• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Separation of church and state

But that isn't what I suggested at all.
Yes it is.

That being said, my point is still valid and stands true.
Uh, no it does not. By the way, you cannot claim the opposite for what you claim to claim and then say your claim is true.
 
:roll: :caution: :spin: :alert

My suggestion? It is no use debating with some, I know from prior experience that next you will be getting an earful of "your views are not conservative at all, they are Republican", blah blah blah....big big, monumentally large waste of time. Nothing at all fruitful comes of it, you learn nothing... and if nothing else debate should be a learning experience.
 
My suggestion? It is no use debating with some, I know from prior experience that next you will be getting an earful of "your views are not conservative at all, they are Republican", blah blah blah....big big, monumentally large waste of time. Nothing at all fruitful comes of it, you learn nothing... and if nothing else debate should be a learning experience.

Fair enough!
 
Was this prayer "right" taken from only Christians and thus limitted your right to silently pray at your leaisure? Perhaps limitting organized prayer time in public schools was not prohibiting the free exercise of religion but simply adding more instruction time to the school day for all. You are still free to pray before, during and after school, just not to take any instructional time away from others in order to do so.
The Christians will not accept your logic. As the court found, public schools should not be pushing religion but they are free to teach it and the kids are free to practice it, within reason.
 
The Christians will not accept your logic. As the court found, public schools should not be pushing religion but they are free to teach it and the kids are free to practice it, within reason.

:lol: :doh And so it is written... :roll:
 
Remember, I'm agnostic but the point stands.

It is amazing, to me, that the Christians have an chosen an agnostic as their Debate Politics spokesperson.

Perhaps you should introduce yourself formally as such.
 
It is amazing, to me, that the Christians have an chosen an agnostic as their Debate Politics spokesperson.

Perhaps you should introduce yourself formally as such.
They would never pick me. I just know what they think and believe, very well.
 
I beg to differ. Even as a minority (taxpayer of a different religion) your tax money (or at least some of it) was taken as well, to support that specific religious activity, in effect forcing you to support (establish?) the majority chosen religion over your own.
No need to beg, obviously. I think it best to define established when it comes to religion and state. Dictionary.com established church noun = a church that is recognized by law, and sometimes financially supported, as the official church of a nation. Also called state church. Compare national church.
thefreedictionary.com = es•tab•lished church n. =A church that a government officially recognizes as a national institution and to which it accords support. Established Church n (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a Church that is officially recognized as a national institution, esp the Church of England

And finally, perhaps describing it the best as well, oxforddictionaries.com
(of a Church or religion) recognized by the state as the national Church or religion: America had no established Church

Often best, I am sure you usually would agree, to clear up the fuzziness we might have in the terms… clears up misconceptions expeditiously. I cannot see how "establishment" could be construed in such a way, from the language of the Constitution under the first amendment, to specifically disallow this local funding, or not allow a nativity scene, or forbidding kids [ Teacher and administrators, too, if they want ] to pray in school should they so desire, nor would be something to which it would/could/should be accused of doing... like it means something. This has long past gone to the ridiculous extremes.

Your free exercise ends when the support of taxation of others begins. Once the first $1 of tax money is used only to favor a specific religion then the state has indeed established that religion. Exceptions may occur if a gov't general service, such as police or fire protection is needed, but only if that service is provided equally to all in need of it.
Again, an established religion is the STATE, read national, religion. This would not be the case locally ...and so your point while seemingly ostensible, is actually rather moot. There is no way that any government but the local government should attend to and determine how local taxes are allocated…this being by the majority... or whatever way they so determine after being elected by a majority. This is America.

Taxes are a single pool. You are trying to take money from these "minorities" to erect your own monuments.
Taxes are hardly a single pool. I pay into a pool when I pay my Federal Income taxes, different pool when I pay my local property taxes, gas taxes go to my state and my federal government, sales taxes go to the local, etc…. The majority is making a decision. How are you going to say the Constitution is against that? Show me where it says anything like that. As illustrated above, funding something a little bit does not an established religion make, especially if they were to fund anther one separately … none of this is prohibited by the Constitution... and under the 9th and 10th Amendments that which is not specifically within jurisdiction of the national government me is under the purview of the states and ultimately, the People.

If you kids want to get together and pool your own money to do it, then do that. You simply want to take taxpayer funding to build your little statues. Why else would you want to do it through the government and not privately?
I believe a lot in sticking with that which brought you to the dance. The founders were all over us to be a moral nation if we wanted to retain the fruits of liberty, and prosperity and good health holistically. And up until now we have had a lot of that. I can see the trimming a coming, especially with your way of thinking.

Once again, keep your weak fascist religion out of my government.
Well, since we do not seem to have a line drawn of tossing in the specter of fascism, guess the best way to inquire of you in return....

Why? Why should we have to do that, you sure haven’t kept your way way too strong stalinst anti-religious/non-belief beliefs out of mine…now have ya? What is sauce for the goose they say…
 
Last edited:
Taxes are hardly a single pool. I pay into a pool when I pay my Federal Income taxes, different pool when I pay my local property taxes, gas taxes go to my state and my federal government, sales taxes go to the local, etc…. The majority is making a decision. How are you going to say the Constitution is against that? Show me where it says anything like that. As illustrated above, funding something a little bit does not an established religion make, especially if they were to fund anther one separately … none of this is prohibited by the Constitution... and under the 9th and 10th Amendments that which is not specifically within jurisdiction of the national government me is under the purview of the states and ultimately, the People.

I believe a lot in sticking with that which brought you to the dance. The founders were all over us to be a moral nation if we wanted to retain the fruits of liberty, and prosperity and good health holistically. And up until now we have had a lot of that. I can see the trimming a coming, especially with your way of thinking.

Well, since we do not seem to have a line drawn of tossing in the specter of fascism, guess the best way to inquire of you in return....

Why? Why should we have to do that, you sure haven’t kept your way way too strong stalinst anti-religious/non-belief beliefs out of mine…now have ya? What is sauce for the goose they say…

If you weren't trying to get someone else's money for your statues, you wouldn't be demanding that the government made them. Otherwise you and your church buddies would just do it.

And yes, I'm so super stalinistic for wanting all people to be treated equally. You want to force your religion on others, and I'm the one who's forcing beliefs on somebody? The amount of mental gymnastics you'll go through to push your religion on others astounds me.

So no, you can't have my hard earned cash to make your little relics.
 
If you weren't trying to get someone else's money for your statues, you wouldn't be demanding that the government made them. Otherwise you and your church buddies would just do it.

And yes, I'm so super stalinistic for wanting all people to be treated equally. You want to force your religion on others, and I'm the one who's forcing beliefs on somebody? The amount of mental gymnastics you'll go through to push your religion on others astounds me.

So no, you can't have my hard earned cash to make your little relics.

One can only deduce that you were, apparently, not reading/comprehending what I was writing from the beginning. I am not of the major religion. In fact, I really have no religion at all, I just have my own individual belief in a higher power, no specific one. However, I do recognize the power of faith, and specific faiths, to America and many, most, Americans. Past, Present and Future. THE MAJORITY of Americans. So this feeble straw man you keep hoisting after you should already know I am not of the majority while avoiding the questions of Constitutionality and others, well, has to be acknowledged as the dodge it is meant to be.

As I said in my first posting this thread that you responded to:

“That [That being Chrisitanity, the major religion ] is not my religion but I understand it as part of our history, our common overwhelming predominant belief in the existence of a higher guiding power, and we should not be forced to ignore that... that would infringe upon the free exercise thereof.”

You seemingly have no problem calling me fascistic [ for what reason?] and yet do not, obviously, like to be called on your, yes, stalinistic rejection of religion. For one, YOU DO NOT treat all equally nor are even advocating for that. Can we talk about our Civil Rights heritage in the public square? Can we speak with confidence in the public square of the “obvious” [ air quotes ]truth of our very beginnings, evolution? That is the belief of the nonbelievers, often in direct contradiction to those that have faith, so in effect promoting one belief over another. Can we have monuments to great Americans that not all Americans [ a minority ] may not agree with, paid for with taxpayer money? Yes. Should we be able to do the very same with the Majority faith [again, before you being a silly tirade, it is not my faith ], which has been, without question, with us from the beginning and a very integral part of our common heritage and history, whatever belief or non-belief we each hold individually? To be equal, YES. Do you advocate that? NO. Make it simple enough for ya?

Also, I notice you are no longer positing that we all pay, as taxpayers, into a single pool. Is that a concession of the point? I think so. I also noticed that you did not argue with what is meant by an established religion, which a little funding by local authorities as the will of the majority decides, which is how it works in a democracy, and would/should not be considered any where near an "establishment" of a national religion. Concession there as well? I should think so. Do you disagree with anything of substance… or would you rather just keep foisting this falseness, this straw man upon me, as if they were the "relics" of my personal belief system. Had you had been attentive from the beginning, you would not even raise that as a point, however pointless it is otherwise.
 
Last edited:
One can only deduce that you were, apparently, not reading/comprehending what I was writing from the beginning. I am not of the major religion. In fact, I really have no religion at all, I just have my own individual belief in a higher power, no specific one. However, I do recognize the power of faith, and specific faiths, to America and many, most, Americans. Past, Present and Future. THE MAJORITY of Americans. So this feeble straw man you keep hoisting after you should already know I am not of the majority while avoiding the questions of Constitutionality and others, well, has to be acknowledged as the dodge it is meant to be.

As I said in my first posting this thread that you responded to:

“That [That being Chrisitanity, the major religion ] is not my religion but I understand it as part of our history, our common overwhelming predominant belief in the existence of a higher guiding power, and we should not be forced to ignore that... that would infringe upon the free exercise thereof.”

You seemingly have no problem calling me fascistic [ for what reason?] and yet do not, obviously, like to be called on your, yes, stalinistic rejection of religion. For one, YOU DO NOT treat all equally nor are even advocating for that. Can we talk about our Civil Rights heritage in the public square? Can we speak with confidence in the public square of the “obvious” [ air quotes ]truth of our very beginnings, evolution? That is the belief of the nonbelievers, often in direct contradiction to those that have faith, so in effect promoting one belief over another. Can we have monuments to great Americans that not all Americans [ a minority ] may not agree with, paid for with taxpayer money? Yes. Should we be able to do the very same with the Majority faith [again, before you being a silly tirade, it is not my faith ], which has been, without question, with us from the beginning and a very integral part of our common heritage and history, whatever belief or non-belief we each hold individually? To be equal, YES. Do you advocate that? NO. Make it simple enough for ya?

Also, I notice you are no longer positing that we all pay, as taxpayers, into a single pool. Is that a concession of the point? I think so. I also noticed that you did not argue with what is meant by an established religion, which a little funding by local authorities as the will of the majority decides, which is how it works in a democracy, and would/should not be considered any where near an "establishment" of a national religion. Concession there as well? I should think so. Do you disagree with anything of substance… or would you rather just keep foisting this falseness, this straw man upon me, as if they were the "relics" of my personal belief system. Had you had been attentive from the beginning, you would not even raise that as a point, however pointless it is otherwise.

1) Saying that no religion can use tax payer funding to further its agenda is not prohibiting religion from being freely exercised.

2) As of now, yes, we all, pay into the same pool regardless of religion. We don't take the "christian taxpayer fund" and the "muslim taxpayer fund" and use it for different things. For you to suggest that's the way it is shows an extreme amount of ignorance on your part.

3) A government picking christianity and only supporting that is the establisment of an official religion, plain and simple.

But by all means, keep comparing me to a dictator for saying all religions should be held equal and one shouldn't be hoisted over the others. It just makes you look desperate.

I have a feeling you would cry and whine if a local muslim politician decided to use that same taxpayer funding to build mosques.
 
1) Saying that no religion can use tax payer funding to further its agenda is not prohibiting religion from being freely exercised.

2) As of now, yes, we all, pay into the same pool regardless of religion. We don't take the "christian taxpayer fund" and the "muslim taxpayer fund" and use it for different things. For you to suggest that's the way it is shows an extreme amount of ignorance on your part.
Wow, now that is a stretch...totally ignoring the fact that we have different levels of government and the ones closer to the local folks should be under the control of the local folks...do you deny that? YES. Again, strawman, whoever said taxes were so demarcated. Do you ever debate with your opponents, or is it all just you and your straw men?

3) A government picking christianity and only supporting that is the establisment of an official religion, plain and simple.
OMFG, WHOEVER, again with the straw man, EVER said picking Christianity? Show me where I ever pointed out ONLY? Please try to line things up in a less chaotic form, try to stick with the facts, please. AND, establishment of religion means a national religion... how are you going to square that with a little local funding, the allowance of the faith of the locals to be expressed as they see fit...especially to acknowledge it when it is part of our common history? To be against such is to be an anti-faith zealot.

But by all means, keep comparing me to a dictator for saying all religions should be held equal and one shouldn't be hoisted over the others. It just makes you look desperate.
Again, you have a reason to call me fascistic do you? And was Stalin not also an advocate of removing religion as best he could from his state, removing all vestiges of faith from having influence on the Soviet peoples? Yes.

I have a feeling you would cry and whine if a local muslim politician decided to use that same taxpayer funding to build mosques.
Again, that is not a Constitutional argument nor one of logic. If I have a problem with how my local tax payer dollars are being utilized, as stated before, I have my minority guaranteed rights to try to change that...or vote with my feet. And when you say cry and whine, do you mean like you are doing here now?
 
Wow, now that is a stretch...totally ignoring the fact that we have different levels of government and the ones closer to the local folks should be under the control of the local folks...do you deny that? YES. Again, strawman, whoever said taxes were so demarcated. Do you ever debate with your opponents, or is it all just you and your straw men?

OMFG, WHOEVER, again with the straw man, EVER said picking Christianity? Show me where I ever pointed out ONLY? Please try to line things up in a less chaotic form, try to stick with the facts, please. AND, establishment of religion means a national religion... how are you going to square that with a little local funding, the allowance of the faith of the locals to be expressed as they see fit...especially to acknowledge it when it is part of our common history? To be against such is to be an anti-faith zealot.

Again, you have a reason to call me fascistic do you? And was Stalin not also an advocate of removing religion as best he could from his state, removing all vestiges of faith from having influence on the Soviet peoples? Yes.

Again, that is not a Constitutional argument nor one of logic. If I have a problem with how my local tax payer dollars are being utilized, as stated before, I have my minority guaranteed rights to try to change that...or vote with my feet. And when you say cry and whine, do you mean like you are doing here now?

1) There is a single tax payer pool. If I live in a town of 100 people, 51 being christians, 49 being other, you would want the christians to do with the money as they choose, building jesus statues on every corner. That's not the government's place to pick a religion.

2) Stalin harassed and killed the religious. I simply want to prevent them from forcing their will on the people. The fact that you don't recognize the difference kind of scares me.

I will sleep soundly at night knowing the world now reflects my view, and your view is but a dying breed. The days of governments picking a religion and using taxpayer funding to further it have become a relic, much like yourself.
 
1) There is a single tax payer pool. If I live in a town of 100 people, 51 being christians, 49 being other, you would want the christians to do with the money as they choose, building jesus statues on every corner. That's not the government's place to pick a religion.
Bless your heart, looks like someone climbed a tree to get himself a big ol silly stick....and the whole silly tree came down on ya.

Congratulations.

I have rarely seen so much straw man, hyperbole, dodging and demagoguery put together in such succinct style. Single taxpayer pool? Take a poly sci 101 course, they probably have them online. Sounds as though you really have something against democracy and the Constitution. Amend that Constitution then. You do not just get to make the rules as you go. And this just beyond mindless exaggeration in saying that anybody would be “building jesus statues on every corner” is civically guileless … might you please put together a real as well as rational argument for us to debate? Talk about your scary.


2) Stalin harassed and killed the religious. I simply want to prevent them from forcing their will on the people. The fact that you don't recognize the difference kind of scares me.
So you are just limiting it to the harassing of the religious. How enlightened.

Nobody is forcing anybody. Not from this side anyhow. When you force people of faith out of the public square, people who have as much right to be there as you or I do, whose will are we then complying with, who is forcing who then? Yours and you. Not how democracy works…and that does, indeed, sound VERY Stalinist, actually.

And I will ask again, if you do not like being alluded to as dictatorially advocating the exclusion of faith from the debate, as would Stalin, why would you think you could call my positions fascist? This is at least the third time I have asked… why do you fail to answer, do you scare yourself as well?

I will sleep soundly at night knowing the world now reflects my view, and your view is but a dying breed. The days of governments picking a religion and using taxpayer funding to further it have become a relic, much like yourself.
There are far more of us folks of faith than you faithless folks. Undeniable.

The only reason we could even be considered a dying breed, and we are not, is because the anti-religious have a penchant for attempting to eliminate us before our time. The real reason you can sleep soundly is because of our founders, as a whole, were a part of the faithful…and they built the strength, integrity and good in the system that your team is systematically dismantling. Making the rest of us sleep less sound as you head us towards an immoral chaos you have no clue of, but of your choosing.

Got anything of substance, by the way? At all?
 
Last edited:
One can only deduce that you were, apparently, not reading/comprehending what I was writing from the beginning. I am not of the major religion. In fact, I really have no religion at all, I just have my own individual belief in a higher power, no specific one. However, I do recognize the power of faith, and specific faiths, to America and many, most, Americans. Past, Present and Future. THE MAJORITY of Americans. So this feeble straw man you keep hoisting after you should already know I am not of the majority while avoiding the questions of Constitutionality and others, well, has to be acknowledged as the dodge it is meant to be.

As I said in my first posting this thread that you responded to:

“That [That being Chrisitanity, the major religion ] is not my religion but I understand it as part of our history, our common overwhelming predominant belief in the existence of a higher guiding power, and we should not be forced to ignore that... that would infringe upon the free exercise thereof.”

You seemingly have no problem calling me fascistic [ for what reason?] and yet do not, obviously, like to be called on your, yes, stalinistic rejection of religion. For one, YOU DO NOT treat all equally nor are even advocating for that. Can we talk about our Civil Rights heritage in the public square? Can we speak with confidence in the public square of the “obvious” [ air quotes ]truth of our very beginnings, evolution? That is the belief of the nonbelievers, often in direct contradiction to those that have faith, so in effect promoting one belief over another. Can we have monuments to great Americans that not all Americans [ a minority ] may not agree with, paid for with taxpayer money? Yes. Should we be able to do the very same with the Majority faith [again, before you being a silly tirade, it is not my faith ], which has been, without question, with us from the beginning and a very integral part of our common heritage and history, whatever belief or non-belief we each hold individually? To be equal, YES. Do you advocate that? NO. Make it simple enough for ya?

Also, I notice you are no longer positing that we all pay, as taxpayers, into a single pool. Is that a concession of the point? I think so. I also noticed that you did not argue with what is meant by an established religion, which a little funding by local authorities as the will of the majority decides, which is how it works in a democracy, and would/should not be considered any where near an "establishment" of a national religion. Concession there as well? I should think so. Do you disagree with anything of substance… or would you rather just keep foisting this falseness, this straw man upon me, as if they were the "relics" of my personal belief system. Had you had been attentive from the beginning, you would not even raise that as a point, however pointless it is otherwise.

Having a secular government does not stop the "free excerise" of religion. In fact, it encourages it.
 
Well argued... I am guessing you expect me to just give up after that underwhelming statement, do you? Guess again. ;)

I'm not thinking you'll give up no matter what. Even if you're proven wrong, you'll keep throwing out the same tired lines.

If we didn't have a secular government, we'd have a religious one, right? So if we had a religious one, they would likely not appreciate it if your religion was different. Therefore, you wouldn't have the "free exercise" of religion, unless your religion happened to be the favored one. That's just how history has always worked.
 
I'm not thinking you'll give up no matter what. Even if you're proven wrong, you'll keep throwing out the same tired lines.

If we didn't have a secular government, we'd have a religious one, right? So if we had a religious one, they would likely not appreciate it if your religion was different. Therefore, you wouldn't have the "free exercise" of religion, unless your religion happened to be the favored one. That's just how history has always worked.
Is all you folks have on that side of the argument is straw men? Whoever argued for a national church here? THAT is establishment. Having a local government allow a nativity scene, or Christmas decorations, to have perhaps the ten commandments hanging on some wall, having kids and teachers in school not afraid to speak of religion in class, not preach mind you, but to have the culture we have now in many places where it is almost rigidly excluded, ridiculed...THAT is NOT an established church. Easy enough to understand, should be anyhow. Read the first amendment.

This is debate, doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that you have to actually debate and not just throw up empty proclamations [speaking of tired ]. And your quite questionable theory regarding whether I would give up or not, well....remains only a theory because YOU sure have not come within the solar system range of proving me wrong. The tired lines of folks who wont give up and wont even give evidence... I mean, why be on a debate site if unwilling to attempt to prove a point? Sad.

Put up at least an old Estes, eh?
 
Bless your heart, looks like someone climbed a tree to get himself a big ol silly stick....and the whole silly tree came down on ya.

Congratulations.

I have rarely seen so much straw man, hyperbole, dodging and demagoguery put together in such succinct style. Single taxpayer pool? Take a poly sci 101 course, they probably have them online. Sounds as though you really have something against democracy and the Constitution. Amend that Constitution then. You do not just get to make the rules as you go. And this just beyond mindless exaggeration in saying that anybody would be “building jesus statues on every corner” is civically guileless … might you please put together a real as well as rational argument for us to debate? Talk about your scary.
And yet you refuse to explain to me how in the 100 person village scenario, all unbelievers won't be paying for the believers statues. Fact is they will, because we do not split up taxes based on religion. You want to fund religious statues with taxpayer funding.

So you are just limiting it to the harassing of the religious. How enlightened.

Nobody is forcing anybody. Not from this side anyhow. When you force people of faith out of the public square, people who have as much right to be there as you or I do, whose will are we then complying with, who is forcing who then? Yours and you. Not how democracy works…and that does, indeed, sound VERY Stalinist, actually.

And I will ask again, if you do not like being alluded to as dictatorially advocating the exclusion of faith from the debate, as would Stalin, why would you think you could call my positions fascist? This is at least the third time I have asked… why do you fail to answer, do you scare yourself as well?

The amount of mental gymnastics you will go to in order to keep this idea alive is astounding. I've asked you this several times and you've refused to answer: How does saying "Nobody can use TAXPAYER FUNDING to build their own personal religious statues" harassing the religious? The religious are trying to take money from the irreligious. Are you so poorly informed about history that you think the extent of Stalin's harassment of the people was denying them taxpayer funding for religious things?

I really feel like you're just trolling me now, because nobody could possibly think that not giving christians money is harassing them.
There are far more of us folks of faith than you faithless folks. Undeniable.

The only reason we could even be considered a dying breed, and we are not, is because the anti-religious have a penchant for attempting to eliminate us before our time. The real reason you can sleep soundly is because of our founders, as a whole, were a part of the faithful…and they built the strength, integrity and good in the system that your team is systematically dismantling. Making the rest of us sleep less sound as you head us towards an immoral chaos you have no clue of, but of your choosing.

Got anything of substance, by the way? At all?

LOL, you poor victims. You can't use taxpayer funding to force your religion on others. Maybe you should pray real hard about it.

I'm not thinking you'll give up no matter what. Even if you're proven wrong, you'll keep throwing out the same tired lines.

If we didn't have a secular government, we'd have a religious one, right? So if we had a religious one, they would likely not appreciate it if your religion was different. Therefore, you wouldn't have the "free exercise" of religion, unless your religion happened to be the favored one. That's just how history has always worked.

This guy is getting too ridiculous. He keeps repeating the same tired BS over and over again about how victimized he feels because he can't get free taxpayer money for his religion.

Those poor, poor christians.
 
And yet you refuse to explain to me how in the 100 person village scenario, all unbelievers won't be paying for the believers statues. Fact is they will, because we do not split up taxes based on religion. You want to fund religious statues with taxpayer funding.
Well, lets see how to explain it so you might at least gain insight if not understanding.

Newspapers go down to the 8th grade level. So that is where I will attempt to start. Lets say you have your mythical town of 100 people, 40 of whom are of various denominations of Christianity, 30 are Buddhists, 10 are Muslim, 10 are of the Hebrew faith and 10 of whom have no particular faith or do not believe at all. A group of local high school art club students, we don’t even know of which belief systems they are/are not, make a five of the 10 commandments plaque [ Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shall not kill/murder, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor]. Very well done, just the words, no allusion to where it is derived from even. Of course those who know where it came from would recognize it immediately. They donate this plaque to the city council which has representation equal to their religious make up [ not that that should matter, it’s a secular government remember ] and they agree, 8 to 2, to hang it permanently in the town meeting room. Knowing the students paid out of pocket for the supplies to make the plaque, they vote in the same numbers to reimburse the students. Should the local town council be able to do so?

If that is still too hard to understand, let me know and I will see if I can massage it a bit.

You see, that is democracy. Democracy is not about never offending someone else, that is impossible. Its about how we, the people, want to live, it’s about living within the framework of governing set down by the founders… it is certainly not about a minority saying we cannot choose what we want. Government is the servant remember, not the master.

The amount of mental gymnastics you will go to in order to keep this idea alive is astounding. I've asked you this several times and you've refused to answer: How does saying "Nobody can use TAXPAYER FUNDING to build their own personal religious statues" harassing the religious? The religious are trying to take money from the irreligious. Are you so poorly informed about history that you think the extent of Stalin's harassment of the people was denying them taxpayer funding for religious things?
First of all, can you itemize where anybody has asked to build someone else’s personal religious statues? I am 100% sure I never said such a thing. You and your straw men should really open your own thread and argue amongst yourselves. I said taking religion out of the public square, not allowing, for instance, a nativity scene on property that is a public place, not allowing a meeting to be opened with a prayer even if 100% agree or if only .0001% disagree. It is about allowing an important part of our heritage and history to be properly represented, just like everyone else wants.

You seem stuck like gum on the bottom of a shoe to just this funding of “building of religious statues” thing. Not able to broaden your vision, cannot see the whole picture when it comes to harassment? As regards politics and history, I probably have in my own personal library more books on history and politics than books you have ever read in your entire life. And to attempt to box me into a silly one dimensional view because while you might not agree with Stalin on mass murder, you and he [ might easily imagine you and Joe high-fiving it on this segment ] seem in near complete agreement with the harassment and expunging of those of faith from the public square, well, would be comical if not so sad, so feeble.

Talk about gymnastics… nice try tho.

I really feel like you're just trolling me now, because nobody could possibly think that not giving christians money is harassing them.
I think you are quite bright enough to get the point by now then…if not, its not about the money. But while we are at it, any answers yet on why you could call my position fascist? This is the fourth call for that explanation...and as an aside, was it of the Mussolini form, the Hitler form, the Franco form or some other form of fascism… and why?

Trolling? I am not the one who has constantly used dodging, demagoguery, the ubiquitous straw men, hyperbole, and the continual somehow forgetting to answer the question, the continual somehow forgetting that I am not of the Christian faith, the pretended [ I hope] ignorance that nobody is calling for “building of religious statues”. I mean you talk about getting someone to the point they want to pull their own hair out, look in the mirror. I would consider myself having been to the point of being overly patient with you, knowing that you are voluntarily being obtuse.


LOL, you poor victims. You can't use taxpayer funding to force your religion on others. Maybe you should pray real hard about it.
And yet in a democracy my taxpayer funds can be used for things maybe you or others believe in, like the forced teaching in public school of the unscientific belief in evolutionary origins? That belief is its own religion with Darwin worshiped as a demigod. Why should my tax dollars pay for that, eh? Maybe you should think real hard about it.



This guy is getting too ridiculous. He keeps repeating the same tired BS over and over again about how victimized he feels because he can't get free taxpayer money for his religion.
Now see, just how low will you go …? That is an outright damnable prevarication right there. I do not know how the moderators deal with someone’s incessant lying about another’s position, but with the amount of lying on just that one issue that you are doing in this single one post, I would consider that trolling. I mean we know you are rabid, you self-identify as so…but when you start foaming at the mouth so, saying things that are absolutely not true in a weak effort to get people to go along with your emotion pleas…

Those poor, poor christians.
Again, I am not a Christian, I have no specific religion other than my own beliefs as to a creator god. So there is not and would not be ANY religious relics from my belief system that someone could build. I do understand and respect those people of faith, even those who are also respectful who have, as is their right, no faith. But our heritage and history is replete with acknowledgement to a higher power and there is NO WAY that we should be forced to ignore that contribution. I apologize if god did not give you the capacity to understand that, or maybe through random mutation you may just have gotten the lesser reflective and contemplative DNA from the evolutionary brew from which you may believe you descend. Does not change the facts that in a democracy, we get to decide.

I would have to say I formerly, when seeing your posts, while not always agreeing, assessed them as fairly thoughtful. I now have a whole new perspective.
 
Last edited:
Well, lets see how to explain it so you might at least gain insight if not understanding.

Newspapers go down to the 8th grade level. So that is where I will attempt to start. Lets say you have your mythical town of 100 people, 40 of whom are of various denominations of Christianity, 30 are Buddhists, 10 are Muslim, 10 are of the Hebrew faith and 10 of whom have no particular faith or do not believe at all. A group of local high school art club students, we don’t even know of which belief systems they are/are not, make a five of the 10 commandments plaque [ Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shall not kill/murder, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor]. Very well done, just the words, no allusion to where it is derived from even. Of course those who know where it came from would recognize it immediately. They donate this plaque to the city council which has representation equal to their religious make up [ not that that should matter, it’s a secular government remember ] and they agree, 8 to 2, to hang it permanently in the town meeting room. Knowing the students paid out of pocket for the supplies to make the plaque, they vote in the same numbers to reimburse the students. Should the local town council be able to do so?

If that is still too hard to understand, let me know and I will see if I can massage it a bit.

You see, that is democracy. Democracy is not about never offending someone else, that is impossible. Its about how we, the people, want to live, it’s about living within the framework of governing set down by the founders… it is certainly not about a minority saying we cannot choose what we want. Government is the servant remember, not the master.

You're asking for public taxpayer funding to fund a christian plaque, so that you could put it in a public place. No, I will not be paying for you. If your little church group wants to make a plaque, pay for it yourself and hang it up in your church. Problem solved.

First of all, can you itemize where anybody has asked to build someone else’s personal religious statues? I am 100% sure I never said such a thing. You and your straw men should really open your own thread and argue amongst yourselves. I said taking religion out of the public square, not allowing, for instance, a nativity scene on property that is a public place, not allowing a meeting to be opened with a prayer even if 100% agree or if only .0001% disagree. It is about allowing an important part of our heritage and history to be properly represented, just like everyone else wants.

You seem stuck like gum on the bottom of a shoe to just this funding of “building of religious statues” thing. Not able to broaden your vision, cannot see the whole picture when it comes to harassment? As regards politics and history, I probably have in my own personal library more books on history and politics than books you have ever read in your entire life. And to attempt to box me into a silly one dimensional view because while you might not agree with Stalin on mass murder, you and he [ might easily imagine you and Joe high-fiving it on this segment ] seem in near complete agreement with the harassment and expunging of those of faith from the public square, well, would be comical if not so sad, so feeble.
Seriously? You literally just asked for my money to put up a plaque. Your memory isn't very good, is it?




I think you are quite bright enough to get the point by now then…if not, its not about the money. But while we are at it, any answers yet on why you could call my position fascist? This is the fourth call for that explanation...and as an aside, was it of the Mussolini form, the Hitler form, the Franco form or some other form of fascism… and why?

Trolling? I am not the one who has constantly used dodging, demagoguery, the ubiquitous straw men, hyperbole, and the continual somehow forgetting to answer the question, the continual somehow forgetting that I am not of the Christian faith, the pretended [ I hope] ignorance that nobody is calling for “building of religious statues”. I mean you talk about getting someone to the point they want to pull their own hair out, look in the mirror. I would consider myself having been to the point of being overly patient with you, knowing that you are voluntarily being obtuse.

It is about the money, and it's about the fact that the government should not be pushing one religion over the other. We live in a republic, where even the minorities have rights, and they have a right to a secular government.


And yet in a democracy my taxpayer funds can be used for things maybe you or others believe in, like the forced teaching in public school of the unscientific belief in evolutionary origins? That belief is its own religion with Darwin worshiped as a demigod. Why should my tax dollars pay for that, eh? Maybe you should think real hard about it.

LOL, you're one of THOSE people! Of course you are, I should've already guessed it. Somehow science is a religion now, so your religion feels excluded.

This is literally too stupid to answer.



Now see, just how low will you go …? That is an outright damnable prevarication right there. I do not know how the moderators deal with someone’s incessant lying about another’s position, but with the amount of lying on just that one issue that you are doing in this single one post, I would consider that trolling. I mean we know you are rabid, you self-identify as so…but when you start foaming at the mouth so, saying things that are absolutely not true in a weak effort to get people to go along with your emotion pleas…
All I hear here is whining, but I'll repeat it anyway. No, I will not pay for your religious BS. If your church needs money take up a tide or something, you're not dipping into taxpayer funds to inserting yourself into publicly owned buildings.


Again, I am not a Christian, I have no specific religion other than my own beliefs as to a creator god. So there is not and would not be ANY religious relics from my belief system that someone could build. I do understand and respect those people of faith, even those who are also respectful who have, as is their right, no faith. But our heritage and history is replete with acknowledgement to a higher power and there is NO WAY that we should be forced to ignore that contribution. I apologize if god did not give you the capacity to understand that, or maybe through random mutation you may just have gotten the lesser reflective and contemplative DNA from the evolutionary brew from which you may believe you descend. Does not change the facts that in a democracy, we get to decide.

I would have to say I formerly, when seeing your posts, while not always agreeing, assessed them as fairly thoughtful. I now have a whole new perspective.

I don't really care what your religion is, or even if you have one. No religion has a right to take taxpayer funding and force it on the populace. The constitution applies to the states, not just the federal government. It is the federal government's job to enforce the constitution. You have a right to fair and speedy trial, and your state does not have a right to curtail that. A state government does not have the right constitutionally to support one religion over the other, plain and simple.

As I've stated before, go take a look around and find the countries that have governments in bed with religion. Personally I find them to be pretty terrible places, but hey, maybe you'll find them delightful.
 
Back
Top Bottom