the social contract - construct by which people give Gov't power. The bar for this is not 50+1 or Simple Majority Mandate ( if some politician could make such law .. simply on the basis of being elected - there would be no point in putting essential liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The bar is overwhelming majority - at least 2/3.

2) Gov't authority comes from "consent of the Governed" - as opposed to "divine right/God" as was the case in the past. The whole point of the enlightenment thinkers with respect to classical liberalism (not be confused with the modern term "liberal" ) was to come up with a justification for authority that did not rely on "God says so"
 
thinkagain said:
come up with a justification for authority that did not rely on "God says so"
Click to expand...

wasn't it Jefferson who used the term Nature's God to say natural law came from it and human govt should not mess with God or nature .
 
James972 said:
Dear, that was merely pandering to the Muslims. Of course America was founded on Christianity. It was the source of all Western values. Before we were Christians we were Romans with quite different values. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

Yes, 'Dear', as is your usual modus operandi, your response here totally fails to respond what I had posted earlier (#1115)

Once again, you provide evidence of your near-total ignorance of history, whether that of the USA or of 'western civilisation'. Please continue as you do provide a bit of humour for the discerning with your inane responses.

Any other reader notice that jimmy failed to acknowledge his C&P source?
 
Somerville said:
Once again, you provide evidence of your near-total ignorance of history
Click to expand...

if true the liberal would not be so afraid to explain why he says total ignorance. What did the liberal learn from his fear?
 
James972 said:
if true the liberal would not be so afraid to explain why he says total ignorance. What did the liberal learn from his fear?
Click to expand...

1) The USA was not established as a Christian nation.

2) We were not all Romas before some people became Christians

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. He did believe in a Creator, just not the one that Christians worship. He believed in a God owing to his personal process of thinking about the world, TJ was what today is known as believing in Intelligent Design, in his day he was a Deist. He did not believe that the commonly accepted moral rules of society came from any creator but were the result of mankind's rational processes.

"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if He had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science."

In a letter to John Adams, TJ acknowledged Adams thoughts on religion and the recent change in the policies of the state of Connecticut regarding the earlier support of the state for the Congregational Church. The financial support of the Congregationalists had been the spur for the letter from the Danbury Baptists to TJ and for his reply with its famous words about "a wall between church and state"

Monticello, May 5, 1817.
If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, "something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell."

TJ believed that Jesus was simply a human being who taught a moral way for people to live.

Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford
Monticello Mar. 17. 14.
". . . in every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
 
Somerville said:
He did not believe that the commonly accepted moral rules of society came from any creator but were the result of mankind's rational processes.
Click to expand...

an obvious liberal lie. Do you have any evidence of this or is it more fake liberal news??
 
Somerville said:
Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian.
Click to expand...

actually perhaps the most devout Christian in American History:

Thomas Jefferson: "notwithstanding these advantages a system of morals is presented to us[by Jesus] which if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man." "His moral doctrines relating to kindred and friends were more pure &perfect thatn those of the most correct of the philosophers, and gbrestly more so than those of the Jews and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not onlyh to kindred and friend, to neighbors and countryman, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evinve th epeculiar superiotiy of the sustem of JEsus over all others." THe precepts of philosophy and of hebrew code laid hold of actions only.He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters of the fountain head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom